The Central Bank's motor insurance report - appalling media coverage and political response

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
52,116
I was busy with other stuff when this report came out but my gut feeling was that the media and political response was all wrong. They were blaming insurance companies by making meaningless comparisons. I was going to study it today and write a piece about it, but the editorial in yesterday's Sunday Times says exactly what I want to say.


Here are the key points:

The data dump by the Central Bank of Ireland last week served only to reinforce entrenched positions rather than add any clarity to the vexed debate about who is to blame for the high cost of motor insurance. The report, spanning almost 50 pages and trawling through a decade’s worth of insurance statistics, is the most comprehensive analysis yet of why the average policy costs more than €700 a year. The trouble is that it contains enough evidence to support whatever side of the argument you find yourself on.

Most media reports were in no doubt that insurance companies are the real culprits. They raised premiums by 42% between 2009 and 2018, even though the cost of claims fell by 2.5% over the same period. This was the cue for some commentators to choke with indignation. Charlie Flanagan, the justice minister, muttered about excessive profit-taking. It seemed that the villains had been unmasked even before the report was digested. Less attention was directed at the role of the legal profession, even though the Central Bank’s research shows clearly that going to court is unlikely to win you more compensation but will undoubtedly result in huge legal bills — a big driver of insurance costs.

The trouble with plucking statistics from midair is that they lack context. Jacking up premiums while claims are falling certainly smacks of profiteering, until you consider where the insurance industry was coming from. Its finances were in tatters in the early period covered by the Central Bank’s review. Unless premiums were hiked significantly and claims costs curbed, Ireland risked being left without a functioning insurance industry.

Insurance follows a boom-and-bust cycle, with years of plenty invariably followed by tougher times. The helter-skelter is more pronounced in Ireland than elsewhere because of the opportunistic behaviour of offshore insurance providers that swoop in during the good times and disappear when the going gets tough.

During the halcyon days between 2003 and 2010, average premiums declined by 27% as the insurance companies embarked on a boom-time gamble for market share. It cost more to tax some cars during this period than to insure them, although we choose to forget this now. The reckless behaviour continued behind the scenes, with insurers taking a cavalier attitude to the amounts they needed to set aside to cover future claims.

The reckoning came in the early years of this decade when the industry lost close to €1bn over the space of five years. Some of the leading names — RSA, Liberty, FBD — survived only thanks to desperate rescue attempts. Motorists rightly bristle at being forced to pay for a mess that was entirely of the insurance industry’s making. Without drastic measures, though, drivers might have found it impossible to find anybody willing to provide them with cover.



 
The key figure which stood out for me was a quote that they made 9% profits in 2018.

I had no idea what this meant from the reports I heard. But it turns out to be 9% of premiums.

So is this a large or small figure?

I don't know the answer to this as I don't know the capital employed.

But what it does tell you is that if we decided that insurance companies should make no profit at all, then motor insurance premiums would fall by 9%. That is not a lot.

But presumably we do want profitable insurance companies.

We do not want them going bust like PMPA, Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Quinn , and the guys in Cyprus who undercut everyone else and then went bust.

And the cycle is very important. If they were making 9% every year, it might be excessive. But making 9% after a period of huge losses is not excessive.

Brendan
 
The key figure which stood out for me was a quote that they made 9% profits in 2018.

I had no idea what this meant from the reports I heard. But it turns out to be 9% of premiums.

So is this a large or small figure?

I don't know the answer to this as I don't know the capital employed.

But what it does tell you is that if we decided that insurance companies should make no profit at all, then motor insurance premiums would fall by 9%. That is not a lot.

But presumably we do want profitable insurance companies.

We do not want them going bust like PMPA, Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Quinn , and the guys in Cyprus who undercut everyone else and then went bust.

And the cycle is very important. If they were making 9% every year, it might be excessive. But making 9% after a period of huge losses is not excessive.

Brendan
9% is actually a good figure. Remember this is 9% of premium. This is like 9% of sales in a shop. This is like a 9% return on investment. I don't know any investment that would currently make this type of return even pre tax.

I did not read the article but does it make any reference to investment returns. Also I suspect dividends paid to shareholders may have been good.

Perhaps insurance companies may need to retain more profits to smooth out the boom bust cycle.
 
This is like a 9% return on investment
No, it's completely different.
The figure that really matters is return on capital / equity. That's many multiples of 9%.

But, what it does suggest is if premiums drop by just 10% (the media has focused on 42% rise), then the entire industry would be loss making.
 
