Mr. Mosley presents an interesting viewpoint; the downfall of credit scoring is the public\’s fault. The public is wrong.
There is a reason why insurers and \”credit scoring\” have a terrible reputation – there is no public trust. States are passing legislation to do away with the use of credit scoring for no reason what-so-ever? Hello, the legislation is there because the public has long complained about the misuse of their credit!
Insurers got lazy, dropped insurance training programs, forgot underwriting, became \”bookies\” and when they chose to talk down to the public on credit scoring, their own problems became the public\’s fault.
Mr. Mosley needs to become a member of the public.
\”He explained that insurers would have a hard time finding an alternative to credit scoring that is as accurate a predictor of loss. However, in the instance that credit scoring does go away, insurers would need to make the best use of what they are able to use.\”
Does this mean underwriters would once again have to look at location, vehicle use, mileage, driving record, loss history, age, gender, vehicle type/performance and repair costs instead of a slick \’score\’???
The author of this article seems to imply that the only clear predictor of loss is whether a person pays their bills on time. I guess I thought credit scoring was to be used in adjunct with the other factors that focus on a specific risk\’s exposure to loss.
Most of the public has never seen their credit report. However, those that monitor their credit report notice that it is inaccurate and extremely difficult to correct. In addition, their credit scores are impacted by items beyond their control. If the credit bureau\’s were more dilligent about ensuring accurate information the public would be more receptive to the use of credit reports.
I\’m with Brent, David and Rick – get a clue insurance companies. How did they actually write insurance for all those years with good old fashioned underwrtiting considering the exposures and experience and still stay in business? They are also right in that the credit reports I have seen are generally WRONG and are impossible to get corrected. I\’m an agent, but I too would \”vote no\” for credit scoring.
When actuaries say that CS is an accurate predictor of loss, please understand it means claim payout.
In terms of statistical significance, the credit score is an extremely significant predictor of loss. Note, I didn\’t say good or bad drivng. I said loss. It may not be explainable by intuition, but it is undeniable mathematical fact.
The claim that credit scores are inaccurate is false. The opponents of CS are always trumping this anecdote or that anecdote talking about so and so who had high medical bills, etc. But these stories are in the smallest minority.
All of you who speak on this subject, please try to read up on actuarial science and the statistical tools of correlation before making anecdotal comments on this issue.
No anecdotes – not arguing the credit reports may be a predictor of loss – if accurate. I have some that have the exact same debt on them twice, some that have other people\’s debt on them and some from different companies that have different things on them. I\’m not anti-Darwin, just anti-big-brother and anti-incorrect \”facts\”. Now back to the anecdotes – no lie, I think real live underwriters are a good thing.
I agree with you about one thing…credit score should not be the \”deal-killer\” in the acceptance/denial of an insurance contract. That, I agree, should be done by brokers/agents/underwriters. Absolutely.
However, credit score is an invaluable tool in premium rating (i.e. price), both in the discounts people get for having good credit, and the surcharges people get for having bad credit.
I agree that credit scroring should not be used at all. I am an Agent and have gone over the issue with Underwriters stating that credit scoring has nothing to do with the underwriting process. The public is correct on voting against.
Once again those who have the most(Insurance companies and Underwriters) pray on the ones with the least by using the credit score method.
Why not enact a premium system that charges premiums by one\’s ability to pay let\’s say eemmm by income!
That would work for most I\’m sure.
Yeah that makes sence. NOT! Charge the people who are in a position that they have to turn in any claim that comes their way less then the ones that ussually will not worry about it. See that is what the insurance score has done for insurers to predict the severity of claims that are turned in to the companies. If we loose the ability to have a predictor we will fall back to what happend 5-8 years ago when the insurance companies were loosing money on fire insurance and then you can just watch the premiums on homeowners go out the roof. I don\’t think anyone likes paying more for insurance no matter if they have money or not but why not try to keep the rates down as low as we can for everyone.
I\’m an industry insider and never thought I would object to credit scoring – until I had a problem with it, related solely to taking out college student loans for my kids.
My credit report contained numerous errors. Although these reports are known to have a high risk of error, the insurers I dealt with admitted that they did absolutely nothing to validate the information. Gee, how do they handle claims? Further, they would not disclose how credit scoring was factored, although it obvious had more weight than a FIVE YEAR CLAIM FREE experience with me. One notice cricized \”too many finance companies\” – so I asked, how many are \”too many\” – one, two, five? No answer – \”proprietary\”, I was told.
