PRUDENTIAL SAVINGS SAGA

[Lewis.T]

No one even suggested it looks fake or bad during discussion here or on fb. It's as though everything on that 'fake' paper is possible in the eyes of all who sees it. That's worrying.

A 'fake' paper can sell policies for 20+ years. That's even more worrying. And the fact that most agents here didn't consider reflecting on the need for changes even until now, is worrying.

Something is terribly wrong with the insurance industry. And we don't have 20 years to waste. And that simple wording on the front page that I suggested could have prevented all these. Yet there are agents here trying to defend posting such simple warning instead suggesting we depend on honest agents as a solution?

If that letter was from Pru, then yes change has to happen or it may already have.

If that letter was from the individual then we cannot do anything about it to prevent the same thing from happening again in the future. Changing the insurance industry will not work when individuals deviate. You have to change the entire human race to be uniform for that to work.

We don't live in an ideal world Perisher, ideally a lot of things would go as planned, but humans deviate. We can only have wishful thinking.

I'm not going to discuss psychology with you, but I hope you get my point.

 

[Perisher]

If that letter was from Pru, then yes change has to happen or it may already have.

If that letter was from the individual then we cannot do anything about it to prevent the same thing from happening again in the future. Changing the insurance industry will not work when individuals deviate. You have to change the entire human race to be uniform for that to work.

We don't live in an ideal world Perisher, ideally a lot of things would go as planned, but humans deviate. We can only have wishful thinking.

I'm not going to discuss psychology with you, but I hope you get my point.

You seriously don't think a few simple words could have prevented all this? Who is talking psychology? I'm talking about real practical changes.

Seriously don't get why agents are so defensive about writing a few words on the front page.

 

[Lewis.T]

You seriously don't think a few simple words could have prevented all this? Who is talking psychology? I'm talking about real practical changes.

Seriously don't get why agents are so defensive about writing a few words on the front page.

What is to stop the possibly errant agent removing that few simple words from the front page with replacing it with his own?

No system can prevent such behaviour. Please Perisher some of your recent posts seem borderline absurd to me.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have a disclaimer on the front page. But if that were to be the case can we have a disclaimer in big fonts on all investment alternatives on the front page as well?

Example "Your endowment is capital guaranteed only if regular premiums are met and the plan is held to maturity. Interest earned is not guaranteed but will be declared to you annually, and once declared will form part of your new guaranteed."

Example 2 "ETF's Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Any fluctuations in the market will affect your returns and could result in you losing part or whole of your capital."

 

[Perisher]

What is to stop the possibly errant agent removing that few simple words from the front page with replacing it with his own?

Well, it won't but at least every god damn agent can spot a fake policy immediately. Even non-agent will know that with a glance.

Certainly way better than what the other agent suggested here, depending on honest agents...

20years with just a few words changed. Why so defensive? Why the unwillingness to do something?

 

[Lewis.T]

Well, it won't but at least every god damn agent can spot a fake policy immediately. Even non-agent will know that with a glance.

Certainly way better than what the other agent suggested here, depending on honest agents...

20years with just a few words changed. Why so defensive? Why the unwillingness to do something?

What if the policy wasn't shared? We have no access to the individual or his policies. Also I updated my post above.

 

[w1rbelw1nd]

I don't think insurance agents are considered employees. It's a lot harder to go after the firm (as compared to normal employees in a company) when these agents are at fault.

Perhaps that's why insurance agents have a lot more discretion and ability to modify documentation. Their insurance firm can get away with it lol

 

[Perisher]

What is to stop the possibly errant agent removing that few simple words from the front page with replacing it with his own?

No system can prevent such behaviour. Please Perisher some of your recent posts seem borderline absurd to me.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have a disclaimer on the front page. But if that were to be the case can we have a disclaimer in big fonts on all investment alternatives on the front page as well?

Example "Your endowment is capital guaranteed only if regular premiums are met and the plan is held to maturity. Interest earned is not guaranteed but will be declared to you annually, and once declared will form part of your new guaranteed."

Example 2 "ETF's Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Any fluctuations in the market will affect your returns and could result in you losing part or whole of your capital."

What's so absurb about a simple disclaimer?

Why do you agents keep modifying my simple example into a more complicated one?
And yes, having that disclaimer on all investment product isn't a bad thing. It helps to curb expectation.

 

[Lewis.T]

What's so absurb about a simple disclaimer?

Why do you agents keep modifying my simple example into a more complicated one?
And yes, having that disclaimer on all investment product isn't a bad thing. It helps to curb expectation.

So can we expect that kind of advise here since it's easier to type it out than convince an entire industry to change?

Can we add disclaimers when recommending ETFs (no guarantees) and SSBs (underperforming average long term inflation) and BTIR from now on?

I think my example 2 disclaimer is pretty good, would you agree? If no, how would you phrase it and can we enforce this disclaimer on everyone here recommending investing on your own?

 

[Perisher]

What if the policy wasn't shared? We have no access to the individual or his policies. Also I updated my post above.

It will at least bring controversies down considerably.

Shouldn't insurance companies/agents look to changes that help prevents such issues instead of being so defensive when simple suggestion are made. It's way better than doing nothing.

 

[Lewis.T]

It will at least bring controversies down considerably.

Shouldn't insurance companies/agents look to changes that help prevents such issues instead of being so defensive when simple suggestion are made. It's way better than doing nothing.

What the.. I'm not against those changes! Why do you keep bringing up this point to me?

I'm all for changes if it is consistent across the entire industry and the advice we give out here.

 

[deepblueli]

What's so absurb about a simple disclaimer?

Why do you agents keep modifying my simple example into a more complicated one?
And yes, having that disclaimer on all investment product isn't a bad thing. It helps to curb expectation.

