Posted on

Lest You Forget

How times have changed. This was a follow up to the article entitled “Players” about the reinsurers in Canada and market share. It starts with a reference to global leaders and although the chart is not reproduced here the message remains clear for its time. In 1993 and ‘94 the talk was all about the giant Japanese companies and how they are growing to the point of dominating the top ten insurance positions in the world. Then bang as fast as they were idolized they were chastised for faulty management and leadership that almost bankrupt the financial services. The cry to run companies more like the Japanese quickly left the usage of all the motivational speakers. References were no longer glowing and Japanese examples declined from public view. By the end of the century there was no one referencing the Japanese conglomerates other than in a negative sense. Big without transparency was not good. The world was set on a course where “big” quite often meant problems once someone really uncovered the real financials!

In Canada at the time as much as we thought of a couple of our insurance leaders as giants they were not. Often they moved in and out of 50th spot but had no staying power. Not so today as we feel the impact of the demutualization and subsequent mergers and acquisitions. Canada now has some staying power in our top three companies or better “company groups”.

The Canadian numbers regarding reinsurance show how small in comparison to the new numbers I have put in to update the relevancy. Article shows the beginnings of reinsurers playing a more significant role in the Canadian industry. A role that became humungous in terms of risk transfer by the current year. Look at the astronomical amount of growth in new reinsurance amounts in 2003 versus 1993! Who would have believed such a market would exist. Thank all the smart actuaries for making risk transfer such a necessary evil and a management that became risk intolerant. Sort of like banks. Right?

Ross A. Morton

2004-05-10

Written in late 1994 and published in an edited form in MO

I have come at the subject of reinsurance from many angles before and will continue to retool the subject to fit the times. Years ago there was unwarranted fear of the reinsurers who operated in the Canadian insurance industry somewhat fueled by reinsurance mismanagement on the other side of the insurance industry, namely the property and casualty side. All of us in the industry deeply buried or sitting on the edge, must keep the role of reinsurers in perspective. The egos of some in the business would escalate the role beyond comprehension, while others meekly hide from any mention at all across the nation.

The Canadian industry has some giants at work yet in terms of our relative size we pale in comparison with the global giants. In Chart A you can see that our two bastions of life insurance no longer rank amount the senior global leaders. This is not all bad since a glimpse of the leaders’ points out that big is not necessarily good. In Canada we, too, have come to appreciate the old adage that the bigger you are the harder you fall (at my size this is more than a metaphor).

Notice how the Japanese companies have maintained a very strong presence in the top 10. If there was room and time to analyze the complete listing of 50 companies you would see a shrinkage in North American players by number and by relative size. The new world order reflects the expansion of foreign companies who increase their bulk and make their names universally recognized. Being on the edge of this list merely means one has to try harder internationally while protecting the national treasures with financial strength.

Reinsurers are merging, acquiring and globally expanding in pursuit of stable earnings, spread of risk, and economies of scale. Is there room for small, niche reinsurers? My guess is no. I see the need for significant spread of risk and avoidance of the variances of one market. Competition at times is so fierce that it is frightening. To be dependent on one overheated market place can lead to pressures on financial stability that belies comparison. In 1994, there was some merging and acquiring, plus lots of global expansion. Signs are the reinsurers are preparing to face the future with much stronger operations (have no fear the life reinsurers of the world are making money and are in strong financial positions). Watch for more strengthening in 1995.

In a 1990 publication by Actex Publications, called Life, Health and Annuity Reinsurance, the word or activity we all love called reinsurance was defined as: “Insurance purchased by an insurance company to cover all or part of certain risks on insurance policies issued by that company.” A great definition and quite acceptable to both the life and general insurance industries. On the general side there are some unnamed names who wish the definition was far more explicit. Personally speaking and out of fear of reprisal, I am forced to never name the names that are unnamed in any publication read by said names.

The reinsurers operating in Canada have been reviewed in a previous edition of Marketing Options and I know Steve could dig them up from the bowels of his computer if you asked nicely. Suffice to say not much has changed. They are all still here and the relative pecking order has not overtly changed. Volume of new sums assured remains the measure most publicly referenced, and, as such, falsely proclaims winners and losers in the fight for new business. When OSFI gets industry numbers out in a useable form and in timely fashion, like the developed nations of Singapore and Malaysia do, we may have far more comprehensive numbers to digest about our industry – insurers and reinsures alike.

All the reinsurers are as concerned with making money as the direct writers (the reinsurers’ term for companies that produced actual insurance policies). Most reinsurers would candidly admit that operating in the international arena brings a discipline to money management to survive. As companies look to reinsurers to be their silent partners in growth and capital management a demand for more than free lunches and golf tournaments emerges. Chart B shows which reinsurer is writing which volumes of new business. Notice how some companies have exited the industry in Canada while others have curtailed operations to better fit their Canadian strategy.

As the competitive pressure on reinsurance price increased and demand for jumbo cases (my definition is the $5 million up policy) decreases, the role of the retrocessionaires decreases. Note in Chart C the flat figures for retros (the affectionate name for retrocessionaires plus it saves twelve keystrokes). As always the retros are needed by the reinsurers to help spread risk as well as supply another source of silent and indirect capital for growing companies or those direct companies who wish to reconstruct their capital usage.

As an aside, because I like asides, when I got to this point in typing this article I used spell check. Several times my fingers hit wrong keys when spelling reinsurers. The suggested word, when “reinsurers” was found as wrong, was reindeer. Ho apropos as I fly north the day after the Santa Claus Parade in Toronto! Who says these laptops cannot think up humorous interjections? If it was foggy my laptop companion would probably recommend Rudolph.

Agents still are unsure about the reinsurers and the role they play with insurance companies and specifically their policy holders. To say, “Have no fear” would be repeating what one large company president said about the safety of very big insurance companies. He now avoids press releases and reprisals for that cavalier statement. Today in the wake of the unheard of, it is not sufficient to echo the phrase. There are few guarantees but the name of the international reinsurers is worth far more than the abandonment of any one country’s liabilities. There is not a reinsurer or international insurer that could survive the abandonment of a market without guaranteeing all future liabilities on its contracts and service of those contracts.

The very fact reinsurers are active in numerous life insurance markets around the world protects against the singular country financial downturn. Mustering the resources from all the other operations around the world helps negate the financial burden of any one county. Political, monetary and risk diversity is the strength of these global giants. They also stay very liquid in their investments, relying on very safe investments to protect them from any nuance in the bond or stock market. To the best of my knowledge there is no Canadian reinsurance operation on the life side that has any real estate investments. In fact, I believe only staff mortgages are held in the reinsurers’ portfolio (handcuffs on key staff).

The onus is on the insurance industry to be unified in its spreading the word on our security. Throwing mud at small or large companies does no one any good. In fact, the splash back on the perpetrator is most likely of greater magnitude than anticipated.

What has become evident to me in the last ten days is the need for unified education of all concerned so that there are no misconceptions about any facet of our industry. Tell the agents about insurance – both risk premium and coinsurance. Tell the agent that there is no binding contract between the insured and the reinsurer. Tell the consumer that there is protection in spreading the risk via a company that meticulously disciplines itself to spread risk. Do not cast aspirations on your fellow insurer because it is often the case that the recipient will not remember more than, “some company is in trouble.” Let us not fear the arrival of the banker in our midst. If we are the masters of mortality and morbidity, why are we worried about the neophyte in our domain? Show me a company that has excelled with a banker at the helm and I will show you a dozen life masters who have succeeded. Amen!

Preaching is complete. I still see us winning the battle of our lives and we will do it together. The “we” will exclude the few who sit and stew on the stove, scuttle their competitors, forget who the customer is and what the customer wants, and finally the industry leaders who long ago lost track of what it is we sell.

Canadian Reinsurance Assumed Amounts in U.S. $Millions

Posted on

Morton’s Meanderings in the Insurance Future

Great literature has included the experiences of one person from one culture experiencing the life and nuances of another culture. Reading the book, the Reader’s Digest abridged edition or watching the movie cannot convey the depth of the impact another country can have on the uninitiated. Travelling between the two super powers of North America is virtually seamless — Melrose Place, As the World Turns and the latest hockey scores and trades are available in all local media. If only we could make the border patrols or better known customs and immigration officers understand that it is a seamless border.

Get on a plane or, for the claustrophobic and acrophobic traveller (one could add mysophobia to the list given the conditions I have on rare occasions experienced), a boat and journey abroad to a far away land of inherent differences. Only then can you truly experience what is the perception of us Canucks and also the scorecard on how we are doing. As the millions of readers of MO know I have been blessed with business travel to the green pastures over both oceans. I will however curtail my writing to over the Pacific for reasons of brevity and my laptop batteries are running on their last legs. Unless I forget I will stay away from digestive feats that test the squeamish and only bring back memories of an embattled sphincter muscle. I also act presumptively in assuming the reader will not mistake my prose for great literature.

Canadians have been doing business from a life insurance view in parts of Asia for over a hundred years. Regrettably some of the companies have not lasted as long as the countries. Reversing that statement one can also record that some of the countries no longer bear the name earlier voyageurs ascribed to parts of Asia Pacific. The second great war coupled with the conflict in Korea provoked some Canadian companies to leave international expansion to all the pink countries and retreat to Canada and the pinkest country, Britain. Those that stayed often were very narrow in their choice of countries and very narrow in their tactics for expansion. In fact some or perhaps most were content “to just be there.”

By the year 1990 the Asia Pacific region was the “in place” to be and the gold rush was on. Rumours, bravado, innuendo and actual performance fuelled expectations of ROI’s of 30% or better when the Western markets were struggling to get double digits. In fact ROI’s of the former magnitude were being realized by entrepreneurial (yes, my broker/agent friends, insurance staff can be entrepreneurial) life insurance companies. The winners were often those in first with the new products and new means of recruiting and retaining career field agents. First, generally meant the competition both local and foreign (we are the foreigners outside of the confines of N.A.) was too comfortable or too slow to react to change in consumer demands. First, also meant being ahead of both local insurance regulation and reserving requirements while great pressure landed on the lap of pricing for the mortality where no mortality statistics existed. Actuaries without their mortality tables are like politicians without their constituents.

Canadian companies have tended to do well in the region and for the most part have excellent reputations both taken alone or in comparison with other foreign enterprises. Our staff in the region tended to be great at making allies of local governments, staff and the general public. We are seen as a benign people who add value to the region and are not associated with terms like plunder, taking advantage, selfish and dictatorial. You know, typically Canadian, eh.