Basically, what I was told was they would use a source known to be rife with errors, would make no effort to validate its accuracy, wouldn\’t tell me how much weight it was given, and wouldn\’t even define the terms they used.
Regardless of the mathematical correlation – which is undeniable – if insurers act in a stupid fashion, then there will be legislation.
David is right when he said: Insurers got lazy, dropped insurance training programs, forgot underwriting, became \”bookies\” and when they chose to talk down to the public on credit scoring, their own problems became the public\’s fault. This may be a trial by media, but in their quest for market share, the companies forgot HOW to underwrite.
Insurance Scoring IS a good indicator. I was speeding to the mail box the other day with my LATE credit card payment and I ran a stop sign and was in an accident. I think this type of stuff happens all the time to people who are late with bills. This is exactly what the insurance companies are talking about. This is proof.
The same medical bill that has been passed to a collection agency, then to another, then to another showing 4 collection accounts DOES count. The computer reads \’collection account\’ and that\’s all. The initial medical facility is the only thing that doesn\’t count. Even after the insurance finally pays it, the three that held it in the middle don\’t bother to remove it.
You see you are all correct!
THAT\’S THE PROBLEM WITH CREDIT SCORING AS A SYSTEM!
Someone mention of frivilous claims. The people who put in the most claims are usually the wealthiest and their deductibles are set low.
There was a day in age when a door ding or bent bumper meant nothing and one paid for the repair out of pocket. Those claims are some of the most frequent.
Now you want to lower premiums get rid of kick backs and million dollar bonus\’ to high ranking officers then maybe there wouldn\’t be such a need to increase premiums to cover the legitimate losses.
The say credit scoring doesnt disproportioniaty hurt the poor – But ID like to know, what is the average credit score of someone who makes less than $20,000. I never hear that refferenced, but its important, isnt it?
You damn right it is! We people have to struggle and sometimes work 2 jobs just to pay premiums to have transportation to get to and from work!
Visit MSN money and type in any insurance company symbol perform a search then lok for insider trading. THAT will tell you how poor underwriting and Ins. Co are doing
How about the \”credit score\” (Best\’s Rating) of the carriers?? When their \”score\” drops below a certain level the guarantee fund get\’s to come in and handle their finances. How much media attention does that get???
Sadly, politicians have caved in to the needs of irresponsible individuals. Notice how everyone with bad credit is never their fault. Yet, less than 5% of people with bad credit are a result of a medical issues.
Some people want to spend more money than they make. These very same people wan\’t the rich to pay their tax share. These very same people have a higher percentage of insurance claims. There very same people are flipping off society.
As long as the politicians let them get away with it, they will continue to raise their middle finger at society and have me and work late while they slouch on their couch!
If \”credit scoring\” is reliable, why isn\’t it used for all insurance? Maybe it\’s because the junk science \”backwards research\” was done on home and auto claims only? Or maybe the research was done by a \”pay us and we\’ll give you whatever results you want\” outfit like J D Fabricator & Assoc. Imagine the premium windfall if carriers start using \”insurance credit scoring\” for life, disability, group health, atv, snowmobile, as well as all commercial lines (score every corporate officer, partner, etc). Don\’t think they won\’t? Guess again America and bend over. My suggestion is to kill this ugly little monster before it grows folks. The king has no clothes folks!
I bet you have no clue what an actuary is and that insurance use them. They no doubt use rating factors that make a statistical difference in loss ratio. Uneducated responses like this tell me how little you know about insurance or the actuarial process that goes into rating. I furthmore bet that you beleive that people who have bad credit happened by accident 100% of the cases. Unreasonable and uneducated liberals like yourself are liberal will never dominate America.
Now Now Roco let\’s not place political affiliation with this issue because both parties/all parties are guilty there!
That\’s one of the problems. Agreed on the louser couch potato but formulations are just that. The problem is the matrix they utilize to attain those formulations, em what do they call it profiling. They are geered specifically to hit the very people you mentioned. What does insurance premium have to do with a couch potato anyway. Anyone in insurance is over worked and under paid so your tears of hard work won\’t work here, again where is all the money going? That should be the question?
I assure you that even the richest of the rich would sue if they had an opportunity. I believe that\’s what your saying correct? Irresponsible spending is a sad reality of todays people shame on the financial institutions for causing that.
