coldel Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Probably helps if I could spell...Bayesia http://www.bayesia.com/ PS I don't work for these people! They use Bayesian networks - its a self learning tool, you literally can preprompt it with hypothesis and it finds its own way. When I was consulting at a previous research company they trialed it alongside a few of your standard approaches like structural equation modelling etc - always came up with fewer drivers and a more accurate model. I am now in another part of research, I only 'dabbled' in that area for a while so wont be chasing up these insurance companies...my premium is still pretty good They should put more effort in though, or at least make more transparent these databases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Cool -I'll take a look. Havent looked at any form of modelling for a few years since my MSc, so it might not make any sense these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Having had some idiot driver pile into the back of my car whilst I was stationary a few years back, writing my car off, I can see why I may have been then classed as a higher risk of having an accident myself, as for months afterwards I was a nervous wreck driving. I kept looking in my rear view mirror and was paranoid someone else would run into the back of me. I had flash backs, and really hated getting behind the wheel of the car. I guess all of that made me more likely to be watching the car behind me rather than the car in front of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 The beauty of statistics, is that you can make them show whatever you want them show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 The beauty of statistics, is that you can make them show whatever you want them show. Yip......and why bother spending money developing 'logic'.........just use the statistics excuse that allows you to charge everyone more. I can't imaging there are too many people on the insurance companies directing board campaigning for lower premiums for their customers - lower premiums = lower profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyBoy Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 The beauty of statistics, is that you can make them show whatever you want them show. Yip......and why bother spending money developing 'logic'.........just use the statistics excuse that allows you to charge everyone more. I can't imaging there are too many people on the insurance companies directing board campaigning for lower premiums for their customers - lower premiums = lower profits. Not if you're so expensive no one insures with you. This reveals another problem, in that insurance brokers have basically formed a cartel 'justified' by statistics which, as Sarnie said, can show whatever you want them to with the right fiddling. I don't think there's really anything anyone can do about it though; many companies all running adverts claiming to provide fair cheap car insurance whilst simultaneously hiking premiums beyond belief is definitely wrong, but as far as i can tell it ain't illegal DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Indeed, why? They wont, because they hide any data from the consumer - if they were so confident of it then they would share it - but they are not. I don't mind paying insurance to whatever level is correct, but I want to pay it because I am confident in what they are charging. At the moment, I have no confidence in it thus I am not going to blindly agree with it because of some spokesman who just says 'statistics say so'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveW Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 Wow!! I've sparked a right debate and agree with everything mentioned above. Statistics are useless if employed incorrectly or correlations used for statistical significance. Correlation doesn't identify causality and any company that thinks it does is a joke. Hi Chris (Marzman) I didn't get a second car in the end, it made more financial sense for me, when I actually crunched the numbers, to use the money I'd saved to pay off the existing zed loan so now the zed is all mine and not partly owned by the bank. I've spoken to Livingston Warman as recommended and had a pretty reasonible quote, the no fault 'incident' made no difference to my quote Additionally I've got a couple of other brokers to try so we'll see how I get on. The renewal quote from Sky came yesterday coming in at £837 which is about what I was expecting to pay this year but it seems they've taken off my Third party insurance to drive any other car and my modifications are no longer listed on the policy. Need to give them a call I think. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 The beauty of statistics, is that you can make them show whatever you want them show. Yip......and why bother spending money developing 'logic'.........just use the statistics excuse that allows you to charge everyone more. I can't imaging there are too many people on the insurance companies directing board campaigning for lower premiums for their customers - lower premiums = lower profits. Exactly, and they only ever concentrate on the statistics to increase premiums. They never look at those which can reduce it. I remember when I tried to insure a Renault 5 GT Turbo years back. I had 2 immobilisers and an alarm on it, but because they were not "approved" they completely disregarded them. I also kept the car blocked in on the drive by 2 other cars... again, insurance company didnt even care about that, and it was also behind a locked gate with a f**k off nasty German Shepherd dog wandering about - once again insurance companies didnt care. But I ask you, if you were a thief, would you go to all that hassle of breaking into 2 other cars, moving them, picking the lock on the iron gates, then breaking into the 5 turbo, spending