 |
| Miss Insurance 2013/2014 Sefiyat Sadik during a visit to Eyes on the Future School, Agege, Lagos in pursuit of her Pet-Project : Youth Empowerment Against HIV/AIDS. |
Monday, 3 February 2014
Miss Insurance 2013/2014 Sefiyat Sadik during a visit to Eyes on the Future School, Agege, Lagos in pursuit of her Pet-Project : Youth Empowerment Against HIV/AIDS.
Miss Insurance 2013/2014 Sefiyat Sadik during a visit to Kuramo College, Victoria Island, Lagos on her Pet-Project campaign: Youth Empowerment Against HIV/AIDS.
 |
| Miss Insurance 2013/2014 Sefiyat Sadik during a visit to Kuramo College, Victoria Island, Lagos on her Pet-Project campaign: Youth Empowerment Against HIV/AIDS. |
Anxiety as FG calls bidders for Group life insurance
Chuks Udo Okonta
The Federal Government, having failed
to provide insurance for its workers last year, has embarked on another journey
to cover employees this year, by calling for bidders to underwrite their risks.
The Head of the Civil Service of the
Federation, in a publication had called for bids from registered insurance
companies to provide life assurance cover for all its employees in compliance
with the Pension Reform Act 2004 for the year 2014/2015.
The publication noted that the opening
of bids will be held on Monday, March 3 2014.
Industry observers are skeptical over
the working of this year’s Group life insurance for workers, as factors that stalled
the business last year, are still unresolved. They expressed worry that
underwriters in line with the No premium No cover policy would reject risks
that would have occurred prior to when the premium is paid.
They noted that opening the bids in March,
which is the last month in the first quarter of the year, will create room for misunderstanding
between government and underwriters as some claims would have been incurred from
January to March.
Another cause of worry is the readiness
of budget for implementation at the end of the first quarter of the year. They
suggested that government should move the renewal dates for its agencies to the
second quarters to make up for delays in the approval of the budget.
“Earnestly, government is the highest spender and they are to promote the
insurance industry. What the government should do because of delay in
implementation of the budget is for most agencies to move their renewal period
from January to April ending or June. If they do that, they would have enough
time, after the budget is released to get their premium,” an operator said.
Director-General, NIA, Sunday Thomas, said the operator
have resolved to abide by the rules, adding that operators cannot continue to
sell services on credit and when claims come they pay.
He added that nonpayment and delays are not good for
business, as operators need to invest the money they realised as premium to
able them pay claims.
“For the first time the industry is taking the decision
to face the reality.
“We have decided to take the bull by the horns by letting
government know that the industry is under threat and that unless the
government begins to show support for the sector, other corporate clients will
continue to take the industry for granted,” he added.
RSA increase will improve workers’ status — Premium boss
By Nike Popoola
The Chief Executive Officer, Premium Pension Limited, Mr. Wilson Ideva, has said that an increase in the money payable into the Retirement Savings Account is aimed at improving the workers’ lot.
This increment is one of the issues proposed in the Pension Reform Bill, which is already at an advanced stage of legislative processing.
Ideva said this during the inaugural annual public lecture in honour of the outgoing Head of Service, Delta State, Mr. Okey Ofili.
"The recommendation in the new bill that employer and employee contributions in the scheme be raised from a total of 15 per cent to 20 per cent is aimed at making workers even better off on retirement," he said.
Ideva said the bill sought among other things to enhance the enforcement responsibilities of the regulatory institution, ensure further airtight protection of pension funds and unpack the possibilities of creatively and professionally applying pension funds for national development.
According to him, the bill also seeks to expand the scheme to include the informal sector.
He said it also sought the establishment of Pension Transition Arrangement Departments charged with the responsibility of ensuring a seamless remittance of benefits under the Defined Benefits Scheme.
He explained that it was under the management of defined benefits that reports of corrupt and untoward practices have emanated in recent times.
The law establishing the industry, he said, would make pension funds tamperproof and mechanisms were firmly in place to eliminate unethical features in all its ramifications.
