Development of Simplified Issue Products in Canada

Transcription

JUNE 2014 ANNUAL MEETING—VANCOUVER (SESSION 24)
1
Session 24:
Development of Simplified Issue Products in
Canada
Séance 24 :
L’élaboration de produits à émission simplifiée
au Canada
MODERATOR/
MODÉRATRICE :
SPEAKERS/
CONFÉRENCIERS :
Cathy Shum-Adams
Kris Boundy
Pamela Kwiatkowski
Chris Ricketts
?? = Inaudible/Indecipherable
ph = phonetic
Unknown = Unidentified speaker
Moderator Cathy Shum-Adams: Good afternoon. Welcome to Session 24: Development of
Simplified Issue (SI) Products in Canada. Innovation in the past few years has sparked an array
of simplified issue products in the Canadian marketplace.
The format of this session is a panel discussion. There is a lot of ground to cover for this topic.
What the panellists have done is carefully select a list of pertinent topics we thought the audience
would be interested in. We have a lot of time at the end of the session for questions and
comments after the panellists have presented or have finished their discussions. Let me do a very
quick introduction of the panellists we have today in alphabetical order.
To my left is Kris Boundy, who is a director of individual reinsurance at Munich Re. Kris, an
actuary by training, is a Fellow of the CIA and a Fellow of the SOA.
Pamela Kwiatkowski is the brokerage development manager for Assumption Life. Pamela
frequently conducts seminars with affinity groups, financial institutions, industry associations,
and has a tremendous amount of experience with all types of media.
Last but not least is Chris Ricketts. She’s a director of underwriting at BW Underwriting
Services. Chris is the former president of the Canadian Association of Living Benefits
Underwriters, and most recently spent several years on the executive of the Canadian Institute of
Underwriters. As you can see we have representations from actuarial, from distribution, and from
underwriting.
This is a very high-level summary to define the discussions to follow. There are a couple of
items that I would like to emphasize. First, while there are simplified issue critical illness and
disability products available in the marketplace, the most prevalent one would be the life one,
where there are the most number of issuers involved in selling simplified issue life products.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF ACTUARIES
Vol. 45, June 2014
2
ASSEMBLÉE GÉNÉRALE ANNUELLE—JUIN 2014, VANCOUVER (SÉANCE 24)
Second, the reference to simplified issue products, for the sake of our discussions today, is
actually for those SI products that are sold by insurance companies. You may ask why we’re
making that particular distinction. One may tend to think about creditor products—particularly
those that are sold by the banks where there are only a few questions asked—are simplified issue
products too. They are. For the sake of our discussion today, we are focusing on the simplified
issue products sold by an insurance company.
This is a perfect lead-in to my next slide, which shows a comparison of the bank mortgage
creditor product versus the insurance company’s simplified issue products. These are only the
key highlights for some of the areas and this is, of course, just strictly on life coverage.
In terms of the number of plans for the bank mortgage creditor products, there are about 17. As
you all know, the big five banks and other banking institutions are all involved in selling these
products. Keep in mind these products are actually underwritten by life insurance companies.
Those are the risk-takers behind them.
For insurance company products, there are term SI products as well as permanent SI products—
which are sold more as a final expense product. Some companies sell both—term and perm—
and if I were to count T10, T20, T25 and the perm, there are about 30 plans or so in Canada.
In terms of the process, the bank mortgage creditor product is simple. It is tied in with the loan
application. When the person applies for a loan, the person is also presented with the insurance
offer. The simplified issue product by the insurance company has to be initiated either by the
buyer (the applicants) or the advisor (he seller).
In terms of coverage. The bank’s product is a decreasing coverage. It covers the outstanding loan
plus perhaps any penalty and/or accrued interest. For the insurance company, mostly they are
level coverage. There are some simplified issue products that are designed specifically for
mortgage protection and of course those will carry a decreasing balance.
I mentioned before, previously an SI product could be term, it could perm. For the rest of the
table the comparison is made against the insurance company SI term products. I think that is a
more appropriate comparison to the mortgage creditor products.
In terms of maximum issue age: 64 is the most common age with the banks versus the insurance
company—it is at a higher age—about 70. In terms of termination age: again the most common
with the bank product is age 70. For the insurance company, as you can see, it’s into the eighties.
What this means is that due to the higher termination age, the coverage actually continues for the
level term coverage product. It continues even after the mortgage is paid off. For joint coverage
at banks it is readily available with the mortgage product on two lives—sometimes even on
multiple lives—and the benefit is payable upon first death. With the insurance company, it is
available but perhaps not as common. For those products that are designed for mortgage
protection specifically, it is certainly available for joint coverage.
Amortization period for the bank, most common is 25 years. For the insurance company, as you
can see, there is T10, T20, T25, with termination ages well into the eighties. We should mention
that a couple of plans are non-renewable, they are only offered for the 10, 20, or 25 years and
thereafter they are not renewable for the insurance company.
