Good old fashioned service

adamc260

RSA underwrite Morethan... that says plenty! Perhaps they put the monkeys in the Morethan offices and the people who are good at their jobs in the RSA offices!

mikey72

kingstreet wrote: »

Wow!

I am absolutely astonished.

I got my renewal from QuoteMart this morning. Not only have they hiked the premium by 46%, they've also increased the excess by 50% too.

£524.66 including instalment charge, £450 excess.

I've been into Mike's site, CSIS, and I've got the same cover, with £200 excess for a total of £360.01.

I'm just going to look up twenty of Mike's posts to thank each and every one of them!

Good result!
Makes you wonder what really drives all the increases in the first place.
I've always wondered why some insurers can offer a fair price, but others allegedly have to increase by 30 or 40% to cover the losses they've made year on year.
Uninsured drivers, whiplash claims, millions paid out in damages?
Is it selective?

vaio wrote: »

.................As an aside, the fact that it’s run by former & serving civil servants certainly knocks a hole in the argument that a state run insurance company would be prohibitively inefficient & expensive.

I think it's time to try it out, and perhaps get a third party option for younger drivers at a reasonable cost.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

Good result!
Makes you wonder what really drives all the increases in the first place.
I've always wondered why some insurers can offer a fair price, but others allegedly have to increase by 30 or 40% to cover the losses they've made year on year.
Uninsured drivers, whiplash claims, millions paid out in damages?
Is it selective?



I think it's time to try it out, and perhaps get a third party option for younger drivers at a reasonable cost.

It's a really romantic idea. Problem is, premiums for young drivers are high for a reason. At the moment, it seems to be ridiculously high, however, the free market will sort that problem out. If insurers are making masses of profits from younger drivers, then there will be a stampede of other insurers ready to get a slice of the action. But I wouldnt hold your breath. As I say, young driver premiums are high for a reason.

As for a state run insurance programme - brilliant idea. However, it would need to be a very 'vanilla' scheme. There would be no massive differentiation of risk criteria, which would mean that there would be massively more cross-subsidy between policyholders.

In other words, cheap premiums would go. Massively expensive premiums would go. Everyone would be paying a middle premium. There would be plenty of winners, but probably many more losers.

Despite your thoughts regarding insurers, the vast majority have not been making money from car insurance. Which means that policyholders generally/collectively have been paying premiums that are too cheap.

And before you say that the lack of shareholders always means cheaper premiums, think again. Ever heard of BUPA?

Love your ideas, however, could never work.

DM

Dangermac

vaio wrote: »

I suppose that’s a typical “old” cooperative/mutual insurance company set up to provide its members with reasonably priced services by pooling risk rather than one set up to maximise bonuses & shareholder profit.

No shareholders, aim to break even on costs and any surplus goes to charity. Sounds like a good business model to me, will certainly give them a try come next renewal.

As an aside, the fact that it’s run by former & serving civil servants certainly knocks a hole in the argument that a state run insurance company would be prohibitively inefficient & expensive.

There is probably some accuracy in your comments.

You are completely forgetting that the vast number of insurers have not been making any profits for years now, in respect of motor insurance.

A mutual insurer still needs to make profits otherwise it will die.

Let's take BUPA. A 'members' insurer. Do they have cheap premiums? Dont think so. Do they massively differantiate between risk categotries (i.e Medical Insurance - high premiums for older members) - very much so.

Mutual insureres are not the answer. They do have a place, but they could never be a complete solution.

Anyone who says that they are, lives on cloud cuckoo land.

vaio

Dangermac wrote: »

There is probably some accuracy in your comments.

You are completely forgetting that the vast number of insurers have not been making any profits for years now, in respect of motor insurance.........

I am so pleased that all these altruistic insurance companies are still providing us punters with cover despite not making any profit for years.

Dangermac wrote: »

......A mutual insurer still needs to make profits otherwise it will die.........

Does it? Surely if profit driven companies stay in the market despite the losses you mention then why should mutuals be any different?

Dangermac wrote: »

......Let's take BUPA. A 'members' insurer. Do they have cheap premiums? Dont think so. Do they massively differantiate between risk categotries (i.e Medical Insurance - high premiums for older members) - very much so..........

Bupa are just about as far removed from my idea of a mutual as it’s possible to get, profits of £500m, they buy and sell investments, seek growth through overseas investments and have lots of “financial instruments" for the stripy braces gang to buy, sell, securitize, and generally play about with that they are much more like a commercial company.

Dangermac wrote: »

......Mutual insureres are not the answer. They do have a place, but they could never be a complete solution.

Anyone who says that they are, lives on cloud cuckoo land.

I think mutuals very much have a place and it should be a bigger share than currently. Think back to how well the old building societies used to work, does anyone really think converting them into banks benefited anyone (apart from the city)?

Dangermac

Does it? Surely if profit driven companies stay in the market despite the losses you mention then why should mutuals be any different?

Where would the money come from to pay claims? How would these mutuals be able to deal with FSA solvency requirements



Bupa are just about as far removed from my idea of a mutual as it’s possible to get, profits of £500m, they buy and sell investments, seek growth through overseas investments and have lots of “financial instruments" for the stripy braces gang to buy, sell, securitize, and generally play about with that they are much more like a commercial company.

Maybe, but they are still a mutual. Okay, what about WPA - are they always the cheapest?

vaio

Dangermac wrote: »

......Where would the money come from to pay claims? How would these mutuals be able to deal with FSA solvency requirements........

Presumably using the same mechanisms that loss making non-mutuals use. In reality my post was slightly tongue in cheek at the concept of profit driven insurance companies staying in a market where they are making losses year on year despite the UK having one of the lowest accident rates and some of the highest premiums in developed Europe.

Dangermac wrote: »

......Maybe, but they are still a mutual. Okay, what about WPA - are they always the cheapest?

Don’t know about WPA although it seems axiomatic to me that a mutual is going to be able to deliver better services or lower prices just because they don’t have shareholders to feed both in terms of actual dividends, the regulatory costs of being a plc and the vastly increased senior management salaries/bonuses that seem to come with moving from being a mutual to a plc.

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

Mutual insureres are not the answer. They do have a place, but they could never be a complete solution.

They used to be.
Before it became a nice little earner to sell off the family silver, give the board a hefty rise and an "incentive" share package, then hike premiums, to pay the dividends.

Dangermac wrote: »

Where would the money come from to pay claims? How would these mutuals be able to deal with FSA solvency requirements

That's a question for CSIS, they appear to capable of dealing with it.