Category: Articles

Another look at the future from the present. A major software vendor and manufacturer asked Ross to paint a picture of the world of underwriting and risk selection and where it has to go in terms of the bigger new business environment and the (in)tolerances of senior management. The presentation fit into a new release of CGI’s future and tried to highlight they were indeed at the front of the line in realizing what the insurers needed going forward.

Download File

The easiest underwriting in the world but the hardest to do right. The textbooks are vague on how to assimilate the myriads of numbers and decide not just if the amount is right for life insurance but is the insurable interest there for now and the future. From Ross’ hard earned rules there is hope that the tough underwriting can be made simple and yet be prudent enough to keep the company off the front page of the press!

Download File

This presentation or a derivative of it has been given to several groups of CEO’s and COOs in various countries and deals with the changes that are inevitable in every countries life industry. It handles the issues in people and software, underwriter and distributor, niche market versus mega market, independence versus convergence. It is a presentation that provokes discussion amongst the leaders and has been also given as follow up to boards of directors so they have an appreciation of where their company fits not only nationally but internationally.

Download File

With all the pressures on “the front end” of the life insurance industry are risk selection staff and leaders acting responsibly and with vision to improve the efficiency and the thus the image of underwriting. From financial underwriting complexities unravelled to medical underwriting shortcuts the presentation takes the audience regardless of experience into a world where speed and cost are dominant and thus prepares some tactics for successful underwriting.

Download File

Ross’ classic spin on the future based on the reality of today. Thought provoking and controversial, the presentation tries to get people understanding where they fit in the overall scheme of the financial services business and how the comparative work is against other institutions not just insurers. Helpful scenarios in people, reinsurance, software and marketing are contained in the talk.

Download File

I delighted my precious daughter a unique way when she was an infant and toddler. At six foot four inches, I would swing her through an arch, initiating well above my up-stretched arms down to safely above the floor. Emily would become a profusion of howls, giggles and smiles and always asked for more. Children grow, gain length and acquire accoutrements that befit a toddler. The accoutrement one day were shoes which were more akin to army issue boots.

On that ill-fated day as I arced my Emily from near ceiling height to the intended near floor position, my life was about to change both temporarily and permanently. Emily curved her body inwards by bring up her legs. The ensuing collision of Emily’s army boots to my most vulnerable parts was akin to watching neutering back on the farm (my grandfather did it then with two bricks).

I had a speaking role to play at an industry function and I had to adapt. Baggy pants, a stool to lean on and an MC who allowed me to remain upright and not moving made the day bearable and the audience none the wiser. Circumstance change and thus we adapt.

Has our industry adapted? It is a question that would draw many to both sides in a debate. “Yes” is obvious since times have changed and thus we must have changed. “No” is just as obvious since as life insurers we still struggle with paper, distribution, communication, blood and urine, and reliance on archaic rules that some would argue are totally counterproductive. As for me, I sit in the middle and which way I lean depends on my mood or how repetitive the day has been. Good mood equals adaptation. Bad mood or just more of the same equals status quo.

Banks outsource the loan function. Yes, there are hundreds of banks in the U.S. who use one company as their loan approver and call answer service. Here you have a third party outsourcer who is given the key to the vault to distribute a bank’s cash. How trusting and practical. Handling the telemarketing and loan approval is a skill set steeped in technology and training that many a small bank can ill afford to do internally but tasks that can be handled with awesome success using outsourcing.

Banks outsource back office cheque processing, credit card processing, computer networks and only “The Maker” (and perhaps Paul Martin) knows what else. For years, banks have realized that the real back office function is a noncompetitive area and one that excels with volume. The global sharing of ATM networks is another example of “let’s work together to make the world a better place” (violins and harpsichord, please).

Not a year goes by that we do not hear or read about a new cooperative venture within the banking community. I read somewhere that even the proposed mergers were initiated by such altruistic motivation. (Insert Hallelujah chorus here.)

Have we as life insurers really adapted to our environment? We lowered the price to make agents and brokers sell more. Some, and I emphasize some in order to retain my honorary sales diploma, brokers adapted by re-writing the inforce to take advantage of lower prices and have enough sales to survive. Could a conscientious broker knowingly not offer a lower price to the valued customer as it arrives on his doorstep?

We each lowered our price to make sure none of us was overcharging whereas the banks’ direction with service charges was just the opposite. How come we always do the opposite and receive the downsides for our efforts? If we always draw the short straw, maybe it’s time to change who is picking our straw.

