What the author describes as “moral” hazard is actually “morale” hazard. Arson is an example of a moral hazard, carelessness an example of morale hazard.
And, as for this: “InsurTechs are using technology to help customers manage or mitigate risk.” The InsurTechs I’ve examined don’t seem the least bit interested in helping people manage or mitigate risk. You can’t manage or mitigate risk by touting your phone app allows someone to purchase insurance in less than 3 minutes.
InsurTechs are selling “niftyness,” a combination of cool technology, convenience, speed, and cheapness in exchange for the gullible giving up the necessary time and expense of actually analyzing their exposures to loss and properly insuring them.
I don’t disagree with your sentiment on the 3-minute app, but it sounds like you are lumping all InsurTechs into the Sales category. I deal with many InsurTechs that are creating technologies that are not Sales related. New technologies are having impact on policy processing, payment processing, underwriting inspections, claims inspections, data mining, endorsement processing, etc. The list is long and improved technology is improving our business.
Moral nor morale hazards are the correct terms, Movie Pass has and adverse selection problem (if we’re going to apply insurance concepts). Their product appeals the most to the people that cost them the most and they don’t restrict or underwrite their subscribers. They have too many teenagers with unlimited free time to go to the theater and not enough casual viewers.
As for actual insurtechs… The vast majority of personal line customers are going to be purchasing through that 3-minute app in the next few years and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The “expertise” that agents (or more likely their office staff) bring to the table is largely overstated. Probing questions are easy to replicate and cost savings on commissions and underlying processes can be used to provide more robust coverage at the same if not lower premium.
Insurance operates within an inefficient value chain process. Insuretech is quickly changing this. The InsureTech apps to be circumspect are the ones attempting to be the financial backing, themselves. The pricing and offering equations/algorithms are still under-cooked (lacking sufficient predictive performance).
Landmark absolutely does participate in Moviepass and they’re an e-ticketing theater, which means that the limits on which movies can be seen on a particular day don’t apply. I see more movies with Moviepass at Landmark than anywhere else since the Moviepass troubles started.
What the author describes as “moral” hazard is actually “morale” hazard. Arson is an example of a moral hazard, carelessness an example of morale hazard.
And, as for this: “InsurTechs are using technology to help customers manage or mitigate risk.” The InsurTechs I’ve examined don’t seem the least bit interested in helping people manage or mitigate risk. You can’t manage or mitigate risk by touting your phone app allows someone to purchase insurance in less than 3 minutes.
InsurTechs are selling “niftyness,” a combination of cool technology, convenience, speed, and cheapness in exchange for the gullible giving up the necessary time and expense of actually analyzing their exposures to loss and properly insuring them.
I don’t disagree with your sentiment on the 3-minute app, but it sounds like you are lumping all InsurTechs into the Sales category. I deal with many InsurTechs that are creating technologies that are not Sales related. New technologies are having impact on policy processing, payment processing, underwriting inspections, claims inspections, data mining, endorsement processing, etc. The list is long and improved technology is improving our business.
Moral nor morale hazards are the correct terms, Movie Pass has and adverse selection problem (if we’re going to apply insurance concepts). Their product appeals the most to the people that cost them the most and they don’t restrict or underwrite their subscribers. They have too many teenagers with unlimited free time to go to the theater and not enough casual viewers.
As for actual insurtechs… The vast majority of personal line customers are going to be purchasing through that 3-minute app in the next few years and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The “expertise” that agents (or more likely their office staff) bring to the table is largely overstated. Probing questions are easy to replicate and cost savings on commissions and underlying processes can be used to provide more robust coverage at the same if not lower premium.
Insurance operates within an inefficient value chain process. Insuretech is quickly changing this. The InsureTech apps to be circumspect are the ones attempting to be the financial backing, themselves. The pricing and offering equations/algorithms are still under-cooked (lacking sufficient predictive performance).
I frequently go to see current films, but my favorite place to go is Landmark. They don’t participate in MoviePass, so it’s not worth it to me.
Landmark absolutely does participate in Moviepass and they’re an e-ticketing theater, which means that the limits on which movies can be seen on a particular day don’t apply. I see more movies with Moviepass at Landmark than anywhere else since the Moviepass troubles started.
To be insurable a risk must be fortuitous. This article is silly. It’s like saying an all you can eat buffet is an insurance product.
Not to mention the absence of any “tech” in this supposed InsureTech.
Hey, a golf club membership is Insuretech! All the golf you can golf!
Not to mention a membership to a fitness club. Oh, the moral hazard!
God, this BS hot take is all it takes to get on this site now? Brutal. I wonder whose k8d this author is?