"We are proud to state that PPL is one of the PFAs shortlisted to manage Retirement Savings Accounts for public servants in Delta State under the contributory pension scheme. The company has already commenced the payment of entitlements to retirees in the state under the scheme," he said.
According to him, Delta State is in no small measure instrumental to the success recorded by Premium Pension in the enlistment of state public servants in the country.
He said this could not have been possible without the efforts of Ofili and the team at the Bureau of State Pensions.
Ideva said Premium Pension had a highly rewarding experience in the advancement of the contributory pension scheme in the state.
Source Punch
The Chief Executive Officer, Premium Pension Limited, Mr. Wilson Ideva, has said that an increase in the money payable into the Retirement Savings Account is aimed at improving the workers’ lot.
This increment is one of the issues proposed in the Pension Reform Bill, which is already at an advanced stage of legislative processing.
Ideva said this during the inaugural annual public lecture in honour of the outgoing Head of Service, Delta State, Mr. Okey Ofili.
"The recommendation in the new bill that employer and employee contributions in the scheme be raised from a total of 15 per cent to 20 per cent is aimed at making workers even better off on retirement," he said.
Ideva said the bill sought among other things to enhance the enforcement responsibilities of the regulatory institution, ensure further airtight protection of pension funds and unpack the possibilities of creatively and professionally applying pension funds for national development.
According to him, the bill also seeks to expand the scheme to include the informal sector.
He said it also sought the establishment of Pension Transition Arrangement Departments charged with the responsibility of ensuring a seamless remittance of benefits under the Defined Benefits Scheme.
He explained that it was under the management of defined benefits that reports of corrupt and untoward practices have emanated in recent times.
The law establishing the industry, he said, would make pension funds tamperproof and mechanisms were firmly in place to eliminate unethical features in all its ramifications.
"We are proud to state that PPL is one of the PFAs shortlisted to manage Retirement Savings Accounts for public servants in Delta State under the contributory pension scheme. The company has already commenced the payment of entitlements to retirees in the state under the scheme," he said.
According to him, Delta State is in no small measure instrumental to the success recorded by Premium Pension in the enlistment of state public servants in the country.
He said this could not have been possible without the efforts of Ofili and the team at the Bureau of State Pensions.
Ideva said Premium Pension had a highly rewarding experience in the advancement of the contributory pension scheme in the state.
Source Punch
How to save money and lower mortgage insurance
By Ilyce Glink & Samuel Tamkin
Q: I'm 28-years-old. My wife and I have owned our home for 2.5 years now. When we purchased it, I did not put down 20 percent, so I'm paying roughly $165 per month for mortgage insurance (PMI). If it helps, we do not plan on living in this house forever, but likely for the next five to 10 years. I have a low interest rate on our mortgage of 4.25 percent on a standard 30-year fixed FHA loan. I have a payment schedule set up with Wells Fargo for weekly mortgage payments, with an extra $30 per week to be applied to the principal.
In essence, I've been trying to build enough equity to get rid of PMI so that I can put that $165/month into retirement savings, instead of wasting it on PMI. However, neither myself nor my wife have any retirement savings (shame on us, I know). All we have is an "emergency" bank account with about 9 months' worth of expenses saved, should we ever need to use it. My question is, am I doing the right thing? Should I be taking that $30/week ($120.00 month) and putting that into a Roth IRA instead of the principal on our home?
A: We appreciate that you are making an effort to eliminate mortgage insurance from your loan and trying to save money. You'll have to see how close you are to eliminating mortgage insurance from your loan. It usually takes quite some time before you can get rid of it. Depending on how much you put down, you have to get to 78 percent of what you paid for the home to get rid of it. If you only put down 3 percent or so, you may have years to go before you make a major dent.
However, if your property has gone up significantly in value over the last few years, you might consider refinancing your loan. When you refinance, the lender will consider the new value of the home in determining whether you must have mortgage insurance or not. If values have gone up, refinancing is the easiest way to eliminate mortgage insurance.