Maximum coverage: for the banks, $500,000 is the most common. For the insurance company, it
really depends on the type of coverage. There are two different types of plan available. There is a
Vol. 45, juin 2014
DÉLIBÉRATIONS DE L’INSTITUT CANADIEN DES ACTUAIRES
3
deferred plan, which means the benefits payable are restricted for the first few years. It is usually
deferred for the first two years. Benefits are not payable unless death results from accidental
means. The list of questions will not be as long as the one for the immediate coverage plan. For
the deferred the most common amount is $300,000. For the immediate, it’s about a quarter of a
million. It’s interesting to note that—because we’re talking about this for mortgage protection—
if you look at CMHC’s mortgage data the outstanding mortgage is only about $200 and some
thousand. We’re not talking about millions.
In terms of the ROP (return of premium) feature, it is not applicable with the bank products
because they pay right away. For the insurance defer plan most of them carry an interest
component, the most common interest rates at 3%.
Accelerated benefit, you can think of the terminal illness benefit. It is not common with the bank
products. There are only one or two plans that I looked at that offered it. With the insurance
company it is also not as common, but there maybe a few more offering it than the banks.
Premium rates. It doesn’t come as a surprise to you with the banks’ products they are higher than
the insurance products. With the insurance products they are higher than conventional fully
underwritten business. In terms of guaranteed premiums creditor, on paper, technically, the rates
are not guaranteed; however, in reality it is my understanding that the rates have never been
changed once coverage took effect. Guaranteed premiums are commonly available with products
sold by the insurance company.
Underwriting. Both of them are non-medical, it does not matter bank versus insurance company.
The banks typically ask three to five questions if the mortgage amount, or loan amount, is under
a quarter of a million, $250,000. For higher amounts, because the max coverage goes to
$500,000, tele-underwriting applies.
For insurance, non-medical again, the range of questions depends on the plan you look at. Some
have three, some go up to 27 questions. Although it’s not very common, for some of the plans
the tele-underwriting applies as well.
The pre-ex clauses are very common with the mortgage creditor product—and the most common
is a 12/12 pre-ex. Versus the insurance company where there are a couple of plans. We had a
discussion at breakfast today—there’s one insurance company with a term product that has a preex and there is another product that is designed for a mortgage protection that has a pre-ex as
well.
Insurability. Once the application is approved with the bank product, it remains approved—even
if, let’s say, the applicant then later applies for an addition to the mortgage to do home
renovations. Up to a certain limit of that addition, it’s actually not subject to reassessment of the
risk. If it’s subject to reassessment and if that person is declined for the additional portion, the
original coverage stays in place. Of course with the insurance company’s products, once it’s
approved at the beginning, it stays approved.
For the beneficiary with the credit product, the beneficiary is the bank. The insurance product,
the policyholder has a choice to name the beneficiary.
The indexed option is not common. Not applicable to the bank products. It is applicable to some
of the plans sold by the insurance company.
Vol. 45, June 2014
4
The AD&D. It is not common, not in the industry norm, for the banks to offer AD&D. Although,
I think there may be one or two plans that offer it. For the insurance company, it’s actually quite
common to offer AD&D benefits. It is usually up to two times the benefit if death is through
accidental means.
Additional benefits. At the bank, when you go in for a loan, they don’t just sell you the life. They
sell life, DI, and CI. Most banks offer creditor life. Some offer DI, and a few offer to CI. If it’s
all offered it is sold as a package. I mentioned in my introductory remarks that there are actually
more insurance companies selling SI life than SI CI and DI. Depending on the carrier that the
applicant chooses, the insurance company may not have the full range of products.
Portability. That’s an interesting one. If it’s a mortgage product taken out with a credit union, my
understanding is that coverage is portable within the credit union network so can you go from
credit union A to B. That mortgage creditor product is portable—there is an underwriter in the
industry as well as an insurance company, their product is portable as well. For the most part, it’s
not portable within different banking institutions. For insurance company it is no problem. You
own the policy. It doesn’t matter if you have a mortgage at Royal Bank and tomorrow you switch
to TD.
That’s a quick summary of the comparisons between the products. Now, we shall go into our
panelist discussion.
UNKNOWN: I just wanted to know if affinity products are included in today or would that be
more like banks?
Moderator Shum-Adams: For the sake of my comparison, I did not include the affinity in the
insurance company products, but there would be another one that . . .
UNKNOWN: And today, it’s probably not going to be covered?
Moderator Shum-Adams: No.
UNKNOWN: Right, OK. That’s fine.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you. Now we’re going to go into the panellists’ discussions
and we have a lot of time for questions at the end. If you would kindly let the panellists finish
their discussions and you would kindly come up to the mic afterwards to pose your questions that
would be great.
Moving forward, looking back. The very last slide of our presentation is a moving forward
question. We’re going to look at the evolution of the simplified issue products a few years down
the road. It’s only appropriate that we start with a question on looking back in terms of the
evolution of these products in Canada over time. For that, I’m going to call on Chris Ricketts to
give us a summary on the history.
