Insurance hike

[agent_dess]

3 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

Some basic maths would explain the premium differential. I doubt many people crash their houses.

You get what I mean though. There is absolutely no reason for the premium hike other than they can get away with doing so!

 

[Mr_Groundhog]

On 6/27/2024 at 6:39 PM, agent_dess said:

You get what I mean though. There is absolutely no reason for the premium hike other than they can get away with doing so!

Well that's the pseudo-feudal capitalism we live under, and that's why some of us wish we'd live in a different, fairier society. What is amazing to me is how many who suffer still defend this system of values... that's beyond me.

[Tickedon]

12 hours ago, Mr_Groundhog said:

Well that's the pseudo-feudal capitalism we live under, and that's why some of us wish we'd live in a different, fairier society. What is amazing to me is how many who suffer still defend this system of values... that's beyond me.

If you’re so upset by capitalism, which has allowed us to enjoy wonderful Lexus cars,  maybe it’s time for you to trade in your car for a more socialist Chinese EV? 

I understand insurance prices for those have shot even higher, because with their centrally planned production system, they haven’t worked out how to provide spare parts for their cars, and so many have to be scrapped and written off rather than being repaired. 

 

[Stever750]

17 minutes ago, Tickedon said:

If you’re so upset by capitalism, which has allowed us to enjoy wonderful Lexus cars,  maybe it’s time for you to trade in your car for a more socialist Chinese EV? 

I understand insurance prices for those have shot even higher, because with their centrally planned production system, they haven’t worked out how to provide spare parts for their cars, and so many have to be scrapped and written off rather than being repaired. 

 

Ah that cliche that socialism means no choice, no fun. Come on dinosaur, this is the 21st century. You can enjoy owning a Lexus in China by the way. 

[Mr_Groundhog]

11 minutes ago, Tickedon said:

If you’re so upset by capitalism, which has allowed us to enjoy wonderful Lexus cars,  maybe it’s time for you to trade in your car for a more socialist Chinese EV? 

I understand insurance prices for those have shot even higher, because with their centrally planned production system, they haven’t worked out how to provide spare parts for their cars, and so many have to be scrapped and written off rather than being repaired.

Thanks for clarifying: I now know you have a very limited idea of what certain concepts actually mean. 👍

On the centrally planned stuff, I think it was precisely Toyota that pioneered the "just in time" protocols that revolutionised logisitcs, and have been since imitated/adopted by most industries. So maybe they "worked it out" decades ago.

[Stever750]

4 minutes ago, Mr_Groundhog said:

Thanks for clarifying: I now know you have a very limited idea of what certain concepts actually mean. 👍

On the centrally planned stuff, I think it was precisely Toyota that pioneered the "just in time" protocols that revolutionised logisitcs, and have been since imitated/adopted by most industries. So maybe they "worked it out" decades ago.

I deliberately ignored the comments about spare parts manufacturing, it's so wrong I thought it wasn't worth the effort. It might possibly have been the case in 1924 but not in 1984 let alone 2024.

[Tickedon]

12 hours ago, Stever750 said:

I deliberately ignored the comments about spare parts manufacturing, it's so wrong I thought it wasn't worth the effort. It might possibly have been the case in 1924 but not in 1984 let alone 2024.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-insurance/362519/exclusive-some-chinese-cars-almost-uninsurable-parts-and-repair-support

[Stever750]

5 minutes ago, Tickedon said:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-insurance/362519/exclusive-some-chinese-cars-almost-uninsurable-parts-and-repair-support

That's Chinese makers. Toyota is not Chinese, they generally have no problem supplying spares. Not sure what point you're trying to make here? 

Edit: apologies I re read your original post so that makes sense. Indeed, it's a false economy buying a Chinese EV. 

Edited July 3 by Stever750

[Tickedon]

Just now, Stever750 said:

That's Chinese makers. Toyota is not Chinese, they generally have no problem supplying spares. Not sure what point you're trying to make here? 

Clearly you’ve misread my original post. I was referring to parts issues for Chinese EVs, which you said was nonsense (“so wrong”) in 2024. It isn’t, as the link shows. 

[Stever750]

1 minute ago, Tickedon said:

Clearly you’ve misread my original post. I was referring to parts issues for Chinese EVs, which you said was nonsense (“so wrong”) in 2024. It isn’t, as the link shows. 

Yes, see above. I edited my reply as you replied! 

[Stever750]

Though still slightly confusing. You suggested buying a Chinese car presumably as its  built by a communist country and then point out it's a crap choice. The issue is profiteering from insurance companies which is a by product of a deregulated free market. I think what @Mr_Groundhog was highlighting how that lack of regulation isn't helping the consumer, it's screwing us over. 

[Boomer54]

"The issue is profiteering from insurance companies which is a by product of a deregulated free market. I think what @Mr_Groundhog was highlighting how that lack of regulation isn't helping the consumer, it's screwing us over. "

No disrespect  ,but that statement is factually incorrect. To start with the UK Insurance Industry is tightly regulated and overseen by the PRA and FCA. Hence, it is not deregulated. Is it however, a free market? Not really ,because the requirement to have motor Insurance if you have a vehicle is a statutory requirement. Hence, we see clearly the Motor Insurance Industry is neither deregulated nor a free market in the sense you have any choice in whether you have Insurance ,or not when you have a vehicle.

I see however, the real implication in the statement is that the suppliers of Motor Insurance are in collusion to fix the price of Insurance, hence profiteering and that activity is not governed severely enough by the Regulators. Unfortunately, I disagree with such an implication. Fixing the price works well in a cartel where you have relatively few suppliers, but the moment the market fractionalises and increases in numbers then the cartel loses it's power to determine the flow of business as non cartel members take advantage of the arbitrage opportunities to undercut cartel members and basically steal their business away. In the UK we have far too many Insurers for a cartel to function effectively. Unlike the Oil Industry.

No, the error here is misunderstanding the Insurers methods of doing business and confusing that with the issues of all the above mentioned. In effect over time Insurers have come to understand the optimum way for them to do business is not to reward loyalty ,but rather exploit apathy. This can look like profiteering to the person seeking Insurance, but it isn't really. it is exploitation of opportunities when people are apathetic about seeking out better solutions for themselves, but who in such a  case is to blame?

[GMB]

Spot on Stephen!  The number of people going from the greedy cartel/gang to Hastings direct for a more reasonable deal is evident from these pages. At least the illusory "free market" is working by allowing competitors to see opportunities and offer better value for money.

[Mr_Groundhog]

42 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

"The issue is profiteering from insurance companies which is a by product of a deregulated free market. I think what @Mr_Groundhog was highlighting how that lack of regulation isn't helping the consumer, it's screwing us over. "

No disrespect  ,but that statement is factually incorrect. To start with the UK Insurance Industry is tightly regulated and overseen by the PRA and FCA. Hence, it is not deregulated. Is it however, a free market? Not really ,because the requirement to have motor Insurance if you have a vehicle is a statutory requirement. Hence, we see clearly the Motor Insurance Industry is neither deregulated nor a free market in the sense you have any choice in whether you have Insurance ,or not when you have a vehicle.

I see however, the real implication in the statement is that the suppliers of Motor Insurance are in collusion to fix the price of Insurance, hence profiteering and that activity is not governed severely enough by the Regulators. Unfortunately, I disagree with such an implication. Fixing the price works well in a cartel where you have relatively few suppliers, but the moment the market fractionalises and increases in numbers then the cartel loses it's power to determine the flow of business as non cartel members take advantage of the arbitrage opportunities to undercut cartel members and basically steal their business away. In the UK we have far too many Insurers for a cartel to function effectively. Unlike the Oil Industry.

No, the error here is misunderstanding the Insurers methods of doing business and confusing that with the issues of all the above mentioned. In effect over time Insurers have come to understand the optimum way for them to do business is not to reward loyalty ,but rather exploit apathy. This can look like profiteering to the person seeking Insurance, but it isn't really. it is exploitation of opportunities when people are apathetic about seeking out better solutions for themselves, but who in such a  case is to blame?

Well im sure you don't mean to blame the victim but that's how it reads @Boomer54 .

They don't even need collusion. Greed alone is enough. We've seen it with the cost of living hikes, with supermarkets, energy companies driving prices up because they can (greedflation). There are serious studies proving this.
There may be infinite insurers, but they're represented by their own unions. It does not matter that they're many. Some sectors seem "heavily regulated" (de-facto entrance barriers for competition), but they spend hefty sums lobbying regulators. Laws are tailored to them; when it comes to the important stuff (price and service) they can get away with murder. People need cars to live and work + insurance is compulsory = with inelastic demand, systemic incentives are in place to bleed the consumer dry.
What incentives do privatised water companies have not to dump raw sewage into coasts and rivers?

Our system (our type of capitalism) cannot work for most of us because it's rotten at the core: the incentives to do any type of good just aren't there. The endgame is not stability or wellbeing. It is blind-growth-by-any-means-necessary, at the expense of everything else, including the famous argument in favour of efficiency (it is probably the least efficient of systems). Whether it is something important or irreplaceable, it's expendable in the face of aligning numbers on a spreadsheet, which seems the ultimate goal of our species. The rest can wait. Raw sewage can be dumped if that means a few more numbers on the spreadsheet.

Investment banking used to be separate from domestic banking, but it hasn't for some time (and that's partly why so many can't dream of owning their own home now). In 2008 deregulation caused quite a few tragedies while some sectors were screaming for even more deregulation. Our memory seems weak.

Anyway I digress... I will just say anyone who thinks China is a "communist" country: please get a dictionary or look up some definitions. 

[Stever750]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

"The issue is profiteering from insurance companies which is a by product of a deregulated free market. I think what @Mr_Groundhog was highlighting how that lack of regulation isn't helping the consumer, it's screwing us over. "

No disrespect  ,but that statement is factually incorrect. To start with the UK Insurance Industry is tightly regulated and overseen by the PRA and FCA. Hence, it is not deregulated. Is it however, a free market? Not really ,because the requirement to have motor Insurance if you have a vehicle is a statutory requirement. Hence, we see clearly the Motor Insurance Industry is neither deregulated nor a free market in the sense you have any choice in whether you have Insurance ,or not when you have a vehicle.

I see however, the real implication in the statement is that the suppliers of Motor Insurance are in collusion to fix the price of Insurance, hence profiteering and that activity is not governed severely enough by the Regulators. Unfortunately, I disagree with such an implication. Fixing the price works well in a cartel where you have relatively few suppliers, but the moment the market fractionalises and increases in numbers then the cartel loses it's power to determine the flow of business as non cartel members take advantage of the arbitrage opportunities to undercut cartel members and basically steal their business away. In the UK we have far too many Insurers for a cartel to function effectively. Unlike the Oil Industry.

No, the error here is misunderstanding the Insurers methods of doing business and confusing that with the issues of all the above mentioned. In effect over time Insurers have come to understand the optimum way for them to do business is not to reward loyalty ,but rather exploit apathy. This can look like profiteering to the person seeking Insurance, but it isn't really. it is exploitation of opportunities when people are apathetic about seeking out better solutions for themselves, but who in such a  case is to blame?

Ah, so that makes it OK then. Good to know. I have a different view, caveat emptor is not necessarily the basis of a healthy society. I'm all for rewarding hard effort and success but not everyone is born with equal abities. Sorry, but the insurance industry in the UK stinks and is profiteering from this pseudo competitive landscape of new customers only mentality, it might not meet the technical description of a cartel but it's behaviour sure is like one. To suggest otherwise is perhaps a little naive. It's not unique either to insurance, we've seen much the same problem with the railways (which of course have to meet regulations and standards too) where the deregulatory strategy has clearly failed. 