If you don\’t have money you\’ll sue and if you do have money you won\’t? Come on who are you trying to kid?
If credit scoring is such a \”good predictor\” of loss, why hasn\’t anyone ever seen valid, reproducable studies to prove credit scoring – where are the facts?
Oh, and by the way, who says credit scoring is limited to auto and homeowners?
Well it sounds to me like underwriting is grasping at straws trying to find a way to suck more money out of the consumer.
Everybody needs to make a living but AGAIN most companies have made the highest profits in 10-15 years! Why don\’t they take and reduce the bonus the CEO,CFO takes put this back into the company and or credit good drivers and investors?
Third 1/4 results are coming out and the preliminary shows a pretty damn good return ratio.
Why does there have to be any profiling at all. The bad driver is a bad driver they should be the ones that pay for the risk. I guess I\’m just a hopeless old timer thinking that MAYBE the execs don\’t need so much in bonus and stock options and companies could survive alone on people with high end knowledge of investing and cost control. How much more hedging has to take place before people in all aspects of insurance say enough is enough.
This little tight knit group reminds me of the Skull and Bones story!
There\’s not enough data to use it for other types. Life insurance is almost entirely based on mortality and interest rates, plus, you only make 1 claim on a life insurance policy.
Auto/Home has the probability of multiple claims with multiple payouts.
I work for an insurer and credit scoring is pure garbage. The reason is the score itself. These scores are EASILY manipulated. My score was about 665 last year and I needed 685 for the best rate on my house so I manipulated it and in 1 month had a score of 715. (I can tell you how to manipulate yours if you\’re looking for a loan by the way.) My score has been as low as 550 and as high as 807, depending on what I needed it to be. The score itself is FAR too subjective to ever be used as a good indicator of anything. If every credit reporting company had hard and fast rules about what a score is comprised of and how it\’s determined, and every credit reporting company insured and was held accountable for 100% accuracy in every report, and if every insurer weighted those scores in exactly the same fashion in terms of underwiting then yes, the scores would, in fact, be a statistically good predictor of future claims experience. This is the difference between mathematics and real life. Mathematics is rigid, fixed and absolutely true…real life use of those mathematical concepts is NOT.
Hal, your story was genius – I loved it :-)
I didn\’t think I would be chiming back in but I have a little more to get off my chest.
First, let\’s remember the article we\’ve read indicates that underwriting will need new tools IF credit scoring goes away. My comment was meant to indicate that underwriting tools still exist AND suggest that underwriters today may rely too heavily on a credit score……which was not meant to be the only selection tool.
It has also been stated (and accurately so, I believe) that CS works in a world of large numbers and based on a book of business can be predictive of profit/loss results. I\’m just not sure, for a variety of reasons, that it is a consistently good tool for individual risk underwriting.
LLCJ warns us not to rely on anecdotal events and that a thorough reading and understanding of the actuarial \”arts\” and the statistical tools of correlation will be needed to evaluate the use of credit scoring. I agree that anecdotal situations bring little to the discussion.
However, in my experience, which includes working for two major, national stock companies and being a Regional Underwriting Manager in two different geographic parts of the US (and spending 34yrs in the industry)…..my departments were able to generate an underwriting profit (in both auto and HO)without CS even being a glimmer in the CEO\’s eye. But then we used all the tools avialable and our own experience/intelligence.
Sadly, for expense reasons, the personal lines underwriting process at many companies has been reduced to reliance on the computer edits (and CS scores) that dictate a good or bad risk. I\’m not saying the use of automation is bad but rather it has led to a reduction in the number of underwriters and the skills they may have acquired over time.
Give me an accurately completed app, a good agent and a good analysis of my book\’s claim experience and I can produce a profit.
By the way, I don\’t consider there to be an actuarial \’science\’. I learned early on during rate analyses with HO actuaries that they use credibility factors (fudge factors for the uneducated like me) to beef up their statistical universe upon which decisions are made. High level guessing if you ask me.
Rick hit it on the head, ins co\’s moved to cs scoring so they could computer underwrite, remove the person from the process. Has anyone ever come up with a figure on how many $ are saved by having fewer real people underwrite the old fashion way ?
Mr. Mosley presents an interesting viewpoint; the downfall of credit scoring is the public\’s fault. The public is wrong.