Singapore, Hong Kong and the Philippines have been home to decades of Canadian “expats” who have slowly constructed leading companies in each country. Well, not always leading but a least consistently there. Through wars, economic and military, and political uncertainty our mutual companies stuck to the region knowing the life industry could and would survive these sporadic dailiences. Our Canadian confreres neither dominate a market or play second fiddle to large local or international players. Wherever I have ventured in these three countries it is with pride that as a Canadian I can share in the reknown.

More recently in the past, recorded live by CNN or frequent flyers, the Canadian contingent has made strides (well sometimes baby steps) into Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Thailand and South Korea. Often the start up operations are tough on staff and boards as local governmental obstacles and personnel practices tax to the utmost our Canadian ingenuity. Each market is different and requires the wisdom of past experiences tempered with an in depth study of the current local business culture.

Generally speaking patience, an understanding and committed board of directors and a big wallet pave the way to success. The timing of success is never certain and at times looks elusive but it generally arrives. The amazing thing about the timing is that success often arrives well after the initial management that made the risky decision are long gone due to retirement or reenginering.

Indonesia is a super market with a potential customer base of 195 million people. An emerging consumer group that regardless of its religious nuances (some notable religous groups are against the very idea of financial gain at time of death, which has curtailed the potential of some markets except for the takaful cooperative concept of life cover) will prove to be the most spectacular country for real and sustainable profits in the next five to ten years. The strange anomaly here is the lack of Canadian expats and the predominance of Australian, New Zealand and American expats. So many of the actuaries and accountants were from the land of Aus yet it was not for their familiarity with kangaroos (have never seen a kangaroo in Indonesia). There never seems enough Canadian content, yet we have a surplus of both disciplines in Canada and I am sure most of us nonCAs or nonFSAs would help them pack.

Like a lot of countries Indonesia insists that foreign companies partner with local companies and our two large mutuals who are in Indonesia have both chosen wisely. Picking a local partner is a serious business akin to picking a marriage partner. The conscequences of a failed marriage can pale in comparison to the failed business arrangement. From all points of view it is generally conceded that our Canadian companies have done a superlative job in picking partners. The partners have helped negotiate or perhaps navigate the local intricacies. The marriage of Canadian life insurance know how with local political and cultural savvy has produced leading offspring.

Indonesia was also the home of one of Morton’s lessons of travel. The lesson learned was read the papers and avoid countries that a Canadian statesperson has recently blasphemied for some human rights indignation and/or attack on the sanity of their government. On a trip to Indonesia, where custom was for a speedy flow through customs and immigration, I dutifully handed my passport and visitor paperwork to the man in uniform only to see the eyes grow fierce and the demeanor change from welcoming to threatening. I was immediately and without forewarning (no time for one phone call) whisked away to a private room where I was left to ponder my fate. What had I done? Why me? Would anyone care? MO might since Steve needed an article!

After what seemed like an eternity, but was probably 90 seconds, in walked three uniformed officers with bars and stripes that denoted power. They glared at me as I jumped to attention (Boy Scout salute in hand). Finally they attacked me for blasphemying their government and supporting terrorists on far off islands under Indonesian control. After some pleading and crying they let me disappear but not without a very stern warning that I should caution the Canadian Government about keeping their nose out of places it does not belong. I trembled for days wondering how I a mere slave of the insurance industry could tell Ottawa how to manage when even the CLHIA doesn’t listen to me! The fact that Ottawa had made a statement condemning Indonesia for the way they handled the East Timor incident was only hours earlier a piece of newspaper trivia. Everything can and does in my case affect my travels! It was the only time my Canadian passport let me down. If chastisement prevails in the papers I no longer visit the chastised. The next time the water torture or matches under finger nails may break me.

Korea, the south part, has been slower in its acceptance of foreign intruders and as such growth and future growth are not as one would target. My brief experience in this market made me feel very alien and very much the outsider. Contrasted with Indonesia’s warmth (with the one exception) and openness, I found Korea to be colder and very barricaded to new entrants. It is like visiting those rich and famous relatives who make you feel like you should go home early. Once over this initial cultural depravation I am told that there is a point when you are accepted into the business community but never 100% — that happens between the diverse sections of Canada so we should not take offense!

The Philippines are carrying the legacy of Marcos and ensuing turmoil, uncertainty and much ballyhoed assassinations. Since my first visit there I felt comfortable, even lying on the floor of a taxi as we sped through a spot where snipers may lurk. I like floors of taxis, what can I say. In all seriousness ( my dear wife thinks the former sentence was in all seriousness) the people of the Philippines are warm to visitors. They are fully cognizant of the North American failings in the insurance industry and want to avoid them locally. They have a preponderance of insurance staff that carry all the correct credentials to run life insurance companies very proficiently. Our Canadian operations here make use of both “expat” and local talent. Local talent will shortly man (or woman) all key roles since there is a plethora of talented staff in Manila or willing to return from far off lands to ply their insurance craft in a home environment. The Philippines has been under rated for too long and in my opinion it gives all the appearance of shaking the past’s biases.

My favorite country or city, depending on your perspective, is Hong Kong , perhaps because my wife was born there and I have so many business friends there that have educated me in the ways of Asia Pacific. They made sure my errors were minor, my recovery swift and my sins humourous. Their patience with the Canuck made me comfortable with all aspects of the local industry from agent to reinsurer. Canadian companies have an excellent reputation here although we are not the leading companies. We have one of our mutuals ranked in the upper echelon for so long it is taken for granted that its prowess will be eternal. Many a local leader has been founded in the principles of life insurance through working here in a Canadian operation or getting their early education and mastering a discipline back in Canada. Our ties are strong in a very tough market.

Hong Kong has such a dependence on strong distribution systems that Canadian expertise at building same especially within our mutual companies has made us often the model for staff development. Competition has hit Hong Kong but not to the same degree as in Canada. Rates are approaching North American aggressiveness (mortality is reported to be better in Hong Kong than it is in Canada). Term insurance still lacks a following because of commission structure and the tax advantage of permanent cover like endowments. I can explain an endowment to anyone who will send me a stamped self addressed manila envelop. This market is oblivious to 1997 and only those without a Canadian passpot show any concern. Life in this dynamic city state will no doubt remain state of the art and prosperous.

What are the odds for success in a country of 2.5 million people, 13 life insurance companies, strict capital regulations and severe agent recruiting and retention rules. Pretty slim! What is purported to be the toughest market in the world has proved just that for Canada’s largest mutual (not my words, theirs). This is a country known for no gum chewing, caning and a great airport. Canadian ingenuity coupled with a strong local partner failed to take our insurer to the top of the heap. We are still in the heap and perhaps the next century will accommodate our climb to the top.

Malaysia, Thailand, India (home of my worst travel experience which has MO’s editorial staff sick to their stomach), Vietnam, and other local countries all offer the opportunity for expansion and I am sure each will have the benefit of a Canadian company when the doors open. The Malaysian insurance industry has been praised in the past articles for MO and at this juncture I remain enthralled by its potential and its depth of insurance personnel well trained in all the insurance disciplines. If only they would open up the market to foreign operations. Canada had an open invitation to help build Indonesia’s own reinsurance company; but, for reasons I still do not fathom, walked away leaving somewhat hard feelings.

China is so big it deserves an article on is own but my brief trips there could not qualify me as an expert in any way. Beg for permission to open a representative office. Stay in the line and out of trouble for three years. Keep abreast of all the key political players. Only then you may get a license to actually sell insurance. I would rather sit back and wait for the gates to open wide which may be in 3 years or 30. My preference is for some semblance of insurance regulations to be tested and understood. Currently we are witnessing the birth of legislation, regulation and interpretation that will lay the foundation for future generations. One of the legacies of our mutual company par policy holders may be that they financed the birth. Generous policyholders all.

Given the creativity that abounds within the heirarchy of insurance leaders in China and propensity to adapt quickly, I am positive this market unequivocally will be the world’s greatest insurance market someday (for those of you laying bets the “someday” is anyone’s guess).

Lately Canadian companies not known for adventuresome movements have taken the plunge. Perhaps it was the Board decreeing that “we too should be global and earn potentially 30% on our investment. More likely it was management in need of new focus and distraction from the contraction of our home market. Surely it could never have been the attraction of 14 hours on a plane enduring tiny seats, meals and toilets. It gives a whole new meaning to “oh, what a relief it is”.

Following Sun and Manulife’s early lead the likes of London, Mutual and Canada have laid the foundations of new ventures in numerous countries. Each has a different view of which country, in which order and in which manner but they are all definitely on the move. It is a momentous occasion to see such giants of Canadian insurance history move back to first principles in new markets. Their historic expertise, if still available, in building and retaining career agents will certainly set them up as potential success stories since distribution is the key. Their respect for local customs and icons plus a marriage of their Canadian strengths with local people strength is guaranteed to hasten success.

I should not forget the smaller players who have been involved in the region over the decades. Imperial and Crown are names that emerge in conversation in the region. Both have never figured as major players or ascended the ladder of publicity others have but their names have added to the mosaic of Canadian enterprises throughout the region. With our shrinkage on the home front there may be no more new Canadian adventurers in the region, just expansion of those already entrenched. Pity. No one for me to consult to or hold their hand (figuratively of course).

Surprises do occur and the magnitude of statements, so far away from insurance related, can have on the average Canadian like me is never anticipated. In one country that was and is still a favorite, it was a shock to have an initial accusation thrust at me for which I had no predilection. I had no more met the local regulator when he and his associates asked if I and the company I represented (worked so hard for in Canada that was expanding depth and breadth in the region) would desert the market when the going got tough. Taken aback and short for words (an anomaly soon corrected) I asked the naïve question “Why?”

No sooner had my humble question pierced the stoney air than out came the answer followed by nods of agreement from those sitting opposite me at the inquisator’s table. In as few words as possible the local authorities recounted how just after the WWII a Canadian company pulled out of the country for reasons interpreted as unacceptable by predeacesors of the current bureaucrats. No hint of leaving obligations behind, merely not wanting to write new business (is it possible to write old business?). It firmly etched in my skull the implications of any error I may perform since it may for decades infringe on other Canadians entering the region. I would rather just be known as “He of delicate sphincter muscle”.

Never assume the past is the past and long forgotten. Governments and their legion of staff can and do document everything in the Asia Pacific region. Unlike this side of the Pacific, where time is fleeting and hardly worth preserving, the attitude over there is that everything said is worth preserving. Since if it was said it must be important. I also thing the odd one is just sadistic enough to try and catch those who change their tune every visit.

The Asia Pacific region is rich in human resources that are the equal of the world’s finest and often surpass so called Western nations who today often lack the enthusiasm for the future that abounds in every country over there. Canadian companies are part of the phenomenal growth and are doing Canada proud by transferring expertise and capital. The rewards are both monetary (par policyholders and share holders) and personal as our staff working or visiting the region acquire new respect for the world and its diverse people.

