I have been part of many panels before many an audience over my four decades in the life and health insurance business. Usually a panelist is constrained from being controversial or opinionated by the ground rules laid down by either the moderator or the organization running the event. Traditionally from my recollections there have been very few meetings of underwriters where the panel is controversial, meaningful fun and leaves the audience with a message to think about.
In 1994 George Brennan, one of a large crop of Canadian iconic underwriters who played a large role in all associations, put together a great panel (personally speaking and from memories of audience feedback) that really got the juices flowing and left many a valid point to ponder for the audience. George let the four panelists do their own thing and he did not encumber the spoken word or the venom so playfully thrown around.
Continue reading “Resolved: Underwriters Must Be Increasingly Prudent In Their …”
I wrote the following article as it was part of a presentation I did with the great Don Frost at the January 1983 Cholua Seminar. In a recent search of my archives for background material for a book I came across the article. After reading it I felt that today’s underwriters should read it as a history lesson. Today’s leadership should read it to show that some things change for the worse — the lack of meaningful industry statistics on what is issued standard, substandard or declined. The CLHIA to my knowledge has dropped the industry stats for some years leaving an underwriting leader wondering “is my company rating and or declining more than the industry average?” Or then again who cares.
For the past three years I have heard from many large advisors (large by size of the clientele not their waistline) and MGAs that rated cases are few and declines are many. I have even had a senior underwriting leader say it is irrelevant as the key to today’s underwriting leadership is to get the standard through as quickly as possible. There seems to be less competition be it from insurers or reinsurers for the case that is not quite standard. The last time that complacency was around there were challenges to our right to underwrite!
Continue reading Is There Life After Underwriting? ( A History Lesson Perhaps?)
When an underwriting historian looks at the subject of financial underwriting, they quickly come to the realization that the conflict/confusion/befuddlement in the different perspectives between underwriter and advisor has existed since days when we could not agree on the value of the inventor of the wheel as a key man! History being so out of vogue today I will skip the horse and buggy, the two great wars, the moon landing and the Cold War so I can jump to 1956. Reading the Transactions of the Society of Actuaries 1956 Volume 8 Number 21 the conclusion by many at the time was “large case mortality was excellent” but still there was conversation about financial underwriting interspersed with concerns of too much accidental death benefit riders, pressure on nonmedical insurance and the creeping concern of antiselection on cheap term products as they entered the product arsenal. Typical concerns of legendary actuaries who ran underwriting and where all real decision making was left to medical doctors. The lay underwriter was yet to be hatched although in the 1950’s there emerged an experiment to try using trained clerks to make risk selection decisions!
Continue reading Financial Underwriting, Why Bother?
Before most readers were born, and for those that were they were still thinking mathematics was a lucrative career choice, reinsurance played a trivial role in the life insurance industry. In Canada 0.04% (rounded up of course) of all life risk was reinsured in 1969. There was a slightly higher percentage in the USA but my notes and memory failed to enlighten me as I wrote this article. Believe it or not for you youngsters, reinsurance was a follower and minor player in the realm of life insurance risk taking. The icons of the era were insurance company leaders not reinsurance personnel. Reinsurance personnel deferred to the wise counsel of insurance leaders who were at the leading edge of pricing and risk selection. Content to beg or cajole for a mere pittance of the premium pot, the reinsurers fought each other for the privilege of table scraps if we liken the fat purses of insurers to the gluttonous meals served to the emerging obese of today. About the only worthy feature of reinsurers in the “good old days” was their research into impaired lives and the experimental risk taking they fostered for notoriety.
Continue reading Jumbo Limits Compensating For Terrible Administration
or Advisors Never Refer To Underwriters As Refulgent (A Geck Maybe but Never Refulgent)
A 2011 opinion on the relationship between advisor and underwriter.
Many many years ago I wrote an article for the now dormant Marketing Options magazine (dearly missed by all while fondly remembered by writers and readers) about the conflict often created by miscommunication or no communication between advisor and underwriter. Thus, to say that the seemingly constant battle to get a life or living benefit insurance application through the mysterious and far from transparent new business department is new has not been around for long. Like most Canadians the advisor has a short memory (just look at how we continue to elect politicians who mere months prior to election screwed us royally) and the underwriter is not paid to remember so they never stored the historical perspective anyway. This chasm of misunderstanding, poor communication and lack of empathy between two integral parts to getting premium in the door to keep the life business going strong is not new but merely in an exaggerated state unseen in intensity in the last 41 years.
Continue reading Two Hymn Books and Two Choir Masters
Okay they were not in a boat but rather on a stage in Toronto in front of a couple of hundred underwriters and those that love to hang around underwriters. It was the one part of a two day meeting that I really wanted to see and hear even though the meeting overall conflicted with other travel and client commitments. I thought it and lunch would be worth the day’s admission price. I was able to slide into the back of the room just as the session started and tried to stay as conspicuous as possible by remaining standing.
Regardless of the title they put on their presentation it was to me a chance for the three key disciplines in our business to explain why we are in the position we are today. You could say we are not in great shape or you could boast we are in great shape. It is the old “the glass is half full or the glass is half empty” comparison. I was very curious if the three would meekly state their case and slyly point the finger of blame at the other two or would there be challenging and perhaps even derogatory innuendo thrown freely. I knew the actuary and the underwriter so I did expect a feisty session. Surely someone would address the appalling state of customer service in the industry today as advisor and even customer scratches their head in confusion over the new business service experience. Sorry let me correct that since the service for the “vanilla” case clear of even a facial blemish does slide through unencumbered by restrictive and confusing underwriting as recounted to me for the past two years by numerous advisors and MGAs.
Continue reading An Actuary, an Underwriter and a Marketer In A Boat