Speaker Chris Ricketts: Thanks, Cathy. As Cathy said, I’m going to talk a little bit about the
evolution of the simplified issue products in Canada. Originally, we saw these starting to be sold
back in the early 1990s, looking for a cheaper and faster way of doing business and underwriting.
Initially, the face amounts were very low. The SI app, as we know, contained several kick-out
questions so we don’t get those uninsurable risks coming in to us initially to look at during the
underwriting process. Plus, an unlimited number of medical and non-medical questions are in the
Part 2.
Vol. 45, juin 2014
5
The first 10 years, the insurance applications were generally paper-based and technology
provided little more than a simple data entry vehicle and an admin system to process your
underwriting applications. All applications required some type of underwriter or jet issue review
at that point in time.
The underwriting of the SI product presented some challenges. Decisions needed to be made
with fewer medical requirements. This was not always an easy transition for underwriters who
had been working with only fully underwritten products. That’s really one of the big shifts and
one of the big challenges that we’ve continued to see in the industry with respect to underwriters,
not being able to make that shift easily.
We also had the challenges of a significant number of incomplete applications, which slowed
down the process. Cheaper and faster was something that we really wanted to be focusing on.
Over the years, a large number of companies have utilized MIB as a significant value-add to
verify the details of medical history and identify red flags that the application otherwise would
not uncover. For some companies, this also includes the IAI, the insurance activity index, where
you can take a look and see: is the client applying or have they applied other places? Are there
other outstanding applications? You get a better picture as to what’s going on.
Over the past 10-plus years, we’ve seen a steady increase in the number of companies adopting
and selling the SI products. As Cathy said, the focus has been primarily on the term life
coverage. We had the knock-out questions for the uninsurable risks. As experience grew these
questions were modified and tweaked to ensure more comprehensive client disclosures and
improve claims experience.
Some insurers have moved to the shortened application process, limiting medical and nonmedical questions on the Part 2, resulting in an expedited application process. The accountability
of the collection of sensitive questions transferred from the advisor to the skilled interviewers.
For the newer advisors this has been, for the most part, a welcome shift. For the ones that have
been in the industry a long time, not so much. They still want to have the control of the
application process and so it has presented some challenges along the way.
As we’ve gained experience in the market over the past 20-plus years, there have been some
good improvements with the application question wording. We better understand how to ask the
right questions. We clearly see that these really do influence the outcome of the underwriting
process, and ultimately, we’re gaining better decisions.
Development of questions, focusing on creating questions which use plain language, has allowed
the client to be able to comprehend the questions that are being asked. That has been a big focus
of the industry over the past five to 10 years, making sure that we’re writing the wording on the
applications, including the medical questions, in layman’s terms—very, very important. Again, it
has resulted in improved client disclosures which have assisted with making better underwriting
decisions. This helps to alleviate the challenges which historically arise at claim time.
There’s been a shift, too, to a greater number of drill-down and reflexive questioning. Although
the key focus was initially on the length of the interview, the additional reflexive questions have
really created a bit of a longer interview process. This really wasn’t a desirable thing initially, but
we’ve seen that it has assisted with limiting our exposure to bad risks.
Vol. 45, June 2014
6
The SI product has paid particular attention to areas which present significant risks. Things like
alcohol and drug use, cancer, heart and cardiovascular disease, diabetes—we’ve seen a huge
increase in the number of diabetics over the past 20 years, especially Type II and pre-diabetes—
kidney, respiratory and liver disorders, HIV and AIDS, blood disorders, hospitalizations, tests
not yet completed—so things that the client has not yet had completed which their doctor may
have recommended—and symptoms that they may have for which they have not yet sought
medical treatment. Reduced age and amount requirements, improved level of client disclosures
on the SI applications, and certainly, the tele-interview process transferring that ownership and
accountability over to those folks that are really the experts in that area have assisted us with
gaining the right types of disclosures.
By the early 2000s, insurers began looking at the feasibility of building or implementing an
expert underwriting engine in whole or in part. These are really an ideal vehicle to pass the SI
application through with automated decision making running anywhere from a low end of 20%
to a high end of 70%. This really depends upon the ability of the company to be able to build
some complex rules and ensure that the right decision is coming out of those rules engines. It has
provided us with consistency in underwriting decisions and reduction in underwriting costs.
We’ve seen some significant reductions in cycle time, fewer errors, and ultimately a product that
has been in some ways easier to sell. It has allowed for risks that may not be otherwise insurable
to be placed, providing an improved client experience over the traditional application process.
There are still some cautionary notes, though. We have some different demographics that we’re
dealing with in the SI market. We have higher than average lapse rates, especially within the first
couple of years and with the younger ages. These are challenges for advisors. They don’t
necessarily have the same control that they’ve had in the past with respect to dealing with their
client, knowing their client. We really do need to keep a close eye on things as we move forward.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you, Chris.