Each of us has our own forms for everything because it is to each of our company’s competitive advantage to retain these unique marketing tools. Why? I need to be convinced that this is a good thing, and not by Martha Stewart. Soon the trees in my yard will be sacrificed so the paper from them can reside in the trunk of some broker’s Sportute or recycled into an egg carton.

The generic application, like all standard forms, is a good idea. Unfortunately the nuances of our legal staffs and marketing departments or some other power greater than I, created a revenue stream for BC’s paper industry until the Asia Pacific economy picks up. Did it fail because it was not the brainchild of some company president or because we do not need the cost savings and uniformity within our industry?

Does the known HIV positive consumer antiselect more than the cancer riddled or the chest pain sufferer? Should we in 1999 remain so strongly mired in the antiselective label on HIV, yet assume every other walking impairment is less risky and also more prone to having carriers be so forthright? Yes, when the HIV epidemic hit the consciousness of the world’s population, it was labelled the potential “bankrupter” of the life insurance industry.

That did not happen! In fact, we are doing quite well, thank you. I know of no company that has had bad mortality on its 1983 through 1985 business when we were most vulnerable to antiselection. Should we now adapt to the filing cabinet full of data that says HIV has a rather predicable course and is not a precursor of instant death and a life insurance claim?

We need to manage our distribution. We need to ascertain who at the public end of our chain of command is doing us a disservice by bringing discredit to broker, company and industry. The fremescent band of brokers, MGAs and company marketing leadership see the need to have an “information bureau” that tracks our distribution and identifies the bad apples. Will our leadership adapt to the need for this and approach it in a bipartisan fashion? The alternative perhaps is to wait for the other financial service vendors (mutual funds, stocks, etc.) to build the infrastructure and then we could ask to be a member.

We have many opportunities to adapt. Quality organizations adapt early and with ingenuity. But how we adapt at the beginning of a trend versus how we do so after the horse has fled the barnyard is entirely different. Building a more innovative retaining device initially gives us an opportunity to manage change. In so doing, we become less of a victim of change and more an active, contributing participant who has some control in the matter.

Oh, by the way, the temporary change caused by my collision of the army boots was extreme swelling. Immediately after the industry meeting, I eased the discomfort and eventually returned to normal by soaking in the salty waters off Barbados. The permanent change was the suspension of further arcing of my daughter from the ceiling to floor. We both adapted successfully.

I am not a fan of Stephen King’s writings but my children are avid readers and movie goers for all King’s creations. Actually they are hardly children anymore as the youngest is now 18 years and 8 months old. Thus I wrote the references to King’s writings out o respect for my children’s tastes in literature and movies. It is hard to escape the public relations when either book or movie hits the streets. I do like horror movies but not his.

When there was a flurry of publicity over the latest King launches it made me think of the horrors that arise in the minds of insurance people (seller and risk selector) when ever the task of underwriting or merely processing a case is the issue. As old as insurance I am sure is the debate or confrontation between the producer and underwriter.

With events in the Canadian distribution segment looking for a target for its poor closure on large cases Steve (again the erstwhile editor of Marketing Options) asked me kindly to write a little on the subject of relations between agent and underwriter.

I did and as it turns out it is one of those themes that I am constantly asked to write or speak about in Canada and around the globe. I am no expert but have lots of experiences. I do not have all the answers but have an opinion. Steve liked to print for all to see my opinion.

Ross

2004-04-13

Marketing Options

May 1992

The distance between the agent and the head office underwriter is probably greatest when the issue is financial underwriting. Then Lucidity fades as the sun dies. Long, deep shadows of mistrust and deception sweep over a barren landscape. It’s a setting created by the Master of Horror, Stephen King, where one can never be sure who or how many will pay the ultimate price before the tale is told.

In this morbid setting, the head office underwriter talks in terms of theory and the agent talks in terms of reality, all the makings for a macabre sequence of events. As the underwriter delves menacingly (in the eyes of the agent) into the file, the agent becomes nauseous with despair (in the eyes of the underwriter). The slithering tentacles of the underwriter entwine the case as it attacks with more and more vile questions and bone-crushing requests. The crafty, devious answers of the agent are snarled from between barred fangs as it fights to protect its position like some cornered mongrel.