Talk to a mortgage lender or mortgage broker to see how you might benefit from refinancing. You might obtain a new mortgage at around the interest rate you currently have without the mortgage insurance expense. However, you might need to work with a lender that will limit any refinance closing costs. Depending on where you live, refinance closing costs might be too high to justify refinancing only to get rid of the mortgage insurance.
There are many ways people can save for retirement, and saving anything from today's spending so that you can have more later in life is a noble objective. We would assume that mortgage insurance at about $165 per month is only one of many expenses you incur that are in that monthly range. You might have cable bills, eating out expenses, and other items that you could either scale back or reconsider. If you find some other expenses you can cut out of your monthly budget, you then can not only find lower monthly mortgage expenses, but can also put away money for your retirement.
So if you can't get rid of the mortgage insurance and you won't get rid of it while you live in the home, you might be better off using that money plus any more you find to fund your retirement accounts.
The earlier you start to save for retirement, the greater that money can grow for you. Starting at your age, you can set up a plan to save weekly for retirement and doing that will put you way ahead of others of your age group that may not have done much to save for retirement and find themselves years from now with kids, college expenses and nothing left for retirement.
Source Chicago Tribune
Q: I'm 28-years-old. My wife and I have owned our home for 2.5 years now. When we purchased it, I did not put down 20 percent, so I'm paying roughly $165 per month for mortgage insurance (PMI). If it helps, we do not plan on living in this house forever, but likely for the next five to 10 years. I have a low interest rate on our mortgage of 4.25 percent on a standard 30-year fixed FHA loan. I have a payment schedule set up with Wells Fargo for weekly mortgage payments, with an extra $30 per week to be applied to the principal.
In essence, I've been trying to build enough equity to get rid of PMI so that I can put that $165/month into retirement savings, instead of wasting it on PMI. However, neither myself nor my wife have any retirement savings (shame on us, I know). All we have is an "emergency" bank account with about 9 months' worth of expenses saved, should we ever need to use it. My question is, am I doing the right thing? Should I be taking that $30/week ($120.00 month) and putting that into a Roth IRA instead of the principal on our home?
A: We appreciate that you are making an effort to eliminate mortgage insurance from your loan and trying to save money. You'll have to see how close you are to eliminating mortgage insurance from your loan. It usually takes quite some time before you can get rid of it. Depending on how much you put down, you have to get to 78 percent of what you paid for the home to get rid of it. If you only put down 3 percent or so, you may have years to go before you make a major dent.
However, if your property has gone up significantly in value over the last few years, you might consider refinancing your loan. When you refinance, the lender will consider the new value of the home in determining whether you must have mortgage insurance or not. If values have gone up, refinancing is the easiest way to eliminate mortgage insurance.
Talk to a mortgage lender or mortgage broker to see how you might benefit from refinancing. You might obtain a new mortgage at around the interest rate you currently have without the mortgage insurance expense. However, you might need to work with a lender that will limit any refinance closing costs. Depending on where you live, refinance closing costs might be too high to justify refinancing only to get rid of the mortgage insurance.
There are many ways people can save for retirement, and saving anything from today's spending so that you can have more later in life is a noble objective. We would assume that mortgage insurance at about $165 per month is only one of many expenses you incur that are in that monthly range. You might have cable bills, eating out expenses, and other items that you could either scale back or reconsider. If you find some other expenses you can cut out of your monthly budget, you then can not only find lower monthly mortgage expenses, but can also put away money for your retirement.
So if you can't get rid of the mortgage insurance and you won't get rid of it while you live in the home, you might be better off using that money plus any more you find to fund your retirement accounts.
The earlier you start to save for retirement, the greater that money can grow for you. Starting at your age, you can set up a plan to save weekly for retirement and doing that will put you way ahead of others of your age group that may not have done much to save for retirement and find themselves years from now with kids, college expenses and nothing left for retirement.