If it is the case they are trying to build\keep reserves to a statutory level, after a run of losses, why not just come out and say that?
Seems like a reasonable business case for it there.

Why are they trotting out the line about claims and claim costs going up when that's been refuted?
It does look like they are trying to be evasive.

They are acting guilty.
 
The insurance industry seems to be making a real hash of defending itself. They have claimed that fraud is driving up the claims (but only reported a handful of fraud cases to the gardai). When challenged on this they said claims were “exaggerated” rather than fraudulent. They seem to be unable to come up with statistics themselves. When the CBI report came out I expected to hear them refute some of the assumptions in the cbi report and provide alternative figures. Silence. They should be masters of statistics and knowledge about their own industry. As mentioned above it comes across as evasive. It also gives every politician a chance to give them a good kicking.

Does anyone know what’s going on?
 
And the Irish Times awards its Politician of the Year to Pearse Doherty for this stuff.


So our Politician of the Year is Sinn Féin’s deputy leader in the Dáil, Pearse Doherty.

....
One video of Pearse in action at a committee filleting representatives of the sector for allegedly overstating fraudulent claims amassed more than half a million views. Doherty has maintained a sharp focus on the insurance crisis and its alarming nationwide impact on small businesses and community projects. The situation is becoming a big general election issue, with dogged Doherty capturing the pre-election moral high ground for his party as he keeps up pressure on the big companies for “price-gouging consumers with rip-off premiums”.





Brendan
 
If it is the case they are trying to build\keep reserves to a statutory level, after a run of losses, why not just come out and say that?
Seems like a reasonable business case for it there.

PMPA, Quinn, Setanta, RSA (bail-out by parent). These are all insurance companies in living memory that went bust due to poor investment decisions.

The regulatory environment is clearly completely different now and insurance companies are being forced to hold lots of low-yielding (ie, expensive) assets

The report says very little about this, and instead focusess on costs. Not surprisingly, 2/3 of costs are on claims (see chart 18 which I can't embed). Even if efficiency doubled and profit margins disappeared, premiums would only fall 10%.



And the Irish Times awards its Politician of the Year to Pearse Doherty for this stuff.

Doherty did an excellent job in debunking industry assertions that there are lots of fraudulent claims.

A separate issue (a lot more prosaic) is that the cost of claims is simply very high in Ireland due to generosity of judges.

That doesn't make Doherty wrong.
 
This is a strange article



The headline seems to think that the criticism is justified.

But the content is good


In the past decade, Quinn Insurance was placed into a costly administration process by the Central Bank,

while RSA required a €500 million-plus injection of capital from its UK parent post-2013 when a large hole was found in its Irish balance sheet. As a consequence, RSA was fined €3.5 million by the Central Bank for various regulatory breaches.

Malta-registered Setanta Insurance went into liquidation in 2014, leaving 75,000 motorists in Ireland high and dry without cover. Setanta had offered rates that were simply too good to be true.

In 2016, Gibraltar-registered Enterprise Insurance went into liquidation, leaving just shy of 50,000 policyholders here without cover.


An
d this useful piece of information:

The operating profit last year of the 20 insurance groups who provided data to the Central Bank was 9 per cent of their income. The UK equivalent was 5 per cent, so Irish insurers stand accused of milking consumers here.


That means that if 5 per cent is a reasonable margin, then in 2018, Irish insurance companies could have cut motor premiums by 4%. This would make very little difference.

Brendan
 
Poor investment decisions, or poor underwriting, and dodgy accounting practices?

ICI is another to add to the list.

Fair point. I think Quinn didn't employ a single actuary and chased the lower quality end of the market.

My point is that the 'cheaper' era of insurance in Ireland had lots of blowouts. Regulators doing their job properly atm (I hope) is going to be expensive.
 
Quinn had an external actuary from a well respected firm in the UK who signed off its reserves every year (as required by the regulator). I’m not aware if there were any consequences for him as a result of the debacle, I’ve not heard of any.
 
RSA insurance got into trouble in 2014 for inadequate reserves , it basically failed to keep premiums high enough in order to pay for the unpredictable rise in awards, it was impossible to properly predict what judges would award as there is no book of quantum, and judges completely disregard precedence. Of course at the time the media completely ignored the fundamental reason why they failed to have adequate reserves and just gloated over the fact that a big british insurer got in trouble in the irish market. Roll onto 2016 and FBD insurance got into trouble for more or less the same reasons.
 
You also need to factor in that a significant portion of their income was coming from investment returns, and they've been forced into far more conservative investment policies, so that income stream has diminished.
 
Back
Top