[Boomer54]

24 minutes ago, Stever750 said:

Ah, so that makes it OK then. Good to know. I have a different view, caveat emptor is not necessarily the basis of a healthy society. I'm all for rewarding hard effort and success but not everyone is born with equal abities. Sorry, but the insurance industry in the UK stinks and is profiteering from this pseudo competitive landscape of new customers only mentality, it might not meet the technical description of a cartel but it's behaviour sure is like one. To suggest otherwise is perhaps a little naive. It's not unique either to insurance, we've seen much the same problem with the railways (which of course have to meet regulations and standards too) where the deregulatory strategy has clearly failed. 

Let's agree to disagree and keep this pleasant not personal. thank you.

[GMB]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

Let's agree to disagree and keep this pleasant not personal. thank you

Hey Stephen,    Ah so ( in a Chinese accent )  I don't think it was a personal comment, maybe just a slightly but not totally different viewpoint.  All pals again now?☺️

 

[Stever750]

21 minutes ago, GMB said:

Hey Stephen,    Ah so ( in a Chinese accent )  I don't think it was a personal comment, maybe just a slightly but not totally different viewpoint.  All pals again now?☺️

 

Indeed it wasn't intended to be personal, just my opinion 🙂

[Notamech]

2 hours ago, Mr_Groundhog said:

Well im sure you don't mean to blame the victim but that's how it reads @Boomer54 .

They don't even need collusion. Greed alone is enough. We've seen it with the cost of living hikes, with supermarkets, energy companies driving prices up because they can (greedflation). There are serious studies proving this.
There may be infinite insurers, but they're represented by their own unions. It does not matter that they're many. Some sectors seem "heavily regulated" (de-facto entrance barriers for competition), but they spend hefty sums lobbying regulators. Laws are tailored to them; when it comes to the important stuff (price and service) they can get away with murder. People need cars to live and work + insurance is compulsory = with inelastic demand, systemic incentives are in place to bleed the consumer dry.
What incentives do privatised water companies have not to dump raw sewage into coasts and rivers?

Our system (our type of capitalism) cannot work for most of us because it's rotten at the core: the incentives to do any type of good just aren't there. The endgame is not stability or wellbeing. It is blind-growth-by-any-means-necessary, at the expense of everything else, including the famous argument in favour of efficiency (it is probably the least efficient of systems). Whether it is something important or irreplaceable, it's expendable in the face of aligning numbers on a spreadsheet, which seems the ultimate goal of our species. The rest can wait. Raw sewage can be dumped if that means a few more numbers on the spreadsheet.

Investment banking used to be separate from domestic banking, but it hasn't for some time (and that's partly why so many can't dream of owning their own home now). In 2008 deregulation caused quite a few tragedies while some sectors were screaming for even more deregulation. Our memory seems weak.

Anyway I digress... I will just say anyone who thinks China is a "communist" country: please get a dictionary or look up some definitions. 

100% agree with this. Pricing is one thing. Even the terms of insurance are also so heavily lopsided....just so that they can force us to declare stupid things like stickers, spoilers etc. to raise prices further or get out of paying when the time comes. If our policy makers truly had public interest at heart and were not lobbied by the insurance cartel we would have a system like australia where the basic mandatory 3rd party insurance is covered as part of the annual VED. Truth is we live in a corporatocracy and nobody cares about the common people. Were just consumers to them.

Also china might be communist in their political outlook but their economic system has a role for private capital and is very exploitative of its labour which are clear capitalistic traits.

[Boomer54]

I quote from the Times today.

"But the underwriting pain has been greatest on motor cover. According to consultancy EY, UK motor insurers paid out £1.13 in claims and expenses last year for every £1 they took in premiums."

On the face of it that does not really equate to profiteering. Indeed, another such graph shows the multi year losses incurred by 3 of the large insurance groups. Unpalatable though it may be to those of us paying these premiums we might recognise that businesses do what they need to do to survive. There are clearly factors in play that have turned the Industry on it's head.

[Stever750]

If that is indeed the case then perhaps the insurance providers could be more transparent and consistent in their pricing, which often seems not to follow much in the way of logic. Two examples of this that spring to mind is the disparity of pricing between an IS300h (£800) a Toyota Auris (£300) and a slightly modified Skoda Superb 220 sport line (£500).

The lexus and Skoda from same insurer, the auris a different company. I can do a compare the market for any of those cars and the prices vary by over 100%, which is bizarre when they all use a small(er) pool of underwriters. To the consumer, it arguably appears that there is little in the way of consistently assessing the risk and therefore the cost. Maybe if the insurers spent less time playing with volatile pricing, they would be less susceptible to losing money, and the consumer would avoid the risk of a surprise financial shock each year. It's almost as if attempting to be too competitive, it's making everyone's life a misery. 

[VFR]

Just about to renew mine (LV) quote arrived showing around £100 more than last year. 

Called them to see if my change of circumstances will change things & as I am now widowed & have a small part time job locally the price went down by around £50. ?

C the Market also arrived with the best price they could find that was £200 above LV ( did not go to the site to view it), ignored the mail and yesterday another arrived from them showing the best price was now £400 less than the first best price. 

Will be going with LV again myself.

[Boomer54]

56 minutes ago, Stever750 said:

If that is indeed the case then perhaps the insurance providers could be more transparent and consistent in their pricing, which often seems not to follow much in the way of logic. Two examples of this that spring to mind is the disparity of pricing between an IS300h (£800) a Toyota Auris (£300) and a slightly modified Skoda Superb 220 sport line (£500).

The lexus and Skoda from same insurer, the auris a different company. I can do a compare the market for any of those cars and the prices vary by over 100%, which is bizarre when they all use a small(er) pool of underwriters. To the consumer, it arguably appears that there is little in the way of consistently assessing the risk and therefore the cost. Maybe if the insurers spent less time playing with volatile pricing, they would be less susceptible to losing money, and the consumer would avoid the risk of a surprise financial shock each year. It's almost as if attempting to be too competitive, it's making everyone's life a misery. 

Reading the article in question tends towards the view that the Indystry as a whole has been blindsided by risk factors that they had not foreseen. That is, the volatility in price is more a reactive process than any generic game playing. That is not to say there will not have been instances of that.

I think there is merit in your suggestion for greater transparency. That, if nothingelse would give people the opportunity to adapt, or adjust some of their risk criteria.

[Boomer54]

4 minutes ago, VFR said:

Just about to renew mine (LV) quote arrived showing around £100 more than last year. 

Called them to see if my change of circumstances will change things & as I am now widowed & have a small part time job locally the price went down by around £50. ?

C the Market also arrived with the best price they could find that was £200 above LV ( did not go to the site to view it), ignored the mail and yesterday another arrived from them showing the best price was now £400 less than the first best price. 

Will be going with LV again myself.

Examples like that give justification to the argument that some Insurers are indeed just screwing around with people.

[wharfhouse]

36 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Examples like that give justification to the argument that some Insurers are indeed just screwing around with people.

Totally agree - the insurance companies on one hand point to their sophisticated algorithms that looks at all the risk factors to determine an individuals premium and yet on the other hand we all know that the pricing is simply all over the place. Clearly there are no "sophisticated" algorithms - simply pricing to what they believe the market will stand. I'm not saying they haven't had price increases to contend with but the whole myth about the algorithms is just that IMHO. The comparison sites are opening more people's eyes to that. Maybe the new government will grasp the nettle and bring in some changes - but I won't hold my breath... 😂