Too horrible for even Stephen King, you say? Perhaps. But versions not much tamer than this abound in our industry today. Is there an answer to the needs of both these parties? In a conventional sense the answer is probably a rapid and off –hand “No!”, but in an unconventional sense the concerted efforts of both could accomplish what pages of aptly phrased words cannot.

Many, most, all underwriters have heard in their first weeks on the job that agents were troublesome creatures, loath to give enough details, all-in-all general nuisances to be scarcely tolerated. Only a select few underwriters have been privileged to have been indoctrinated or re-oriented by a truly cognizant tutor to the simple truth that without the production of the persistent agent over many a table, the job of underwriter would not exist. Rather, the horror stories that surround underwriters during their initiation would warp the rational thinking of any mortal. Every senior underwriting officer has a cache of stories to enthrall the rookie and set the record straight – it’s underwriting versus agent!

To imply this verbal persecution is a one-way street is childish at best since there is no shortage of agents in our industry that have tales of underwriting malice and misbehavior. What decent agents gathering would be complete without the tale of a malicious underwriter declining a case for absolutely no good reason. The facts relayed by the agent to the awaiting audience maybe embellished beyond reason, but to the eager and receptive audience, it is The Truth. It is a rare occasion when the ‘risk selector’ in the sedate safety of a head office is lauded for playing a complementary role in expediting a difficult policy on time and at standard rates.

For years these issues have not changed nor have the perceptions (that wonderful words so quickly called upon when the facts are somewhat thin and do not make the story as engrossing to the reader). These perceptions die hard and make dealing in reality difficult. Will there ever be harmonious agreement on all large cases of $1,000,000 or more? Richard and David and Joe and Jim would not expect this eventuality since they would be the first to acknowledge that at times an agent’s enthusiasm has gone a little overboard in using a projected income or anticipated tax problem. The delicacy arises in trying to guarantee that the underwriter will not go above and beyond the role of the risk classifier and, in effect, throw out the agent with the case or vice versa.

There is absolutely no substitute for the one-on-one relationship between the underwriter and the producer. The underwriter must honestly act as the assistant to the agent while selecting risks that meet the company’s profile of acceptability. Although this may seem trivial as a statement, in the real world of real applications for insurance, it is not.

There is no magic in getting the agent and underwriter in synchronized behavior if both have or have had wise mentors at their side. The mentors can nurture the best solution by teaching the need for prudent decision making taken with a large dollop of common sense. A good senior underwriter with many ears of worldly exposure can instill the desire in another underwriter to get the case issued on some basis that makes sense. The knowing counsel of a seasoned agent who has learned the ways around head office mine fields can assist another agent in preparing the case to assure quick issue for the right amount, the first time around.

To the underwriters who can teach and the agents who can explain, the industry should be indebted. To the self-righteous antagonists in both camps, may you see that your perceptions are wrong and that none should be condemned to dwell in the dark worlds of Stephen King. An exchange of views will always create what accusations can never accomplish – a concerted and understanding effort for the consumer that benefits us all.

There were 49 forestry-related fatalities in British Columbia in 2005. I am not sure of how many forestry people there are out there so it is hard for me to say if that death statistic warrants my concern as a risk taker. There was a time in my early days as a life insurance risk taker that I would rate “loggers” who worked west of the great divide (mainly B.C.) but take those east of the same magical line through the mountains at standard rates. My curiosity then discovered that “loggers” often migrate to where the trees to be cut are and thus our actions as risk takers were deemed foolish. Soon the life insurance industry backed away from charging anything extra and accepted all “loggers” at standard premium rates. The exception remains for those who carry dynamite and such explosives and fiddle with their wicks. Risk takers listened to the criticism and did change. Looking back and forward I am still not sure how many of those forestry related deaths were “loggers” versus “tree huggers” whose amorous enrapture with a tree was at the wrong time.

Where is Ross going with his forestry information? Yes my guidance counsellor in high school suggested I was best suited to either a job on a farm or in the woods but that is not what I am going to write about today. I use the forestry statistic as a mere example of how we as risk takers sometimes over react to numbers since we are in the numbers game — spread my risk and know my risk being the mantra of a good insurer. Today’s issue is not with “loggers” but with “travellers”.

