Is it April 1st already? My, where has the time gone?
What nonsense this article is!
I was “in the mix” back in those days, and it never took very long for the rest of us to marginalize your so-called “rogue” underwriters.
Dumb article – Soft insurance market is now upon us. All kind of rogue underwriters making dumb underwriting and pricing decisions all over the place. The author obviously sits in an ivory tower, writing about the world of insurance.
Rogue underwriters or avarice marketing department?
My epxerience is that the underwriters were trying to hold the line but when the marketing people came with some fantastic deal they had worked out with a producer with a large book of business everything went out the door.
I am reminded of an all industry day in the late 80s when someone from Fireman’s Fund said they had learned their lesson and they would not engage in agressive rate cutting for competitive advantage. I think they remembered for abnout 2 months and then the bloodletting commenced.
If this kind of drivel is all it takes to get your name and company mentioned in your publications you need to tighten up your standards. I agree with Skeptical. There are already several companies and many underwriters that are slashing premiums to levels that can only be motivated by the glory of premium growth rather than market and profit stability.
I agree with Former P&C U/W. the underwriters only do what they can and then the agent starts to whine to upper mgt and down goes the premiums. It’s amazing how these Scouts have to justify their place out there. It’s just not happening.
I think this article came out about two weeks too early. The softening market did look some what gradual until the first of June. Now it is softening like butter in the microwave. Did MarketScout jinx us or what?
Impresive, very impresive ….a very ignorant article once again tours the news publications!!!… Positive long term results are always profitability and not premium volume no matter what market you are dealing with….if underwrite or are company leader underwriting not to be profitable, then you need to change your jobs or become a “Rougue” somewhere else.!!!
I agree – Market Scout must be in an ivory tower someplace. There are low-priced insurers in every product line and market share fools to follow the downward premium trends.
The comment from Former P & C Underwriter is accurate, unfortunately. As a current P & C Underwriter, this is pretty much how much it goes in any soft market, as directed by insurer management…Write all the business you can (to maintain current premium volume levels or to create premium volume growth) at any or all costs, with little or no underwriting, then have to explain later on why you are not making money on a underpriced, poorly underwritten book of business (as, of course, a underpriced, poorly underwritten, unprofitable book of business was not what insurer management meant)!!! BTW, the comment from Give Me A Break (Market Scout / Market Trout) is outstanding.
Well at least we know Market Scout doesn’t have any rogues. I’ve never even been able to get them to respond to me! At least a rogue is eager to write business – i think Market Scout just wants to write ABOUT business… and poorly at that from this article!
Back in the 70’s wasn’t Mr Kerr one of these guys. He was the one greasing all the underwriters and undercutting everyones price. Thereby softening the market. Now I guess I guess he sits and writes about markets that he has no access to. How on earth does he know what rates are when all they have is AIG
Market Scout has proven to be the biggest waste of time for Producers. Nothing ever qualifies and they usually use AIG. Anybody can use AIG. I have never succeeded in getting a quote out of them, so I understand their publishing this article to justify their existance. The affiliation with Society of CIC leads to skepticism, as well. Market Scout – HA! More like Market Trout.
This may be nonsense in insurance circles, but it definitely has validity in the surety bond world. Over the last soft market cycle, a couple “rougue underwriters” (thoses in upper management running surety operations) have crippled this once highly profitable line of business.
They (and us in the surety field) know who they are. Unfortunately, the perpetrators couldn’t care less and now are quite wealthy.
In case anyone forgot, don’t forget Mr.Kerr’s own anonymous post about his own company here. As someone once said you need to stop beating a dead horse or in this case stop feeding it submissions that go nowhere.
” I am noticing some interesting moves at MarketScout. It appears to me they are upgrading the staff significantly. I hear their new business volume is significant. Have they figured out how to convert online traffic into real revenue? Only time will tell but I am putting my money on this horse.”
For some reason those of you in the insurance industry (P&C) and others (L&H) seem to want to believe you are immune to the fundamentals of Economics. Supply, demand, interest rates, catastrophes, political climate, substitution products, tort judgments, structural social changes and a long list of other factors drive your business. To think for a single moment that you can control the market you are in would be an affront to rationalism, free markets the current rule of law. (though according to recent headlines some do try to â€Åâ€Ŕrig†the system in their favor)
Many on this thread seem to have skipped the classes on mathematics, statistics, economics, etc.,. This may be why there is a widespread preoccupation with â€Åâ€Ŕblaming†the â€Åâ€Ŕother market†for â€Åâ€Ŕcompetitionâ€ÂÂÂ. I was told of a senior insurance executive for a major insurer who when presented with quotes on the same account from two divisions of the same group that were 100% apart – – “well that’s what makes a horse race”, followed by sanctions on the losing market and praise for the successor.
