Explosive liability risks for employers – reduced benefits for employees !<\/p>\n
“Today I bake, tomorrow I brew and
\nthe day after tomorrow …” (Grimm’s fairy tale)<\/p>\n
Uncertain pension<\/p>\n
“The pension is safe” proclaimed the
\nPolicy. This was followed by an appeal to
\nCitizens may want a second
\nThe mainstay of old age, the occupational
\n(occupational pension scheme), in particular
\nthrough deferred compensation.
\nThis form of saving also means
\nfor the citizen a noticeable
\nConsumerism.
\nClever sellers, especially of
\ninsurance products, used the
\nFavour of the hour. Employers were
\nmasses of contracts worth billions
\nsold through high acquisition costs
\nin the first few years often
\nhave no surrender value at all.
\nAcquisition and administrative costs
\nwere paid out of the employees’ wages
\nfi nanced. What to do with a small salary conversion
\nwith, for example
\nstarts missing 2000 Euro, ends in the
\nAge with a defi cit in up to more
\nthan 10 times the magnitude. For these
\nDifference sticks with something “bad luck” the
\nEmployers.<\/p>\n
Insurers calculate with
\nuninformed customers<\/p>\n
In the magazine Versicherungswirtschaft
\n…a department director…
\nLife insurance – even in corporate insurance business
\nactive – on
\nthe point: employers will
\nrarely sue for malpractice,
\nbecause “the facts are sometimes so
\ncomplicated that they themselves are tax
\nand pension consultants hardly discover
\nBecome.”
\nInsurers are protected
\nby “intransparency as well as the regular
\nlong periods of time until detection
\nand judicial clarification of the
\nLiability Facts. … – a miscounseling
\nagainst this background
\nfundamentally difficult to prove.”
\nAnd the damage assessment
\nis “not easy and of future
\nDevelopments Dependent.”<\/p>\n
Secure employer liability
\nthe pension trap<\/p>\n
The core problem is that almost everyone
\nEmployer about the acquisition costs
\nhas not been resolved. For the
\nEmployee remains with average
\nseniority mostly
\nmore “net” left over if he uses the money
\ntaxed without the occupational pension model and
\n…in his bankbook.<\/p>\n
Support from actuaries
\nas experts<\/p>\n
The much vaunted “independent” Money-back from the sponsors of operational The insurance intermediary shall take into Success through competence<\/p>\n Day-to-day practice shows that an actuarial (Brennpunkt Handwerk 2\/2007, 34)<\/p>\n
\nOn closer inspection, the advice turns out to be
\nAudit in over 95% of cases as a liability trap
\nfor employers. High administrative
\nand acquisition costs
\nlater the balance sheet, up to insolvency.
\nAs a rule, only one independent
\nActuary (consultant) to show the employer
\ncan determine which economic
\nLiability risks exist – the complex
\nCircumstances can be
\nbut to make it transparent and to create a
\nEquality of arms with the only supposed
\nprotected by non-transparency
\nproduct providers and intermediaries.
\nActuaries are mathematically trained
\nExperts the questions
\nfrom the following areas
\nInsurance, building society, investment
\nand pension scheme with
\nmathematical methods of probability theory
\nand statistics
\n(actuarial mathematics, building society mathematics
\nand financial mathematics)
\nand find solutions for them under
\nConsideration of the legal and
\neconomic environment.
\nThe aim of actuarial activity is to assess
\nand evaluation of risks
\nas the insurance risks,
\nInvestment risks and liquidity risks.
\nIn general terms
\nan actuary deals with business processes,
\nin which mathematical or
\nstatistical methods used
\nwill be. www.wikepedia.de<\/a>
\nFurther sources: www.aktuar.de<\/a> Germans
\nActuarial Association e.V.<\/p>\n
\nPension funds<\/p>\n
\nas a rule, personal trust is required
\n– also behind a mediation
\nGmbH, he cannot hide: He
\nis personally liable. But also the insurer
\nor a provident fund
\nare liable to the employer. A need for action
\narises mainly because
\nthe employer 30 years (limitation period)
\nanswer to one’s employees
\nmust – for the rest, however, after 10
\nyears at the latest for the employer
\nthe recourse against the intermediary
\nmay be time-barred. Actuaries – who work with the
\nCalculation of such long-term contracts
\nwith different performance components
\nare familiar – can
\nbut the developing damage
\nstill predict in time.
\nIt is not uncommon for the expert opinion of a
\nActuary and the cover letter from a lawyer,
\nfor the complete reversal
\nto reach. For the employer
\nreassuring is that then also
\nCosts of the actuary or expert
\n(without the yes transparency and
\nDetermination of damage usually not possible
\nare) and the remuneration of the lawyer
\nfrom the sponsor of the occupational pension scheme
\nare to be taken over: He is liable
\nalso for its intermediaries, because these
\nshall be deemed to be his vicarious agents.<\/p>\n
\nExpert opinion
\nand a lawyer’s letter
\nusually suffice, so that
\nthe damage suffered by the employer is compensated
\nwill. There are already numerous
\njudgments – another may hardly be a
\nInsurers risk. In the end
\nthe insurer with an insurance policy not
\ntransparency.
\nAs long as the lawsuits – as the industry
\nis limited,
\nis therefore not considered from a business point of view.
\nreasons prefer to pay out of court
\nand avoid new relevant judgments.
\nThe employers have above all
\ntherefore quite good chances, because regularly
\nsuspicion of fraud
\nby insurers and intermediaries in the
\nobjective-criminal sense in the
\nemployer as soon as he has been
\nactuary and lawyer about the existential
\neconomic consequences of his
\noften touted as liability-proof
\nModels for occupational pension provision
\nhas been cleared up. When intermediaries
\nit must be said that their
\nMisadvice hardly ever leads to liability suits
\nbecause they already have
\nthe assessment of the loss by the insurer
\nare protected by non-transparency,
\n…you can’t find the thing that’s behind these contracts…
\nthe economic risk involved.
\nThe difference between a
\ntheoretical and a realizing
\nRisk lies for the product provider
\nand intermediaries then only in the
\nTransparency.
\nDr. Johannes Fiala, (www.fi<\/a> ala.de)<\/p>\n