I think it's a good idea to have such disclaimer and make sure the policy owner signs on it.

But, I would think it probably won't make too much a difference as a lot of agents will say, this is just standard procedure, just sign it. I find endowment is in an awkward position. All financial savvy people who knows what investment is siams endowment plan because they can do their own investment and most people who buy the endowment plan tends not to be financial savvy and don't even know what investment about, thus can be easily get misguided and caused disputes down the road.

 

[soneat]

Imho, no amount of disclaimer, regardless of font size, colour, word count would matter, as long as the proposer don't read and the agent don't emphasize. Most people will just listen to agent/fa/friends/relative/colleague. Most people also don't read what they bought.
MAS/LIA have introduced more compliance requirement these days compared to the old days.

 

[Perisher]

So can we expect that kind of advise here since it's easier to type it out than convince an entire industry to change?

Can we add disclaimers when recommending ETFs (no guarantees) and SSBs (underperforming average long term inflation) and BTIR from now on?

I think my example 2 disclaimer is pretty good, would you agree? If no, how would you phrase it and can we enforce this disclaimer on everyone here recommending investing on your own?

Huh? We have been talking about bad/good points of everything since day 1 here.

Your disclaimer is much more complicated than it needs to be. Why enforce it here on everyone?

Do not equate forums as professional advise vs agents in the first place.

 

[Perisher]

What the.. I'm not against those changes! Why do you keep bringing up this point to me?

I'm all for changes if it is consistent across the entire industry and the advice we give out here.

Erm. Ok. So you agree with the changes. Sure, all for changes.

Note, this is a online forum, not your advisor, no need for such disclaimers here. You are mixing real professionals with forum members? Are we paid here?

 

[Perisher]

Imho, no amount of disclaimer, regardless of font size, colour, word count would matter, as long as the proposer don't read and the agent don't emphasize. Most people will just listen to agent/fa/friends/relative/colleague. Most people also don't read what they bought.
MAS/LIA have introduced more compliance requirement these days compared to the old days.

Actually it does make a difference. As people tend to read the big words on the first page even if they don't read anything else and I agree with that dude above that signing helps.

 

[soneat]

Actually it does make a difference. As people tend to read the big words on the first page even if they don't read anything else and I agree with that dude above that signing helps.

In Income BI's for (WL) policies, the first page already contains solely the disclaimer. All the pages requires Agent Name/Signature and Proposer Name/Signature. Income's disclaimer page is already worded in probably the clearest manner but you are concern with the word count/small fonts.

Similar to Income, Aviva's disclaimer page for (WL) policies is a dedicated page on the first page, contains slightly lesser words but font is probably not as big as you would desire.

GE's and TM's disclaimer page (for WL) is on page 2 of the BI.

Prudential's disclaimer page (for WL) somewhere in the middle.

If you miss out a signature on any of the required pages, the insurer will not process the application.

Just FYI.

 

[Perisher]

In Income BI's for (WL) policies, the first page already contains solely the disclaimer. All the pages requires Agent Name/Signature and Proposer Name/Signature. Income's disclaimer page is already worded in probably the clearest manner but you are concern with the word count/small fonts.

Similar to Income, Aviva's disclaimer page for (WL) policies is a dedicated page on the first page, contains slightly lesser words but font is probably not as big as you would desire.

GE's and TM's disclaimer page (for WL) is on page 2 of the BI.

Prudential's disclaimer page (for WL) somewhere in the middle.

If you miss out a signature on any of the required pages, the insurer will not process the application.

Just FYI.

Got example?

 

[soneat]

Got example?

When you are free, just drop-by Income (they have a lot of branches) or Aviva (SGX Center) to get the BI. Best to get from the source itself and evaluate if the wordings are to your preference.

Note that I am only referring to WL policies. Endowment I am not sure as I have not touched endowment since very long ago.

Income's wordings I have copy and paste before.

Aviva's is here:
Aviva Ltd believes it is important that you fully appreciate the benefits of your policy. You should also understand how the cost of your insurance cover and the expenses of administration and sales affect the benefits that you will receive.
The illustration that follows shows how the value of your policy progresses over time and the sum(s) that would be payable. The methods used to derive the values
shown follow guidelines, established by the Life Insurance Association, Singapore, to ensure that a fair and consistent approach is used in preparing this illustration.
Please note that your policy provides a combination of (1) guaranteed benefits and (2) non-guaranteed benefits in the form of bonuses / cash dividends. The bonus
rates / dividend scales used in this illustration are not guaranteed and may vary according to the performance of the Participating Fund.
Buying a life insurance policy is a long-term commitment. An early termination of the policy usually involves high costs and the surrender value payable may be less
than the total premiums paid.
If you need clarification, please do not hesitate to ask your adviser

 

[Lewis.T]

Got example?

http://imgur.com/a/mzZyd

For Pru's 'hot' endowment.

 

[koja6049]

What is to stop the possibly errant agent removing that few simple words from the front page with replacing it with his own?

No system can prevent such behaviour. Please Perisher some of your recent posts seem borderline absurd to me.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have a disclaimer on the front page. But if that were to be the case can we have a disclaimer in big fonts on all investment alternatives on the front page as well?

Example "Your endowment is capital guaranteed only if regular premiums are met and the plan is held to maturity. Interest earned is not guaranteed but will be declared to you annually, and once declared will form part of your new guaranteed."

Example 2 "ETF's Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Any fluctuations in the market will affect your returns and could result in you losing part or whole of your capital."

This one is not what you called "errant" agent, it's already borderline criminal, i.e. cheating. The problem is if these agents don't get jailed, it sets a bad example for the industry