Posted on

The Players

Reinsurance looked like it was emerging as a significant part of the insurance landscape in Canada and for that matter in North America. Everyone wanted to be either a reinsurer or retrocessionaire. It looked like fun and a way to get relatively low cost premium income. There was no new expansion after 1990 and the best reisnurer had been bought by Swiss Re in 1988 so it was gone already. Look at the list of active reinsurers in 2003 and the volumes of risk they were paid to accept. The number is beyond the most optimistic of visionaries. Cheap prices by reinsurers and low risk tolerance by insurers plus the advent of the slogan “use of capital” all fueled the growth of reinsurers who then found themselves with almost too much business. Consolidation was fast and clean. Zap and you are down to less than half the active reinsurers. Even ERC who was a dynamo in Canada for 5 years ended its run for the gold in 2003 (officially in 2004).

I know of no person in the reinsurance business who would l have predicted in 1990 that such an astronomical percentage of life risk would be concentrated in so few companies by 2003. I now know looking back I should have had a bonus based on production with no cap!

Steve the editor again wanted to give his readers insight into reinsurance and how much the reinsurer played in the insurance sandbox. Today Steve and MO would probably have a monthly graph of reinsurance production and accompanying S&P ratings of the survivors.

Time to write the history of reinsurance from 1990 to 2005 (publishing in 2005 is closer to my timeline than 2004 for a variety of reasons). Now to find that publisher and first an editor. Steve how’s your time?

Ross

2004-04-14

Marketing Options

December 1991

I cannot fathom why such small amounts of reinsurance on so few policies can raise so many questions from some agents and home office employees. Believe me; reinsurance should never be intimidating or enigmatic. One big advantage in Canada is that eh players are few. So few, in fact, that I hope to introduce them all to you in this single article today.

Every year the Munich Re office in Atlanta, Georgia, compiles new business statistics from reinsurers and retrocessionaires throughout North America. In the U.S.A., the list for 1990 shows 26 active reinsurers chasing a ceding company’s excess insurance (over the individual company’s retention). That same market place produced $20 billion less reinsurance sums assured in 1990 than in 1988, ending at $152 billion. There were only 5 fewer active reinsurers in 1991 and the inactive dropouts could be viewed as casualties of a very aggressive market that could not continue to sustain so many corporate entities.

The Canadian numbers pale in comparison but who north of the border ever found comparison flattering? Please tolerate the fact that the Canadian industry numbers will be in U.S. Dollars and, for the lack of a calculator, this poor author is taking the easy way-out. In 1988 the Canuck insurance industry sent nearly $13 billion of new sums assured to reinsurers and the number tumbled in 1990 to just over $10 billion (out of $92 billion for the whole industry). By whatever measure the reinsurance industry in both countries took a beating in market potential. Fortunately it is still ticking and cooperative as ever in trying to help life companies of all sizes manage the mortality risk. (It does other things but I’m a uni-dimensional visionary on a roll)

There are many and sundry excuses for the demise of the market growth but suffice to say the time had come. Cheap, cheaper and cheapest term had taken its toll on in-force blocks. Smoker and non-smoker discrimination extended the feeding frenzy for new products at even lower pricing, culminating in sums assured escalating at a pace that outstripped retention. Along comes the ‘A’ word and fear halts some retention changes. Now we top the early nifty nineties nirvana with financial scrutiny of direct writers until it almost becomes wiser to reduce retention and spread the volatility of risk.

Enough pontification on the unsolvable and back to the hard facts of numbers, the root of our rewarding enterprises. The Canadian reinsurance numbers are split among 11 active reinsurers and pseudo-reinsurers (those with split or multiple functional personas operating as reinsurer, retrocessionaires and/or direct writers.) In reality, the number of players hasn’t altered significantly over the years but it has in actual key players. Many (at lease two) key reinsurers have left the active market and there exists a strong groundswell of opinion they were legends in their own time but I would not want to solicit a quorum on that issue.

Fig. 4 reflects the composition of the Canadian reinsurance world and highlights the diversity of reinsurers who are still active according to the Munich Re study. During the five year study, three reinsurers have shared the honour of being the host with the most new business and, if the study were to be extended backward, they remain the “Big Three” – the loving nickname created over a decade ago by a significant, yet perennial, “Number Four”.

In alphabetical order the Big Three are the Canadian Re, the Mercantile & General Re an the Munich Re. These three companies are all related to large head offices or parents in Europe who have zillions of years of history behind them. The parentage is obvious for two of them and more obtuse for the third. Reversing the order to protect my income, as a retrocessionaire should, the Munich Re is part of the world’s largest reinsurer out of Munich Germany. The M&G (an affectionate acronym coined and perpetuated by the industry) is of English/Scottish lineage with a well known owner in the international sphere – Prudential of England. The third player comes from the clocklike precision of Swiss workmanship under the more global nomenclature of Swiss Re, a leading reinsurer in the markets of the world.

The habitual holders of positions four through eight inclusive are there both by design or the sheer magnitude of the final step to turn the Big Three into the “Big Four” (or five or six). There one must stop or all you have is a cluster of the “Nondescript Eight”. With due respect to the future, I remain fixed on the alphabetic listing of General American, Life Re, Lincoln National, National Re, and St. Lawrence Re. This is a diverse group of companies that refuse to fit a homogeneous description and each has distinct roles to play in prodding and, in time, shaping the reinsurance dimensions in Canada. St. Lawrence grew slowly at first with modest beginnings soon overshadowed buy aggressive and novel marketing innovations that catapulted it into the limelight. Its roots are in Montreal where it retains its license base and corporate head office. Likewise, National Re has its origins in Quebec, yet has played an influential role in both facultative and automatic reinsurance from sea to sea. Both of the foregoing reinsurers are talented users of retrocessionaires throughout the world, spreading the mortality and financial risk.

Lincoln National is one of the earliest licensed reinsurers in the Canadian market. It is part and parcel of the large U.S. Reinsurer out of Fort Wayne, Indiana. The definitive nature of its marketing efforts and positioning has remained ever constant. Life Re (formerly General Re) has had a sporadic involvement in the Canadian market seeking particular market niches that reflects its particular strategy. Their head office is in New York. General American, operating out of St. Louis, Missouri, is both a reinsurer and a retrocessionaire in the Canadian market. In the U.S., it is the second largest writer of new reinsurance volumes. In both its Canadian roles it has been extremely influential in the setting of pricing standards.

The remaining contingent of also–rans is best described as peripheral players who neither set market price nor support the aggressive nuances of the leaders and aspiring leaders of reinsurance.

As the reader’s eye moves to the chart of retrocessionaires (Fig.5), it becomes noticeable that the names become better known while the new sums assured drop quite considerably. Ignoring one mother of all reinsurance deals in 1988, the early noted pattern of the reinsurers is replicated in the retrocessionaires – the market size has dwindled. The real deal makers in this group number only five with volumes dancing through the years without pattern. Three large direct writing companies play an exclusive role as retrocessionaires, while General American actively and directly supports the niche reinsurers. Sun is a big company with a definite professional approach to retro business that some say it learnt from Manulife. In reality, the two were active as reinsurers in old traditional reciprocity deals for a hundred years. The sheer size of these fortresses of financial integrity (it’s annual review time) make them both natural retrocessionaires. Manulife was the first truly active solicitor of retro business on a whole sale basis and leapt to the forefront in the 1980s. Equitable has been somewhat more modest in its overtures to the Canadian reinsurers and, at times, people mistakenly think they are the Canadian Equitable to Kitchener/Waterloo when in reality they are the Equitable Society of America.

Other players come and go in this arena of big cases which is a function of capacity wishes that fluctuate wildly. There are not that many jumbo cases to go around every year and reinsurers are increasingly looking at the financial credibility of the retrocessionaires to ensure the long term support for behemoth policies that require retro.

All the players are front and centre with nothing to hide. Each, I am sure, would give details of their operations should you make a polite request. They are an innovative and gregarious group who only bear close control when food and drink entices unbridled articulation. I am not saying that all of their stories are candidates for a Pulitzer Prize but each is an interesting piece of literature.

Posted on

Eleven golden rules for financial underwriting

Every insurance market in the world has witnessed periods when scrutiny of the financial integrity of application forms has been found wanting. Unlike medical underwriting, financial underwriting is not dependent on sound medical experience and reams of statistics. The fact that several companies in South Africa are expressing a concern about financial underwriting when there is increasing pressure to get applications converted to insurance contracts, is just one of the examples of the underwriting cycle for things like insurable interest, over-insurance and anti-selection by dubious consumers.

Have there been early deaths that spur one to talk about financial underwriting at this juncture? No, not that we have heard about, but there is a mounting concern, because if one looks outside SA’s borders there is evidence of mortality skewed by early claims, where at death the wisdom of the underwriter’s financial judgement or lack thereof is called into question. Underwriters in SA need to ensure they are seen to be more proactive and in control of change.

Poor financial underwriting has had many recurrences in the ultra- competitive North American market. The late 1960’s and early 1970’s saw a few early claims that made underwriters look rather foolish and gullible. Subsequent rounds of papers and articles emerged following poor results with what became known as ‘jumbo cases’ in the mid 1980’s and again in the late 1980’s. When all the rhetoric is stripped away, the basic message to underwriters was ‘make sure the case makes sense’.

Underwriting standards lowered

When I review old claims I see a pattern emerging of underwriting standards being lowered under pressure from producers or zealous marketing departments. Even though the financial justification, insurable interest and/or dubious nature of the business is in question, it is easier to say ‘yes’ and move on, than stick to the premise that the producer has not made it ‘make sense’, so you are going to continue to decline until justified.

The pressure then pushes underwriters to turn to those bastions of aggressive risk taking, the reinsurers. The ‘willing reinsurer’ rationale is quite often based on doing a favour to win a friend over and hopefully get some good business. I have seen so many large early claims where only one reinsurer took the case and this is a sad reflection on the professionalism of reinsurers world wide. When insureds die early the insurer takes some solace in the fact the reinsurer took all the mortality risk, and then takes action against its own underwriter for getting it publicity on the front page along the lines of ‘Company X supplies motive for murder through unjustified amount of life insurance.’ If the case is not justified in the eyes of the insurers’ own underwriting experts, why, when one of ‘x’ reinsurers’ underwriters says they will take it on the same evidence (really lack of evidence), does he or she approve issuance?

Every company has their rules of underwriting and I am the first to concede they should be challenged when justified. Let us take the magical keyman rule. That rule states that a key person can have five times income and the beneficiary is his or her employer. It was not born of mounds of research nor statistical analysis of the key people’s worth to their company. It was meant as an educated guess as to a multiple to start from. I believe there are some people running operations who are key only to perhaps a multiple of one times remuneration. At other times the multiple need climb as high as twenty times to reflect the very unique key contribution of some talent. Each has to make sense for the circumstances and thus the rule goes by the wayside.

