> I am hoping one day we can buy insurance directly from the insurance companies and bypassing the
> agents, and the insurance companies should not charged these buyers any commission.
This was the vision of Tan Kin Lian.
However, it works only for informed investors. And you need to think it destroys a lot of real ricebowls...
The real problem actually is the incorrect compensation structure. Why are insurance companies giving highest commissions to the poort investment insurance policies?
(28-03-2012, 09:56 AM)Contrarian Wrote: [ -> ]However, it works only for informed investors. And you need to think it destroys a lot of real ricebowls...
The real problem actually is the incorrect compensation structure. Why are insurance companies giving highest commissions to the poort investment insurance policies?
Well, those who are serious enough to do some background work should deserve paying for a lower, or no charges, right?
I think every policy has its own merit, it is hard to say which one is good and which is bad. It all depends on the circumstances and objectives of the buyers. What a good agent should do is to recommend a suitable policy for the buyer that meets his needs, not the agents own needs.
Paying higher commission, and therefore driving agents to sell more whole life policy versus term policy is a no brainer. It is profit driven objective by the insurance companies. Therefore, it is all the more important for buyers to review his/her objectives of buying the policy before even talking to an agent.
I hope MAS is resolved this time, there had been no action for far too long.
It is time for the agent's supervisor and that supervisor's manager to read the book "Who moved my cheese", but they should remember it is for the benefit of customers.
> Well, those who are serious enough to do some background work should deserve paying for a
> or no charges, right?
No charges... So you wont call service centre for enquiry? When u claim, someone has to process work right?
So if you do work for $0 salary. Acceptable?
Being smart in investing is agreeable. But no such thing to me as a free lunch.
(28-03-2012, 02:34 PM)Contrarian Wrote: [ -> ]> Well, those who are serious enough to do some background work should deserve paying for a
> or no charges, right?
No charges... So you wont call service centre for enquiry? When u claim, someone has to process work right?
So if you do work for $0 salary. Acceptable?
Being smart in investing is agreeable. But no such thing to me as a free lunch.
what you were describing is cost within the premium, not the agent commission, I believe.
I talk till my mouth dry yet my bro-in-law still went ahead purchase a Investment-link policy from his wife's friend. The agent somehow convince him its cheaper to buy investment link policy then to purchase term and funds separate. Some people just need to learn lesson the hard way.
(28-03-2012, 02:34 PM)Contrarian Wrote: [ -> ]> Well, those who are serious enough to do some background work should deserve paying for a
> or no charges, right?
No charges... So you wont call service centre for enquiry? When u claim, someone has to process work right?
So if you do work for $0 salary. Acceptable?
Being smart in investing is agreeable. But no such thing to me as a free lunch.
Cost of operation would have already been costed into the price of a policy when insurance companies launch the policy. We are talking about agent commission, which is incremental and on top of all operational costs. So if an agent is completely not involved in the whole process (selling and servicing) would you still want to pay a commission? Work for $0 salary is not acceptable, but getting paid for 0 work is acceptable to you?
There is no free lunch, I agree, but we should not be overpaying for our lunch either.
agreed on that, we should be paying a fair price for our lunch. Not more, not less.
(28-03-2012, 09:08 PM)Bibi Wrote: [ -> ]I talk till my mouth dry yet my bro-in-law still went ahead purchase a Investment-link policy from his wife's friend. The agent somehow convince him its cheaper to buy investment link policy then to purchase term and funds separate. Some people just need to learn lesson the hard way.
Don't take it too hard (heart). Your bro-law-law most probably just feel too obligated to his wife(wife's friend). Just like when i try to share my experiences about driving skills/strategies with my son who has just got his driving licence, yet he has to learn by 3 to 4 minor car accidents to date. i still find his driving skills not up to standard (Er.....my standard).
So you can see your brother-in-law may take sometime to learn to reach your standard of investment. Don't give up. Time is the Master of all learning.
Cheers!
> I talk till my mouth dry yet my bro-in-law still went ahead purchase a Investment-link policy
> from his wife's friend.
I can understand what you go through. It took me 4 years of constant reminders to my wife, why it is better deal to find a completed condo in a better location than seeing the show-flat advertisement. And I have to continue reminding her.
There are people who buys investment products NOT based on logic, but more by emotion. If it is not my wife, I won't be bothered. It was only after I showed her the returns of the CPF shares within last few months, that she saw how much I can do to help her account. And my advice on condo still need to continue!