On the weekend, I carefully read the cover article of Caixin Weekly, combined with my own understanding of insurance law and the insurance industry, and wrote "Insurance Breaks the Rigid Redemption? This Is Not Alarmist".
After the article was posted, I also posted it to the Fayan Baoyu exchange group. As a result, it caused a fierce debate among everyone, and even some people quit the group on the spot.
At this time, I looked confused and annoyed.
I wrote clearly enough to understand that everyone thinks that in the future, big insurance companies will also go bankrupt, and insurance will go downhill after breaking the rigid redemption.
Even if you don't read my entire argument, you have to read the end.
See, this is still bolded.
As a result, I turned out to be a "hate party". I, even gloating about the welcome to break the insurance just cash?!
After thorough and meticulous consideration, I found that the problem lies in being thorough, meticulous and rigorous.
What is my article for?
What is the purpose of writing a thesis and quoting scriptures?
Obviously, this is the wrong audience.
Why do we have this public account of the French language, and why do we interpret the insurance law in the vernacular? Because people don't like to read or understand boring laws.
To make an article that everyone doesn't like to read, it is obvious that you have forgotten your original intention and deserve it!
Therefore, today the sprinkle family with emotions, to find a supplement, no matter the argument only says the conclusion, if you are unhappy, please read my last article by yourself, or unhappy, hurry up.
Conclusion 1: The amendment to the Insurance Law will add provisions to break the rigid redemption
The sentence in Caixin Weekly that detonated the circle of friends is by no means apocryphal.
Based on my understanding of the current development of the insurance industry and my research on the insurance law system, it will be inevitable that insurance will break the rigid exchange.
Conclusion 2: Breaking the rigid exchange is good for the insurance industry, not bad
Breaking the just exchange, can it still be good?
We don't live in a fairy tale world, black and white. The breaking of the rigid redemption here is not the breaking of the new regulations on asset management, which will leave you with no return, but refers to the Japanese and other models to allow reasonable changes to the insurance contract.
Capital preservation is still the bottom line of insurance, but gains, especially high yields, can lose 10-20%.
Don't worry, it's certainly not a good thing to allow losses.
However, this kind of loss is forcing consumers to choose excellent insurance companies and quickly eliminate garbage insurance companies and problem insurance companies.
If consumers have no fear, only admit high interest rates, and know that the insurance company is about to go bankrupt, they still buy it, waiting for the state and other high-quality insurance companies to take over, then it is really bad for the insurance industry.
Therefore, it is still the same sentence: breaking the rigid redemption is a necessary measure to accelerate the clearance of "irresponsible" insurance companies, the problem insurance companies have been unplugged, and the understanding of consumers has been reversed.
Conclusion 3: Large companies generally benefit more than smaller companies
Let me first state that it is not good if it is not a small company, the key is to look at the company's shareholder ethics and the professionalism of the management team.
So how do we know whether the major shareholders have good ethics and whether the management team is professional?
It's really not easy to know.
It is impossible for a person who does not know how to read an article to understand this.
But we can basically conclude that the big insurers are much better at both than the smaller insurers.
Of course, some people have said that Anbang is also very big, and there will be no problems, yes, Anbang is big, but the shareholders are bolder.
It is best to study the shareholder composition of this insurance company, including the "central" and "state" high, it must be stronger than the low.
If you still can't judge, avoid companies that have not yet disclosed their solvency.
Well, the companies named above, offended.
The company can't do it, and it has little to do with the employees, but you just feel hurt, and I'm not responsible, anyway, this picture was compiled by someone else. If you're going to scold me, then follow the cable.
Conclusion 4: It is good for the sales of high-interest rate insurance products
This conclusion actually has nothing to do with my article.
However, I guess many people are thinking after reading the title: broken, broken just cash, insurance is not good to sell.
I can only say: the pattern is small, and the problem is simple.
Why have they just been redeemed, it is good for insurance sales, especially the sales of high-interest rate products.
First, market interest rates remain low and will not change in the short term.
Although Caixin Weekly pointed out that the wave of bankruptcies of foreign insurance companies is caused by the rapid decline in interest rates, our current economic situation is relatively stable, and market interest rates are also at a high level.
However, everyone knows that interest rates are constantly decreasing, and it is undoubtedly wise to lock in a higher interest rate through insurance at this time.
Second, breaking the rigid redemption does not completely negate the safety of insurance.
Regarding the safety of insurance companies and insurance, really, let's read my previous interpretation carefully.
In the 48th issue of the Interpretation of the Insurance Law, three insurance companies have gone bankrupt?
Every insurer must understand solvency, and after reading this, you will understand its importance
Even if you accidentally buy a small company's products, the principal is there, but the loss of interests is 105-20%, which is better than other financial products.
The products of insurance companies with a high amount of "central" and "state" can be bought with their eyes closed. After all, if you buy now and buy next year, the interest rate you can buy is not the same.
So you say, do you want to buy it now?
That being the case, is it bad or good for the current product sales?
Well, what I want to say, I wrote it out in one breath, it's really cool, don't look for evidence, and don't care about the right or wrong of his meow.
Anyway, that's what I thought, love what's going on, and the meeting is over.