No claim made for car incident but premium still increased

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

it's not.

you seemed to suggest that people in your line of work use underhand methods to get hold of other companies rate criteria

I'm afraid that's what I took your post to imply.

But come off it JonBoy, I don't believe for a moment that you would avert your eyes if you came across data on a competitor which would potentially be useful to your business. And, ultimately, the fact that I obtained them has no bearing on the service which the customer receives.

JonBoy_SCFC

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

perhaps you can explain then why any quote done on a comparison site comes back with a massive range of prices, easily with a 100% difference between highest and lowest:eek:

no answer on this one then?

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

no answer on this one then?

I apologise as I didn't make myself clear - when I mentioned 'minor differences' I was trying to make the point that generally we all use the same material facts and similar structures to the rating, not that the actual percentage loads or base rates are all similar.

JonBoy_SCFC

raskazz wrote: »

I apologise as I didn't make myself clear - when I mentioned 'minor differences' I was trying to make the point that generally we all use the same material facts and similar structures to the rating, not that the actual percentage loads or base rates are all similar.

mmm not sure this adds up!

you get hold of competitors rate guide, but it's hardly ever of any use? yet the rate loadings often vary quite a bit from one insurer to the next isn't it of use to see these varying rates?

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

mmm not sure this adds up!

you get hold of competitors rate guide, but it's hardly ever of any use? yet the rate loadings often vary quite a bit from one insurer to the next isn't it of use to see these varying rates?

Not really. As I explained earlier - the experience of one insurer is not necessarily a good template for the future experience of another. For example, say my insurer's stats show that a 15% load should be applied for a fault claim and a competitor's guide shows that they add a 16.5% load. Why would I alter our rates given that there is no statistical basis for doing so, according to our own claims experience? Why would I lower our base rate if our competitor was pushing to hit premium income targets if we had easily achieved income targets?

JonBoy_SCFC

raskazz wrote: »

Not really. As I explained earlier - the experience of one insurer is not necessarily a good template for the future experience of another. For example, say my insurer's stats show that a 15% load should be applied for a fault claim and a competitor's guide shows that they add a 16.5% load. Why would I alter our rates given that there is no statistical basis for doing so, according to our own claims experience?

1) if you were a growing company with only small exposure, and other companys exposure might be more reliable
2) if you were looking to raise prices without losing too much market share
3) you might if you also priced partly to elasticity, and not 100% to risk.

off the top of my head

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

1) if you were a growing company with only small exposure, and other companys exposure might be more reliable
2) if you were looking to raise prices without losing too much market share
3) you might if you also priced partly to elasticity, and not 100% to risk.

off the top of my head

1) I'm don't work for a small company with only small exposure.
2) That wouldn't really be sensible on the basis of only one competitor's ratings.
3) Er, as I said, why would I alter it if our experience showed no statistical basis for doing so? Again, one other insurer's experience would not justify such a reaction.

JonBoy_SCFC

raskazz wrote: »

1) I'm don't work for a small company with only small exposure.
2) That wouldn't really be sensible on the basis of only one competitor's ratings.
3) Er, as I said, why would I alter it if our experience showed no statistical basis for doing so? Again, one other insurer's experience would not justify such a reaction.

1) fair enough in your specific situation
2) it would if it was a competitor where a lot of your cancelling customers went to
3) you might alter a price to be different to what your claims stats suggest if it's profit maximising. i.e. claims stats say risk is say £500, but why charge this if customer will buy at £600. setting the price purely based on your stats wouldn't be profit maximising. simples

last word from me, hope you've had as much fun as me - good night!

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

1) fair enough in your specific situation
2) it would if it was a competitor where a lot of your cancelling customers went to
3) you might alter a price to be different to what your claims stats suggest if it's profit maximising. i.e. claims stats say risk is say £500, but why charge this if customer will buy at £600. setting the price purely based on your stats wouldn't be profit maximising. simples

last word from me, hope you've had as much fun as me - good night!

2) No way of knowing where customers who cancel go to. In any case, not sure how raising a load would help retain customers?

3) The market is so competitive that you cannot do this. If you tried, you would swiftly find that you didn't sell any policies.

powned

ye, i kind of have to agree with the above