Superted187 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 An industry insider tells me that motor insurance is no where near the biggest earner in most insurance companies. It is apparently life insurance that makes them masses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEW247 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 An industry insider tells me that motor insurance is no where near the biggest earner in most insurance companies. It is apparently life insurance that makes them masses Motor insurance hasn't made money for years. It's quite common for insurers to run loss ratios of 200% plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Motor insurance hasn't made money for years. It's quite common for insurers to run loss ratios of 200% plus. Sounds about right.. it's the cost of the claims that makes it expensive, not the profit margins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fool's Gold Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I'm afraid it's you that doesn't understand statistics, or probability. The coin flipping situation relies on perfectly symmetrical coins, flipped in exactly the same way. Drivers are not uniform in their properties. We do not know how these differences affect driving, but we can study the accident statistics & see if there is a group more, or less, likely to be involved in accidents. This is how science works, in fact. Observations are made, we form a theory about the underlying patterns behind these observations, & test our theory by predicting the future course of events. Just as accident statistics tell you nothing about the behaviour of individual young male drivers, Maxwell- Boltzmann statistics tells you nothing about the behaviour of individual air molecules - but it accurately predicts the behaviour of a volume of air. By your logic, the blind should be entitled to drive (with no difference in premium). Yes. That's the point I too was trying to make, but in a more ham-fisted way! One is no more likely to win the lottery when you buy a lottery ticket because the lottery number picking machine favours one gender over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Motor insurance hasn't made money for years. It's quite common for insurers to run loss ratios of 200% plus. What utter rubbish. I can prove you're wrong with one simple statement: If insurance companies were losing money on car insurance, they would stop offering it. It's not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadget Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 What utter rubbish. I can prove you're wrong with one simple statement: If insurance companies were losing money on car insurance, they would stop offering it. It's not rocket science. Er, no the'd raise their prices. Notice any of that going on? They are just not raising it enough to make up for the rocketing whiplash claims... If what you say is right no company would exist after making a loss, it would simply give up and shut down. And no industry would ever make a lose in total. Remember when banks and airlines existed before the "great shutdown" of 1973 (and 1990, 2001 and 2008)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEW247 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 What utter rubbish. I can prove you're wrong with one simple statement: If insurance companies were losing money on car insurance, they would stop offering it. It's not rocket science. Hopefully you are aware that there are actually very few insurers / reinsurers which sit behind the likes of Swiftcover / Sheila's Wheels / MoreThan etc whose TV adverts are blasted across your TV each day. The big boys like RSA / Allianz / Zurich / Ace / Tokio Marine / Munich RE / Swiss RE / Chartis all use these companies to try and sell you Personal Lines insurance and they normally use their brands to sell Commercial type Package / Combined policies where many different insurances are bundled into one. One motor policy will quite often lead to home insurance etc. Motor is a FUNDAMENTAL part of commercial Combined / Package policies; i.e. the plumber buys a policy which gives him Employers Liability / Public Liability / Professional Indemnity (maybe) / Products Liability and...... Motor (for his van). You simply cannot not offer Motor in this arena otherwise it would seriously jeopardise the selling of other types on insurances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
or in excess of Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Have to say I'm with the EU on this one. Insurance and particularly car insurance is a scam industry. They are actually unregulated petty criminals in cheap suits. One of the metrics commonly used by car insurance companies is that if you have an accident, you are statistically more likely to have an accident again. This is commonly used by the industry to justify bumping premiums up and zeroing out no claims even for no-fault claims. Stop and think about that determination. If I win the lottery, am I statistically more or less likely to win it again? Probabilistically, I am less likely. Statistically, my earlier win makes no difference. But insurance companies make 60% of pure profit based on this deliberately skewed logic. The insurance industry desperately needs a regulator but with powerful lobbyists, is unlikely I think ever to get one. Talking of scamming and thieves, anyone with E Car insurance. They are currently offering the cheapest quotes on all the comparison websites. But before you sign up, google them. An absolute disgrace they are allowed to operate. They are the car insurance equivalent of rogue wheel clampers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 What utter rubbish. I can prove you're wrong with one simple statement: If insurance companies were losing money on car insurance, they would stop offering it. It's not rocket science. insurance is often used as a means of borrowing money, due to the fact that they get premiums paid upfront, effectively lending you money. so if the cost of borrowing £1billion from a bank is is 6%, and you can run a loss at 5% on issuing £1billion worth of insurance, youre effectively borrowing money at a lower rate. warren buffett for example used insurance as a form of financing to build his investment empire. he takes the premiums, invests it, pays off the losses on insurance claims (like interest payments) then takes his cut from the investment profits. thats why many of the big investment companies are insurance companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Hopefully you are aware that there are actually very few insurers / reinsurers which sit behind the likes of Swiftcover / Sheila's Wheels / MoreThan etc whose TV adverts are blasted across your TV each day. The