Source Chicago Tribune
Southern No Response queries unhappiness
Ali Jones
OPINION: Late last month, Southern Response chief executive Peter Rose explained in our Perspective pages how the insurer was working through many complex issues, never before experienced anywhere. Today, PETER GLASSON and ALI JONES of the Southern No Response lobby group say the number of claimants turning to them is still growing every day.
It is very pleasing that after the two protests at the end of last year, Southern Response are committed to making changes to the way they have been doing things in order to resolve claims.
It is also pleasing that by the New Year, 14 cases have been resolved after intensive work by SR staff.
However, it is worth reminding Southern Response's chief executive, Peter Rose, that in December 2013, more than 100 people presented him with "one-pagers" - statements relating to their claim.
Now more than 200 are expected at a claimants' meeting on February 11 to discuss "where to next?" for those who have still not managed to progress or resolve their claims.
Our group is growing in number every day as tired and stressed Southern Response claimants seek support and knowledge outside their own personal networks to progress their claims, which in some cases remain unresolved after three years.
While Mr Rose has stated that SR is committed to making changes to the way they have been doing things, a significant proportion of the 100 people who formally submitted written forms to Peter Rose last December are still being stalled by Southern Response using deliberate delay and prevarication.
Southern No Response is concerned that after almost 3 1/2 years since the first earthquake, nothing or very little has been done for a significant number of Southern Response claimants still struggling to get their lives back.
As of December 31, 2013, 111 repairs and 180 rebuilds had been completed from a total claim pool of 6765. The rebuild and repair job ahead for Southern Response is mammoth.
We do not accept Mr Rose's suggestion that the "unknowns" in the aftermath of the earthquakes explain why claims have not been resolved or have taken so long. It is entirely spurious to suggest that the speed of claim resolution is related to experiencing things "for the first time anywhere in the world".
Earthquakes and other natural disasters regularly occur overseas. We are a country that has a high number of insured homes and although that resulted in a huge amount of work for Southern Response and other insurers, we paid premiums to an insurer in preparation for this very situation.
It is well understood that the two insurers people are having the most trouble with regarding earthquake-related insurance claims are EQC and Southern Response.
We believe the main reasons for the poor performance are related to their processes, staff and insurance industry/organisation culture.
Southern Response's CEO has publicly stated that Southern Response has a responsibility to the taxpayer, which it does, but not over and above their responsibility to the claimant and the policy entitlement.
Has Mr Rose considered the enormous financial cost to SR (and taxpayers) resulting from project managers Arrow International and other consultants repeating technical assessments several times for the same claim? What about construction costs increasing daily as delays continue as well as the day-to-day costs of running Southern Response and its team, as well as using lawyers for non-legal tasks?
Mr Rose states that the current "formal dispute" rate is 3.5 per cent. A significant number of Southern Response claimants are not in the formal dispute process but are at the end of their tether with the stalling tactics of SR. In the latest newspaper advertisement, SR's CEO uses vague language to describe what his company has recently done. Closer analysis clearly shows he is only "considering", "exploring", and "developing". No action has in fact been taken.
Whereas we are pleased Peter Rose is liaising with the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman (ISO) to enable that office to deal with any Southern Response claimant disputes, regardless of their value, we are unconvinced of the independence of the ISO given that it is funded by insurance companies and others in the insurance and financial sector.
The ISO upheld only 4 per cent of the complaints it received between 2011 and 2013 - ie, 96 per cent of those disputes were decided in favour of the insurance companies.
We believe Peter Rose should be looking more actively at SR's processes and staff and why so many people are dissatisfied rather than directing customers to yet another organisation. This is complex and difficult for claimants who are already stressed, and provides Southern Response additional opportunity to again delay claims, further wearing people down so they may (and people do) accept less than they are entitled to as they are just too tired to fight any more.
Southern No Response represents a number of Southern Response's house insurance claimants, and was established by Steve Gurney. Peter Glasson and Ali Jones are co- organisers of Southern No Response, working alongside Melanie Tobeck.
Source Fairfax NZ News
OPINION: Late last month, Southern Response chief executive Peter Rose explained in our Perspective pages how the insurer was working through many complex issues, never before experienced anywhere. Today, PETER GLASSON and ALI JONES of the Southern No Response lobby group say the number of claimants turning to them is still growing every day.