Speaker Kris Boundy: I just had one comment there as well, about the evolution that we’ve seen
in the actual target market. As Chris mentioned, many of the products we’ve seen up to this point
really focused on the final expense market. We’ve also seen products that have focused on
serving the impaired mortality market. I think the discussion, more recently, has turned to
figuring out how to get to that under-insured Canadian population—more about the middle
market, family market. Shifting this discussion a little bit now, from those types of target markets
to this middle market are. I’m sure you’ve heard this stated elsewhere today, I know I have, from
the LIMRA underinsurance study saying that 45% of Canadians recognize that they are
underinsured. How are we reaching those people?
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you, thank you to both. The next question we’re going to direct
to Pamela. What do brokers and advisors focus on when evaluating the choices of simplified
issue products available in the market?
Speaker Pamela Kwiatkowski: Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to have you all here in
Vancouver. It’s a lot of fun for someone in distribution to be in a room with actuaries. I know
how often that happens. I think before we look at what the advisor is looking for from the SI
market, I think we need to fully understand what the history of the advisor’s experience has been
in the SI market. Historically, that sale has been a reactive sale. The broker has a client,
submitted an application, and it comes back with a rating, a postponement or a decline. The
Vol. 45, juin 2014
7
broker says, “Oh, my goodness, what am I going to do here? I don’t know what to do. My client
has been declined. I’ve got a problem. I didn’t really understand. I didn’t take the para-med, so I
wasn’t sure that there was going to be anything going on.” Then they go to their MGA and they
say, “I need a solution. I need a quote. I need product information.” At that point advisors
weren’t focused on the SI market. You had very few distributors that were targeted on the SI
market, but by and large, advisors were not. It was one of those things that, “I don’t know where
to look and how to find it”, and so they’d go to the MGA.
I think the good news today is that we’re moving from that reactive sale into more of a proactive
sale. The advisor, with the shift in demographics and people living longer with disease, realizes
that this is a very important gap in the briefcase to fill, thus we’ve had an increase in SI products.
The advisor is better able and better equipped to sit down with that customer and look at that
customer from a more holistic point of view. Oftentimes offer an SI solution when it might best
suit the client. Previously what would happen is that client, then being presented with an SI
solution, is looking at a deferred product—which is not the best solution for the client.
It also provides that advisor an opportunity to open up into markets where the consumer is not so
price sensitive, but they’re process sensitive. They don’t want to be asked a number of medical
questions that are invasive. They don’t want a needle, they don’t want blood, and they don’t
want a para-med coming to their home. It really gives the advisor a greater breadth of products to
offer their customer.
With the growth of the SI market and the products that are coming to market presently, the
insurers need to sharpen their pencils to get better at what we do and what is the advisor really
looking for. I think a couple of things.
First of all, they look at the claims history of the company. When we look at SI products,
particularly historically, advisors sell a lot of them in rural areas or communities or within their
centre of influence. It’s very important to that advisor that the promise to pay actually happens.
When you’re in historically a senior market we all know if one thing happens everybody knows
about it in the community. The other thing they’re looking at is a lot of SI products have opened
the doors to more accessibility to the ethnic markets—persons on work visas. To Chris’s point,
the clarity and the language is so vital to the advisor. Also for some of the advisors English is
their second language, not just their customer’s. We endeavour to make sure that those medical
questions are clear and easy to understand for both the advisor and the customer, leaving little
room for interpretation. I think that’s something that we as an industry need to continue to hone
and to work on.
The ability to sell non-face-to-face is important to the advisor, because the sale of an SI product
is not the big whale. The advisor’s not making a whole lot of money on that sale. It is typically to
solve a problem that their customer has or to fill a gap. We need to make sure that their cost of
acquisition and their efficiencies are as great as they can be. The non-face-to-face that also work
with those advisors and distribution sources are in the internet space, the lead generation. That’s
also very important to them.
We think of the advisor—what does an advisor want? Well, I want lower premium and higher
commission. That is not true, especially in the SI market. They’re really looking for a quality
product because at that point they would rather have a sale than no sale. The advisor’s invested a
lot of time and energy into that client and into trying to get a sale, so they’re more looking to: is
Vol. 45, June 2014
8
this product easy to sell? Is it easy for me to understand? Does it have an electronic process?
Then I don’t have the errors that I’ve experienced in a traditional paper application process. If
you’ve been in the business, you know that advisors—they have these applications and they miss
one question, they’re back to their MGA, they’re back to their customer and the cycle time just
goes on and the customer not-taken increases. They want to look at the efficiencies of doing that
business and not so much the compensation. Although it is obviously important to them, it’s not
as traditionally important as it would be in the term or the UL market.
I think conversion options are important as more products come to the market. Also, higher
limits, more additional riders being available, and a broader breadth of age ranges. In the SI
market final expense—typically the older customer looking for $25,000 face amount, barely.
Now we’re looking at lifestyle choices where people become uninsurable. I kind of use the joke
of being in Vancouver—you’re weed smokers, daily weed smokers, and need to have access to
insurance. That’s a reality. I get the call all the time.