There is a reason why insurers and \”credit scoring\” have a terrible reputation – there is no public trust. States are passing legislation to do away with the use of credit scoring for no reason what-so-ever? Hello, the legislation is there because the public has long complained about the misuse of their credit!
Insurers got lazy, dropped insurance training programs, forgot underwriting, became \”bookies\” and when they chose to talk down to the public on credit scoring, their own problems became the public\’s fault.
Mr. Mosley needs to become a member of the public.
\”He explained that insurers would have a hard time finding an alternative to credit scoring that is as accurate a predictor of loss. However, in the instance that credit scoring does go away, insurers would need to make the best use of what they are able to use.\”
Does this mean underwriters would once again have to look at location, vehicle use, mileage, driving record, loss history, age, gender, vehicle type/performance and repair costs instead of a slick \’score\’???
The author of this article seems to imply that the only clear predictor of loss is whether a person pays their bills on time. I guess I thought credit scoring was to be used in adjunct with the other factors that focus on a specific risk\’s exposure to loss.
Most of the public has never seen their credit report. However, those that monitor their credit report notice that it is inaccurate and extremely difficult to correct. In addition, their credit scores are impacted by items beyond their control. If the credit bureau\’s were more dilligent about ensuring accurate information the public would be more receptive to the use of credit reports.
I\’m with Brent, David and Rick – get a clue insurance companies. How did they actually write insurance for all those years with good old fashioned underwrtiting considering the exposures and experience and still stay in business? They are also right in that the credit reports I have seen are generally WRONG and are impossible to get corrected. I\’m an agent, but I too would \”vote no\” for credit scoring.
When actuaries say that CS is an accurate predictor of loss, please understand it means claim payout.
In terms of statistical significance, the credit score is an extremely significant predictor of loss. Note, I didn\’t say good or bad drivng. I said loss. It may not be explainable by intuition, but it is undeniable mathematical fact.
The claim that credit scores are inaccurate is false. The opponents of CS are always trumping this anecdote or that anecdote talking about so and so who had high medical bills, etc. But these stories are in the smallest minority.
All of you who speak on this subject, please try to read up on actuarial science and the statistical tools of correlation before making anecdotal comments on this issue.
No anecdotes – not arguing the credit reports may be a predictor of loss – if accurate. I have some that have the exact same debt on them twice, some that have other people\’s debt on them and some from different companies that have different things on them. I\’m not anti-Darwin, just anti-big-brother and anti-incorrect \”facts\”. Now back to the anecdotes – no lie, I think real live underwriters are a good thing.
I agree with you about one thing…credit score should not be the \”deal-killer\” in the acceptance/denial of an insurance contract. That, I agree, should be done by brokers/agents/underwriters. Absolutely.
However, credit score is an invaluable tool in premium rating (i.e. price), both in the discounts people get for having good credit, and the surcharges people get for having bad credit.
I agree that credit scroring should not be used at all. I am an Agent and have gone over the issue with Underwriters stating that credit scoring has nothing to do with the underwriting process. The public is correct on voting against.
FYI, Medical bills are not factored into insurance score
Once again those who have the most(Insurance companies and Underwriters) pray on the ones with the least by using the credit score method.
Why not enact a premium system that charges premiums by one\’s ability to pay let\’s say eemmm by income!
That would work for most I\’m sure.
Yeah that makes sence. NOT! Charge the people who are in a position that they have to turn in any claim that comes their way less then the ones that ussually will not worry about it. See that is what the insurance score has done for insurers to predict the severity of claims that are turned in to the companies. If we loose the ability to have a predictor we will fall back to what happend 5-8 years ago when the insurance companies were loosing money on fire insurance and then you can just watch the premiums on homeowners go out the roof. I don\’t think anyone likes paying more for insurance no matter if they have money or not but why not try to keep the rates down as low as we can for everyone.
I\’m an industry insider and never thought I would object to credit scoring – until I had a problem with it, related solely to taking out college student loans for my kids.
My credit report contained numerous errors. Although these reports are known to have a high risk of error, the insurers I dealt with admitted that they did absolutely nothing to validate the information. Gee, how do they handle claims? Further, they would not disclose how credit scoring was factored, although it obvious had more weight than a FIVE YEAR CLAIM FREE experience with me. One notice cricized \”too many finance companies\” – so I asked, how many are \”too many\” – one, two, five? No answer – \”proprietary\”, I was told.
