I invite readers to read this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3547441.stm
Dubious Practices
One device - used by all life insurers to varying degrees - was to stop allocating bonuses to customers policies in the form of "reversionary bonuses".
These were guaranteed and had to be counted on the life insurers' accounts as a liability.
Instead, an increasingly large chunk of the bonuses allocated to policyholders took the shape of "terminal" or "final" bonuses. These could be added or cut with impunity and without affecting the company's solvency - even if they did affect the value the customer expected.
Equitable never even counted part of these final bonuses as a liability.
It seems that Equitable Life declared high terminal bonuses, but did not count them as a liability. This is one cause of its collapse. The old bonus system adopted by NTUC Income is better. As each year's bonus is declared, it has to be reserved for the policyholders.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
NTUC Income is not like Equitable Life
Mr. Tan,
I believe that the 'expert witness", Mr. Nick Dumbrack, engaged by NTUC to give credence to the restructuring bonus has been misled to think that NTUC 's existing bonus structure was "onerous" like the Equitable Life and he claimed that onerous bonus led to the collapse of Equitable life.
Equitable Life's collapse was NOT due to the onerous annual but due to "no annual bonus" and dubious manipulation of the final or special bonus which was 'onerous". This shows Nick Dumbrack's purpose of the ST. article was to mislead the public that NTUC could be in danger of collapse if the bonus structure is not reshaped like all others in the industry. This is half truth.
The appointed actuary, NICK Rhodes, of NTUC between 2002 to 2007 had a different view. Nick Rhodes is a British, I believe, and I am sure he is aware of the Equitable Life 's collapse. He would have warned NTUC if there was danger but then the NTUC's situation was never any where near what was practised by Equitable Life.
His testimony is that NTUC finance was stable and the special bonus was stable and because of this it was different from the rest and could deliver superior products than the other companies. If the structure is changed there will be uncertainty and policyholders will have no inkling of their cash value at any point in time.The special bonus may not be declared even because it forms part of the risky component of the life fund.
The best solution is to allow the options of opting in or out. This is the most equitable path to take.
zhummmeng
I believe that the 'expert witness", Mr. Nick Dumbrack, engaged by NTUC to give credence to the restructuring bonus has been misled to think that NTUC 's existing bonus structure was "onerous" like the Equitable Life and he claimed that onerous bonus led to the collapse of Equitable life.
Equitable Life's collapse was NOT due to the onerous annual but due to "no annual bonus" and dubious manipulation of the final or special bonus which was 'onerous". This shows Nick Dumbrack's purpose of the ST. article was to mislead the public that NTUC could be in danger of collapse if the bonus structure is not reshaped like all others in the industry. This is half truth.
The appointed actuary, NICK Rhodes, of NTUC between 2002 to 2007 had a different view. Nick Rhodes is a British, I believe, and I am sure he is aware of the Equitable Life 's collapse. He would have warned NTUC if there was danger but then the NTUC's situation was never any where near what was practised by Equitable Life.
His testimony is that NTUC finance was stable and the special bonus was stable and because of this it was different from the rest and could deliver superior products than the other companies. If the structure is changed there will be uncertainty and policyholders will have no inkling of their cash value at any point in time.The special bonus may not be declared even because it forms part of the risky component of the life fund.
The best solution is to allow the options of opting in or out. This is the most equitable path to take.
zhummmeng
My replies to Straits Times and Today
The Straits Times and Today reported on 27 May about the discussion between me and Tan Suee Chieh to seek an amicable solution to the bonus restructure.
These reports were unfair and put me in a bad light, driven mainly by two remarks issued by Tan Suee Chieh:
1. That "my change of tone" was probably due to a better appreciation of issues behind the bonus structure. (This is not the case - and I had told Tan Suee Chieh about it earlier.)
2. That the bonus rates declared in the past years were unsustainable.
This prompted me to write the replies to the Straits times and Today, to correct the unfair and wrong impression. If the reports had been more fair to me and Tan Suee Chieh had not made the unnecessary remarks, I would not have written the replies. I would have preferred a more friendly atmosphere to resolve the issue.
These reports were unfair and put me in a bad light, driven mainly by two remarks issued by Tan Suee Chieh:
1. That "my change of tone" was probably due to a better appreciation of issues behind the bonus structure. (This is not the case - and I had told Tan Suee Chieh about it earlier.)
2. That the bonus rates declared in the past years were unsustainable.
This prompted me to write the replies to the Straits times and Today, to correct the unfair and wrong impression. If the reports had been more fair to me and Tan Suee Chieh had not made the unnecessary remarks, I would not have written the replies. I would have preferred a more friendly atmosphere to resolve the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)