Your industry in the USA alone has over 2,000 P&C insurers and even more Life/Health carriers – – – how would an individual player expect to have any sustained impact on the market? After reading this thread, one is left with the perception that most underwriters can only compete in a government-controlled monopoly or at the very least an oligopoly, where you are able to collude – – – – –
I recommend that the underwriters evaluate the risks, and price the accounts, expand terms, conditions, and lower deductibles as their judgment dictates. Those with the capital, experience and luck will prove successful while the weak, ignorant, under capitalized, unlucky, and uninformed, will perish . . . as it should be. The insurance mechanism will continue without you and in your next career take the lessons of the past and put them to good use…..(writing novels or other worthwhile activity)
I’d like to try to clarify something for ‘An Obsever’, who said –
“I recommend that the underwriters evaluate the risks, and price the accounts, expand terms, conditions, and lower deductibles as their judgment dictates.”
I think most posters here would agree with that, wholeheartedly. Their contention is that, too often, underwriters are not allowed to apply that type of evaluation (or analysts/product managers allowed to price appropriately) due to marketing decisions made by their senior management. It isn’t a case of “rogue underwriters”, but losing sight of the long-term financial stability while focusing on short-term goals like current market-share and annual budget projections (sometimes even operating on the mistaken impression that product changes you make today will greatly impact the 2005 bottom line, anyhow).
You have another good question: “how would an individual player expect to have any sustained impact on the market?”
The answer is, ideally, they can’t. However, realistically, they can have a sustained impact on the market whenever top decision-makers at other companies look to them as the example they wish to follow, for whatever reason. When that happens, their underwriters and other “support staff” have to follow that one company’s lead, regardless of what their own experience would dictate.
I’m confused. I thought Insurance Journal was meant for real newsworthy articles. How do they allow something to be published by a silly man and treat it like news? They must be acepting donations to print articles.
Market Scout has no clue what is happening in the market place, because they do not really participate. To have their leader publish an article in this fine publication and have it treated as if it is some revelation leaves me with a bad feeling.
Since Market Scout has not proven to be even a hint of a factor in this business, Kerr is simply trying to get his name out there. Then Producers will try to get quotes from them and go through the same frustration everyone has experienced since their inception. Maybe he gets paid by the submission.
Go back to sleep, Mr. Kerr! Your figures are meaningless because you really have no idea what is out there. When was the last time you wrote a piece of new business where you really had to compete?
I see that nothing has changed! What everyone describes is exactly the way it was in the 70’s, 80’s & today. The production people have never learned what sound, profitable underwriting can do over the long term. They are not satisfied with a little less cash flow today to have much more tomorrow. I see these people have moved to management(?) and have NEVER learned.
Back in the day….like the 70’s,80’s and early 90’s, we had the drive to write good business. Write the best in the toughest class of business, which meant you really had to understand the risk and UNDERWRITE! Our industry has done a very poor job of teaching the next generation underwriter the true definition of “risk” and avoidance of risk. It frustrates me when I ask an underwriter why they think some particular situation is “an unacceptable or uninsurable risk”! There is no such thing. Everything can be insured “for a price” with some modifications. No is not the answer. Probably, if these conditions are met, IS the answer, boys and girls! Find a way and get the $$ for it!
The reason the insurance industry has an issue with escaping from the mistakes of the past and repeating these mistakes again is due to lack of youth in our industry. The rogue underwriters or the underwriter on the cusp of being considered this are still in the insurance industry, only now they are managers and VP’s!! How can the insurance industry learn from the past when the past is who leads our future?
Our industry must attract the younger generation period. As a young underwriter in the industry for 5 years I understand the economics which drive our market place condition and understand that I or we for that matter can not change these conditions. Every day I see new carriers popping up deciding NOW they are going to be the most competitive price on the street. I don’t compete, my bottom line profitability is more important then production.
My experience shows me that the younger underwriters have the ability to NOT repeat the past because we didn’t contribute to the past in the first place. The underwriters of the 70’s and 80’s who haven’t yet committed need to commit to positive change, underwriting profitability NOT production.
You must have been smokin’ in the 60’s if you think the underwriters today are smarter…They are so inexperienced and insecure it boggles my mind. Write the best in the toughest class and underwrite in appropriately. Todays “kid underwriters” have no clue how to evaluate a risk unless it’s in the book! companies continue to repeat past mistakes by thinking the same old classes of business are suddenly new again and can be totally underwritten by an actuary under a mushroom somewhere!
Is it April 1st already? My, where has the time gone?
What nonsense this article is!
I was “in the mix” back in those days, and it never took very long for the rest of us to marginalize your so-called “rogue” underwriters.