I think one of the things from the insurer’s perspective that the advisor is looking for, is how do I
tap into that market? Stop just pushing product information on me. I’m getting that all the time. I
get all this product information. You’re coming out with a new product, that’s great, but help me
market to that underserved market. What tools are you going to give me? How are you going to
educate me—particularly in the ethnic market? Teach me about the industry. Why is it changing?
What are these products? Where do they fit? Can you help me market? I think that that is where
today’s advisor is really looking to us for help: “Help me tap into that market cost effectively so I
can earn a living.”
The other thing that I think that the SI market presents is, for those MGA’s and distribution
sources, you have new advisors coming into the business. I think SI presents a great opportunity
for that new advisor to get their feet wet in the business. Products they can get compensated for
quickly because it is a tough business for a new advisor. If they can sell a product that’s easy for
them to understand and easy for their customer to understand and they get paid quickly, then
they can move on and expand. It’s almost like getting their learner’s licence, if you will, in the
industry and getting paid. I think, to tie what the advisor is looking for is: they’re looking for
education, they’re looking for more breadth in product and they’re looking for assistance in how
to tap into the marketplace.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you, Pamela. This is a big question. What are the
considerations in terms of plan design, distribution, pricing, underwriting, et cetera, for an SI
product, especially if this is a brand new initiative for an insurer? All three of our panellists have
their comments. Pamela will start with her viewpoint on distribution target market, followed by
Chris Ricketts on underwriting and the impact on the target market on underwriting. Kris
Boundy will wrap it up in terms of the pricing and its impact on everything—how distribution
underwriting target market has an impact on pricing. Pamela, if you could start first please.
Speaker Kwiatkowski: It’s funny. When we were talking about the panel discussion and who’s
going to lead off, I said, “I think I’ll lead off, because actually at Assumption we just went
through this exercise at the end of 2012 and 2013.” Many of you may or may not know the
history of Assumption, but we’ve been very strong in the SI market as a permanent solution for
the older, hard-to-insure customer in the final expense market. Our distribution loves the fact that
we have an electronic process and we’re quick to pay. They came to us and said, “It’s great that
you’ve got this permanent solution, but for a lot of my customers they simply can’t afford a
Vol. 45, juin 2014
9
permanent solution and furthermore, they want a higher limit than what you’re offering, and they
want some more flexibility within the plan. So how about you develop a term product for the
hard-to-insure market?” We went to them and said, “What are you looking for? What does your
customer want? If we were to build this, what would work for you?”
They came back and we did sales projections, got some competitive intelligence. Then we
brought it back and said, “OK, is this going to fit with our platform? Is this going to fit with our
strategic plan?” It did and it’s a great success. We’ve exceeded our targets. It was a wonderful
exercise to go through in terms of expanding our SI product distribution. That is where we
launched that whole exercise.
Speaker Ricketts: Onto the underwriting side of things. I think I was fortunate. For a number of
years in my career, I see of them in the audience here, I worked for actuaries. I think that it really
helped me to gain a far greater understanding of really the breadth, the end-to-end process.
Starting with sales and right through to the claims process and seeing how important that really
is. Obtaining input and buy-in from the field and really understanding what their needs are.
Listening to them and continually engaging them. Understanding what their challenges are. What
the opportunities are. Really having continued dialogue and making sure that we’re focused on
those things. Understand the target market and the demographics when underwriting the risk.
Understand the risk of anti-selection and non-disclosure, a big chunk of things.
Create an underwriting process that’s fast and easy for the client and the advisor. I think we still
have some work to do in this area. There certainly have been some improvements with that over
the past 10 years in underwriting. I think that we need to think a lot more outside the box and
figure out more creative ways that we can really expedite the underwriting process. I think that
we’re a little bit stuck in the mud sometimes with unnecessarily asking additional questions and
getting details that aren’t really required in order to make a sound decision. Getting the age and
amount requirements right. Working closely with the actuarial team, making sure that we’re all
working off the same page so that we don’t have any gaps down the road and that we’re
competitive within the industry.
Application wording. Utilizing the plain language, as I was talking about before, is so critical for
both the medical and non-medical language on the application. Ensuring that we have robust
reflexive questions focusing on those key impairments which are our highest mortality risks.
The turnaround time, again, I think that utilization of looking at rules engines to assist you,
looking at the cost and benefit of those. My experience over the past, approximately 15 years
now, has been that rules engines can really do a lot to expedite the underwriting and bring about
those consistencies with decisions and confidence in the underwriting process.
With that, you need to ensure that you have available skill and technical resources to analyze the
data on a continued basis. You need to work closely with the actuarial product team and
underwriting team to create and modify the rules engines as required.
MIB: I think there are a few companies that don’t utilize MIB, but certainly there’s a huge
productive value of utilizing MIB.
Other considerations. I think that advisors are looking at what are the mortality thresholds.