It is very pleasing that after the two protests at the end of last year, Southern Response are committed to making changes to the way they have been doing things in order to resolve claims.
It is also pleasing that by the New Year, 14 cases have been resolved after intensive work by SR staff.
However, it is worth reminding Southern Response's chief executive, Peter Rose, that in December 2013, more than 100 people presented him with "one-pagers" - statements relating to their claim.
Now more than 200 are expected at a claimants' meeting on February 11 to discuss "where to next?" for those who have still not managed to progress or resolve their claims.
Our group is growing in number every day as tired and stressed Southern Response claimants seek support and knowledge outside their own personal networks to progress their claims, which in some cases remain unresolved after three years.
While Mr Rose has stated that SR is committed to making changes to the way they have been doing things, a significant proportion of the 100 people who formally submitted written forms to Peter Rose last December are still being stalled by Southern Response using deliberate delay and prevarication.
Southern No Response is concerned that after almost 3 1/2 years since the first earthquake, nothing or very little has been done for a significant number of Southern Response claimants still struggling to get their lives back.
As of December 31, 2013, 111 repairs and 180 rebuilds had been completed from a total claim pool of 6765. The rebuild and repair job ahead for Southern Response is mammoth.
We do not accept Mr Rose's suggestion that the "unknowns" in the aftermath of the earthquakes explain why claims have not been resolved or have taken so long. It is entirely spurious to suggest that the speed of claim resolution is related to experiencing things "for the first time anywhere in the world".
Earthquakes and other natural disasters regularly occur overseas. We are a country that has a high number of insured homes and although that resulted in a huge amount of work for Southern Response and other insurers, we paid premiums to an insurer in preparation for this very situation.
It is well understood that the two insurers people are having the most trouble with regarding earthquake-related insurance claims are EQC and Southern Response.
We believe the main reasons for the poor performance are related to their processes, staff and insurance industry/organisation culture.
Southern Response's CEO has publicly stated that Southern Response has a responsibility to the taxpayer, which it does, but not over and above their responsibility to the claimant and the policy entitlement.
Has Mr Rose considered the enormous financial cost to SR (and taxpayers) resulting from project managers Arrow International and other consultants repeating technical assessments several times for the same claim? What about construction costs increasing daily as delays continue as well as the day-to-day costs of running Southern Response and its team, as well as using lawyers for non-legal tasks?
Mr Rose states that the current "formal dispute" rate is 3.5 per cent. A significant number of Southern Response claimants are not in the formal dispute process but are at the end of their tether with the stalling tactics of SR. In the latest newspaper advertisement, SR's CEO uses vague language to describe what his company has recently done. Closer analysis clearly shows he is only "considering", "exploring", and "developing". No action has in fact been taken.
Whereas we are pleased Peter Rose is liaising with the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman (ISO) to enable that office to deal with any Southern Response claimant disputes, regardless of their value, we are unconvinced of the independence of the ISO given that it is funded by insurance companies and others in the insurance and financial sector.
The ISO upheld only 4 per cent of the complaints it received between 2011 and 2013 - ie, 96 per cent of those disputes were decided in favour of the insurance companies.
We believe Peter Rose should be looking more actively at SR's processes and staff and why so many people are dissatisfied rather than directing customers to yet another organisation. This is complex and difficult for claimants who are already stressed, and provides Southern Response additional opportunity to again delay claims, further wearing people down so they may (and people do) accept less than they are entitled to as they are just too tired to fight any more.
Southern No Response represents a number of Southern Response's house insurance claimants, and was established by Steve Gurney. Peter Glasson and Ali Jones are co- organisers of Southern No Response, working alongside Melanie Tobeck.
Source Fairfax NZ News
Saturday, 1 February 2014
State Street fined £23m for “can of worms”
By Nick Goodway
The UK arm of US financial services giant State Street has been fined £22.8m by the City regulator for overcharging institutional investors in a shocking case in which bankers were caught emailing each other incriminating messages like "this can of worms stays closed" when deciding not to notify their legal department.
