Singapore Money Matters Rss

Featured Posts

Where would CPF money go if it is nominated to a bankrupt? When Madam Lim Lye Kiang sought to claim the $102,000 from CPF which her late sister had left her, she would never have expected that the CPF Board transferred the money to the OA (Official Assignee) to...

Read more

Why you should not buy IPOs As Sheng Siong is launching its IPO next month, I expected a few calls as whenever an IPO is launching. And if you are my client, you know my answer. I decide to write this article so everybody can benefit...

Read more

Questions to ask your Financial Adviser Every Sunday morning when I flip open the newspapers, I always see articles or advertisements regarding "Financial Advisers". Nowadays, just like the once prestigious word "Banker", which is misused in...

Read more

Revision to Nomination of Insurance Nominees Regulation With the onset of the Mental Capacity Act ("MCA") coming into effect on 1st March 2010, the Insurance (Nomination of Beneficiaries) Regulations 2009 ("the Regulations") will be amended to effect 2 changes: The...

Read more

The ABCs of the Financial Advisers Act The title, Financial Adviser, is always mis-used in the industry and misunderstood by the consumers. On 10 October 2002, the Financial Advisers Act came into effect and all financial institutions are...

Read more

What is viatical and life settlements

1

Category : Insurance, Life Insurance

There is an article on Straits Times on June 29, 2008 “It’s poison to profit from death of strangers”. I think it is good to provide some more additional information here.

In Singapore, Traded Life Policies (TLP) are used an umbrella term used to describe “viatical settlements” and “life settlements”. They involve the life policies of those who have experienced a decline in life expectancy. Viatical settlements involve the life policies of those who are terminally ill, while life settlements involve the policies of those, typically over the age of 65, who have experienced a decline in health and life expectancy.

A viatical settlement is the sale of a life insurance policy by the policy owner before the policy matures. Such a sale, at a price discounted from the face amount of the policy but usually in excess of the premiums paid or current cash surrender value, provides the seller an immediate cash settlement. Generally, viatical settlements involve insured individuals with a shorter life expectancy, e.g. terminal illness.

From the perspective of the investor, purchasing a viatical settlement is similar to buying a bond with a negative coupon and an uncertain redemption date. The return depends on the seller’s life expectancy and when he or she dies.

A life settlement is a financial transaction in which a policy owner possessing an unneeded or unwanted life insurance policy sells the policy to a third party for more than the cash surrender value. The purchaser becomes the new beneficiary of the policy at maturation and is responsible for all subsequent premium payments.

While both are regulated by Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the market is still not mature here. A quick check from MAS website will find the latest press release of life settlement was way back to 2004.

While it might be too quick to conclude that such products are unethical as you reap return when some people die, Life settlements are an important development in that they have opened a secondary market for life insurance in which policy owners can access fair market value for their policies, rather than accepting the lower cash surrender value from the issuing life insurance company.

In RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED – POLICY CONSULTATION ON REGULATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRADED ENDOWMENT AND LIFE POLICIES, MAS said

We disagree with the view expressed by some respondents that TEP/TLPs are illegal because the investor does not have an insurable interest in the life policy. We concur with other respondents that a life insurance policy can be considered personal property, and can be assigned, and that the principle of insurable interest need only exist at the time the policy is effected. It is not required for any subsequent assignment of the policy.

 

Tan Kin Lian, an upset Income customer

Category : Insurance, Life Insurance

Tan Kin Lian, an upset Income customer

Former CEO owns policies affected by insurance firm’s ‘arbitrary’ cut of annual bonus
CHRISTIE LOH
christie@mediacorp.com.sg

OUTSPOKEN insurance veteran Tan Kin ian has lashed out at his former employer, NTUC Income, for cutting the annual onus on its life insurance policies. The upset customer, armed with four decades of product knowledge, is using his blog to criticise the reduction as “arbitrary” and unfair to policyholders.

In response, Income argued that the bonus “restructuring” could result in higher total bonuses and values. Mr Tan’s grouse concerns a policy change that may be baffling to laypeople: The annual bonus on participating policies incepted after 1993 will be “proportionately reduced”, while the special bonus will be “increased over time”, Income had said in a media statement last month and is now informing 310,000 customers via letters.

What does this mean?
An annual bonus, also known as a reversionary bonus, is a regular addition to the sum assured under your policy. On the ther hand, a special bonus is paid only upon death, maturity or termination. Both bonus rates are dependent on the performance of a life fund’s underlying investments.

Under the changes, holders of Income life and endowment plans will receive lower annual bonuses from this year, while the projected rate of their special bonus will grow gradually.

Mr Tan, who says he has two life policies affected by the cut, calculated that the bonus reduction is about 45 per cent. “It is better for a policyholder to have a higher rate of annual bonus, as it is vested immediately each year. The special bonus is not guaranteed and may be withdrawn at a future date before it is paid,” he said in a blog posting dated April 28.

In fact, he argued, Income is cutting the annual bonus in a year when the investment yield is at an “exceptionally high” 10.7 per cent, thanks to last year’s bull run in financial markets.

He also said that the company did not state how it would increase the special bonus in future and has “unilaterally changed the bonus distribution unfairly”. Said Mr Tan, whose 30-year leadership at Income ended in February last year: “This varying special bonus rate appears to me to be created in an arbitrary manner.”

On Friday, Income — now headed by Mr Tan Suee Chieh — trotted out figures and detailed reasons to refute the allegations. Its agents have also received a set of frequently-asked-questions to answer customer queries.

Income chief actuary Ken Ng told TODAY that the bonus “restructuring” would not change policyholder benefits. While the annual bonus rate will fall to 1.3 per cent of the sum assured, from 2.3 per cent, the special bonus will rise from the old rate of 25 per cent of accumulated bonus to a new range of 30 to 120 per cent, he said.

The combination is intended to “give a return in surrender value or death claim equal to what was intended in the past”, said Mr Ng. Some policies’ surrender or maturity values may even be higher under the new rates (see table).

Business-wise, the changes would strengthen the insurance cooperative’s financial position, giving it “better solvency and flexibility”, said Mr Ng.

This is because when high annual bonuses are declared, Income has to support the guarantee by setting aside reserves and investing in low-risk, low-yield instruments such as bonds. The money put aside could have gone into higher-yielding investments
to produce better returns and attractive bonuses in future, goes the reasoning.

Neither is it “financially sound” to dish out high annual bonuses just because investment gains in a certain year were good, said Mr Ng. The new structure is therefore prudent and “in line with industry practice”, he said.

According to the Singapore Life Insurance Association’s (LIA) online guide on participating policies, insurers may hold back bonuses in good years, “so that they can be maintained when conditions are less favourable”. This “smoothing” of bonuses over time avoids large fluctuations in the yearly bonus declared, said LIA.

However, the distribution of high annual bonuses had been a source of pride for former Income-boss Tan Kin Lian. The disgruntled customer now plans to lodge a complaint with the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Income chairman Ng Kee Choe.

Source: Today