Medical underwriting

Underwriters the world over are so extremely proficient at medical underwriting they are like machines at directing applicants into their risk classification slot. They are aware of the intricacies of the most obscure medical impairment thanks to the teachings of mentors, manuals and group meetings, and are able to assess the most complex details of the applicant’s medical past and present. If a reinsurer takes the case so rightly in need of a rating, they are the first to challenge the sanity of the reinsurer. We have medical underwriting pegged so well it is almost boring.

Financial underwriting and the ‘common sense’ approach to the subject preached in the past decades needs to resurface and become part of today’s curriculum. All the medical testing and lab works makes for a great industry. Teaching and mentoring how to ask the simple ‘does it make sense?’ question just seems to lack pizzazz. It sometimes takes, as history all over the underwriting world has shown, a few bad claims of a magnitude to raise the eyebrows of executives, to reinstate the rallying call of prudent financial underwriting once again.

The rules of financial underwriting as I see them, can be summarized in the following fashion:

1. Large and early claims will test the best of underwriters and

management regardless of how well you select risks.

2. Does it all make sense?

3. In partnership insurance who are all the partners and are they all insured equitably?

4. Never, never allow a person to be worth more dead than alive to family or business!

5. Multiples of salaries for keypersons or personal insurance are strictly guides and must reflect in summation the true financial loss in terms of the time value of money.

6. Banks make great beneficiaries but they are not necessarily without bias — they always win with or without the insurance.

7. Are you guaranteed that the in-force to be replaced will indeed be replaced? Do you follow up? Do you have legal remedial solutions?

8. Make use of your own companies accounting and investment experts to see if the finances are right on.

9. Use the Internet as your personal search engine for finding both personal and industry information.

10. You can never reinsure the notoriety from a bad claim.

11. If, with your advice and counsel, the agent cannot make it make

sense, decline.

These are not the only rules and I would encourage senior officials to support the study of financial underwriting and its offspring — underwriting for persistency. Support means they too have to ask and make the point to the pressure of distribution: ‘does it make sense?’

Posted on

On A Roll – Sometimes It Just Never Rolls Right

Many a flight in 2006 went well and actually took off and landed on time. I take no credit for such good fortune but rather applaud the rarity of such events when they do happen. I think airlines in general are just penurious with their “on time” delivery. Switching carriers rarely does any good as each airline has their “bad days” or better yet their “good days” do occur amongst the “bad days”. What prompts this musing is the seemingly elongated stretch of misfortune of not having any flight leave, arrive or behave as advertised. From May to early September 2006 my destiny was to suffer the most irritating of delays and generally terrible ground and flight crews that did nothing to make the misadventures more palatable.

To recount all the flights from hell would bore even an airline critic or the travel ombudsman. Thus my tale uses the most taxing trip and the capstone of five months of travel. It started as what should have been an easy flight from Toronto to Heathrow, change planes and head to Budapest. “Should have been” ended up as “not a hope in Hell.”

True to my habits of on time delivery of my body and luggage to airports well in advance of takeoff, I arrived at Terminal 1 of Toronto’s Pearson Airport some two hours and thirty-two minutes ahead of flight time. Usually for frequent flyers, with enough miles in the air (or on the ground waiting for a gate), there is a privilege line to fast track me through the check in process. It was indeed a short line. I must be truly blessed this day.

The short line was short but also, much to my chagrin, not even moving. Why I did not move from my stationary position as next in line began to wear on me? What could be taking the person ahead of me so long to check baggage, get boarding pass and disappear through the security check? It sounded and appeared that he was rerouting himself through a dozen countries, trying to use the complex upgrade certificates on each segment and insisting on seat “3A” as he had a phobia about every other seat. His patience was being tested as was the ground staffs. My patience was being toyed with but I had time to spare so another 5, 10 or 15 minutes did not matter. But it was 16 minutes and 33 seconds before I advanced to check in. Meanwhile all the other check in staff serviced regular passengers who lacked the “privilege” status. Who said “loyalty” has its privileges? Certainly it was not the airline, but perhaps “loyalty” is an overused word in even our business these days. “Loyalty” is but another seven letter word to be used in a willy nilly fashion by employers, staff and suppliers.

As I moved to step two, which was to make it through security, I heard the check in staff say there has been an “equipment change” but it did not affect my assigned seating. Other than the knowing that an equipment change announced two plus hours in advance of departure time is no deterrent to “have a good flight”, I became apprehensive for some unknown reason.

The mandatory security screening was just as it had been for the last several years but exaggerated in intensity since “liquids” were added to the list of prohibited items like knives, AK 47s, gel explosives and nail files. Why is it that I get in the line behind someone who has not flown in 20 years, carries enough cosmetics to be considered a travelling Avon Lady and has enough trinkets adorning her body to indicate she watches too much of the “Shoppers’ Channel”. Four attempts latter she finally strips herself of all the banned substances and metal but with the anger and blasphemy directed at the security team which would make a sailor blush or at least take notes. Thankfully we were spared the sight of her body search as that would have taken an hour! The imagination runs amok at what one might find in the numerous body folds of the dear lady. The husband on the other hand having slid through with no encumbering paraphernalia kept yelling at her “I told you it was forbidden to travel with so much illegal contraband like body spray, anti aging creams and steel toed shoes.”

My experience comes in useful as I clear the dreaded portal and not even my watch sets off the alarms (leather strap being the preferred binding over steel). Too bad, because on this occasion, it is a rather attractive security guard who would have done the body search. Note to self, wear a bigger belt buckle next time with iron crucifix buried under shirt.

Step three varies dependent on how one likes to spend time waiting at airports. I like to sit in the “privilege” lounge and use their internet and phones. The afternoon cookies are also an attraction! It is a crowded lounge and makes one wonder if the environment on a crowded day is better here or in the spacious common areas of Terminal 1. Even with the crowd of people and buzz of 200 cell phone conversations, I could hear the voice or twang of my traveling business connection who shall be labelled “N” to protect Neil’s identity. We make the perfunctory “How Are You’s” and then get caught up on company and local office gossip and politics. That killed the hour rather quickly and we never did finish the list of office political misadventures. If enough people gossip one can piece together what is actually happening in an office where leadership lacks communication skills. If the office does have good communication skills they write a book about it. When was the last time you read a good book of an actual real life company’s successful office communications? Off to the plane.

Not only had there been a change of aircraft but someone forgot to use the new seating configuration so the gate was a clutter with people scrambling to get new seat assignments, business class people fuming that they now had to ride with the masses and children who should have been asleep. We are definitely going to be late leaving Toronto and true to form the Spartan team of Air Canada staff were in a foul mood, seemed disorganized and at times abandoned the process for a latte. Take off came over one hour later than scheduled and the air travellers all knew arrival at Heathrow would be late. For those with connecting flights like “N” and I the 80 minute period to make the connection is now down to 20 minutes. Only an Olympic sprinter on drugs could even attempt that challenge at Heathrow.

We hit the ground determined to sprint to our next terminal and pray all the while that the plane to Budapest was somehow delayed enough for two middle aged men to manoeuvre Heathrow’s myriad of travelers obstacles. Carrying too much hand luggage can slow one down in a sprint. Against all odds “N” and I made it through using the “privileged lanes” that the Brits still know are important to those who can pay or can prove royal lineage or at least one’s mother slept with royal lineage. That plus some intimidating looks got us to the Hungarian Airlines desk a mere 10 minutes after scheduled departure of the plane. The smiling check in man said calmly that the gate is closed so too bad. He said go sit over there and cool your heals (it was the heart rate I was more worried about) while he checks flights. Then as if only seconds later (heart rate must have brought on delirium) the smiling check in man waved at us to come on over. He announced that if we hurry there might be a chance to get on the flight. Great news.

Once again the heart rate was maximized, sweat was more evident and 24 hour deodorant was tested to its full commercial advertised limit. Turning the corner we hit, in a figurative sense, a closed boarding gate door. Only a couple of people were in the departure hall at our gate so our assumption was we ran for nothing. It was only now we decided a bio break was the smart thing to do. As we turned to hunt down the “Male” sign a security guard asked why we looked so forlorn. Our answer was the missed flight. His bright faced smile said we had plenty of time to catch the flight as it had not even arrived at the gate and thus the gate doors were still closed! As our minds reflected on the sadistic check in man, the need of the bio break was a top priority especially for “N”. Too much water is sometimes a curse and even a great reinsurer like “N” could not calm the 4 litres of liquid inside his bladder. (Note: reinsurers are noted for large bladders which enable them to never leave the negotiating table or cocktail party before there guests. There is one exception to this and I have pictures to someday show the world of her in her favourite position.)

Feeling under less of a biological strain as well as a travel strain we now appreciated that with almost two hours to cool our heels and underarms our luggage would surely make the flight to Budapest. “Don’t worry Be happy” came to mind as we sat very still hoping for a pulse rate below 100 per minute to arrive before we had to lug carry on stuff onto the plane. Life does not get much better than sitting knowing where you are going (few executives today know or at least their staff believe they have no idea), your baggage is going to arrive with you and the thought of another new city finally took hold.

My luggage came through the luggage belt unscathed in Budapest and near the end of all arriving luggage which is usual when they put a “priority” tag on it. “N’s” luggage decided Heathrow was a nice place so it stayed behind. We did not realize that until all luggages were off the conveyor belt and no one was left in the area except the baggage handlers. “N” took his foul mood to the lost luggage window where the usual smiling clerk asks you to fill in forms and asks that infamous question “When did you last see your luggage?” Is the answer “When I checked it in, in Toronto?” or is it “When I went into the cargo hold mid flight to see how it was faring as we crossed the Atlantic?” We are now about 4 hours behind schedule and poor “A” has been waiting at the airport to meet us for the last 6 hours. Instructions on how to get a modest amount of “we are sorry” cash from the airline consumed more time and mental acuity in finding where and how. Hungarian was neither our second, third or fourth language.

Okay the worst has to be over and we can now control our own destiny as we take to a rental car and drive a modest distance to 14 Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Street in Balatonalmadi, Hungary. What can happen in 110 kilometres of expressway?

Each of us (“A”, “N” and I) had copies of the “Yahoo” driving instructions plus a route map from here to there and back. Three turns onto an expressway, change expressways once and three turns off the expressway and we would be safely in bed at the Ramada Hotel and Conference Centre (not exactly the Grand Hyatt Resort and Spa but that was reserved for leadership travel only). Written word and pictures of the route were not adequate for “A” who paid the extra currency for a talking GPS machine to be fitted in our rental car. Now we had three sets of instructions, three route maps and a GPS navigator. A stranger could see in a flash that we were in the risk management side of insurance! The salesman would have hired a taxi and the leader would have employed a limousine and consort to while away the travel time.