The Financial Conduct Authority said State Street staff simply made up extra charges, which they felt that clients would accept, during 2010 and 2011.
On one occason, a banker who had clinched such a deal rejoiced with the message "back up the truck", presumably meaning "fill it up with cash."
The investigation lays bare the cynicism and greed of the bankers involved. The FCA found that State Street deliberately overcharged six institutional investors a total of $20.2m (£12.2m) over and above fees and commissions that had been agreed. The fine is the eighth-largest imposed by the regulator.
The FCA’s chief enforcer, Tracey McDermott, said State Street’s conduct had "fallen far short of our expectations".
The offences took place in the transition management division, which carries out complex structural changes to portfolios on a client’s behalf, such as switching out of shares into bonds for a pension fund.
After the financial crisis in 2008, State Street enjoyed a booming business in transition management because many of its competitors pulled out of the market. But by 2010 the market had become far more competitive and managers made it clear they wanted not only to win more business but also to make it more profitable. They did that by levying hidden extra charges.
In one case a client wanted changes made to a €4.7bn (£3.9bn) portfolio. A series of emails between senior managers began: "Gotta win this one! Any ideas how to get more revenue would be appreciated."
The reply said: "How about a 1bp [basis point] management fee or something... We need to charge fee then otherwise they get suspicious." The response was: "Just to clarify – 1.25bp is the management fee. The extra quarter point makes it look like we actually thought about it and did the calculations."
In another exchange, the executives discussed their own legal department.
"Did they [legal] look at the original agreement?" asks one.
"Absolutely not..." came the reply, "This can of worms stays closed! Btw – there is no way we can disclose our spread."
State Street said: "In 2011, we dismissed individuals … involved in the overcharging. Their behaviour was unacceptable and a significant departure from the high standards of conduct and transparency that we expect."
Source The Independent
The UK arm of US financial services giant State Street has been fined £22.8m by the City regulator for overcharging institutional investors in a shocking case in which bankers were caught emailing each other incriminating messages like "this can of worms stays closed" when deciding not to notify their legal department.
The Financial Conduct Authority said State Street staff simply made up extra charges, which they felt that clients would accept, during 2010 and 2011.
On one occason, a banker who had clinched such a deal rejoiced with the message "back up the truck", presumably meaning "fill it up with cash."
The investigation lays bare the cynicism and greed of the bankers involved. The FCA found that State Street deliberately overcharged six institutional investors a total of $20.2m (£12.2m) over and above fees and commissions that had been agreed. The fine is the eighth-largest imposed by the regulator.
The FCA’s chief enforcer, Tracey McDermott, said State Street’s conduct had "fallen far short of our expectations".
The offences took place in the transition management division, which carries out complex structural changes to portfolios on a client’s behalf, such as switching out of shares into bonds for a pension fund.
After the financial crisis in 2008, State Street enjoyed a booming business in transition management because many of its competitors pulled out of the market. But by 2010 the market had become far more competitive and managers made it clear they wanted not only to win more business but also to make it more profitable. They did that by levying hidden extra charges.
In one case a client wanted changes made to a €4.7bn (£3.9bn) portfolio. A series of emails between senior managers began: "Gotta win this one! Any ideas how to get more revenue would be appreciated."
The reply said: "How about a 1bp [basis point] management fee or something... We need to charge fee then otherwise they get suspicious." The response was: "Just to clarify – 1.25bp is the management fee. The extra quarter point makes it look like we actually thought about it and did the calculations."
In another exchange, the executives discussed their own legal department.
"Did they [legal] look at the original agreement?" asks one.
"Absolutely not..." came the reply, "This can of worms stays closed! Btw – there is no way we can disclose our spread."
State Street said: "In 2011, we dismissed individuals … involved in the overcharging. Their behaviour was unacceptable and a significant departure from the high standards of conduct and transparency that we expect."
Source The Independent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)