Basically, what I was told was they would use a source known to be rife with errors, would make no effort to validate its accuracy, wouldn\’t tell me how much weight it was given, and wouldn\’t even define the terms they used.
Regardless of the mathematical correlation – which is undeniable – if insurers act in a stupid fashion, then there will be legislation.
David is right when he said: Insurers got lazy, dropped insurance training programs, forgot underwriting, became \”bookies\” and when they chose to talk down to the public on credit scoring, their own problems became the public\’s fault. This may be a trial by media, but in their quest for market share, the companies forgot HOW to underwrite.
Insurance Scoring IS a good indicator. I was speeding to the mail box the other day with my LATE credit card payment and I ran a stop sign and was in an accident. I think this type of stuff happens all the time to people who are late with bills. This is exactly what the insurance companies are talking about. This is proof.
The same medical bill that has been passed to a collection agency, then to another, then to another showing 4 collection accounts DOES count. The computer reads \’collection account\’ and that\’s all. The initial medical facility is the only thing that doesn\’t count. Even after the insurance finally pays it, the three that held it in the middle don\’t bother to remove it.
You see you are all correct!
THAT\’S THE PROBLEM WITH CREDIT SCORING AS A SYSTEM!
Someone mention of frivilous claims. The people who put in the most claims are usually the wealthiest and their deductibles are set low.
There was a day in age when a door ding or bent bumper meant nothing and one paid for the repair out of pocket. Those claims are some of the most frequent.
Now you want to lower premiums get rid of kick backs and million dollar bonus\’ to high ranking officers then maybe there wouldn\’t be such a need to increase premiums to cover the legitimate losses.
The say credit scoring doesnt disproportioniaty hurt the poor – But ID like to know, what is the average credit score of someone who makes less than $20,000. I never hear that refferenced, but its important, isnt it?
You damn right it is! We people have to struggle and sometimes work 2 jobs just to pay premiums to have transportation to get to and from work!
Visit MSN money and type in any insurance company symbol perform a search then lok for insider trading. THAT will tell you how poor underwriting and Ins. Co are doing
How about the \”credit score\” (Best\’s Rating) of the carriers?? When their \”score\” drops below a certain level the guarantee fund get\’s to come in and handle their finances. How much media attention does that get???
Sadly, politicians have caved in to the needs of irresponsible individuals. Notice how everyone with bad credit is never their fault. Yet, less than 5% of people with bad credit are a result of a medical issues.
Some people want to spend more money than they make. These very same people wan\’t the rich to pay their tax share. These very same people have a higher percentage of insurance claims. There very same people are flipping off society.
As long as the politicians let them get away with it, they will continue to raise their middle finger at society and have me and work late while they slouch on their couch!
If \”credit scoring\” is reliable, why isn\’t it used for all insurance? Maybe it\’s because the junk science \”backwards research\” was done on home and auto claims only? Or maybe the research was done by a \”pay us and we\’ll give you whatever results you want\” outfit like J D Fabricator & Assoc. Imagine the premium windfall if carriers start using \”insurance credit scoring\” for life, disability, group health, atv, snowmobile, as well as all commercial lines (score every corporate officer, partner, etc). Don\’t think they won\’t? Guess again America and bend over. My suggestion is to kill this ugly little monster before it grows folks. The king has no clothes folks!
I bet you have no clue what an actuary is and that insurance use them. They no doubt use rating factors that make a statistical difference in loss ratio. Uneducated responses like this tell me how little you know about insurance or the actuarial process that goes into rating. I furthmore bet that you beleive that people who have bad credit happened by accident 100% of the cases. Unreasonable and uneducated liberals like yourself are liberal will never dominate America.
Now Now Roco let\’s not place political affiliation with this issue because both parties/all parties are guilty there!
That\’s one of the problems. Agreed on the louser couch potato but formulations are just that. The problem is the matrix they utilize to attain those formulations, em what do they call it profiling. They are geered specifically to hit the very people you mentioned. What does insurance premium have to do with a couch potato anyway. Anyone in insurance is over worked and under paid so your tears of hard work won\’t work here, again where is all the money going? That should be the question?
I assure you that even the richest of the rich would sue if they had an opportunity. I believe that\’s what your saying correct? Irresponsible spending is a sad reality of todays people shame on the financial institutions for causing that.
