Tag Archives: Turbo Tax

Insurance Disruption? Evolution Is Better

A significant part of the insurance industry and consumers have forgotten, for the most part, about why the industry exists. The policy holder pays into a pool through the insurance company and, if a certain event occurs, expects a claim to be paid. Very simple, right? So how has the insurance industry strayed so far from this simplest of concepts? And how have so many consumers purchased insurance products that have added so many complex layers to basic risk protection?

Yes, it is time for change in the insurance industry. Change is a part of life. And change is coming. The insurance industry needs to adapt to the current technological environment. At the same time, insurance consumers need to take advantage of all of the information available to them and increase their insurance literacy. Almost every single person in the U.S. has some form of insurance, but very few people have more than a general idea of what each of their insurance policies is and what it covers.

See also: Which to Choose: Innovation, Disruption?  

There is a constant buzz in the insurance industry about “disruption.” Why disruption? Is it because the term is trendy and has happened in other industries, or is it because disruption is actually needed in the insurance industry?

Is it more appropriate to say that the insurance industry needs to evolve, similar to how the investment world has already started to evolve?

Let’s look at the words themselves for the necessary direction, which will show why so many high-tech firms have failed in the insurance space and will continue to fail:

Disrupt: to cause disorder or turmoil in; to break apart; to radically change (an industry, business strategy, etc.), as by introducing a new product or service that creates a new market.

Evolve: to develop gradually or to gradually change one’s opinions or beliefs.

(Definitions are from dictionary.com.)

High-tech firms are focused on changing insurance like they have other industries, and it’s not going to work the same because they are focused on disruption rather than evolution. The insurance industry is one of the oldest industries in the world, with the concept tracing back centuries. Insurance is also a highly regulated industry. So just as it’s really difficult for a huge oil tanker to change course, it is equally challenging for an industry with the size and history of the insurance industry to change course or be subject to disruption. A slow evolution is what makes sense for the insurance industry.

The investment industry has evolved in many ways, and the technology firms that are entering the investment world are not focused primarily on disrupting the industry; rather, they are focused on more effective ways to provide advice, manage investments and gain greater efficiency.

The investment world is already further along than the insurance industry because there is already a fiduciary standard, with a greater expectation that the investment industry act in the best interest of their clients. Partially, this is because most investment advisers are compensated through some sort of fee arrangement rather than a commission.

The insurance industry has not changed in many ways and is just starting to adapt to our mobile society, new technologies, “big data” analytics and blockchain technology, among other factors. Currently, changes have been mostly limited to basic tasks like claims processing and some distribution activities. But really, most of the high-tech firms are still just selling insurance, rather than changing insurance. What is really needed is a change in the overall thought-process, including underwriting, policy servicing and home office operations.

Consumers expect and deserve more transparency, more efficient processes and more accurate results. When the insurance industry can deliver these, everyone will benefit. Insurance consumers also deserve advice that will help them best meet their insurance needs. Which is why The Insurance Bill of Rights was created.
What is really needed is to find a way to deliver insurance to the consumer in a way that makes the process more seamless, with optimized pricing for insurance products. Helping consumers become more insurance-literate and manage their insurance portfolio is where technology can help.
Compensation is a part of this and why I’ve written in the past regarding how the Department of Labor fiduciary rule will have a major impact long term on all insurance products, in addition to the ones it addresses inside qualified retirement plans. Major financial service firms such as Merrill Lynch are no longer offering commission-based products inside their retirement plans. While commissions in and of themselves are not necessarily bad, they can lead to market conduct issues and can increase unnecessary replacement of insurance products (and lead to churning of investment products).
Optimized insurance products and pricing are what will ultimately be of benefit to all. Consumers will be able to access insurance products that fit their needs and are priced more closely to their risk profile. Insurance companies will benefit from being able to have better data, which will help with their ability to price insurance products more efficiently. Insurance companies have had issues in pricing different types of insurance products, including long-term care insurance and life insurance. Technology and better use of data will help.
And where does that leave insurance agents? Insurance agents will still be necessary, as are investment advisers. Perhaps someday artificial intelligence will be able to replace a human, but that day is still not near. Consumers can benefit from the experience of a professional, dedicated insurance agent just as they can from the experience of other trained professionals. If Turbo Tax has not eliminated every tax preparer, then why would it be expected that insurance agents will be replaced by an automated process?

As Bob Dylan once sang, “The Time’s They Are A’Changin,'” and the next few years will bring a long-needed evolution rather than a disruption to the insurance industry.