“A” was insistent we listen to the machine as it calmly told us where to go! The frustration was almost immediate as the machine made the three turns shown on paper instructions become six turns. Not only that but every time we got on an expressway we were calmly told to exit freeway and take a secondary road. Strange how different “Yahoo’s” instructions were from the friendly and monotone GPS voice. Get on the expressway. Get off the expressway. “A” had to find a service centre since “N” needed badly a bio break (again consuming so much water, although great for the complexion and bodily functions does have its down side) and we needed to buy an expressway pass. With pass in hand and water level down to tolerable level we traveled on. Why did the GPS seemingly keep us going in circles? We all knew we had passed the same homes and the same scenery many times and thus concluded we were traveling in circles. As darkness descended only the lights and intersections were recognized over and over again. “A” though secretly had unbending faith in the technology and perhaps thought the GPS was saving us from a revolution (actually started two days later) or a washed out freeway. “N” sat stoically in the back seat fretting over his upcoming appearance in front of important customers dressed in tacky shirt and jeans (without a crease). More accurately as much as we did not want to admit it, we were traveling the same circle route over and over again. What did the GPS have against the freeway? How long before “N” wanted to stop at he same expressway gas station for a bio break. Maybe then he would be convinced he had seen that urinal before.

Okay we would over-ride the GPS, take the freeway and head for our destination. Finally three hours plus late we were driving down “Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Street”. Problem was there was no hotel at #14. The family home looked far too cozy to host hundreds at an insurer’s conference! Okay, collectively we knew there was a problem, so we agreed after much debate to ask a pedestrian if he could tell us where to go. Three men succumbing to asking for instructions was thought to be a world record and fit for the Guinness Book. “N” sure would like a Guinness about now. In English we hoped the pedestrian had some understanding of our hand gestures, points at map and slow English. His English was very rudimentary but he was clear when he said we were on the right street but we were in the wrong town or more rightly wrong village. I could never have helped someone in Richmond Hill who needed my rudimentary Hungarian. He very carefully told the three of us how to get out of town and in the right town and on the right street.

In a moment of reflection I wondered if the competition had sabotaged our GPS! It would clearly be they that benefited from a tired band of three arriving at the meeting haggard looking and without the right attire. Sorry only “N” would be shabbily dressed. We did try and console “N” with the comment that a new sport coat, pants and shirt would be less than people we know who squander more on golf and wine. At least this was in the name of marketing and image building; when golf with staff helped who, one could ask.

Finally we arrived at the address in the right town and were whisked through reception in a most efficient manner. One could think the super service was due to any combination of a) it was midnight in a small town, b) three big men looking ready to kill their GPS, c) “N” badly in need of a bio break and d) the 24 hour period on their deodorant had expired.

The rest was boring. The talks went well although the message was tampered with at the last moment or after. The audience through the translators’ version seemed happy with only a few sleeping or left wondering what they missed in the translation. “N” made a public apology for his lack of proper attire. “A” still fretted over the belligerent GPS and the numerous emails changing all the plans at the last moment for the next event in Warsaw. Why is it those who delegate responsibilities because they do not want the responsibility make sure those that take responsibility are driven to drink with micro management? You will have to wait for the book and the insight it will bring to management or what passes for management.

“N” and “A” went on to Warsaw to another story I can only one day write about in my management script. “N” happy as bio breaks were less frequently needed (learned that 3 litres will suffice) and he had clean underwear (simper ubi sub ubi) and a tooth brush. “A” would take weeks to come down from his “high” of two public spectacles (the good kind that warm the heart) in the same week.

For me the flight home was just perfect. A rare great airline crew on all flights. A quiet lounge offered mid trip solace. On the way to Vancouver passing near the Pole I wondered if the isolation of the Arctic is where we should send all incomplete management to see that they cannot control the environment even though they think they can. Enough of that political thought as Vancouver grew closer and I still had two more stops to make this week. If its Wednesday the speech is on…

Posted on

The Secret of Hiring Good Senior Underwriters

Underwriters as a profession were under fire as they became more and more in the forefront of broker complaints. Brokers were everywhere and their demands were seen as reasonable by marketing types and unreasonable by underwriters and their leaders. I got into a bit of a controversy (not my first time) by suggesting that education and medical knowledge did not represent 100% of what constitutes a great underwriter. Delivering a message and being flexible were attributes most needed to the medically competent. Underwriting has never been an exact science and with pricing becoming less of an exact science (preferred and the guesses surrounding what price for what preferred criteria were growing) as well as the need to comprehend the complete proposed insured and sell a decision was foremost in skill set demands.

Steve the editor of MO said put it in writing thee thought s of yours and he would see to it that someone would read it. Response was mixed. The academic underwriter said medical knowledge was still the be all and end all with communication skill an unnecessary asset. The practical well respected guru of risk selection said I was right on and asked if I had a test to determine which underwriter had the moxie to make it to great.

Ross A. Morton

2004-05-10

Marketing Options

May 1993

Isn’t it strange that now that higher employment in the life insurance business is escaping the stranglehold of actuaries, the banks are hiring big company actuaries to start their life operations? Just as perplexing is the new trend to hire those endowed with banking experience to run life companies. But I will not critically analyze more informed decisions than mine; rather let’s look at hiring the senior home office underwriter – a subject upon which I can speak with more authority.

Hiring a home office underwriter may first appear to be a tough task. In my business (no, not the banking business), the delicate egos in the field must be catered to by meek minions in head office. Thus, the astute discharge of the demanding task of hiring a home office underwriter suggests that need for Solomonic Skills.

Ask a life broker who to hire and he responds, “The most liberal, of course”. By definition, this is the underwriter who has a strong bias to the word “yes” and needs trifocals. Ask the same questions to the pricing actuary who sets those ungodly low prices for the product and this chameleon of the numbers world screams for the most conservative and restrained of persons.

As a means of placating their desire to be part of the recruiting process, I once asked some field types to suggest what they deemed the most cherished qualities of a senior underwriter. This was not an act of condescending chicanery, but rather a sincere attempt to let those who depend on good underwriters have concrete input. They told me.

After I overcame the palpitations and nausea, I asked for a list of candidates, this time ones that they had actually encountered over the years that would make solid contributions to building teamwork between field and home office. Their responses didn’t have me exactly bouncing in bliss, but at least the nausea stopped. Unfortunately, it turned out that those on this list shared a universal willingness to deal and they all had demeanors who knew how to treat a god – sorry, I mean a broker.

From my own point of view, the two qualities that I would look for in selecting a senior underwriter are expertise in risk evaluation and communication skills.

My critics may well challenge me on the first. With the growing use of computers in the underwriting process, why is expertise in risk evaluation still so important? It’s true that the new expert systems now being offered have superb capabilities to transfer data and eliminate the underwriting drudgery of running your finder down a check list. Indeed, jet issue has become computer issue.

Underwriting logic is now being transferred to computers so a broker in the field can follow the underwriting instructions on the screen and key in the underwriting information. If the client indicates that he is diabetic, the computer program can adapt to this information and pop up additional questions on the screen for the broker to ask. All the broker has to do now is return to the office with his electronic application on disk where it can be loaded into the mainframe for evaluation. (Note: Here we are in 2004 and all that software that contains the rules of the best and most accommodating underwriters still sits idly by. I grossly underestimated the tardiness with which insurers would embrace technology in underwriting and how insurance leadership would continue the drudgery of simple case underwriting. No wonder underwriters are lulled into a trance and then make mistakes on the case that really did need their attention.)

But, and it’s a big but, here’s where the problems begin for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the penmanship of most doctors is o bad that no computer scans can hope to load information directly from an Attending Physician’s Statement. Therefore, a senior underwriter or a medical doctor is required to key in the results of an APS into the computer. At this time, it’s faster for a good senior underwriter to make the decisions than it is to key the information and wait for the computer to provide the answers.

So much for competence in risk evaluation. As for communication skills, the reader must surely concede that there are times a question must be asked or a “no” delivered. There actually are recorded cases where the broker impeded and confused the underwriter. I recall a true situation that happened just west of Regina. An application arrived unannounced one day to the desk of an underwriter who had a reputation of being as brazen as any broker. The case was large. The financial history was non-existent.

The underwriter asked in a routine fashion for more detail. The broker being well-trained and versed in the art of diplomacy and tact said to the underwriter, “Cjwhdg lkjkd kd lkjfldk dswq,” or in English, “You’re stupid – there’s a very valid reason for insurance.”

It is best now that I move this story past a few choice pieces of dramatic prose and conclude with the broker’s enlightening statement, “Don’t you know who the applicant is and where the money is coming from?” Not to be outdone by the broker, the underwriter used her barroom verbiage to state, “KlKll ioe iopp laes iitmvc,” or in polite broker English, “I have no idea and would cherish the moment you told me.”

After senior representatives from both camps endangered there well-being by interceding the case reached conclusion. A happy conclusion in fact arrived three months later when the broker educated the underwriter with the tidbit that the applicant was the son of one of the wealthiest men in Alberta and the sole heir to all the money. The broker’s argument was that the underwriter should know all the rich people in Canada (and their heirs) by name.

With the demise of some life insurance providers as predicted by the life industry (always first with the news), there should be more than sufficient talent around in the next few years to fill all remaining senior underwriting positions. With further computer automation of the risk selection process, only the exceptional skilled and verbally competent senior underwriter will survive. Hiring a good one will be easy; they’ll be the only kind left.

Posted on

An Abridged Reinsurance History

INTRODUCTION

The reinsurance of life insurance business in Canada has grown in magnitude to the point where in 1981 approximately 15% of all new sums assured landed with the reinsurers – both with companies that are exclusively reinsurers or with direct writers that actively solicit reinsurance or retrocession business. In addition to today’s size of the reinsurance industry, we have the rather open criticism of reinsurers both from the direct writing insurers and other reinsurers. It is now in vogue to blame the reinsurers for almost all adversity that befalls the life industry that cannot be allocated to the federal liberal party. From where did the reinsurance industry ascend to such notoriety?” is the question I felt needed answering.

To answer such a leading question, I started on a path, which I originally perceived as a simple collation of various direct writing companies’ experiences in reinsurance since inception of Canadian life companies. Through friendly persuasion I was able to elicit the assistance of Harry King, recently retired from North American Life and in most quarters deemed to be the most knowledgeable reinsurance historian. Harry approached several companies for historical anecdotes, early treaties, and any other relevant information that would help in the construction of a reinsurance history – hopefully void of bias and innuendo! Unfortunately for Harry and I this formal request for information proved in the majority of cases, fruitless. Excuses varied from “previous records destroyed” to “hopefully we can supply information in the near future”. As the near future dragged well past one year, I suddenly realized a complete yet concise history was beyond my grasp. I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Manufacturers Life’s reinsurance department and Mr. Gordon Beatty previously at Canada Life. Without their contributions, this project would have been infinitely more difficult.