If you don\’t have money you\’ll sue and if you do have money you won\’t? Come on who are you trying to kid?
Wonderful,
Now we know that credit scoring is a hot topic.
If credit scoring is such a \”good predictor\” of loss, why hasn\’t anyone ever seen valid, reproducable studies to prove credit scoring – where are the facts?
Oh, and by the way, who says credit scoring is limited to auto and homeowners?
No wonder the public hates insurance.
Well it sounds to me like underwriting is grasping at straws trying to find a way to suck more money out of the consumer.
Everybody needs to make a living but AGAIN most companies have made the highest profits in 10-15 years! Why don\’t they take and reduce the bonus the CEO,CFO takes put this back into the company and or credit good drivers and investors?
Third 1/4 results are coming out and the preliminary shows a pretty damn good return ratio.
Why does there have to be any profiling at all. The bad driver is a bad driver they should be the ones that pay for the risk. I guess I\’m just a hopeless old timer thinking that MAYBE the execs don\’t need so much in bonus and stock options and companies could survive alone on people with high end knowledge of investing and cost control. How much more hedging has to take place before people in all aspects of insurance say enough is enough.
This little tight knit group reminds me of the Skull and Bones story!
Why not use it for all insurance?
There\’s not enough data to use it for other types. Life insurance is almost entirely based on mortality and interest rates, plus, you only make 1 claim on a life insurance policy.
Auto/Home has the probability of multiple claims with multiple payouts.
I work for an insurer and credit scoring is pure garbage. The reason is the score itself. These scores are EASILY manipulated. My score was about 665 last year and I needed 685 for the best rate on my house so I manipulated it and in 1 month had a score of 715. (I can tell you how to manipulate yours if you\’re looking for a loan by the way.) My score has been as low as 550 and as high as 807, depending on what I needed it to be. The score itself is FAR too subjective to ever be used as a good indicator of anything. If every credit reporting company had hard and fast rules about what a score is comprised of and how it\’s determined, and every credit reporting company insured and was held accountable for 100% accuracy in every report, and if every insurer weighted those scores in exactly the same fashion in terms of underwiting then yes, the scores would, in fact, be a statistically good predictor of future claims experience. This is the difference between mathematics and real life. Mathematics is rigid, fixed and absolutely true…real life use of those mathematical concepts is NOT.
Hal, your story was genius – I loved it :-)
I didn\’t think I would be chiming back in but I have a little more to get off my chest.
First, let\’s remember the article we\’ve read indicates that underwriting will need new tools IF credit scoring goes away. My comment was meant to indicate that underwriting tools still exist AND suggest that underwriters today may rely too heavily on a credit score……which was not meant to be the only selection tool.
It has also been stated (and accurately so, I believe) that CS works in a world of large numbers and based on a book of business can be predictive of profit/loss results. I\’m just not sure, for a variety of reasons, that it is a consistently good tool for individual risk underwriting.
LLCJ warns us not to rely on anecdotal events and that a thorough reading and understanding of the actuarial \”arts\” and the statistical tools of correlation will be needed to evaluate the use of credit scoring. I agree that anecdotal situations bring little to the discussion.
However, in my experience, which includes working for two major, national stock companies and being a Regional Underwriting Manager in two different geographic parts of the US (and spending 34yrs in the industry)…..my departments were able to generate an underwriting profit (in both auto and HO)without CS even being a glimmer in the CEO\’s eye. But then we used all the tools avialable and our own experience/intelligence.
Sadly, for expense reasons, the personal lines underwriting process at many companies has been reduced to reliance on the computer edits (and CS scores) that dictate a good or bad risk. I\’m not saying the use of automation is bad but rather it has led to a reduction in the number of underwriters and the skills they may have acquired over time.
Give me an accurately completed app, a good agent and a good analysis of my book\’s claim experience and I can produce a profit.
By the way, I don\’t consider there to be an actuarial \’science\’. I learned early on during rate analyses with HO actuaries that they use credibility factors (fudge factors for the uneducated like me) to beef up their statistical universe upon which decisions are made. High level guessing if you ask me.
Rick hit it on the head, ins co\’s moved to cs scoring so they could computer underwrite, remove the person from the process. Has anyone ever come up with a figure on how many $ are saved by having fewer real people underwrite the old fashion way ?
Maybe just maybe; underwriters will need to truly assess risks based on the actual risk exposures. Now that would be a real innovation.