If you would like to be a part of this positive change, please support the Insurance Bill of Rights and sign the petition at Change.org (here). If you are a member of the insurance industry, take The Insurance Bill of Rights Pledge. Let me know your thoughts.

Pointers on Managing GRC Issues

MetricStream has shared with us a November 2014 report from the analyst firm Forrester: Predictions 2015: The Governance, Risk and Compliance Market Is Ready For Disruption. (Registration required.)

I have had serious issues in the past with Forrester, its portrayal of governance, risk management and compliance (GRC), its assessment of vendors’ solutions and its advice to organizations considering purchasing software to address their business problems.

However, Forrester does talk to a lot of organizations, both those that buy software as well as those that sell it. So, it is worth our time to read their reports and consider what they have to say. I’m going to work my way through the report, with excerpts and comments as appropriate.

“…the governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) technology market is ripe for disruption.”

I have a problem with the whole notion of a GRC market. For a start, the “G” is silent! The analysts seem to forget that there are processes, each of which can be enabled by technology, to support governance of the organization by the board and others. For example, there is a need to enable the secure, efficient and useful sharing of information with the board – for scheduled meetings and throughout the year. In addition, there are needs to support whistleblower processes, legal case management, investigations, the setting and cascading of business objectives and goals, the monitoring of performance and so many more.

In addition, organizations should not be looking for a GRC solution. They should instead be looking for solutions to meet their more critical business needs. Many organizations are purchasing a bundle of GRC capabilities but only use some of what they have bought – and what they do use may not be the best in the market to address that need.

Finally, I have written before about the need to manage risk to strategies and objectives. Yet, most of these so-called GRC solutions don’t support strategy setting and management. There is no integration of risk and strategy. Executives cannot see, as they review progress against their strategies and objectives, both performance progress and the level of related risks.

“A corporate risk event will lead to losses topping $20 billion.”

What is a “risk event”? This is strange language. Why can’t Forrester just talk about an “event” or, better still, a “situation”?

I agree that management of organizations continue to make mistakes – as they have ever since Adam and Eve ate the apple. Some mistakes result in compliance failures, penalties, reputation damage and huge losses. I also agree that the size of those losses continues to rise.

But what about mistakes in assessing the market and customers’ changing needs, bringing new products and services to market or price-setting (consider how TurboTax alienated and lost customers)? I have seen several companies fall from leaders in their market to being sold for spare parts (Solectron and then Maxtor).

Management should consider all potential effects of uncertainty on the achievement of objectives.

“Embed risk best practices across the business…. Risk management helps enhance strategic decision-making at all organizational levels, and, when company success or failure is on the line, formal risk processes are essential.”

The focus on decision-making across the enterprise is absolutely correct. Risk management should not be a separate activity from running the business. Every decision-maker needs to consider risk as she makes a decision, so she can take the right amount of the right risk.

“Read and understand your country’s corporate sentencing guidelines.”

This is another excellent point! Unfortunately, the authors didn’t follow through and point out that the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines require that organizations take a risk-based approach to ensuring compliance; those that do will have reduced penalties should there be a compliance failure.

“Build and maintain a culture of compliance.”

Stating the obvious. It is easy to say, not so easy to accomplish.

“Review risks in your current register and add ‘customer impact’ to the relevant ones.”

All the potential consequences of a risk should be included when analyzing it. Rather than “customer,” I would include the issues that derive from upsetting the customer, such as lost sales and market share.

Further, it’s not a matter of reviewing risks in your risk register. It’s about including all potential consequences every time you make a decision, as well as when you conduct a periodic review of risks. Risk management should be an integral part of how decisions are made and the organization is run – not just when the risk register is reviewed.

Forrester makes some comments and predictions concerning GRC vendors. I don’t know whether they are right or wrong. However, I say again that organizations should not focus on which is the best GRC platform. They should instead look for the best solution to their business needs, whatever it is called.

I do agree with Forrester that there are some excellent tools that can be used for risk monitoring. They should be integrated with the risk management solution, with ways to alert appropriate management when risk levels change.

What do you think of the report, the excerpts and my comments?

Should we continue to talk about GRC platforms? Is it time to evaluate risk management solutions? How about integrated strategy, performance and risk solutions?

[By way of complete disclosure, I have a relationship with a number of vendors of “GRC” solutions, including MetricStream and Resolver. I no longer have a relationship with SAP.]