Setting aside savings for a child

Many parents want to set aside savings for their children - maybe for education, for marriage or other purpose.

An endowment policy was the traditional method used in the past to set aside the savings. However, the endowment policy now provide a poor return, usually not sufficient to cover inflation, and should be avoided.

A better choice is to open a share account for the child and to buy the STI ETF (which is an indexed fund invested in the top 30 shares in Singapore) for the child. The account can be in the joint names of the parent and the child.

Attend the FISCA talk on investment and financial planning to learn about how this can be done, and how to manage the risk of investing in shares. 
http://easyapps.sg/assn/Org/Event.aspx?id=5

Twinkle - a matter of perspective

This is what Twinkle (my pet Schnauzer) looks like usually and after visiting the dog barber

Buying an endowment policy

• • Dear Mr Tan,
    I am considering buying a saving endowment policy for my daughter. Would like to ask what is the difference between buying insurance from a bank and agent?
    
    
• 

  5 minutes ago

  Tan Kin Lian

  • Most endowment policies give a poor return to the consumer, due to the high charges taken to pay commission to the agent and other expenses. This applies to buying from an agent or the bank - the charges are the same.
    
    You can attend the education talks organised by FISCA here
    http://easyapps.sg/assn/Org/Event.aspx?id=5
    
    You can join FISCA as a member and enjoy discounts on the talks
    
    To join as a member, register here:
    http://easyapps.sg/assn/Org/RegisterUser.aspx?id=5
    
    The membership fee is $36 a year, and you can access the website and get a newsletter twice a month.
  • 
    

A late entrant to the Gold bar scheme

Mr. Chan (not his real name) advised his wife to stay way from the Genneva Gold scheme. She did. After a year, the wife got angry with Mr. Chan because her friends invested in Genneva Gold and received their monthly payout and also the buyback payments. They were making a good return.

The wife decided to ignore Mr. Chan. Her family joined her to put in all of their savings into the scheme, and to make up for the lost time. Genneva Gold was raided by by authority six months later, and all their savings got stuck. Mrs. Chan and her family do not know if they will get back their investments and gold bars.

Financial advisers should not sell unregulated products

Read this letter

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/mas-spot-handling-gold-buyback-firm-genneva-20121102

I have heard of many cases where financial advisers are selling non-regulated products, such as the Genneva Gold scheme and land banking products.

Perhaps MAS should ban financial advisers from selling non-regulated products, as the consumers may not be aware about the difference between regulated and non-regulated products?

The authority should have acted earlier

Dear Mr Tan

I refer to this comment on your blog at 1.57 pm on 26 April. It is quite obvious from it that the authority (not sure which ministry as you did not mention it but definitely a Minister or Ministry is involved since you mentioned it). 

Now that your "allegation" is proven to be true, I wonder whether you will pursue the matter with the person and/ or the Minister or Ministry. As Chiam See Tong mentioned before, our leaders must take responsibility. They have been taking credit and rewards for doing many things right and deservedly so. But when things go wrong they have to learn to and must take the responsibility. That is why they are the government. That is the role of the government. 

I was quite disappointed to see our DPM / Minister of Finance issuing warning in Parliament two weeks after the company was raided. It seems like it is an act to "wash their hands" over the matter. Although each individual has to be held accountable for their own actions the authority is there to help maintain and ensure law and order. The authority has the power and resources to do what ordinary citizens are unable or unwilling to do. In this case, the authority must have been aware of the operation of the operator. Otherwise it would not be placed on the alert list. 

But having put them on the alert list, it their job done? Or is it just so that again they can "wash their hands" if things turn nasty. They can simply point to the list and say "see, we warned you, it is on the list"? This does seem unprofessional and lack of courage to do the right thing. To pre-empt disaster and tragedy. Which is the hallmark of a government; one which Singapore is well known for but I am unsure now.

POSTING IN TKL BLOG ON April 26, 2012 1:57 PM 

"One of the underlings was angry at my posting. She told me rudely to make a Police report, rather than to post this vague allegation in my blog.

I wanted her, and her minister, to know that I had made a report to the Commercial Affairs Department on another alleged fraud. This report was made in conjunction with another person, who had painfully investigated the alleged fraud for quite some time, and had compiled a dossier of documents that provide evidence of the offence.

The CAD officer decided, after over two months, that there was insufficient evidence for them to investigate the matter.

We learned later, that the CAD officer did not even call up the alleged offender to ask him to give an explanation to the issues that were raised.

If a carefully prepared report with documentary evidence could be ignored in this manner, there is little chance for my "suspicion" to be given any consideration.

In case the underling and her minister does not know, the ordinary citizens do not have the authority, power or resources to carry out any investigation or enquiry.

I wish to post this comment here, so that the underling can report this state of affairs to her minister.

I did not post the comments from the underling, as she has a habit of attacking me in my blog and Facebook. She was quite rude in challenging my views and did so just for the sake of rebuttal. I suspect that she is under orders to monitor my blog. "

Problem with Incomeshield claim

Mr. Tan, please paste this in your blog

The Editor

Today - Voices

NTUC Income’s letter (WHY NTUC Income rejected claim) failed to disclose the salient facts evident in my correspondences  and email exchanges with Income’s officers. These letters are enclosed for the benefit of the Editor. As Income has confused your readers,  I am compelled to straighten the record.

From the letters and emails, it is abundantly clear that when I chose to be C-warded, I had intended to claim under my CPF Medishield. In my letter dated 05/10/12, among others, I stated:  …. “I refer to your

letter of 02/10/12 relating to my hospitalization claims.

Please note that my claims are against my CPF Medishield Basic which I signed on since day one of inception including when it was migrated to your company.

In all the hospitalizations I am claiming I was a C Ward patient with full subsidy. Hence there is no basis to reject my claims. 

Attached please see my July letter mailed to your office which evidently may have misplaced….

 My letter of 04/07/12 asked NTUC Income to process the claims under my medishield which was migrated from CPF to NTUC Income many years ago. Income was hence my service provider and it is supposed to play this role as required by CPF as “one-stop processing centre…”.

So when Income chooses to unilaterally terminate (retroactively to 01/01/12 and jeopardizing my coverage/protection) my Enhanced Incomeshield basic for frivolous reason and after a long time lag of four months, they are still my service provider (until I am informed otherwise as they did when they first “took over my policy” from CPF) . Instead of processing my claims under my Medishield, they told me to get the hospitals to re-bill to CPFB even though I have repeatedly told them that I was not aware nor in the loop when the hospital billed them under “Enhanced Incomeshield basic”. I also had no knowledge of what bills were sent and when. 

To make matter confusing, I was told by their email: … “You will remain insured under Basic Medishield if you satisfy the  CPF’s eligibility criteria.”  Mr Pui Sr VP of Income has since inserted some mitigate in an attempt to damage-control the point I was raising about Income’s duty to check out and advise me. 

Afterall until there was policy  cancellation or re-nomination (my Medishield), Income is still my service provider. Together with GE, Income was keen to takeover my CPF policies and they cannot just drop the matter without the courtesy of informing me. Also in his second and last paragraph, Mr Pui mentions that Income understands that I met CPFB’s criteria. That being the case why did not Income said so upfront despite the many email exchanges; in the process causing so much anxieties to their client?

A week after my first hospitalization, an SMS advises that my claim will be processed within 14 days. After much chasing and prodding, NTUC Income replied some four months later followed in quick succession cancellation of my upgraded policy ignoring my request for delay action so as not to jeopardise my lower tier coverage. Is this the usual performance standard we are to live with?

To-date NTUC Income has yet to inform me officially that they are no longer my service provider for my CPF Medishield basic.

James Wong (Wong Chee Wah)