THE EARLY YEARS

From Harry King’s former company came copies of a couple of treaties, which must be qualified as one of oldest treaties between Canadian life insurers. The first is between North American Life Assurance Company and the Ontario Mutual Life Assurance Company signed on June 15, 1883. This treaty provided automatic reinsurance from one to the other and vice-a-versa. In most respects this hand written treaty varies minimally from what would exist today between reinsurer and reinsured. The striking difference is that what was said 100 years ago on three pages now has been expanded through rather complex legal jargon to 36 pages or more. It was surprising to discover both companies agreeing to allow the same coinsurance commissions on each other’s business. The commissions used in this exchange were 60% first year and 10% thereafter regardless of whether the plan was permanent or term insurance – yes, Virginia term insurance has been around a long time (excuse the Charlie Willism!).

By 1887, the second treaty reflects a modern approach to reinsurance – it was typewritten. Fortunately for all involved, the treaty was a very concise bilateral agreement entailing a page and a half of wordings. This treaty between North American Life Assurance Company and Temperance and General Life Assurance Company of North America appears to have been on a modified yearly renewable term rate basis including a percentage of expenses in the first year. The original correspondence is still in the possession of Temperance and General, now called Manufacturers Life. (This treaty is difficult to comprehend for there appears to be a yearly charge based on the number and size of claims, but that is only a guess.)

A third representative treaty for the exchange of excess risk was between the Imperial Life Assurance Company and North American Life Assurance Company, signed on the 16th of December, 1899. This agreement, comparable to treaty of 1883 mentioned earlier, was a coinsurance contract. Both parties to the treaty agreed to commissions of 50% first year and 7% on renewals for ordinary life, limited pay life and term insurance of three years or more. On endowment policies of all durations the commission was 5% in the first year only. And to think, we in the industry believe aggressive coinsurance allowances from reinsurers are a product of the 1980’s! Simplicity still existed, as only two pages of wordings were required to cover all essential points of the agreement.

The term “gentlemen’s agreement” is often used to describe reinsurance affairs. It implies a trust on both parties’ part that each will be treated by the other in an honourable and fair fashion. After reviewing the early documents, I would conclude that a lot was left to the imagination in comparison with many of today’s long and sometimes uninterpretable treaties. In the brevity of early treaties, there was an obvious sense of security for both parties as the handshake was the bond that meant more than pages of dialogue. Has today’s desperate attempt by reinsurers to encompass all possible contingencies replaced the time honoured “gentlemen’s agreement”? The answer is obviously debatable but my guess would be that it has reached the point more words, and fewer hands. Clearly, there are circumstances today that prevail on the industry to document in treaty form our beliefs and expectations of reinsurance facilities. Frequent staff turnover in companies, frequent changes in reinsurers and more complex coverages and financing is but a few of today’s facts of reinsurance operations.

The “Model Reinsurance Agreement” was to the best of my knowledge the first example of a universally acceptable agreement to cover the transition of reinsurance in Canada. The model wording was produced by a group or committee representing the Canadian Life Insurance Officers Association (the forerunner of the C.L.I.A. and now the C.L.H.I.A.) in 1901. Like the later agreements (1938 Coinsurance Provisions and 1965 YRT Provisions) there was no official binding acceptance of this set of rules by the companies of the period. The 1901 agreement formed the foundation for the resolution of reinsurance disputes and the exchanges of reinsurance when no other formal reinsurance document existed between the disputers.

From correspondence reviewed, I would have to judge the early part of the 20th century as mundane as far as life reinsurance is concerned. The exchange of reinsurance went smoothly with very little involvement of exclusive (professional) reinsurers as we encounter today. Most, if not all, medium to large size companies were using each other’s retention or part thereof to cover large amounts of coverage on an individual case basis.

Bearing in mind the coinsurance allowances were generally equal for the exchange of excess risk, the only item left to debate was the premium per mil charged by the reinsured company. Letters written during this period imply very little fluctuation in premiums charged for various plans. When there occurred a significant difference, a written complaint was lodged with the ceding company by the reinsuring company. Probably a representative disagreement was the one between Mutual Life and Manulife in 1917: Mutual Life, the reinsurer argued that the premium per mil on a particular case should have been no less than $24.55. Manulife, the ceding company, countered with the price of $22.65 on the policy in question, which by the way was already in force. Over two months of correspondence did not seem to resolve the problem and the reader of the old files is left to wonder if Mutual Life or Manulife won or was an alternative reinsurer found who was more amenable to such a competitive premium being offered by Manulife. In comparison to the 1980’s we would find that the rate situation is resolved well before the case is even underwritten or at worst before an individual case is issued.

In 1922, the Ontario Equitable Life and Accident Insurance Company of Waterloo, Ontario entered the reinsurance field in a competitive fashion. Their letter to Manulife in February 1922 was the only true example of a company aggressively seeking reinsurance. They described their coinsurance allowances and YRT rates as “attractive and liberal”. The letter itself reflects a similarity to letters written today by a new reinsurer entering the Canadian market place. The following constitutes the heart of the letter:

“It is our practice to give very prompt service by wire and we have established satisfactory connections with quite a number of Canadian and American companies, who have been pleased with our facilities and arrangements.

We accept reinsurance without a formal treaty and in all cases where companies have given us business we have endeavoured to reciprocate.”

Reinsurance “watchers” will be startled to realize the Ontario Equitable offered carte blanche coinsurance allowances on a wholesale basis to all potential ceding companies solicited both in Canada and the United States. This certainly must confirm that there was a uniformity of premium rates within the industry that in no way exists in the later part of the 20th century.

Canadian companies expanded their horizon for more reinsurance and naturally traversed the border into the U.S.A. With the cooperation that existed in the 1920’s amongst Canadian companies, it would seem a natural progression to cooperate in a joint venture to solicit U.S. life reinsurance. The original treaty was referred to as a two party agreement providing automatic facilities for New York Life, the Mutual Life of New York, the Penn Mutual Life and the Union Central Life by the Confederation Life and Canada Life. The list of U.S. companies grew to six with the later addition of Equitable of New York and Equitable of Iowa. The Canadian contingent was expanded as well by the inclusion of Manufacturers, Imperial and Mutual.

Canada Life acted as the catalyst for the unusual treaty and in spite of the fact they had pulled out of New York State some years before they re-entered for the sole purpose of reinsurance. New York Life in turn was the figurative leader of the U.S. companies. Each respective leader in turn had agreements with its country cousins to share in the excess risk being offered. For example, at the point in time when only Canadian companies were involved, each assumed a percentage of the risk – Canada 42%, Confederation 16%, Imperial 17% and Manufacturers 25%.

The treaty in question was on a coinsurance basis with only minimal variances in allowances depending on which company was the direct writer. In fact, the range was less than 5% in the first year and zero thereafter. The automatic coverage was one times the ceding companies’ retention to a maximum of $300,000. This of course was for standard issues only and varied depending on age and mortality assessment. Interestingly, the amount was further restricted in the following ways:

a) For female lives the amount was restricted to $150,000,

b) For all term plans the schedule of automatic acceptance was limited to $150,000 (one-half the schedule),

c) For all term plans issued to females the restriction was one-third or a maximum of $100,000, and

d) The coverage automatically available was only applicable to cases written by the ceding companies’ own agent (implying no brokerage business!).

The close working relationship of the Canadian side of this unusual treaty expanded to encompass various other reinsurance requirements. First, we had a four party agreement to cover all direct written business of Canada, Confederation, Imperial and Manufacturers signed on May 12, 1924. That treaty was duplicated in April 1930 to provide reinsurance for the direct written business in U.S. dollars of the Canada, Confederation, Imperial and Mutual. The final link amongst these companies was a five-party treaty (Canada, Confederation, Imperial, Manufacturers and Mutual) covering all insurance issued outside the United States of America, by any one of the companies as well as to all business issued in the United States by the Manufacturers.

The above treaties representing a very active group of reinsurers flourished up until the outbreak of the Second World War and then faded into oblivion by the early 1950’s as the group gradually divided.

The available correspondence representing the first four decades of the 20th century leads me to surmise that most if not all companies were involved in assuming reinsurance. The list of companies included many who by the 1980’s were not involved in receiving reinsurance beyond the very rare case or not at all. Reciprocity was a large feature and the logistics of balancing reinsurance in with reinsurance out must have required a fine science of juggling accounts. With so many companies exchanging excess risk, the task of keeping abreast of each other’s plans and rates consumed a large amount of time. This is printed out in the numerous letters exchanged between London Life and Manulife during the 1920’s. These two companies were exchanging facultative coinsurance cases on similar allowances and thus went to great length to keep each other informed of new plans, wordings, etc. to ensure uniformity.

An article published in 1937 outlines the growth and magnitude of reinsurance in the early years. This same article describes the swiftness with which the reinsurance fortunes can and did change; a lesson well remembered in the 1980’s. I feel the article is a splendid dissertation on the historic early years and thus I am including the majority of the material entitled “A Survey of Reinsurance of Life Insurance in Canada” by J.G. Parker (Toronto) in the following excerpts:

“…. that this reinsurance should, in the great majority of cases, be obtained by contracts co-insuring all the terms and conditions of the original company’s contract rather than by the reinsurance of the excess risk on the renewable term plan.”

The reinsurance thus obtained proved to be profitable due to the comparatively favourable mortality and the relatively low expense of conducting the business. As a consequence several of the Canadian companies went beyond the borders of Canada seeking reinsurance, generally on the same terms as they had previously granted within their own group. This resulted in a marked growth in reinsurance received, particularly during the years 1920 to 1929.

The extent to which the business of reinsurance had grown is shown by the fact that during the year 1929 there had been received by the Canadian companies over 172 millions of dollars of reinsurance, an amount equal to 11% of the gross amount of business written by these companies in that year. There was in force at the 31st of December, 1929, over 774 millions of dollars of reinsurance constituting over 12% of the total amount of the business in force in Canadian companies.

The change in business conditions during the so—called depression years had a serious effect on the business of reinsurance in Canada. New reinsurance diminished to about one-third of the former amount due to the great decrease in the number of large policies being purchased. Not only did fewer large policies offer, but also the companies became decidedly stricter in their selection of large risks, and the possibility of over-insurance made companies look somewhat askance at applications for amounts of insurance, which previously would have been accepted and reinsured. Moreover, the changed business conditions seriously affected existing reinsurance by producing an excessively high rate of termination among large policies and also producing a large increase in the rate of mortality due principally to deaths arising from cardiac impairments and from suicide.

