orangeblock

The value in advice gives short-term intermediaries the edge

11 June 2012 | Intermediaries / Brokers | General | Gareth Stokes

By the time you read this newsletter the FAnews team will be sitting through the morning session of The Insurance Conference 2012. The event – jointly hosted by the Financial Intermediaries Association (FIA), Insurance Institute of South Africa (IISA) and

The PwC survey is based on independent research and interviews conducted with 29 chief and senior executives at leading South African insurers (both long- and short-term) and re-insurers. “The study presents a comprehensive overview of the issues and challenges prevalent in the industry today, and presents executives’ perspectives on how the industry might evolve over the next three years,” said PwC Long-term Insurance Leader, Victor Muguto. The study findings will assist local insurers in structuring their businesses to avail of both established and emerging trends.

In his opening remarks, Muguto reminded those present of the economic backdrop when the Q1 2012 interviews were conducted. “We have traded through an unprecedented financial crisis and increasing geopolitical risk since 2008,” he said. “There is huge uncertainty in markets and both the business and regulatory environments are tough.” It is worth noting that the developed world has not recovered since the sub-prime crisis first exhibited in December 2007 and that most Euro-zone economies now face a second round of recession. Financial regulators have responded by tightening up the solvency requirements for international banks (through Basel III) and insurers (Solvency II). National Treasury has taken steps of its own by announcing a two-pronged approach to financial regulation wherein the Reserve Bank will take care of prudential issues while the Financial Services Board focuses on market conduct.

Major drivers of insurance industry change...

Against this backdrop the 29 respondents singled out “regulatory and reporting changes” as a major driver of operational change in the industry. Regulation was twice as prominent as the second (capital requirements) and third (consumerism and changing consumer behaviour) factors. Among the ironies that perhaps escape the report’s compilers is that both capital requirements and emerging consumerism are consequences of regulation. A layperson might fairly comment that the Top 3 drivers for insurance change are rooted in regulatory intervention. The Solvency Assessment and Management (SAM) and soon to be introduced Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) regimes are examples of such regulation.

Independent financial advisors will be most interested in the change drivers holding positions four to six on the PwC list. These were identified (by industry executives) as Internet and mobile-based technologies (fourth), changing demographics due to urbanisation and the rise of the new middle class (fifth) and disintermediation and the breakdown of trust in intermediaries (sixth). Point four, five and six explain why more and more short-term personal lines insurance business (and soon life business) will go the direct route. On a more serious note they foretell a serious contraction in the direct distribution channel over time. Why?

Among the insurance market weaknesses identified in the PwC study are “excessive price-based competition in the short-term insurance space, and the inability of intermediaries to reach all segments of the market.” Although technology is partly responsible for the first weakness it does so to the intermediaries’ detriment. The Internet and mobile phones make it possible for new direct players to offer simple and affordable insurance covers online. Over time the cutthroat direct short-term insurance offerings will expand to include life and other insurance products, adding to the pressure on the intermediated model.

Peter Todd, chief executive of Mutual & Federal picked up on this trend during a recent presentation at the 2012 SAUMA Annual Conference, when he said: “From a traditional insurer perspective the advent of the direct insurer has been a major wakeup call – whether we like it or not they have been major catalysts for driving down costs in the industry.”

Access to all through mobile technology

Demographic trends also contribute to the intermediaries’ dilemma, because the new middle class is increasingly tech savvy and more inclined to BREAK transact online than before. To make matters worse, attempts to expand intermediated services into the low end of the market have failed dismally. Future solutions in that space will undoubtedly be driven by the country’s large mobile phone operators, which have already indicated their intention to enter the insurance market by successfully applying for insurance licenses.

And that brings us to points six, “disintermediation and the breakdown of trust in intermediaries”. This is a concerning development for those make a living from selling insurance, and can largely be attributed to the rapid growth in the direct insurance distribution model. The erosion of trust in the intermediary has been contributed to by the ongoing negative (towards intermediaries) advertising and marketing campaigns carried out by aggressive direct insurers out to “win” market share.

“Direct insurers have tarnished the role of advice in our industry,” said Todd. “It is all very well having a proposition to deal directly with the customer, but that does not mean to say that you should run down somebody else’s value proposition.” It is telling that the country’s largest intermediary-based insurance companies have established direct insurance offerings of their own.

