I stopped reading at “five straight years of phenomenal profits”…… I don’t know what companies or economy he’s (I guess Chris is a guy) talking about. This guy rambles on about ???
Dear Mr. Bill Malone: I’ve been a managing Agency for 13+ years and I follow the industry very well. I thought Chris Burand’s article was an extremely narrow view of a much broader and complex issue. He is way off the mark on his comment “five straight years of phenomenal profits”. I could name several companies that racked up huge losses in many of the last 5 years. If you’re going to write an article, get all the facts, and be a little more balanced.
Good article; I don’t think it was the authors point to put down any csr’s, only that some companies are relying on csr’s to make decisions that should often go to an u/w; for many, that is a matter of opinion, but I don’t believe any slight was intended.
This is not an u/w only issue; I’ve seen the same ‘progress’ in Sales and Claims in my 20 plus years; systems and databases that are designed to do the thinking for us…I even know of one company who rid itself of the majority of it’s claim handlers so they could hire ‘trainees’ and have them simply use the ‘thinking systems’ to handle claims; needless to say they had a real disaster of a transition for a couple years; now they’re faced with the fact they are the low payer in the market, so the talent they created is marketing itself for higher pay. The problem is, systems and databases are good tools and can help, but they are far from foolproof and zap an employees sense of self confidance. Call is ‘old school’ vs. ‘no school’.
Perhaps Merriam-Webster can assist. “Wizened” is NEVER a compliment. Frankly, the author lost ALL credibility by using that vernacular and I truly didn’t finish the article.
There may well have been an unfortunate use of an adjective, but overall it was a good article. Steve, your truck garden may be doing very well, however, I do not think Chris was singling you out as a carrier. I know there are carriers who invested future premiums into the market when it was booming and were able to subvert the need to adequately file for rate increases preferring to bet on the market to fund the reserves. Any agent must be looking at the agency loss ratio on a personal level to hope for sustainable growth in the future. To not do so is like attaching the collar to the dogs tail when you let him out for a walk.
This isn’t a good article, it’s an excellent assessment of the current state of the insurance industry, and especially the carrier side. Underwriting is a lost art. Yeah…maybe it’s “old school” but technology can’t replace the reasoning and insight that a real underwriter can bring to the table. Technology is only a tool in the underwriter’s hands.
Underwriting isn’t simply looking at loss ratios, it’s having a solid understanding of what the insured does (in the case of commercial accounts), what the exposures are that could create a loss, what the controls are in place to address those potentials. Underwriting is both a science and an art.
To back up Chad’s response, many carriers rely upon CSR’s (many of which are good) to provide accurate information. This is done primarily to save money, and transfer the work back to the agent/broker.
Unfortunately, many insurance agencies/brokerages have staff (which includes the “producers”) that can’t even spell the word insurance, let alone understand and explain what a D&O, K&R or EPLI policy is, and what it covers.
Brokette, it is a good article. I’m sure Chris is “old school”, like me. In the 70’s & early 80’s, as a CSR, we didn’t even have to be licensed. Most agencies today, have done away with the CSR title, using Account Mgr/Account Executive. We’ve come a long way. Here’s to all the female CPCU’s, CIC’s, etc. out there!!
The level of incompetency and lack of product knowledge in our industry, among company personnel and so called, “insurance professionals,” is staggering. Lots of nice folks stumbling around jeopardizing their clients assets! Amazing!
Had lunch with a branch underwriting manager the other day. Together we were lamenting the loss of technical knowledge (and the lack of caring) on both the agency and company side.
He told me that he used to could get away with having underwriters who didn’t know that much becuase the agents were well trained and could work with the underwriter. Now, he said, the agents have no technical knowledge either meaning that not-so-smart underwriters are working with not-so-smart agents.
I wonder what this is going to breed? Improper or just incorrect coverages.
Yes to everything. Improper and/or inadequate coverages, along with the potential E&O claim.
Having started out on the insurance agency side, then spending almost 12 years as an underwriter, then back to the agency side (now on the “client” side), I can say that most insurance “professionals” (is that an oxymoron?) know next to nothing about insurance. Not a week goes by that I don’t wind up explaining the basics of insurance to an insurance agent/broker.
There are a few knowledgeable underwriters left, but they’re mostly “old school”. They use technology as a tool, and their years of experience to make an intelligent decision.
Most of the dumbing down seems to have been caused by an insane focus on cutting margins, especially those that are publicly traded. Their focus is on making Wall Street happy, rather than having a well trained staff to make sound decisions.
The author’s assessment of the knowledge base is largely accurate. What is not mentioned is that the buyers make it this way, not the industry.
Those with the most technical expertise, especially on the broker side, are the least successful financially. Knowledge costs money but customers large and small will take the cheapest deal every time!!
Agreed. Typically (and unfortunately) it’s the client’s accountant or attorney that recommends the umbrella but then the client wants to reject the add’l UM due to costs, stating “it can’t happen to me”.