Dumb article – Soft insurance market is now upon us. All kind of rogue underwriters making dumb underwriting and pricing decisions all over the place. The author obviously sits in an ivory tower, writing about the world of insurance.
Rogue underwriters or avarice marketing department?
My epxerience is that the underwriters were trying to hold the line but when the marketing people came with some fantastic deal they had worked out with a producer with a large book of business everything went out the door.
I am reminded of an all industry day in the late 80s when someone from Fireman’s Fund said they had learned their lesson and they would not engage in agressive rate cutting for competitive advantage. I think they remembered for abnout 2 months and then the bloodletting commenced.
Give me a Break: You are right about Market Scout. My experience with them has been the same.
If this kind of drivel is all it takes to get your name and company mentioned in your publications you need to tighten up your standards. I agree with Skeptical. There are already several companies and many underwriters that are slashing premiums to levels that can only be motivated by the glory of premium growth rather than market and profit stability.
Who are we kidding. The UWers are following the message from the top. At some point the top will says that’s not what we meant. Same old cycle.
I agree with Former P&C U/W. the underwriters only do what they can and then the agent starts to whine to upper mgt and down goes the premiums. It’s amazing how these Scouts have to justify their place out there. It’s just not happening.
I think this article came out about two weeks too early. The softening market did look some what gradual until the first of June. Now it is softening like butter in the microwave. Did MarketScout jinx us or what?
Impresive, very impresive ….a very ignorant article once again tours the news publications!!!… Positive long term results are always profitability and not premium volume no matter what market you are dealing with….if underwrite or are company leader underwriting not to be profitable, then you need to change your jobs or become a “Rougue” somewhere else.!!!
I agree – Market Scout must be in an ivory tower someplace. There are low-priced insurers in every product line and market share fools to follow the downward premium trends.
The comment from Former P & C Underwriter is accurate, unfortunately. As a current P & C Underwriter, this is pretty much how much it goes in any soft market, as directed by insurer management…Write all the business you can (to maintain current premium volume levels or to create premium volume growth) at any or all costs, with little or no underwriting, then have to explain later on why you are not making money on a underpriced, poorly underwritten book of business (as, of course, a underpriced, poorly underwritten, unprofitable book of business was not what insurer management meant)!!! BTW, the comment from Give Me A Break (Market Scout / Market Trout) is outstanding.
…hey, you know where you could place you barometer…!!!
Well at least we know Market Scout doesn’t have any rogues. I’ve never even been able to get them to respond to me! At least a rogue is eager to write business – i think Market Scout just wants to write ABOUT business… and poorly at that from this article!
Back in the 70’s wasn’t Mr Kerr one of these guys. He was the one greasing all the underwriters and undercutting everyones price. Thereby softening the market. Now I guess I guess he sits and writes about markets that he has no access to. How on earth does he know what rates are when all they have is AIG
Hmmm….
AIG(Greenberg) and MarketScout.
Hmmm….
Market Scout has proven to be the biggest waste of time for Producers. Nothing ever qualifies and they usually use AIG. Anybody can use AIG. I have never succeeded in getting a quote out of them, so I understand their publishing this article to justify their existance. The affiliation with Society of CIC leads to skepticism, as well. Market Scout – HA! More like Market Trout.
This may be nonsense in insurance circles, but it definitely has validity in the surety bond world. Over the last soft market cycle, a couple “rougue underwriters” (thoses in upper management running surety operations) have crippled this once highly profitable line of business.
They (and us in the surety field) know who they are. Unfortunately, the perpetrators couldn’t care less and now are quite wealthy.
In case anyone forgot, don’t forget Mr.Kerr’s own anonymous post about his own company here. As someone once said you need to stop beating a dead horse or in this case stop feeding it submissions that go nowhere.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2005/04/07/53549.htm
” I am noticing some interesting moves at MarketScout. It appears to me they are upgrading the staff significantly. I hear their new business volume is significant. Have they figured out how to convert online traffic into real revenue? Only time will tell but I am putting my money on this horse.”
As an outside observer, you all make me laugh.
For some reason those of you in the insurance industry (P&C) and others (L&H) seem to want to believe you are immune to the fundamentals of Economics. Supply, demand, interest rates, catastrophes, political climate, substitution products, tort judgments, structural social changes and a long list of other factors drive your business. To think for a single moment that you can control the market you are in would be an affront to rationalism, free markets the current rule of law. (though according to recent headlines some do try to â€Åâ€Ŕrig†the system in their favor)
Many on this thread seem to have skipped the classes on mathematics, statistics, economics, etc.,. This may be why there is a widespread preoccupation with â€Åâ€Ŕblaming†the â€Åâ€Ŕother market†for â€Åâ€Ŕcompetitionâ€ÂÂÂ. I was told of a senior insurance executive for a major insurer who when presented with quotes on the same account from two divisions of the same group that were 100% apart – – “well that’s what makes a horse race”, followed by sanctions on the losing market and praise for the successor.