Editor’s thoughts: Sir Isaac Newton’s third Law of Motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction… The theory holds for business too, where regulation and competition have consequences. Increased regulation makes financial advice dearer with the result that fewer consumers benefit from it, while increased competition (in the direct short-term insurance space) has unfairly tarnished brokers’ reputations. Would you agree that both regulation and competition from direct insurers are putting the squeeze on the traditional intermediated distribution model? Add your comment below, or send it to [email protected]

Comments

Added by Brian, 13 Jun 2012
.. and so the bickering about 'service' goes on. The underwriting stage is when the income is earned, so lots of cash is thrown around to promote business, but "Showtime" is when a loss occurs. Logically, if there were no losses to deal with, no brokers (or in fact no insurers) would be necessary, but the crunch comes when an insured needs fair reimbursement for his loss. If no 'mediator', then no guarantee that the insurer, probably to improve its bottom line, will not try to minimise its payout, usually to the detriment of the insured. Ask the Ombud. In this case - "Help please - is there a (competent) broker around"?
Report Abuse
Added by Cynical Simon., 11 Jun 2012
The writing is on the wall for us brokers.We are forwarned yet we and our association are sitting on our hands crying our hearts out.Let us take back what is rightfully ours;the hearts and confidence of the public.Lets take it back by uniting in a think tank and some drastic action.We must take the battle to the Direct Insurers front door.We must fight them on the lies they tell;We must fight them on their pathetic claims performance;We must fight them on ensuring our own value;We must fight them day and night and we must never surrender.
Report Abuse
Added by Irene, 11 Jun 2012
Cynical Simon - stop whining and actively start getting get your house in order. Until such time as the broking fraternity changes from only paying lip-service to regulation, they will face - justifiably - increasing pressure from the FSB and FAIS Ombud. Let's face reality - there is NO advice provided in the majority of Personal and Small Commercial short-term insurance arrangements - whether at inception or the annual review date, either by brokers or insurers. Everything is now done by telephone or via letter or e-mail. Visiting and meeting with clients is deemed too costly and thus clients do not experience any difference in dealing with a broker or the Direct market. Furthermore, inefficiencies in the technology used - why is a 32 page new schedule (without any quality control undertaken to ensure correctness) required every time a change is made to just one item on the policy, endorsements Indicating effective dates some 10 YEARS back, etc necessary and "passing the buck", leading to client frustration? - adds more cost that must be recouped from clients via increased premiums and fees. In some instances, fees already account for up to 40% of the total cost to clients - an unacceptable and unsustainable situation, forcing many to cancel their cover! Regulation is too often viewed in the industry as another tick-sheet activity, whilst no attention is paid to the ACTUAL EFFECTIVENESS of e.g. the Client Advice Sheet, Complaints Department and Complaint RESOLUTION, which should be the major focus. Company executives and Compliance Departments should START TESTING their own manner of operation and systems before hurling criticism at and accusing the FSB and FAIS Ombud of frustrating the industry.
Report Abuse
Added by Alan, 11 Jun 2012
Hi there, I agree that the direct insurers are tarnishing the reputaion of the broker. In fact, they are tarnishing the reputation of the entire insurance industry to a degree. I say this because the SAIA code of conduct (the direct insurers are members too), requires that their members don't bring the industry into disrepute. Portraying brokers as middlemen who provide no value and only drive up the cost of insurance, indirectly also portrays the traditional insurers as offering no value, which we all know is not true. When going direct, a client is in effect acting as their own broker and needs to be able to understand the terms and conditions of their direct policy on their own. There is no broker to assist them to interpret the wording when it comes to claims or to give advice on quality of cover provided by the policy wording. What about the direct insurers massive advertising and call centre costs that need to be there to do the work that intermediaries do on behalf of the traditional insurers? It is high time that the traditional insurers take the direct insurers to task on these issues via SAIA or even the FSB. If they gain no support from these bodies then they should consider the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. If that fails, fight fire with fire and come up with advertising campaigns that highlight the benefits of using brokers and traditional insurers as opposed to standing on your own with the direct insurers.
Report Abuse
Added by Alan, 11 Jun 2012
Come on Irene, you make it sound like all brokers are useless and add no value. It seems like you might work for a direct insurer. The point I was trying to make in my comment after yours, was that the direct insurers have huge expenses with regards to their call centres and advertising. There must be another reason why the direct insurers are so much cheaper. Having said that, the top traditional insures, like Mutual & Federal and Santam have done nothing but reduce their premiums and improve their policy wordings and operational efficiencies, most of which was sparked by the lower cost of the direct insurer's products. But lets also remember that there are horses for courses. Some clients hare happy with less cover and/or support and others are willing to pay for better cover and/or broker support. Not all products are equal and they have to priced accordingly so to market a product on price alone is a dangerous proposition for the direct consumer who has no broker support. You can buy a house and then you can buy a house. One has hollow block walls, a tin roof and melamine cupboards and the other has solid brick walls, a slate tiled roof and solid wood cupboards. The one is going to attract a higher price than the other and some people will want to pay more for the higher quality item. The bottom line is that the direct and traditional insurers should stop fighting against eachother and just uphold the SAIA code of conduct as mentioned in my previous comments. There is space for both channels in the market. What there is not space for is petty unsubstantiated public arguments in the form of advertising. It is just not conducive to a good industry reputation.
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

The value in advice gives short-term intermediaries the edge
quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer