Tag Archives: consumer protection

Top 10 InsurTech Predictions for 2016

2015 was the year that InsurTech emerged from the shadow of Fintech. This story has been told through my last 40 research notes published on DailyFintech.com over the past eight months. Including 28 interviews with the CEOs and founders of InsurTechs, this story spans the globe from the U.S. to China, from South Africa to Estonia, and a few stops in between.

So, what does this tell us about the next chapter of this story? Here, I give you my Top 10 InsurTech predictions for 2016.

slide1

In no particular order…

Prediction #1

Insurers will create lifestyle apps that provide additional consumer value on a continuing basis. Continuous consumer engagement will start to replace price as the key buying criterion. The result will be sticky insurance with strong brand loyalty.

Prediction #2

The person-to-person (P2P) insurance business model will struggle to reach scale in its current form. This will drive the P2P insurers to find new ways to replace the traditional carrier model, and we will see signs of a completely new business model for insurance. That will scale.

Prediction #3

Much greater levels of personalized rating will become widely available using new sources of data from technology such as wearables, the Internet of Things and smartphone apps. This will lead to variable premiums over the policy term to encourage better behavior (although insurers will hold back and not introduce corresponding punishments in 2016).

Prediction #4

“All in one policy” cover (aka, all-risks insurance) will emerge for consumer protection. Policyholders will be able to insure their lifestyle (their home, motor, dog, holidays, iPhone, treasures, travel) in a single policy based on highly personalized risk assessment through a digital platform.

Prediction #5

“All in one place” platforms (aka a concierge service) will replace traditional intermediaries with a digital broker. These services will consolidate multiple policies, converge with financial planning tools and provide robo-advice on gaps and duplication in cover.

Prediction #6

New entrants will come into the market with highly sophisticated data modeling and predictive analytics solutions. They will exploit mass-scale technologies, high-performance computing and techniques developed in high-frequency trading.

Prediction #7

Convenience and the ability to digitally turn insurance cover on and off as needed will be steadily accepted and adopted. As will microinsurance, sharing insurance and pay-per-mile. Unit premiums will be higher, but this will be outweighed by Millennial attitudes toward insurance cover and paying a price for convenience.

Prediction #8

The poorest in our world are the ones who need insurance the most. In 2016, the insurance industry will (finally) start to better serve the massively underinsured populations in developing countries. This will be driven by a combination of the massive market opportunity that exists for insurance, global economic forces and a socio-political agenda.

Prediction #9

There will be widespread deployment by traditional insurers of new digital solutions to reduce cost of claims and loss handling. Serving both ends of the insurance workflow, these tech solutions will enable better collection of data and evidence to improve risk rating at the front end and the claims handling processes, especially at first notice of loss (FNOL), at the back.

Prediction #10

2017 will be the year of block chain and insurance. No list of predictions would be complete without reference to block chain, but IMHO it is going to take all of 2016 for the insurance industry to get to grips with what block chain is, what it can really do for insurance and (most important) why we should use block chain as opposed to any other database or enabling technology.

Don’t get me wrong, for I am squarely in the camp that believes “block chain is the next Internet.” And we will continue to see a lot of block chain insurance activity throughout the year. But adoption in insurance won’t take hold until we’ve seen 2016 out.

If the Regulations Don’t Fit, You Must…

International regulatory bodies like the G20 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are still pining for recommendations for regulators on how to avoid another financial crisis like the one that engulfed the global economy in 2008.

The groups are increasingly leaning toward stronger consumer regulations to prevent another catastrophe, just like sophisticated regulators in the U.S. and other countries across the globe. The OECD, unfortunately, is taking a shortsighted approach to its consumer protection recommendations by suggesting one-size-fits-all regulatory standards will work for every regulator across the globe.

The OECD’s consumer protection recommendations won’t be issued, or received, lightly. And suggesting misguided regulations is dangerous. The guidelines will be (rightly) considered by regulators in nearly every country, despite their very different levels of sophistication concerning financial markets and consumer awareness. We’ve seen movement on one-size-fits-all policies in this area for years, most recently with Solvency II and capital standard policies under consideration in Brussels. The latest version we struggle with is a recommendation for regulators on how to consider the OECD’s High-level Principles on Financial Consumer Protection.

The principles are focused on the following areas:

  • Legal, regulatory and supervisory framework
  • Role of oversight bodies
  • Equitable and fair treatment of consumers
  • Protection of consumer assets against fraud and misuse
  • Protection of consumer data and privacy
  • Competition.

And the OECD recently issued draft guidance (framed as a “toolkit”) to address how best to approach the recommendations. Of course, each principle offers broad recommendations on how to manage issues affecting intermediaries. These could ultimately hit broker remuneration, transparency requirements, cooperation among supervisors and the like. And if the draft recommendations gain momentum, our ability to educate our regulators and shape sound consumer protection policies could be diminished.

That’s why the World Federation of Insurance Intermediaries (WFII) has been following the proposed “toolkit” closely. The federation issued a strong response to the OECD’s suggestions, rightly calling out the organization’s shortsighted approach and its assumption that regulators should approach with the same vigor businesses large and small and products designed for individuals, multinational corporations and companies located anywhere in the world.

The comments filed with the OECD by WFII rightly stated: “the pure fact that an effective approach has been developed in a range of jurisdictions is, in our view, not an indication in itself that it is indeed an ‘effective’ approach. We believe that sound research, an impact assessment and a cost/benefit analysis should be undertaken each time by the regulator/supervisor of the particular jurisdiction before any of these so-called effective approaches summed up in this draft, regardless of them being categorized as a ‘common,’ ‘innovative’ or ‘emerging’ approach. We urge the drafting team to clearly include this need for sound research, an impact assessment and a cost/benefit analysis in the introduction.”

The federation went on to suggest that applying the same guidelines to multiple industries can be dangerous, and it suggested to the drafters that the language clearly define when various sectors should be considered equally and when they should be treated differently.

Perhaps the most relevant comment to our market is the federation’s position on regulating companies of widely disparate sizes and revenue models. The federation told the OECD that “proportionality is a fundamental principle that should be taken into account by all regulators and supervisors every time they consider imposing requirements on the financial sector. Given the importance of this principle, we believe requirements imposed on the financial sector should be proportional to the size of the market player and the complexity of its service.”

The federation concluded its comments by suggesting regulators should engage market players and industry representatives with direct knowledge of the market practices as key rules are written. This point is particularly important for emerging regulators to consider, as their markets are among the fastest-growing in the world. A thoughtful and democratic approach to market guidelines ought to be encouraged to ensure their continued strength.

Nearly every developed economy continues to struggle with how to avoid another economic collapse, and the OECD has a strong role to play by issuing sound recommendations. It’s our sincere hope the suggestions to scale back its one-size-fits-all approach are heard loud and clear.

This article first appeared in Leader’s Edge magazine.