Where can I go to place the business and at what price is that going to be? Looking for
underwriting shops that are flexible and creative with their underwriting decisions. Underwriters
Vol. 45, June 2014
10
who are willing to think outside the box and look for creative ways to get it approved and get it
issued. I’m not sure that that is still happening. It’s not happening everywhere at this point in
time. Sometimes we’re looking for ways to decline instead of ways to place the business, so
working closely with reinsurers to figure out some creative solutions.
Speaker Kris Boundy: I’m going to now talk a little bit about what some of the considerations are
from a pricing perspective. Now, obviously, this is a very large question. There are a lot of
different factors, so I’m just going to touch on a few different ones that I think are interesting and
some that relate to the discussions that Pamela and Chris have already brought up.
The first one is about the target market and how important it is to understand who it is you’re
hoping to target with this product. I spoke about some of the different markets that exist
currently for SI. For the purpose of a large part of my discussion, I’m really going to be focusing
on that mid market, family market, in terms of the comments that I’m sharing.
For that market specifically, the price premium is very, very important in terms of attracting the
good risks, making sure that you’re getting standard risks in the door. The price premium needs
to be justified by an improved client experience. You need to be able to get it to them faster,
simpler, less intrusive. There needs to be a reason why that standard life is going to go and pay
more, potentially, to get a simplified issue product. That’s the first thing that you really need to
keep in mind as you go through the development of a simplified issue product.
As well, with the price differential, if you do start to see it growing too much, you are going to
start to attract more impaired lives. This is going to affect your mortality assumption and then go
back to your price. You’re going to have to increase your price even more and that’s going to
continue to create a spiral. It’s not going to be sustainable in the long term. So it is really
important to get that price set properly from day one.
Obviously, a large component of that price is going to come from what underwriting is actually
being done. Specifically, what is the value of the underwriting that is not being completed may
be one way to look at it. How is it different than the fully underwritten product? What value are
you losing because of that? It’s important to look at that specifically. Also making sure that the
number and the quality of the underwriting questions that are being asked is there. Making sure
the right questions are being asked. Making sure those questions are being asked in the right
way. What I mean by that is, making sure that when you do see more non-disclosure coming
through your product. That the way the question has been asked in the underwriting does leave
room for investigation to be completed, if necessary, on early duration claims.
Just to give an example of what I’m looking at there, there are different ways to approach
different questions that you may ask in underwriting. Looking at something like driving record
as an example. If you ask, “Have you ever lost your licence?” The person may be able to answer
that question honestly, but could still be an increased risk based on their driving record. Perhaps
asking, “Have you had any tickets?” or asking more specific questions about their driving record
may accomplish more and leave more room to being able to ask questions if an early claim does
occur.
Some of this has already been mentioned, but catch-all questions on simplified applications can
be valuable as well. Actively at work questions is another one, where you can kind of get a
general feel for the quality of the risk that you’re getting on. As well as looking at alternative
sources for underwriting or for getting data at time of underwriting. What I’m referring to here is
Vol. 45, juin 2014
11
how you can collect additional information from independent sources from actually collecting it
from the applicant? Chris mentioned MIB as one example. Others could be driving records or
potentially one-day prescription databases in Canada. That type of thing where you can actually
collect additional information that can help with the underwriting process but doesn’t necessarily
affect the experience of the end-user, the consumer.
If these are known additional sources, it can also act as a sentinel in terms of preventing nondisclosure or actually increasing the level of disclosure that you do get from the applicants at the
time of underwriting, which will help the performance of the entire product.
Tele-underwriting is another source that was discussed a little bit earlier which has shown
increased levels of disclosure when used. That’s another valuable tool that can be incorporated
into a simplified issue plan.
Another underwriting consideration that’s good to keep in mind is also the ability for
policyholders to stack simplified issue policies. Often there aren’t extensive questions about inforce insurance on a simplified application. Make sure there’s thought given as to how that’s
being handled. To ensure that the policyholder who may be trying to avoid underwriting is not
able to just accumulate a lot of simplified products in the market.
Ways that you can accomplish this within your own company is actually having limitations in
the contract about how much can pay out, as potentially more long term, as more companies are
offering simplified and potentially higher limits of simplified. It may also be important to
consider what other simplified products that person may already have purchased.
Then, of course, incorporating the factor of what your expectations are around non-disclosure.
How are you including that into the pricing of the product as well and making sure that that’s
accurately being incorporated into the pricing. A big part of this, actually, is communication at
time of pricing. To what extent is underwriting at the same table and claims at the same table and
distribution at the same table to make sure everyone is on the same page about how this product
is going to be handled. Specifically, I mentioned claims there because it is really important about
how the claims are planned to be handled. There is an expectation there will be more early
duration claims and it’s important from a pricing perspective to understand what the expectation
is around those early duration claims.
The last comments I’m going to bring up are just around distribution. We’ve heard a little bit
here about how distribution approaches the simplified issue products. Certainly this is something
that needs to be taken into consideration as well. Advisors are extremely sophisticated. They
have a lot of access to information. In terms of things like spread-sheeting, they now have access
to know which products have which features or ask which questions. Make sure that you’re also
aware of what information they have. Is there a potential for them to find an opportunity that
could result in you getting business on the books that you’re not comfortable with? That’s
something to be very aware of. Also early lapses, as already mentioned. We do see early lapses
on simplified products. Be aware of that and the impact that’s going to have on the mortality that
you expect to see.
As you can see, there are quite a few considerations to think about when it comes to figuring out
how to ultimately reach that target market that you’re working towards and getting the mortality
experience that you’re hoping to get. In the end, producing a sustainable and profitable
simplified issue product.
Vol. 45, June 2014
12
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you, Chris. Your comments about the brokers having a lot of
information at their hands, particularly now with the advent of technology, is quite valid. I
remember going on a website. I was just Googling. I was looking for information, not for this
session, but in general, just doing some R&D work. This site pops up. “Are you aware that this
insurance company is not asking a question on this condition? If your client has that condition
you may want to consider products from this company because you will be able to get it.”
Speaker Ricketts: If I could just add one more thing. Similarly, I think that certainly in many of
my discussions out there with the MGAs and such, they’re well aware of which underwriting
shops are more likely to place business or to be a little bit more aggressive with their
underwriting decisions. There’s a lot of conversation about that in the industry too. I think that
they are far well-versed on things than we might be aware. Like we’ve all said, we really need to
be aware of that when we’re taking a look at this.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Agreed.
Speaker Kwiatkowski: I think to that point, there are triggers that you can see in distribution that
will highlight the sophisticated behaviour of that advisor. Some of the things we were just talking
about this morning. Have distribution that seems to sell the highest limit to every client? They
tend to look the same, talk the same? It’s these little triggers that say: when the average face
amount is X, why is broker-over-here’s average face amount well above the average X? What’s
going on there? I think these are some of the things we want to protect the insurer, but we also
want to protect our distribution. We want to protect our reputation out there. What are those little
peaks that we see in distribution that may inadvertently affect pricing and experience? How do
we mitigate that as an industry together?
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you, Pamela. Now we have developed a simplified issue
product. You’ve heard about that simplified issue product compared to a fully underwritten
product. It has higher lapses, early claims experience that may suggest anti-selective behaviours.
How can we make use of the feedback loop from the claims experience to modify pricing and
underwriting over time? Chris Ricketts, if you would please start us off with your comments.
Speaker Ricketts: I think historically, just from my experience, perhaps we haven’t used claims
data really to the fullest advantage. It has perhaps been under-utilized. It is really important for
us to be completing audits on a regular basis, from an underwriting perspective, more than I
think are perhaps being done currently. Not only at the time of underwriting or just postunderwriting, but also claims time. Looking out there for that anti-selection and ensuring that the
integrity of the data is indeed intact. Included in that and an important component of that is not
just auditing the actual underwriting in the case but also auditing the tele-interview and listening
to the disclosures that the client’s made. Ensuring that that information has been translated into
that tele-interview, which then translates into those rules engines or what the underwriter is
looking at to make the decision, ensuring that it’s captured correctly.
That claims data really gives us the opportunity to identify any gaps that we might have and to
tweak wording accordingly. In this day and age, it’s almost instantaneous, not exactly real-time.
Back in the dark ages when I started underwriting, it was ages before you could really revise an
application. It was very costly and such. Now, in the electronic world, it makes it much easier to
do so and an important piece of the equation.
Vol. 45, juin 2014
13
We need to ensure that underwriting really fulfils the needs of the product and the expectations
regarding the experience. Consideration, I think, needs to be given to auditing all claims within
that first two-year contestable period. Really take a look at things very, very closely with the SI
product.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Kris Boundy, if you would share with us your viewpoint on pricing.
Speaker Boundy: Certainly with monitoring simplified issue products, the ability to act quickly
and react to any emerging experience that is different than expected is really critical to making
sure that the product was successful in the long term. As Chris mentioned, we typically do expect
to see more early-duration claims during the contestability period and so it’s important to
establish early on how those will be handled. As Chris mentioned as well, making sure those are
thoroughly investigated and that if there are any gaps in the underwriting or potentially patterns
in the distribution that are causing some of these disclosures, that they are being corrected
moving forward.
We do see higher volumes of non-disclosure coming through simplified issue products.
Typically we see more rescissions than are on fully underwritten products. In the Canadian
market on fully underwritten products during the contestability period we’re usually looking at
about 10 to 15% of policies are rescinded, claims are rescinded. On simplified issue products that
can be significantly more than 30%. Actually we’ve heard evidence from other markets that it
can be as much as 60%. Determining early on how rescissions are going to be handled is
extremely important.
As everyone is aware, there is a reputation risk element when it comes to rescinding policies.
Obviously everyone’s in the business to pay claims. It’s making sure that the risks you’re taking
on are the right risks so that you are able to pay those claims. Also making sure that at time of
pricing, you’re aware of how those rescissions are going to be handled.