Your industry in the USA alone has over 2,000 P&C insurers and even more Life/Health carriers – – – how would an individual player expect to have any sustained impact on the market? After reading this thread, one is left with the perception that most underwriters can only compete in a government-controlled monopoly or at the very least an oligopoly, where you are able to collude – – – – –
I recommend that the underwriters evaluate the risks, and price the accounts, expand terms, conditions, and lower deductibles as their judgment dictates. Those with the capital, experience and luck will prove successful while the weak, ignorant, under capitalized, unlucky, and uninformed, will perish . . . as it should be. The insurance mechanism will continue without you and in your next career take the lessons of the past and put them to good use…..(writing novels or other worthwhile activity)
I’d like to try to clarify something for ‘An Obsever’, who said –
“I recommend that the underwriters evaluate the risks, and price the accounts, expand terms, conditions, and lower deductibles as their judgment dictates.”
I think most posters here would agree with that, wholeheartedly. Their contention is that, too often, underwriters are not allowed to apply that type of evaluation (or analysts/product managers allowed to price appropriately) due to marketing decisions made by their senior management. It isn’t a case of “rogue underwriters”, but losing sight of the long-term financial stability while focusing on short-term goals like current market-share and annual budget projections (sometimes even operating on the mistaken impression that product changes you make today will greatly impact the 2005 bottom line, anyhow).
You have another good question: “how would an individual player expect to have any sustained impact on the market?”
The answer is, ideally, they can’t. However, realistically, they can have a sustained impact on the market whenever top decision-makers at other companies look to them as the example they wish to follow, for whatever reason. When that happens, their underwriters and other “support staff” have to follow that one company’s lead, regardless of what their own experience would dictate.
I’m confused. I thought Insurance Journal was meant for real newsworthy articles. How do they allow something to be published by a silly man and treat it like news? They must be acepting donations to print articles.
Market Scout has no clue what is happening in the market place, because they do not really participate. To have their leader publish an article in this fine publication and have it treated as if it is some revelation leaves me with a bad feeling.
Since Market Scout has not proven to be even a hint of a factor in this business, Kerr is simply trying to get his name out there. Then Producers will try to get quotes from them and go through the same frustration everyone has experienced since their inception. Maybe he gets paid by the submission.
Go back to sleep, Mr. Kerr! Your figures are meaningless because you really have no idea what is out there. When was the last time you wrote a piece of new business where you really had to compete?
Thank You Florida Product Analyst…that is the way it is.
I see that nothing has changed! What everyone describes is exactly the way it was in the 70’s, 80’s & today. The production people have never learned what sound, profitable underwriting can do over the long term. They are not satisfied with a little less cash flow today to have much more tomorrow. I see these people have moved to management(?) and have NEVER learned.
Back in the day….like the 70’s,80’s and early 90’s, we had the drive to write good business. Write the best in the toughest class of business, which meant you really had to understand the risk and UNDERWRITE! Our industry has done a very poor job of teaching the next generation underwriter the true definition of “risk” and avoidance of risk. It frustrates me when I ask an underwriter why they think some particular situation is “an unacceptable or uninsurable risk”! There is no such thing. Everything can be insured “for a price” with some modifications. No is not the answer. Probably, if these conditions are met, IS the answer, boys and girls! Find a way and get the $$ for it!
The reason the insurance industry has an issue with escaping from the mistakes of the past and repeating these mistakes again is due to lack of youth in our industry. The rogue underwriters or the underwriter on the cusp of being considered this are still in the insurance industry, only now they are managers and VP’s!! How can the insurance industry learn from the past when the past is who leads our future?
Our industry must attract the younger generation period. As a young underwriter in the industry for 5 years I understand the economics which drive our market place condition and understand that I or we for that matter can not change these conditions. Every day I see new carriers popping up deciding NOW they are going to be the most competitive price on the street. I don’t compete, my bottom line profitability is more important then production.
My experience shows me that the younger underwriters have the ability to NOT repeat the past because we didn’t contribute to the past in the first place. The underwriters of the 70’s and 80’s who haven’t yet committed need to commit to positive change, underwriting profitability NOT production.
We were all once like you.
You must have been smokin’ in the 60’s if you think the underwriters today are smarter…They are so inexperienced and insecure it boggles my mind. Write the best in the toughest class and underwrite in appropriately. Todays “kid underwriters” have no clue how to evaluate a risk unless it’s in the book! companies continue to repeat past mistakes by thinking the same old classes of business are suddenly new again and can be totally underwritten by an actuary under a mushroom somewhere!