i agree rakyat - lets wait and see . some insurers refuse direct customers now though - bad bad!

so far walk-ins have been refused by Tokio Marine they insist i use an agent. i will try to force them and to give me discount on my medical plan. not sure if it will work though.

in the past MSIG also refused to give discount to walk-in but still took the business.

anyone else has been refused walk-in or been taken as walk-in without getting a discount? please list companies to avoid

allianz also refuse to take direct or give discount? have to spoken to HQ? i checked with them last year and they were willing to give full agent discount to walk in. would be sad if policy changed.

ChinHong86,

this is has absolutely nothing to do with government regulation. its about competition. as a consumer i expect to have a choice wether i want to pay for a service (ie agent) or not. if i choose to deal with the insurer directly i expect to be given the same benefits the agent otherwise gets. it's that simple.

then and only then i can choose what i want to pay for. now i am _forced_ to pay for an agent i dont want and have to split comission. not ideal for me at all.

also this leads to more competition among agents. you give me better deal and service and then i might be willing to use your services. this guaranteed income make people lazy and incompetent. nothing against you personally but most of the agents i spoke with know nothing about their product besides which one offers them the best comission. this is what they push. i want independant advice not a pushy comission seeker who doesnt understand the differences of his own plans or has zero knowledge in financial planning and / or tax optimisation. this is not a service that has any value to the general public. just look at the majority of (usually part time) agents - they suck so bad they are an embarassement to the insurance, the industry and cost other people nothing but money. sure there are usefull agents out there. but they are hard to find. if the comission sheme would be competitive, idiots disappear and professionalim enters the market. if you think you can survive this - you should be for it. less agents means potentially better business. the only agents who should be against this are the ones that know they dont provide any service.

ChinHong86,

sorry to say so but you are basically calling for a regulatory body to enschrine agents rights to exist. i am saying that only if an agent can provide a value added service (such as independant counseling) they can and should survive. the comission can not be exclusively handed out to agents. any consumer must have the choice of either paying an agent or not. that is what a free market is about.

and your comparison is flawed: there are many countries where service tax is optional (tipping). many ppl dont pay but the service staff gets a fixed salary which adopts for that and basic prices in turn reflect this. this is merely a question of packaging. also i can choose if i go into a restaurant or not or rather serve myself in a nasi kandar or whatever. so the choice is there and that is the whole point.

you will find that malaysia has a multitude of regulated industries that guarantee basically income for no added value whatsoever. those regulations will disappear in the future since they are economically wastefull. and this also holds for forced agent comissions which artificially increase premiums across board. i dont want my money to be wasted - simple as that.

ChinHong86,

this was related to your analogy to service staff not insurance agents.

just because you rely on comissions does not warrant their existance. my entire salary is based solely upon wether my clients pay me for my services or not. if i dont provide a good enough service or someone else does provide a better or same service at a lower price i am in trouble. i always have to be better and / or cheaper to warrant my charges. the same holds for agents. there is no free lunch - there is however the misguided perception among many agents that there is indeed a free lunch. thanks largely to a certain institution who came up with a regulated fixed agency comission. things like this are poison to the market as there is no incentive to be better - you get the comission anyway.

really there is no possible argument that one can make to warrant fixed comissions and to deny customer the right to choose. we life in a free market and the market forces dictate the outcome - not a regulatory body. i for once decide not to pay agents - and i expect that my right not to do so is enshrined. just as you have the right to a comission IF someone chooses to use your services.

the sole reason why people complain is because all of a sudden a guaranteed income stream is threatend all of a sudden.

there are numerous makroeconomic and microeconomic arguments that are far outweigh the agents interest for an enshrined comission. i think i have noted a few. for example for my PA insurance : why would i want to pay 25% of my insurance premium to the agent? i rather not and save this to buy better protection or save it elsewhere. it's my choice - noone has the right to tell me that in order to get a specific insurance i MUST pay someone else for a service i dont need.