Not sure about the role of the company underwriter, especially in PL’s. Look at companies like USF&G, AETNA, CNA, etc. that relied heavily io underwriters. No longer writing or dominant in PL’s. The story was always the same: PL’s Manager from agency calls underwriter at company, states that the PL’s account they are working on has large commercial accounts with agency, and company underwriter gives in and approves PL policy.
M James, that remark continues, “…this gives you time to research the necessary coverages rather than trying to fake knowledge resulting in the client not getting the coverage they need.”
What’s so wrong with saying “I want to give you the most accurate information possible, so please let me research your question and get back to you” (followed by an actual, timely answer)?
Do you just make things up off the cuff? What happens when you don’t know the answer to a client question?
Oh, Matt…..Obviously, M James believes he KNOWS everything. And if YOU don’t, he’ll use it against you. Our industry is full of these kinds of people. They really missed their calling……. poker.
As you can tell from my name, I am a very seasoned (and somewhat wizened) insurance professional with over 30 years in the business. I’m sure Chris meant no disrespect to CSR’s, Account Managers, or Account Executives. What he says is true. Young underwriters rely more on systems than on old-fashioned underwriting. When was the last time an underwriter called you to discuss a piece of new business before declining? They take the path of least resistance and unless it’s a cookie cutter account they can’t stretch their minds enough to underwrite it. Underwriters – Don’t fight it. Write it!!
I entered the industry directly from college and, because I had a degree, they “made” me an underwriter. I was indoctrinated into the carrier’s culture and told what decisions to make. While I possessed (and continue to possess) a great deal of common sense, I was not encouraged to use it. They wanted predictable decisions and didn’t care “if good business walked out the back door as more came in on a daily basis”. Yes, that is a direct quote. The year? 1977. This is nothing new. Our industry, from carriers to agencies, hires the least expensive help they can and wonder why they end up in E&O court. My offense as the word “wizened” was that the author used it to describe CSR’s exclusively, not managers or producers.
…. I stopped reading at “wizened CSR’s”. What is THAT supposed to mean? Why not just call them “those hags who service the customers”?
I stopped reading at “five straight years of phenomenal profits”…… I don’t know what companies or economy he’s (I guess Chris is a guy) talking about. This guy rambles on about ???
Back to the basics is another good title for this one.
Good job! Shults and Brokette are among those who just don’t get it.
Dear Mr. Bill Malone: I’ve been a managing Agency for 13+ years and I follow the industry very well. I thought Chris Burand’s article was an extremely narrow view of a much broader and complex issue. He is way off the mark on his comment “five straight years of phenomenal profits”. I could name several companies that racked up huge losses in many of the last 5 years. If you’re going to write an article, get all the facts, and be a little more balanced.
Good article; I don’t think it was the authors point to put down any csr’s, only that some companies are relying on csr’s to make decisions that should often go to an u/w; for many, that is a matter of opinion, but I don’t believe any slight was intended.
This is not an u/w only issue; I’ve seen the same ‘progress’ in Sales and Claims in my 20 plus years; systems and databases that are designed to do the thinking for us…I even know of one company who rid itself of the majority of it’s claim handlers so they could hire ‘trainees’ and have them simply use the ‘thinking systems’ to handle claims; needless to say they had a real disaster of a transition for a couple years; now they’re faced with the fact they are the low payer in the market, so the talent they created is marketing itself for higher pay. The problem is, systems and databases are good tools and can help, but they are far from foolproof and zap an employees sense of self confidance. Call is ‘old school’ vs. ‘no school’.
Perhaps Merriam-Webster can assist. “Wizened” is NEVER a compliment. Frankly, the author lost ALL credibility by using that vernacular and I truly didn’t finish the article.
There may well have been an unfortunate use of an adjective, but overall it was a good article. Steve, your truck garden may be doing very well, however, I do not think Chris was singling you out as a carrier. I know there are carriers who invested future premiums into the market when it was booming and were able to subvert the need to adequately file for rate increases preferring to bet on the market to fund the reserves. Any agent must be looking at the agency loss ratio on a personal level to hope for sustainable growth in the future. To not do so is like attaching the collar to the dogs tail when you let him out for a walk.
This isn’t a good article, it’s an excellent assessment of the current state of the insurance industry, and especially the carrier side. Underwriting is a lost art. Yeah…maybe it’s “old school” but technology can’t replace the reasoning and insight that a real underwriter can bring to the table. Technology is only a tool in the underwriter’s hands.
Underwriting isn’t simply looking at loss ratios, it’s having a solid understanding of what the insured does (in the case of commercial accounts), what the exposures are that could create a loss, what the controls are in place to address those potentials. Underwriting is both a science and an art.
To back up Chad’s response, many carriers rely upon CSR’s (many of which are good) to provide accurate information. This is done primarily to save money, and transfer the work back to the agent/broker.