The whole issue of what is a risk beyond the normal or average for a Canadian proposed insured when they travel beyond our borders of Canada has confused and irritated both consumer and the distributor/advisor. Tragic and unforeseen events of the past six years lead to perhaps an irrational overreaction to anyone travelling to other than Niagara Falls or Banff. Countries and cities, once seen as either great historical places of interest or idyllic places to “unwind” were thrust on to lists which insurers used to deny coverage or add an extra charge — somewhat like the overreaction to loggers on one side of a line from north to south through the picturesque Rockies. Were we reacting to reams of statistics? No. We were reacting to the need to make sure we understood the risk presented and thus protect the imbedded value of our insurance industry. Caution with risk has always been the way life insurers insure they are around to pay claims some 50, 60 or 90 years after policy issue — name another product with such a long commitment.

What fuelled the industry’s reaction was the overwhelming number of applications where the distributor/advisor would add the statement to the application either in note or letter saying roughly “The proposed insured is leaving for ________ (fill in any place of high concern) in 6 days and needs the insurance issued prior to departure”. Being cynical at times the industry thought “Sure, and this is all part of a routine estate analysis and it is mere coincidence the insurance is needed right now”. Would the policy lapse immediately upon return? Where has the application and estate analysis been all these years? Would the oil field worker going to Iran or Nigeria be buying the insurance if they were going to Alberta? If the oil field worker is making a huge difference in pay because of the danger element why not share that risk premium with the insurer? The cynical questions were many but not voiced as we had to assume that it was mere coincidence the insurance application was just before the proposed insured was getting on a jet a plane.

As time progressed the risk takers became more confident that we could assume that most travellers for holidays or business of under say eight weeks to most global sites were presenting us with no or minimal extra risk. Now, some four years after the issue percolated to the top of the chart of why insurers are not responsible, it has plummeted down on the list of annoyances. Did we get overwhelmed with statistical data that gave us such assurances we could consider these risks standard? Not that I saw. We did come to appreciate Canadians were not dying on these trips in numbers that skewed our mortality. Regrettably the industry to my knowledge never did collate all its death payments where the death occurred overseas. A simple collation of all insured deaths over the last 3 to 4 years by age, sex, country and cause of death would have been a great statistic. Who should have done this? Well I can think of many either singularly or jointly — Canadian Institute of Underwriters. Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Canadian Life and Health Insurers Association, Advocis, LIMRA, etc. Even I could have or perhaps should have pleaded for the data and done the collation but I did not (pick from excuse one through twenty).

At a recent Underwriters Association of Toronto evening I was giving a talk on the realities of underwriting today which by necessity had to include my opinions on foreign travel cases. During that talk I threw out the challenge to the group that they should get the statistics on foreign deaths and come up with a unified approach to foreign travel and residency. When I threw this challenge in the past to numerous groups over the past two years it fell on deaf ears. This time though one underwriter took up the challenge and dug up some available statistics that are enlightening even if they are not fully reliable.

Beth Gibson, an experienced senior underwriter at Desjardins Financial, took up my challenge and found some statistics. What she presented me with was the statistics from the federal government on the number of deaths per country of Canadians (Canadian citizens who may or may not have been Canadian residents nor insurance contract holders). The cause of death and the overall accuracy of the numbers could be challenged perhaps but they are numbers from which we can better surmise the risk than just going on panic’s conjecture. Was I surprised at the numbers? Absolutely. Given the cause of deaths listed (murder/suicide, natural and accident) one wonders where “killed in a suicide bombing” fits. I also wonder if a country truly investigates the cause of death to make sure it is accurate. All the scepticism aside these were telling numbers. They make me feel better as a risk taker that our current stance is justifiable but needs some ongoing sophisticated study.

In the period 2002-4 inclusively there were 2142 Canadian deaths abroad. Natural deaths accounted for 1533 (although I am suspicious of natural deaths in 10 year olds but at least I will assume it was not a violent death). Accidents accounted for 412 deaths (nowhere does it say if it was the accidental stepping on a land mine or shopping in the wrong part of town at bomb time). There were 99 suicides (having a bad travel day could prompt that action). Murders came in at 98 ( a pretty clear statistic).

