• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Jiat Liao Bee MAAss Trying to Hoodwink Again!

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Aug 24, 2009
LIFE INSURANCE
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>'Asset share' concept already in use: MAS
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Thursday's letters, 'Orphaned money: Key question MAS has not addressed' by Mr Larry Haverkamp and 'Concept of asset share is fairer to policyholders' by Mr Tan Kin Lian.
All assets in the participating fund are allocated to participating policyholders as policy liabilities according to the valuation rules under the Risk-Based Capital Regulations introduced in 2004. It is, therefore, not possible for policy liabilities to be less than policy assets, as Mr Tan's example tries to illustrate. Insurers would be in breach of the regulations if they valued their liabilities to participating policyholders to be less than assets in the participating fund.
Similarly, it is not possible for 'orphaned money' to be stashed away as a result of underpaying policyholders who surrender early and receive less than their full 'asset share', as suggested by Mr Haverkamp.
Any remaining assets from early surrenders will be retained as assets in the participating fund and allocated as policy liabilities to the remaining participating policyholders. Indeed, an intrinsic feature of a participating product is that the same cohort of policyholders shares the performance of the participating fund, which is influenced by factors such as the lapse or surrender by some policyholders, the claims that are made, and the investment performance of the fund.
Life insurers in Singapore already use the concept of asset share in their determination of bonuses. They are required under Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Notice 320 on Management of Participating Life Insurance Business to set out the methodology for deriving the asset share, along with other processes and controls.
These have to be documented in their internal governance policies which are approved and reviewed regularly by their boards. Insurers are also required to ensure their participating funds are managed according to the rules and guiding principles set out in the governance policy. MAS also regularly reviews life insurers' internal governance policies and bonus investigation reports to ensure they maintain adequate processes and controls in the management of their participating funds.
In 2007, MAS Notice 320 was introduced to enhance disclosure requirements of all existing and new participating products. Some requirements apply at point of sale - for example, insurers are now required to include in their product summaries pertinent information such as how insurers determine the assets available for each group or class of products and how bonuses will be smoothed.
There are other requirements pertaining to post-sales disclosure, where insurers are required to regularly update existing participating policyholders on how the participating fund is performing and the future outlook of bonus payouts. We will continue to work with the industry to enhance the transparency of the bonus determination process.
Angelina Fernandez (Ms)
Director (Communications)
Monetary Authority of Singapore
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=heading>Latest comments</TD></TR><TR><TD id=messageDisplayRegion width="100%"><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=Post cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Ms. Angelina Fernandez
Monetary Authority of Singapore

I refer to your reply that is published in the Straits Times today (24 August). I need to follow up with a few clarifications:

1. Can you confirm that the insurance company has specified an asset share for each individual participating policy
2. That the total of these individual liabilities equal to the total assets of the participating fund?
3. Is the insurance company required to pay out the full individual liability on the termination of a policy?
4. If the insurance company is allowed to pay less than the asset share, how is the money allocated to the remaining policyholders?

In my earlier letter, I stated that if the total of the individual liability is $13 billion and the total assets sui $15 billion, the difference of $2 billion is "orphaned money". I do not get a clear explanation from your latest reply to this point.

Please call me at 81685485 if you wish to seek clarification to my question.

Tan Kin Lian
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: tklassociate at Mon Aug 24 08:11:15 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=AlternatePost cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Thank you to Mr. Larry and Mr. Tan sharing this orphan fund with us..Prior to this, none of us know of such fund is exist with the insurance companies..NOW, AIA still paying BIG pay cheque and bonuses to their CEO so what is MAS going to do to protect our interests...
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: jameslph at Thu Aug 20 17:59:56 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=Post cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>So, is Mr Tan Kin Lian stating that orphaned money DOES exist?
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: forgetitlah at Thu Aug 20 10:24:06 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=AlternatePost cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>What is the use of LIP Service? Till today, AIA refuses to refund my promised returns.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: kennyticks2010 at Thu Aug 20 07:48:40 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=Post cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>I very much appreciate the efforts of Mr Tan Kin Lian and Mr Larry Haverkamp in highlighting the issue of orphan funds and non-transparency in the operation of participating life insurance policies. I will stick to term life insurance. I won't trust MAS to regulate for transparency either.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: Baikinman at Thu Aug 20 05:06:34 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Credit cards: Don't let the banks go scot-free
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Wednesday's letter by Mr Fong Sau Shung, 'Card fraud: Users ultimately responsible'.
The question is not who is ultimately responsible for what. The question is, has due diligence been exercised to protect the cardholder from loss that is not his fault?
One may lose one's card, but since a card is not cash, procedures must be in place to prevent someone from using it unlawfully. If the procedures are not sufficient to do that, better ones must be implemented.
For example, in addition to signing the receipt, the cardholder could key in a password in a special device for verification, or have a photo on the card for identification.
Don't use the 'ultimate' logic to put all responsibility on the cardholder and let the banks go scot-free.
Credit cards are a huge business. If banks do not invest in a better system to protect cardholders, then, sooner or later, they will be in trouble.
A good example is the 130 million card numbers stolen online in the United States. I wonder how the banking industry will deal with such cases.
Liew Yeng Chee
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Let's get the same terms
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- 4 or less paragraphs so show all paragraphs first before showing the media and bkstry and stuffs --><!-- story content : start --><!-- story content : start -->'Mr Fong is not aware of the rights to limited liability in case of card loss accorded to cardholders in the United States.'
<!-- story content : start -->MR JACK CHEW: 'I refer to last Wednesday's letter by Mr Fong Sau Shung, 'Card fraud: Users ultimately responsible'. Mr Fong is not aware of the rights to limited liability in case of card loss accorded to cardholders in the United States. Is he also unaware of the amount of commission earned by banks on credit card spending? I am sure the fraud loss borne by US banks is factored into the commission. The question Mr Fong should ask is: Can Singapore cardholders demand the same terms that are accorded to those in the US?'
 
Top