Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Avoid falling prey to insurance mis-selling ...

While IRDAI can nudge the sector towards better practices, buyers need to view this as an instrument that provides risk cover, not as a tax saving or investment product

Read my article in today's Business Standard below ...

Avoid falling prey to mis-selling of insurance

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

It’s a bird, it’s a plane – it’s superman! It’s investment, it’s tax-saving, it’s a disguised insurance pitch!

Yesterday, there was another call from yet another persevering insurance company tele-caller.
The caller started the pitch for a very attractive investment product. Of course, the person was transparent enough to mention the name of the company, which had the word “Life” in it. However, the word “Insurance” following “Life” was conveniently missed out. So what, even Yudhisthir once said, “Ashwatthama is dead. Naro vaa kunjaro vaa!”
I entertained the caller and asked her to proceed with the features of the investment option. She started asking about my profession and date of birth. I asked her why she wants to know these details. Conveniently she proceeded to the next question. She asked my name, which I have no problem in giving. After some standard script, she mentioned about continuation of “free” insurance cover even after the investment term gets over. I insisted that I was only interested in an investment product without insurance cover.
By now, many of you know the modus operandi. The caller starts with the call. If the person on the other side asks too many questions, the call is transferred to a senior. The senior comes on phone and talks to me in a very authoritative manner asking what my requirement was – as if I called.
He had a very good answer for my point of an investment product without insurance cover. He said, “We are offering this small insurance cover so that your returns become tax-free.” Hello, is the regulator listening? Here is a standard pitch from insurance companies that they are selling an investment product (which is NOT a mutual fund according to IRDA). The insurance cover is given only to make the returns tax-free. These insurance companies do not want to change!
For how long will we allow such wrong approaches?
I haven’t taken the company’s name. Doesn’t matter! Those who practice such things, anyway know. Request to the poor investor, please do not fall into the trap of such calls.
Buyer beware!

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Mind blowing insurance product

Just got a call from an insurance company call centre. It was an amazing offer: They have a very attractive investment product. The investment component is also not invested in the stock market. They only invest in Government projects and will offer more than 7% p.a. compounded returns over a 25 year term. This is what they are willing to offer in writing. I inquired to the gentleman that how can they offer more than 7% p.a. when Government securities do not offer that much (net of expenses to be charged by the insurance companies). He said, that is where our company's expertise comes in.

After about 2 minutes of monologue (my question came in much later), the gentleman added another attraction. The product also gives life cover. Wow, This is now becoming too good for me to handle. Life cover coming from an insurance company. And all along I thought this call was from an investment company - how stupid of me!

I was pleasantly surprised with the offer. Such a mouth watering proposal !

Unfortunately, I was too naive to not buy this product. God only can save me now.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Interesting tele-call

I had a very interesting call from a tele-caller recently. The conversation went like this:
He asked me, “Sir, do you trade in stocks?”
I replied, “No, I do not trade in stocks.”
He asked, “Will you be interested?”
I replied, “No, I do not trade in stocks.” (On both occasions, I had emphasized on the word “trade”.)
The guy was not one to take the clue. He, however, was also not one to give up. Since he understood my answers as someone who may not like stocks, he probably assumed I was risk-averse. So, he followed up with another question.
He asked, “Sir, we also are in insurance sector. Do you invest in insurance?”
I coolly replied, “I do not invest in insurance.”
I understood that he has not got the message. So I repeated, “I do not trade in stocks and do not invest in insurance.”
Incidentally, he still did not get the message.

It is important for most to know what to do with what products or services. In both the above cases, I do use the products offered, but for completely different reasons. I invest in stocks and buy insurance as protection against certain risks.

Unfortunately, most of the sellers – they come in various different names – tele-callers, relationship managers, advisors, distributors – do not do justice to their duty, which is to help customers satisfy their needs. In stead, in most cases, these sellers work to satisfy their own needs.

Investing in stocks is a good idea as it can help an investor create wealth for oneself. But trading in stocks is hazardous for a novice, a common person, a layperson. But it can make lots of money for the broker.

Same is the case with investment products from insurance companies. In most cases, when an insurance product is pushed by a seller, it invariably serves the needs of the seller (who gets high commissions) and not the buyer (who gets inappropriate / lousy product).

It is important for a buyer to know what one is getting into. The words “caveat emptor” (meaning “buyer-beware”) should be remembered at all times. In both the cases, I could have shown interest in the proposition had the seller told me the benefits that I was looking for. Serving the customer needs should be the main motto of the organizations. Many chief executives claim to have “customer first” as their primary objective or core philosophy. But the behaviour of the people on the front lines is exactly opposite. To a great extent the fault lies with the training, orientation and incentivisation of the sales teams.

This means that when someone mentions that they only do “need-based” selling; it is a good idea to ask “whose need?”

“Buyer-beware” is always a good idea. If I am signing the cheque and the application form, I must take the responsibility of my decision and action. It doesn’t help to pass on the blame on someone else, be it the advisor in-between, the service (or product) provider or the regulator. The loss or pain will not be shared by anyone. In that case, it would help to be careful.

This does not suggest that all the sellers are bad. I cannot generalize like this. I have been a salesperson all my life. It would be unfair for me to say that ‘sales’ is always a bad and unethical job, but there are always some bad sheep in the flock. The buyer has the responsibility to safeguard one’s own interests.

Happy investing and insuring!