The extent to which the business of reinsurance was affected by these changes is clearly shown by the fact that during the year 1935 only 26 millions of dollars of reinsurance was received, or only 15% of the amount received in the year 1929. This was, however, a substantial amount as compared with the total new business written by the Canadian companies, being 4% of the gross business for that year. Moreover the reinsurance in force had decreased from 774 millions of dollars at the end of 1929 to 537 millions of dollars at the end of 1935.

As has been stated, while the Canadian companies originally obtained their reinsurance mainly from their own group, about the year 1920 there began to be received an increasingly large volume of new insurance from United States companies. A comparison of the amount of reinsurance ceded by the Canadian companies themselves with the amount of reinsurance actually received affords an approximation of the large amount of business, which came to Canada from sources outside of the Dominion.

Of the 774 millions of dollars of reinsurance which was in force at the end of 1929, approximately $360 millions had been ceded by the Canadian companies themselves, and of the 172 millions of dollars of new reinsurance obtained in that year, $70 millions originated from Canadian business.

It would therefore appear as if $414 millions of the reinsurance in force or over 53% of the total, had come to Canada from outside companies, and of the new reinsurance received in that year $102 millions, or 60% of the total, had been obtained from sources outside the Dominion, mainly from companies situated in the United States.

At the end of the year 1935, the figures, while reflecting the decrease in business received and in force, also showed a considerable change, particularly in the division of the reinsurance received. Of the 537 millions of dollars of reinsurance in force at the end of that year $265 millions had been ceded by the Canadian Companies but of the $26 million of reinsurance received $17 millions had been ceded from within their own group. While, therefore $272 millions, or about 50% of the reinsurance business in force originated outside of Canada, only $9 millions, or 35% of the reinsurance received came from without the Dominion. With the revival of business, applications for large amounts of insurance are again being made, but it is doubtful if the Canadian companies will be eager to accept any large amount of reinsurance, as in former years, from outside sources but will be more likely to content themselves mainly with reinsuring such risks as are undertaken by their own group.

The reinsurance transacted between the Canadian Companies has been largely co-insurance, the reinsuring company guaranteeing all of the benefits under the original company’s policy. In many cases no special reinsurance contract exists, the companies being free to offer the reinsurance where, they might see fit and possibly where there might be some opportunity of securing reinsurance in return. In all such cases the papers concerning the risk are forwarded to the reinsuring company for its acceptance or declension. Under these circumstances all matters such as commissions, expense allowances, etc., in regard to each individual case are arranged at the time that the reinsurance is submitted. On acceptance a copy of the original company’s policy is forwarded to the reinsuring company to have endorsed thereon a clause guaranteeing to the ceding company the benefits under the original policy and this document constitutes the reinsurance contract applicable to this particular case.

“The agreements further provide for certain types of risks to be submitted facultatively to the various companies in the group. Such cases are infrequent and usually involve some special hazard not encountered in the ordinary risk. Where facultative reinsurance is offered all of the papers are forwarded to the reinsuring companies for acceptance or declension, with full particulars of the action of the original company and the amount that it proposes to accept at its own risk. On acceptance the reinsurance proposal is completed in the usual way.

“In general the mortality experienced by the companies accepting reinsurance has been as good as the general mortality of the original company ceding the business. This is particularly true of the reinsurance ceded by the Canadian companies themselves, of business underwritten by their own agency staffs. Unfortunately a very heavy death rate was experienced for about three years following the year 1930 in that reinsurance which originated outside of Canada. It was composed mostly of reinsurance on lives carrying very large amounts of insurance, or what was termed “jumbo risks”. The two principal causes of death in this group of cases were, as has been stated, cardiac impairments and suicide.” (Emphasis added).

In Canada the companies in general arrange all of their reinsurance with Canadian companies, or with those, which are registered in the Dominion. In this way in preparing their annual statements of account they are allowed to deduct from their liabilities the reserves on the amount of the policies that they have reinsured. In business which originates outside of the Dominion of Canada and under which deposits of reserves or other deposits have to be maintained in the country where the business originates, reinsurance may be arranged with companies not registered in Canada and the reserves on such business may be deducted from the total liabilities of the company in making up the annual report for the Dominion.

In addition to the co-insurance contracts, of which a general description has been given above, some reinsurance in Canada has been affected by means of reinsurance agreements providing for the reinsurance of the net amount at risk in each year under a Yearly Renewable Term policy. (Emphasis added). The amount at risk in any year, is the amount first ceded by the original company, decreased each year by the reserve which the original company accumulates under a like amount of the original policy. The premium is usually a net premium, making allowances for initial expenses and for the initial favourable mortality due to selection by means of an especially low rate of premium in the first policy year, generally 50% of the ultimate rate. Under such agreements the same arrangements are usually made with respect to automatic coverage as have been described under co-insurance agreements. The reinsurance contracts are non-participating, without surrender values, providing for an amount of insurance decreasing yearly covering the risk of death.

The experience under this type of reinsurance has been favourable, especially where the reinsurance was obtained from companies with a small limit and where as a consequence the business ceded included a normal group of average lives. Where, however, a group of large insurers were included in the reinsurance the experience has been unfavourable, the same as has been the experience under co-insurance of this same class of risk. (Emphasis added).

The outstanding feature of the reinsurance business in Canada is the case and expedition with which reinsurance may be arranged among the Canadian companies. A committee of Medical Directors and Actuaries of companies associated with the Canadian Life Officers Association has met periodically over a period of many years and has done a great deal to promote uniformity of practice in the selection of risks. Laws governing policy conditions are in force throughout the various Provinces of Canada and ensure uniformity of policy contracts in their essential provisions. Agency contracts, while differing widely in maximum commissions payable to the agent, yet are in many respects similar, making it quite feasible to arrange satisfactory commission and expense scales applicable to reinsurance. A committee of those in the various offices having charge of the settlement of claims meets regularly to discuss their various problems ensuring a consistently uniform practice in this regard among the various companies. Similarly there exists a practical uniformity in the method of reinstating lapsed policies and in the rules governing changes of policy contracts. “Consequently it is only natural that reinsurance should be easily arranged amongst the Canadian companies themselves and the favourable experience of the past years would indicate no change in the practice which has been so consistently of value in the expeditions and profitable handling of excess risks in the life insurance business of Canada.”

The above article is an excellent reference on an era that was the same as today yet different. Concern with pricing and mortality was expressed yet not in an overly cautious way; similar to the early 1980’s when we have the same concerns. This was the time of no licensed, foreign domiciled, predominantly European reinsurers. The element of competition seemed to be missing in its current exaggerated form as the literature from the early days portrays more reciprocal agreements. The competitive aspect of reinsurance was secondary to the insurers primary intent to cover excess risks at a price that both the direct writer and reinsurer were comfortable with as representative of the risk. Because of the duality of numerous treaties, the reciprocity feature also allayed any concern over possible adverse pricing. The premiums and volumes that were exchanged represented approximately 7% or less of all life insurance in Canada. Of the new business issued in the latter years of the decade of the 1930’s only in the region of 5% was subject to reinsurance.

The growth of exclusive reinsurers in Canada was in an embryonic stage and a future article will try to document the growth to maturity of the exclusive reinsurers of the 1980.

Posted on

Emerging Medical Trends in Underwriting (2007)

I give many lectures and speeches during the year often tailoring the talk to the audience as I go along. Writing the speech out in advance cramps my style and flexibility. Therefore few of my boisterous moments are caught in print format. My PowerPoints are available but they hardly ever attest to what I really said at the spur of the moment in front of an audience. Many ask for copies of what I said afterwards (hopefully not to find a reason to chastise me but rather because I said something worthwhile. My family says to me “Just tape record all your speeches!”

At the annual meeting of the Association of Home Office Underwriters in October Vera Dolan Associate Editor, On The Risk – The Journal of the Academy of Life Underwriting was in the audience and took copious notes on what all speakers on the main stage said. I was truly amazed at how well she could capture the essence of what I said or tried to say. If only Vera had been with me as I gave almost 6 dozen speeches in 2007 and recorded what I said. I could fill my web site with lots of new material — some boring insurance stuff and some controversial and hopefully thought provoking. None of what came out of my mouth would be considered opprobrious but perhaps once captured by Vera would be considered somewhat profound at times.

I followed on stage the world renown Dr. Phil Smalley who gave his customary insight into the world of medical advances and how wonderful they are and will be thus supporting the actuaries vision of cheap mortality rates for all. I was not as kind to the world of insurance as I tried to steer the minds of the audience to the point of challenging the common believe that all is well when in reality the onus on all risk selectors to be faster, cheaper and easier is contra indicative of reality.

The following is reproduced with the very kind permission of the AHOU, On The Risk magazine and most importantly Vera Dolan who without her trained ear and fast penmanship I would not have this summary of what I said to post on my site.

“Mr. Morton said that the myth or reality every underwriter hears from advisor to marketing team to pricing actuary includes:

  • Everybody is living longer – just look at all the centenarians (over 4,000 currently worldwide).
  • Cancer detection is better and earlier.
  • Heart disease is noted earlier and treated.
  • There are many more tests and drugs for a variety of impairments.

With the squaring of the life expectancy curve, more “older people” will become applicants for insurance. Insurance product designers will need to consider how risk factor burden and disease prevalence will influence the percent qualifying for preferred. This raises the question of whether we should be focusing on older or younger individuals, a consideration that touches every market.

Pricing for claims has already dropped from a charge of $4 per $1,000 face amount to $0.37 per $1,000. There is no room for mistakes in this kind of pricing. Actuaries are guessing where mortality improvements will be made, and have already accounted for their estimated improvements by lowered prices. However, underwriters have to make this happen.

Many of the gains in life expectancy may be negated by the growing prevalence of obesity and diabetes. It is questionable if underwriters are handling this properly – should we raise premium rates to let the obese/diabetics remain standard, or should we rate them to keep them out of the standard pool? There are also many variables in obesity and diabetes that produce gray areas of risk that underwriters identify daily when underwriting individual cases – such gray areas can kill actuarial assumptions applied to the overall obese/diabetes segment of business. As preferred pricing has been typically set by product actuaries without the input of underwriters or medical directors, the mismatch in knowledge may cause trouble down the road.

Trends in staffing and operations have produced our current underwriting environment:

  • We exist in an era of “faster and cheaper;” underwriters have less time and far fewer tools to make quality decisions.
  • Underwriters are more expensive than ever, while being far more transient and demanding. However, automation is heavily used currently and is gaining ground, and over 50% of small cases are being handled by remote underwriters.
  • Protective value studies are harder to find than a good book; they are not being done due to sales demands and distribution woes.
  • Speed pressures have forced underwriters from making around 20 decisions per day to 40 decisions per day. The greater the speed, the more likely that errors will happen.

Fast tools such as prescription history are not always a good substitute for the more valuable (but costly in time and money) attending physician’s statement (APS). Mr. Morton wondered if the underwriter can be fooled by a prescription history, which may lead to more questions and/or APSs. A 2004 study of U.S. automated prescription histories showed the drug history provider had 2.4% hits by case count, but less than 1.2% hits of significance. However, 41.3% of all U.S. residents age 18 to 44 are on at least 1 prescription drug, and 85.4% of those aged 65 and older are on at least 1 prescription drug.

Moreover, knowing what drug was taken does not necessarily indicate why the drug is being taken. Often drugs with multiple uses will require an APS to define what the real impairment at risk is, so the prescription history may cost more in time and effort for those cases. Examples of common drugs used for multiple impairments include:

  • Klonopin, used for treating epilepsy OR severe panic attacks.
  • Lamictal, used for treating partial seizures OR bipolar 1 disorder.
  • Prednisone, used for treating skin disorders OR endocrine disorders OR rheumatic disorders OR collagen diseases OR allergies OR hundreds of different disorders.

Improved knowledge and availability of medical tests will increase the risk of antiselection. People know more about health risks, and therefore will look after themselves better and thus live longer. That is fine, but when people know more, they will also seek definitive diagnoses in ways that make records unavailable to underwriters and buy insurance. They may also buy insurance first and then get the diagnosis. There are medical services in Asia that now offer state-of-the-art medical screening and treatment at far lower prices than available in Western countries – more people are taking advantage of the information to engage in antiselection.

Other sources of antiselection come from legislative mandates to protect privacy and cover certain impairments. In the U.K. there are 13 genetic impairments that cannot be declined for life insurance. This may be an unwelcome message to brokers in the U.S. who might consider having similar legislation passed in the U.S.

In summary, current concerns of underwriters include:

  • Legislation as a promoter of antiselection, not as protector of insurance from the unscrupulous.
  • Time and expense pressure on underwriting.
  • Ongoing smoking, obesity, diabetes and untreated hypertension decreasing gains from mortality improvement.
  • Stranger-owned, consortium-owned life policies.
  • Assumptions by pricing actuaries that underwriters are so good that the effects of underwriting will last 25 years.

A summary of the “good news” for the underwriter:

  • More tests, education, understanding in preventing disease.
  • More and better tests to detect disease.
  • More options and less invasive organ and body repair and reconstruction.
  • The highest number of quality underwriters ever
  • Improvement in the timing, frequency and quality of audits
  • Improved segmentation (“fine tuning”) of risks
  • More automation to bring consistency and speed to underwriting turnaround”

AHOU brings together the people who are responsible directly and indirectly for the mortality results of the insurance industry. Without the prudent categorization of risk according to, at times, the hazy vision of the marketing actuary, the life insurance industry would not have the great mortality and thus profit results it has experienced for decades. At times like any organization AHOU can lose sight of its need to be controversial and an instigator of stability but overall it works and is leading many more individuals to a truly professional approach to the risk selection domain. I am always proud to be asked to present at their meetings and a big supporter of their mandate.

Once again thanks Vera, On The Risk and AHOU for allowing me to post the transcript.

Posted on

Paving the Cowpath Will That Be One Word or Two?

Over the past many months I have spent a considerable amount of my valuable time with systems people. They look the same, except for the pens in their pockets and intense giddiness when hardware and software is mentioned. They, these gurus of tomorrow’s solutions at today’s bargain prices, do speak a different language from us farm boys from rural Ontario. Because of these glaring differences I was astounded to hear reference to “paving the cowpath” by non other than an individual from IBM who spoke with a Texas twang.

The cowpath was fundamentally the route that paper takes from the customer’s desk or kitchen table to the bowls of the large life insurance company. Yes there are bowels deep inside often supplanting the heart but that is another story. The reference was of course to the making the path smoother to travel as step one and perhaps straightening it as step two. Benefits include not stepping in some great fertilizer or trying to poop and scoop with a plastic bag.

Filling in application forms is an integral part of our business and without the abundance of forms of all shapes and sizes we would have less bureaucracy, fewer lawyers and less of an encumbrance at the front end of the life insurance business. Unfortunately the paper is around for a few more years and there is a great struggle to reduce the volume what looms on the horizon may not offer much of an alternative unless everyone pitches in to make the choices viable. The worst possible scenario is for paper to not be reduced but exaggerated to serve no concrete purpose. Using two words to spell cowpath goes against my humble origins.

In late 1994 a rather sharp, as in bright pink paper, piece of mail came to my attention thanks to someone who was in cardiac arrest after having himself received the article in question via the Queen’s postal system. It was not that he wanted moi to follow his heart’s reaction but rather hopefully and erroneously tell him it was a mirage. Behind the vibrant pink cover were six pages that represented the culmination of countless hours of work by industry professionals. There was also the covering note reflecting the praises of the industry “alert getter”. My review of the onerous material was the same as the provider of the sleepless night, “Who is going to use this form?”

Not to hurt anyone’s feelings but “The Uniform Paramedical Part II” designed by The Uniform Part II Development Committee was a shock to the system (human not computer). Six pages of square boxes for nurses or doctors to steadily and exactly within the squares write in all that ails our potential customers. I never learned who was to pay for the filling in of same nor the training on printing and brevity. December 1995 and I am still searching for a company that is using this new and evolutionary form.

The intention was fantastic and well directed at the gathering of information that would free our computer’s desire for encodeable data via optical readers or at least clever data entry clerks (is that still politically correct or is there a more apt description of an age old unction? The race was definitely on to either have all concerned with an application for life insurance enter data directly onto a computer or at least print like you did in grade three. Unfortunately but probably predictable the race became a three-legged race. One leg represented the standardization of all our forms. The second leg represented ANSI standards (a North American wide move to standardize our data by number and specific locations. Lastly we had the laptop race, which became closer to fiction than fact in 1995.

Today we have hard earned real cash being spent on all legs of the race and yet there appears to be little concerted effort to bring all the factions together to build a vehicle that encompasses all that is needed now and sets up the future. I will mention a few initiatives that are going on with a restraint on my usual unbridled critiques of things that go bump in the night or in this case the light of day in our insurance industry. My apologize to any of the hard working committee members that I offend through my candour but I am sure you or they (if they are not readers of MO) will take in stride and put me on another task force.

The ANSI standards group has been looked at from afar by yours truly with admiration for its unfailing enthusiasm for what is a boring and tedious project spread over hundreds of volunteers who see gain from the pain. Their task is to get all our forms and procedures reduced to simple numeric codes that will enable the rapid assimilation by machine of our data and our directions for that data. In the world of the future their diligent and extremely detailed work will pay for itself many times over. For right now, as I learned when working on an insurance industry system, the standards are often ahead of the need or not quite ready where needed. Fact and fiction are merging though so lets not give up. At last count the life application had 400 plus encodeable pieces of data. That of course is the biggest xzy%$#… of an application any one of us will ever see. Again I will be pleased to see the abridged version of only two hundred.

The laptop as means of collecting data be it the application or the medical data via doctor or nurse is on its way and is in real use in some organizations — usually those that have captive field forces and can bear the cost. If we had a world whereby every agent or broker could enter all that personal data of customers and have it feed the illustration systems and on to the application for insurance, paper would disappear and layers of data entry people would be redundant. I was recently told of one large US company that has 11 (lucky eleven) points where critical data like name, SIN, date of birth and address are entered! With electronic applications we can feed the life insurance company with “EDI” that turns the crank of underwriting and administration systems.

I am waiting for this day, which I predicted, would happen in 1990. Maybe 1998 is the transition year between paper as our medium and binary numbers (binary numbers were designed for simple folk) as our salvation.

The generic application is just like generic medicine — it’s not only good for what ails you but also it costs so little. The largest cost is in the ownership ritual people have for what is coveted in their own application both part I and part II. Twenty-five years ago I was trained on the existing generic (it was not called generic since I think the word generic was not invented yet) part II. Individualism was the rage and the uniform part II was devoured by numerous precocious lawyers, underwriting academics (I enjoyed that period) and verbose medical practitioners. Today we look back on valiant yet futile attempts to get a generic application and notice our sister/brother (Steve, which is politically correct) industry in the automobile insurance environment using a simple, cheap and thin generic application.

Most recently a new beginning is sought for a generic application because agent, broker, underwriter, administrator, etc. wants to reduce costs, increase simplicity, carry less paper and move us to an eventual smooth transition to electronic data flow. A small group of forward thinking entrepreneurs unfettered by the past and encouraged by their employers want to have a generic application on the street by the end of the first quarter of 1996. It can be done and it would be a tribute to today’s life industry if we could drop the comical rivalry in building pretty to view but cumbersome to use applications. For the group I sampled a dozen brokers and two career agents (closet brokers who’s secret will follow me to my book) and six underwriters (had to have less than the producers for fear of reprisals). Unanimous in desire to have a generic application. Not quite so one-sided in support. One of the latter said it could not be done and is a waste of effort. The gauntlet is on the turf and I sincerely hope the whole spectrum of industry movers and shakers step up to retrieve it and bring about a miracle.

ANSI, laptops and generics (not to be mistaken with geriatrics) are here and evolving. There are no shortcuts to retooling our industry but a network that binds us all at the most cost effective unit cost an bring about all of the above as it forms a catalyst for evolution. Imaging paper and gradually increasing the EDI segment as it evolves and brokers learn to type faster than me is one way of getting the paper collected in front of the nose of the underwriter immediately. This will give immediate results to the broker while setting up the electronic infrastructure to handle more and more of those elusive binary numbers. The latter being a home run for the head office staff.

Telemarketing is a proven phenomenon that has been used to sell everything from chimney cleaning to insurance. Success varies by product but it generally has a large following of believers who hope it grows in life insurance. The latest upstart of similar genetic structure is the teleunderwriter. The agent does his or her think in finding the customer, assessing the need and closing the sale. The basic data about the human being are given to the teleunderwriting team who has an underwriter call the customer at a predetermined time. The success of the underwriter customer interaction has been very high. Less attending physician statements is a real big plus as they account for the single largest reason for delays in underwriting (although lost files really ran a close second right up at the echelon of significant issues).

Brokers sell. Underwriters underwrite. Medical evidence providers provide data. Laboratories get the spit, peepee (another one of those descriptive words that only a mother could invent) and blood. Administrators administrate. Network managers manage it all. What a great world we are heading into as an industry. Now if we could only get all brokers to be data entry persons!

Posted on

There Is No Last Word on the Subject

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