ages trying to over ride the 2 immobilisers and alarm whist having a big nasty dog sitting there watching you? or would you just go up the road and nick another car? As far as the insurance companies were concerned, they charged me exactly the same as one with no alarm, no dog and parked on the road in full view of everyone. I remember getting one quote from a company who advertised on telly that they were the cheapest, and it came in at £2800, third party only. At the time i was 30 and had 11 years NCB. Here we are, 10 years later and ive a quote for the same car, but this time with no NCB and insurance companies are quoting me £88 fully comp. Go figure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Here we are, 10 years later and ive a quote for the same car, but this time with no NCB and insurance companies are quoting me £88 fully comp. Go figure? They maybe think you're too old to drive anywhere in it now! (Renault 5 Turbo! That's a blast from the past! You either had one of those, a 205 GTI or a Golf GTI in those days!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Here we are, 10 years later and ive a quote for the same car, but this time with no NCB and insurance companies are quoting me £88 fully comp. Go figure? They maybe think you're too old to drive anywhere in it now! (Renault 5 Turbo! That's a blast from the past! You either had one of those, a 205 GTI or a Golf GTI in those days!) maybe I am too old! At the time I remember reading the Autocar review of the GT Turbo. Its rivals were the 205 Gti, Metro Turbo, Golf GTI, Fiat Uno Turbo, Escort RS Turbo and the citreon AX Gti. Autocar said that the GT Turbo has supercar performance, and with a 0-60 time of 7seconds dead it was the quickest hot hatch out there. I think the Mastro Turbo came in slightly quicker at the time but noone wanted them. lol... So, I immediately went out and bought the GT Turbo simply because it was the quickest and handled like it was on rails. I soon up`d the 120bhp of the stock one upto 160, then got carried away and the car ended up with around 225bhp. Ive had 3 of them actually, and know them inside out. The 205 Gti 1.9 was also a great car, I had one of them for a while, but it just didnt have the "thrown back in seats with the g-force" of the 5 Turbo. Memories!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Indeed! I was a big Golf GTI fan and have had two - still love them but can't help feeling they're a bit of a 'school run' car now........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveW Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 Hmmm another interesting thing I have just found out about insurance. I am currently insured through Sky Insurance and the policy is underwritten by markerstudy. I rang another broker for a quote and they asked who my current policy was underwritten by and when I said markerstudy they said they were unable to quote because they only use marker study. I asked the reason why and they said that markerstudy have recently said to them that they are not allowed to quote against a quote supplied from another broker using them as the underwriter because they don't want to be quoting against a quote from themselves, i.e. they don't want to give a cheaper quote if they have alrweady given you a renewal price from another broker. That seems very anti-competition to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I asked the reason why and they said that markerstudy have recently said to them that they are not allowed to quote against a quote supplied from another broker using them as the underwriter because they don't want to be quoting against a quote from themselves, i.e. they don't want to give a cheaper quote if they have alrweady given you a renewal price from another broker. That seems very anti-competition to me Seems strange to me as I thought it worked like this: You phone up a broker for a quote. Broker goes to underwriter, underwriter says "thats £200". Broker adds on their bit of profit and says to you "thats £4000". You exclaim "do I have mug written on my forehead, I can get it for £1000 elsewhere" Broker says "hang on, let me have a look..... yes sir, we can match the £1000 quote you have" You say "wow, thats a bargain, i`ll take it". So quite what relevance the underwriters quote to the broker is I do not know, as I seriously doubt the broker would be giving that quote straight to the customer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveW Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 So quite what relevance the underwriters quote to the broker is I do not know, as I seriously doubt the broker would be giving that quote straight to the customer. Thats just what I thought mate!!! Another way they screw us over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I rang another broker for a quote and they asked who my current policy was underwritten by and when I said markerstudy they said they were unable to quote because they only use marker study. Tell em to fook off and that its irrelevant. If an insurance company wants to be supplied by multiple brokers they have to expect that they may get some quotes that are already underwritten by themselves. Just tough titties tbh! And from the brokers point of view its losing them business as you cant now use them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 And interestingly enough today..