The largest number of murder/suicides occurred in USA (29) with Mexico next at 16 and then China at 13. Given my perception of the number of Canadians who travel there these numbers do not surprise me. None of them make me want to rate travellers to any of the three countries. One third plus of the Mexican deaths were older Canadians in the 66 plus category. Dying on a sunny beach outweighs dying in a snow drift. Now on the other hand there were 9 deaths in Iraq and 8 of those were murder/suicide. I still want to decline travellers to Iraq! As I peruse the list of countries and causes of death I note Israel had 11 Canadians die there of which none were from murder/suicide and four of the 11 were on older travellers 66 years of age or over. Similarly the numbers for Germany surprised me but will have no impact on my risk taking price. There were 139 deaths in Germany of which only one was from murder/suicide but 98 of them were on lives over 66! Talk about going home to die. Similarly 49 of 66 Greek deaths were in the older category and there were no violent deaths. Cuba remains high on my vacation list even with knowledge that there were 68 deaths there but none from violent causes.

Other surprises, but none significant to change my perception of risks out there, were Thailand’s 58 deaths of which 7 were murder/suicide, Vietnam’s 87 deaths of which 61 were over 66 years of age and only one violent death, and 2 of Saudi Arabia’s 18 deaths were on young children.

Are we doing this thing called risk appraisal and pricing right today? I think we are pretty close but to make me feel better and the actuaries’ price better we would still need to know how many Canadians travel abroad to each of these countries, plus study the deaths we as insurers have had over the past few years where location of death is outside Canada. In the meantime thanks Beth for doing some digging which is more than any of the rest of our industry (including me) did and sharing it with me. I feel better now that what I do is not perfect but close and still prudent.

Beth Gibson and her statistics can be reached at bgibson@dfs.ca.

Thanks again Beth for taking the time and caring.

Written by

Ross A. Morton

2007-02-02

Being tone deaf and absolutely perplexed at the mere sight of a sheet of music I have often found myself on the wrong hymn but never in the wrong hymnbook. As I sang my heart out, those around me stared in disbelieve that anyone could be so terrible at something as simple as singing along with the old favorite hymns. “Was he being an obstinate child?” or “If he wants to desecrate the sanctity of the church he is certainly accomplishing that mission.” Were two statements heard as I moved from youth to adult.

We are all taught out of certain books. The books can be works of literature or snippets of wisdom passed from elder to youth. The wonder of our industry is that there remains today a dual set of tablets that were obviously carried down from the hill to two different audiences. The one set of commandments stated in fewer than 10 points that “Thou shalt get out there and sell for all your worth”; “Whatever the premium you can coax from the applicant justifies whatever corresponding sum assured that generates”; and “Financial justification is a euphemism for seeing how big a cheque the applicant can write without bouncing”.

The second set of commandments numbered thousands and fell under subheadings like lifestyle, occupation, aviation, avocation, medical, nonmedical and financial. The subheading financial struggled for years (since 1938 at least) for meaty rules of conduct that succinctly categorized the amount of insurance that should be in force on a person. In 1938 at a Home Office Life Underwriters Association annual meeting a speaker as an example (possibly grabbed out of the air or was it indeed inscribed on the original stone but overlooked?) used the number 5 as a multiple times salary that gives the amount of maximum insurance on a keyman. Other rules emerged in years to follow as court cases and insurable interest and financial justification questions sent underwriters back to the stones for inspiration and carved in stone rules.

The ten times salary for personal insurance, common right up to the 70’s, was replaced by multiples that varied by age ranging from 10 times at young ages to 5 times at elderly ages. In the prime earning years, which was defined differently for every company, the multiple may have been 25 times. With business insurance the keyman rule more or less survived at 5 until the advent of Internet stocks and stock options. Now we just guess at what the keyperson is worth to the budding enterprise, all the while praying it is a legitimate venture and the numbers are not grossly inflated by speculators. The decades have seen the original stone tablets edited and enlarged as underwriters have been forced into responding to demands of regulators, legislators, Boards and CEO’s to “make sure we are never as a company in the press or courts for issuing too much insurance and it becomes “the motive for murder”. See the history of insurance in Canada and USA for cases like Demeter, Mullendore, Johnson, Smith, et al.

What we have as we end the 20th century is the underwriter being told to hold the line on overinsurance and speculation by staying as close to the old axiom of “No one should be worth more dead than alive!” At the same precise time the financial adviser team is being told to sell as much as you can. Do not worry about the amount on some of the modern super plans that use creativity to effectively create wealth to the point sales now target doubling the financially well off estate with something as inevitable as death. The underwriter says the sum assured according to its company’s rules is $X while the marketing department encourages $2X+$Y. Illustration systems can paint a picture of an after death (perhaps even near death) estate that is hundreds of millions; half of which was for protection of existing real estate issues while the other half is because everyone would like their offspring to have twice as much just to remember the deceased was a magnanimous person.