Unfortunately, many insurance agencies/brokerages have staff (which includes the “producers”) that can’t even spell the word insurance, let alone understand and explain what a D&O, K&R or EPLI policy is, and what it covers.
Brokette, it is a good article. I’m sure Chris is “old school”, like me. In the 70’s & early 80’s, as a CSR, we didn’t even have to be licensed. Most agencies today, have done away with the CSR title, using Account Mgr/Account Executive. We’ve come a long way. Here’s to all the female CPCU’s, CIC’s, etc. out there!!
The level of incompetency and lack of product knowledge in our industry, among company personnel and so called, “insurance professionals,” is staggering. Lots of nice folks stumbling around jeopardizing their clients assets! Amazing!
Mike
wizened [ˈwɪzənd], wizen
adj
shrivelled, wrinkled, or dried up, esp with age
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wizened
I’m a little wrinkly now myself after 34 years in the biz.
Had lunch with a branch underwriting manager the other day. Together we were lamenting the loss of technical knowledge (and the lack of caring) on both the agency and company side.
He told me that he used to could get away with having underwriters who didn’t know that much becuase the agents were well trained and could work with the underwriter. Now, he said, the agents have no technical knowledge either meaning that not-so-smart underwriters are working with not-so-smart agents.
I wonder what this is going to breed? Improper or just incorrect coverages.
The Companies “want someone younger” so they can pay them lots less than a “street smart” seasoned commercial underwriter.
Yes to everything. Improper and/or inadequate coverages, along with the potential E&O claim.
Having started out on the insurance agency side, then spending almost 12 years as an underwriter, then back to the agency side (now on the “client” side), I can say that most insurance “professionals” (is that an oxymoron?) know next to nothing about insurance. Not a week goes by that I don’t wind up explaining the basics of insurance to an insurance agent/broker.
There are a few knowledgeable underwriters left, but they’re mostly “old school”. They use technology as a tool, and their years of experience to make an intelligent decision.
Most of the dumbing down seems to have been caused by an insane focus on cutting margins, especially those that are publicly traded. Their focus is on making Wall Street happy, rather than having a well trained staff to make sound decisions.
The author’s assessment of the knowledge base is largely accurate. What is not mentioned is that the buyers make it this way, not the industry.
Those with the most technical expertise, especially on the broker side, are the least successful financially. Knowledge costs money but customers large and small will take the cheapest deal every time!!
Truer words were never spoken. I continuously ask, “Why is the guy with the cheapest rate/premium always telling the truth (in the insured’s mind)?”
And I thought I was the craziest guy in Colorado? Wow, what an informative friday afternoon read…
“Admitting that you do not know is a huge competitive advantage.” ? This is a foolish article.
Agreed. Typically (and unfortunately) it’s the client’s accountant or attorney that recommends the umbrella but then the client wants to reject the add’l UM due to costs, stating “it can’t happen to me”.
Not sure about the role of the company underwriter, especially in PL’s. Look at companies like USF&G, AETNA, CNA, etc. that relied heavily io underwriters. No longer writing or dominant in PL’s. The story was always the same: PL’s Manager from agency calls underwriter at company, states that the PL’s account they are working on has large commercial accounts with agency, and company underwriter gives in and approves PL policy.
M James, that remark continues, “…this gives you time to research the necessary coverages rather than trying to fake knowledge resulting in the client not getting the coverage they need.”
What’s so wrong with saying “I want to give you the most accurate information possible, so please let me research your question and get back to you” (followed by an actual, timely answer)?
Do you just make things up off the cuff? What happens when you don’t know the answer to a client question?
Oh, Matt…..Obviously, M James believes he KNOWS everything. And if YOU don’t, he’ll use it against you. Our industry is full of these kinds of people. They really missed their calling……. poker.
As you can tell from my name, I am a very seasoned (and somewhat wizened) insurance professional with over 30 years in the business. I’m sure Chris meant no disrespect to CSR’s, Account Managers, or Account Executives. What he says is true. Young underwriters rely more on systems than on old-fashioned underwriting. When was the last time an underwriter called you to discuss a piece of new business before declining? They take the path of least resistance and unless it’s a cookie cutter account they can’t stretch their minds enough to underwrite it. Underwriters – Don’t fight it. Write it!!
I entered the industry directly from college and, because I had a degree, they “made” me an underwriter. I was indoctrinated into the carrier’s culture and told what decisions to make. While I possessed (and continue to possess) a great deal of common sense, I was not encouraged to use it. They wanted predictable decisions and didn’t care “if good business walked out the back door as more came in on a daily basis”. Yes, that is a direct quote. The year? 1977. This is nothing new. Our industry, from carriers to agencies, hires the least expensive help they can and wonder why they end up in E&O court. My offense as the word “wizened” was that the author used it to describe CSR’s exclusively, not managers or producers.