Admin Fee for Change of Address

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

I see that you have disingenuously omitted the final part of that sentence, namely the equivalent 2010 result: H1 2010: 109.0%

It's quoted further down.

At least you accept the figure is no where near the 122% you keep "finding" somewhere.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

It's quoted further down.

At least you accept the figure is no where near the 122% you keep "finding" somewhere.

:rotfl:

122% is the market average for 2010. Clearly some will be over this and some will be under. That's how an average works, mikey - even you can understand that, surely?

mikey72

So, if an insurer makes a good profit, they decide
"Oh, if we pool all our results with everyone who has made a loss, we can say we made a loss as well, and state premiums across the entire industry must go up 40%"

Seems an excellent business model to keep churning out for the smoke and mirrors again.

In the end, you don't even need to prove the 122%, as it's just an industry figure, and only known to the insiders where it came from.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

So, if an insurer makes a good profit, they decide
"Oh, if we pool all our results with everyone who has made a loss, we can say we made a loss as well, and state premiums across the entire industry must go up 40%"

Seems an excellent business model to keep churning out for the smoke and mirrors again.

What are you going on about?

mikey72 wrote: »

In the end, you don't even need to prove the 122%, as it's just an industry figure, and only known to the insiders where it came from.

It's not an "industry figure". It is calculated by an external actuary based on FSA returns.

rudekid48

For the benefit of those of us who get a headache from maths, could you both just call each other names instead? It's far more entertaining for a casual lurker. :beer: