Do insurers lose money on every motor policy

2sides2everystory

Is rasskazz a play on Rascasse - Monaco - playground of selected reinsurance personnel on [STRIKE]junkets[/STRIKE] conferences ? Do combined ratios include the cost of reinsurance (and therefore the cost of selected reinsurance personnel on [STRIKE]junkets[/STRIKE] conferences ?)

2sides2everystory

Selden wrote: »

I think you are too heavily invested in finding fault with insurers ...

That's not hard to understand fully either.

InsideInsurance

Yes, outbound reinsurance is included in the combined ratios.

So, looking at the figures and in particular last year given the quote and ignore the fact they are for full businesses and not just motor, you've given is talking about last year.... RBS Ins (30% of the market) was 124% and Admiral (7% market share) was 82.9%, inevitably given RBS are 4 times the size of Admirals book their terrible COR is always going to skew the market figure much more than Admirals good result will.

As you insist on asking stupid questions, your litteral question of "do insurers lose money on every motor policy?" very obviously not as claims rates are in the region of 16% so 84% are evidently, at a policy level, a profit.

Does every insurer lose money? No, some are operating with a below 100% COR and so are profitable.

Is the market as a whole profitable? No, on average motor insurers are losing money writing their policies but the stituation is currently improving

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

So you at least admit Admiral is motor only.
Let MSE decide where the truth is.

Of course I "admit" Admiral is motor only - where have I claimed otherwise?

I'm sure MSE will decide where the truth is. It is clear where the truth is not - i.e. in the list of figures that you have described above as:

mikey72 wrote: »

2010 data, a lot clearly below 100%, so profit making, and none anywhere near 122%. All on motor insurance only.

Which is demonstrably an incorrect and thus misleading statement.

raskazz

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Insurance companies employ some of the most creative accountants on God's Earth.

Really? On what basis do you make this bold statement?

2sides2everystory

raskazz wrote: »

Really? On what basis do you make this bold statement?

Upon the basis of a memory clearly substantially longer than yours Mr Reinsurance 2011

raskazz

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Upon the basis of a memory clearly substantially longer than yours Mr Reinsurance 2011

Englighten me, please.

_Andy_

Nice to see another fascinating thread

InsideInsurance

Accountancy for financial service providers is always challenging and in particular for insurers because you have the joys of having to account not only for claims you have settled but both those that you have open and those that have happened but you havent even been informed of yet (IBNR). Not only that but you then also have to work out how your Reinsurance is going to apply to those claims that have not even been reported yet.

You also have the joys of capital reserves that you need to adjust based on what you've written and the moving targets that the joys of things like Solvency II are creating.

Do not mistake however complex accounting which has to be based on elements of expert judgement to something that is creative. With the amount of oversight from auditors and regulators it is exceptionaly rare that major issues are discovered

2sides2everystory

raskazz wrote: »

Englighten me, please.

I am surge you don't need enlightening Monsieur, but at one end of the spectrum you have this kind of stuff for example.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

With the amount of oversight from auditors and regulators it is exceptionaly rare that major issues are discovered

Quite - until something goes horribly wrong you mean and we all pay to bail you out?