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14833532 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 I posted on another thread a similar story in marketingweek Ironic isn't it, that insurance companies sell to lawyers the personal details of people who are injured in an accident, those lawyers then sue and the insurers have to pay out. Only one loser in that mix I think and your average driver is it - I for one have no sympathy for insurers who bleat on about these injury claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasha@lazytrips Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Quite surprising how long this took. There has got to be some serious lobbying going on by the industry to prevent a serious clamp down. I am a man of numbers and am astounded by how these companies are not forced to refund customers based on incredibly obvious competition law abuses. Here are some numbers all from insurance companies themselves. Insurance premiums rose 40-45% over the last year. To make it simple, a £500 quote a year ago has on average become £700. Admiral Group who are one of the biggest players in the market have released some numbers recently saying that 77.5% of their turnover forms the loss ratio, up from 67.8% a year ago. That's a 16.9% increase in claim costs. Hence the increase in rates from the industry's own official figures is more than double the increase in claim costs. To add insult to injury, they have posted half year profits of £161M which is a 27% increase on the previous year. Notice anything here? 17% increase in claim costs + 27% increase in profit = 44% increase in insurance price. I know this is grossly oversimplifying, but the maths is pretty straight-forward. Here's another interesting statistic I worked out on my casio. £161M x 2 = £322M annualised profit. With an average of around 2.75M customers over the last year, that means that each and every single customer pays around £120 towards the company's profit on average. Depending on which source you look at, the average insurance price is quoted at between £900 and £1,000. So the gross profit makes up 12% of the revenue which is unbelievable for an industry of this kind where your turnover should be almost entirely funding the costs. And interestingly enough today..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14833532 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Sometimes the simple stuff is the best stuff. I was watching TV a few months back when we had spokespersons for Insurers pleading hard times and that insurers claimed they had been running a loss for so many years that the big hike is simply to cover these bogus injury claims and to bring themselves in line with what they should be charging. As I said previously, if they didnt sell claims details to lawyers (which is downright illegal anyway) then they wouldnt be claimed against - the short sightedness of whoever instilled that practice is nothing short of moronic. In addition, I seriously call into doubt that an industry like insurance which has such low personable relationships with its customers (in effect we are just numbers in a vast database) can claim that for years it was taking a financial hit just for us. You can't just hike it up 40% and give those sorts of excuses and expect to get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impressed Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 A few years ago someone smashed the wing mirror off my Celica and some minor paint damage to door. I sourced a replacement for £70 second hand. Decided to call my insurance company because my my excess was only £100 and I had protected NCB and this would fix the door. Went as follows. Me......Will claiming affect my premium next year? Them......Yes, as you are making a claim you will be seen as a higher risk. Me......But I have protected NCB. Them......It will still affect your premium but not your NCB as you will be seen as a higher risk. Me......Well in that case I will not claim. Them......Now you have told us about this incident you will still be seen as a higher risk. Me......So next years premium will go up regardless of whether I claim or not? Them......Yes Sir. Me......But what if I hadn’t called you. Them......Then we would not know but it says in your policy all incidents must be reported. Me......Well I guess I might as well claim then........ Eh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 that sums it up nicely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveW Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 that sums it up nicely! Its a right joke!! Looks like adrian flux are coming up trumps though knocked neraly £100 off sky's quote and lots of extra benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 that sums it up nicely! Its a right joke!! Looks like adrian flux are coming up trumps though knocked neraly £100 off sky's quote and lots of extra benefits. Yeah Adrian Flux are quite good, im with them atm and have been for a few years. Only problem I have is that they have now taken the "drive any other persons car 3rd party" off my policy - which ive had on there for ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 A few years ago someone smashed the wing mirror off my Celica and some minor paint damage to door. I sourced a replacement for £70 second hand. Decided to call my insurance company because my my excess was only £100 and I had protected NCB and this would fix the door. Went as follows.Me......Will claiming affect my premium next year? Them......Yes, as you are making a claim you will be seen as a higher risk. Me......But I have protected NCB. Them......It will still affect your premium but not your NCB as you will be seen as a higher risk. Me......Well in that case I will not claim. Them......Now you have told us about this incident you will still be seen as a higher risk. Me......So next years premium will go up regardless of whether I claim or not? Them......Yes Sir. Me......But what if I hadn’t called you. Them......Then we would not know but it says in your policy all incidents must be reported. Me......Well I guess I might as well claim then........ Eh.... But surely if you hadn't claimed and moved to a different company at the end of that years insurance they wouldn't have known and you wouldn't have had to declare it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.