Recently a small group of wise underwriters joined together via teleconferencing to listen to an even wiser brokerage owner and financial team describe today’s products and how to utilize them to protect estate and increase estate. The underwriting group was eager to find out how to understand where the amounts were coming from and how to justify changing the age-old rules. The brokerage team wanted to impress upon the underwriters the background to rid the industry of financial declines because some underwriter said no. The “no” was being portrayed as the only answer forthcoming from the reinsurers. The presentation was very well done, informal yet pointed, and had a sincerity to it that made the underwriters sympathetic.

The conclusion reached was that the insurance companies must rid their offices of two hymnbooks and replace them with a text devoid of any reference to financial underwriting. If the senior officers and their boards want to throw the financial underwriting premises out the door and remove the mandate that underwriters must purge the files that represent overinsurance (using the aforementioned tables or multiples) and “worth more dead than alive” it is their prerogative. It would make underwriting easier, improve relations between producer and underwriter and add far more premium dollars to the top line.

As it stands today to counter pressure from sales underwriters are inventing new rules or as some would say “we are being told of the new rules by senior sales officers”. One such rule recently discussed and perhaps instituted was that for personal insurance a person should be allowed up to the total of 16 times gross yearly income plus 6 times net worth plus $1,000,000. The latter amount is strictly to add a liberal sizzle to the formula! I think this latest formula has about the same impact as not doing any financial underwriting but allows the underwriter the satisfaction of reading 723 pages of financial evidence.

Copies of this revised hymnbook are available somewhere but I am not sure if they are only available in brown bags and to be used secretly away from the eyes of the operating officers. Those officers still want to make sure they are not knowingly allowing their money to be the reward for murder — the real dollar cost pales in comparison to the adverse publicity.

Steve made some very good points about the time available to make a good impression on an underwriter, which may mean the difference between standard and decline (okay so the difference may only be standard to +50 extra mortality). Any reader can tell Steve’s insight into how insurers work comes from his fundamental training as an underwriter. Unfortunately he left that profession for the more financially rewarding world of sales.

I would like to bring Steve’s numbers up to date since the cozy environment of underwriting as perceived by the hard working financial planner/broker has changed somewhat. As we enter the year 2000 underwriters work about 200 days in a year (the balance go to training, bathroom breaks, exotic seminars and conferences, holidays, weekends occasionally, long lunch hours, and psychic leave of absences, etc). Being less than generous they toil for about 8 solid hours per day and each of those hours has 60 minutes. That culminates in 96000 minutes of extreme pressure filled minutes to handle the proverbial “X” number of new applications. In Steve’s days of underwriting the net number was the same but the conspicuous consumption was more impeding to work day frustration.

Companies today have different expectations for number of cases per underwriter per year or per day. The higher the premium and/or sum assured the lower the expectation. Complex joint lives written for estate protection require more time than the mortgage protection policy for a small townhouse. Therefore in Canada we have underwriters who have a yearly case load of 1000 and some who have a caseload of 4000. Lots of the former but no examples of the latter comes to mine (more reassurance on former than latter).

In the case of the 1000 new cases per underwriter a case gets 96 minutes on average in the focus of the underwriter. That is lots of time to read financial statements for the past five years, six attending physicians statements, two medicals, one treadmill ECG, two laboratory test results, and the occasional well written descriptive letter from the broker. A little over an hour and one half to pass judgement on what could be the culmination of 12 months of effort by the broker. Less than one sixth of a working day to say yea or nee to the brokers best customer and many mortgage payments. That’s $60.94 plus burden rate to be forever classed as an obstructionist or a real team player.

In the other extreme of 4000 cases per year we have 24 minutes per case, less than one half hour, less than $20.32 per case or not much time at all.

Automation is helping move many cases through the system. If the broker/agent has properly and completely filled in the application and the person reviewing or inputting to a machine makes no error the decision is made in nanoseconds.

Steve the 7 and ½ has to be updated unless you count the cases screened by machine or simplified issue. The point however remains the same regardless of perspective. The very first impression can make or break a potential policy application. Just think how complicated and outrageously convoluted it gets when that same underwriter has to use some of their 96 minutes to arrange for many reinsurance underwriters to grasp what the sale is for and agree that the case is a standard risk!