big boys like RSA / Allianz / Zurich / Ace / Tokio Marine / Munich RE / Swiss RE / Chartis all use these companies to try and sell you Personal Lines insurance and they normally use their brands to sell Commercial type Package / Combined policies where many different insurances are bundled into one. One motor policy will quite often lead to home insurance etc. Motor is a FUNDAMENTAL part of commercial Combined / Package policies; i.e. the plumber buys a policy which gives him Employers Liability / Public Liability / Professional Indemnity (maybe) / Products Liability and...... Motor (for his van). You simply cannot not offer Motor in this arena otherwise it would seriously jeopardise the selling of other types on insurances. Hence the real reason young people are getting clobbered on car insurance? No opportunity for cross-selling life/home insurance, therefore business not wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Talking of scamming and thieves, anyone with E Car insurance. No, but a quick Google found this. Ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 No, but a quick Google found this. Ouch! I noticed this when I was looking before Xmas. The general rule for price comparison websites seems to be, never pick the cheapest no matter how good they seem. Always get the second or third entry (or first reputable company). No such thing as a free lunch etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Women have to pay more for their car insurance... They wanted equality. Now they've got it and don't like it? Tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Guessing that the ratio of women to men drivers is around 50:50 then the men should see a similar fall in their premiums. If this doesn't happen then it will just be yet another confirmation that we live in a completely criminal and corrupt country. :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I noticed this when I was looking before Xmas. The general rule for price comparison websites seems to be, never pick the cheapest no matter how good they seem. Always get the second or third entry (or first reputable company). No such thing as a free lunch etc... Actually from reading further it seems like an awful enterprise, not even in the business of providing insurance really, just professional scammers. We went with Swinton last time as they have a high street presence and I knew that, if the worst came to the worst, I could go and physically remonstrate with somebody. Unbelievably, they signed me up to life insurance without even asking me...... How did such everyday things as insurance get to be so difficult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Guessing that the ratio of women to men drivers is around 50:50 then the men should see a similar fall in their premiums. If this doesn't happen then it will just be yet another confirmation that we live in a completely criminal and corrupt country. :angry: not necessarily. theyre a business, they can offer you insurance at whatever price they want. its like if VAT is cut by 2.5%, some people think that a business must pass this cut onto consumers. they dont. they can charge £100, £97.50, £105, they can charge whatever they want. you can cut VAT and a business can raise prices if they want -thats their prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Women have to pay more for their car insurance... They wanted equality. Now they've got it and don't like it? Tough. I don't think one particular female Daily Mail journalist should be assumed to represent the views of women in general. All the women I've spoken to about this don't have any problem whatsoever with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Guessing that the ratio of women to men drivers is around 50:50 then the men should see a similar fall in their premiums. If this doesn't happen then it will just be yet another confirmation that we live in a completely criminal and corrupt country. :angry: No it isn't it's proof that a commercial organisation will take advantage of prevailing external factors to maximise their profits. Got nothing to do with criminals or the country as a whole being corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 No it isn't it's proof that a commercial organisation will take advantage of prevailing external factors to maximise their profits. Got nothing to do with criminals or the country as a whole being corrupt. They have a captive market. People can change their car, their location, their driving habits or their occupation and enjoy lower premiums if they choose wisely (though in reality people would not change most of those just to get cheaper insurance). When it comes to gender, you are pretty well stuck with what you are born with. So insurers will probably raise women's insurance premiums without a commensurate reduction in men's premiums. More money for the insurers, and blame it on the EU. However... actuaries may be able to circumvent it to a degree. Men and women tend to favour different sizes/types of cars, and difefrent occupations, sports, and there are many other factors that distinguish genders. I expect to see these factors weighted more heavily in actuarial calculations from now on. So women may still tend to get lower insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habeas Domus Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Maybe they could just adjust premiums based on height instead of sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbeard Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So insurers will probably raise women's insurance premiums without a commensurate reduction in men's premiums. More money for the insurers, and blame it on the EU. I find this whole issue really tough. You're totally right that women's premiums will rise as a result of this new rule. However, at the moment i'm charged more for car insurance not because *I'M* an unsafe driver, but solely because - on average - people of my gender have more expensive accidents. That is pretty much the definition of discrimination. However... actuaries may be able to circumvent it to a degree. Men and women tend to favour different sizes/types of cars, and difefrent occupations, sports, and there are many other factors that distinguish genders. I expect to see these factors weighted more heavily in actuarial calculations from now on. So women may still tend to get lower insurance. Absolutely. And I expect accident history will have a bigger weighting, which is at least a bit fairer than using gender. To me there is a huge difference between saying "you should pay an extra £50 because you were born a man" and "you should pay an extra £50 because last year you ran into a parked car". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.