On the advisors side, Pamela mentioned a lot of this in the previous discussion here about how
important it is to also monitor the advisor behaviour. Are you seeing anything in the market that
might be an indication that an advisor is maybe not selling the product the way that you were
hoping it would be sold? Are you seeing more early lapses from certain advisors? Are you seeing
more non-disclosure and rescissions coming from certain advisors? Higher focus on specific
impairments or a type of market? Larger face amounts? Basically, any characteristic of that sale
that you can track to see if there’s something standing out as being different to how that policy is
being sold is also important to be able to monitor and react to.
That’s really the bottom line with a simplified issue product, making sure that you’re actually
hitting that target market that you’re wanting to hit and that your experience is going to come out
as expected.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you. Pamela, would you share with us, what are some the
successes and perceived challenges for advisors in this market?
Speaker Kwiatkowski: I think success is—the number one—is that advisors have more solutions
for their customer. That’s the first thing that the SI product and the development and the increase
of the number of them in the industry have provided the advisor. It’s also a success that the
advisors have an opportunity to go back to their customer, get back to grassroots selling. They’ve
gone to the family market and they’ve sold that term case to a husband and wife. They can go
Vol. 45, June 2014
14
back to that family and say, “Do you have anything for your parents?” Particularly in the ethnic
market, we have a lot of families that are living together under one roof, and so that advisor can
go back and say: “What about grandma in the kitchen?” I use that example in training advisors.
Now the advisor can go back and organically grow his block of business with his existing client
base—which I think is really exciting for the advisor and it’s also going back to what we did.
We’d go into the home and we would sell everybody. We would sell the children. We would sell
the grandparents. Not just go in for that T10, one-and-done sale that seems to be systemic or has
been systemic in our industry for a while.
I think also that with the emergence of advisors in the internet space, simplified issue products
give them a product that they can offer that’s cost effective and not just in the hard-to-insure
market. As we grow in this market, what’s really exciting is identifying those Canadian
consumers who are more concerned about the speed of obtaining insurance coverage than being
an impaired risk looking for that solution.
I always talk about the 35-year-old woman who drinks a caramel macchiato every day, has no
idea what a half of million dollars’ worth of term insurance is. An excellent risk, but doesn’t
want to go through what we call the pain of underwriting. So how do we capture that excellent
risk? I think the internet space is where the advisors are looking to do that. SI products can fill
that gap.
Electronic process is something near and dear to our hearts at Assumption. That has also
provided a success for the advisor. Can I do this more efficiently? Can I do it more effectively?
Do I have to submit a paper application to my MGA—from my MGA to scrub, to courier to the
insurance company, and then it goes on. My customer is demanding to be served quickly. We
even PDF the policies to the MGA to reduce the lag time of delivering of the policy. Do I have to
have a delivery receipt to my client when they live in Prince George and I’m in Victoria? Those
types of things are providing success to the advisor and allowing them to be more efficient and to
earn an income in this industry.
I think the challenge that the advisors face is, “How the heck do I keep up with the pace of all
these changes and all these new products?” Just to look at the example that Cathy gave us of the
banks versus SI. What about the SI products in general? How do they fit and who’s doing what?
With the different electronic platforms as well, learning those multiple processes can be a
challenge for the advisor. Those advisors that are in the internet space, it’s becoming very costly.
We have distribution that were in it 10 years ago—well, the algorithms that the search engines
use are so much more sophisticated and so much more costly to keep up with. That is becoming
more and more of a challenge to the advisors in that market.
I think the challenge that is finally, I’m finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, is taking
that advisor from a traditional paper application process. Eleven years ago, I’d have advisors that
were still on dial-up and were using the Nokia flip phone when it didn’t do anything. The idea of
an electronic process was just frightening to them. We’ve come a long way and we still have a
long way to go. I think that that has been a challenge to the traditional advisor. “I’m resisting that
change. I understand that it needs to happen but I’m really not ready to adapt to that.”
Finally, I think that the distribution is realizing if we don’t adapt we’re not going to exist
anymore. We have been one of the slowest industries to adapt to utilization of electronic process
in the sale of insurance products. That’s been a challenge. Those that have been early adaptors
Vol. 45, juin 2014
15
are the ones that are seeing the success. There are a lot of challenges, certainly, for an advisor to
be in the SI market, particularly with more and more products. I think the challenge is for us to
help them, to educate them and to carry them along that process. To come alongside them and
share with them how important some of these underwriting and pricing requirements are. They
have a greater understanding of why those questions are being asked, why we’re doing an MIB,
and why it’s important to have good risk coming into the market, so that we can sustain these
products, and, in fact, expand on them. I think that that’s where the advisor is looking at today
and sitting there.
Moderator Shum-Adams: I have promised you in our presentation that we will look ahead to the
future and this is the question. How do you envision the simplified issue products to evolve over
time in plan design? Target markets? Underwriting? I recently attended a meeting where one of
the panellists proposed the following: With insurance companies making use of big data and
predictive analytics, perhaps someday, in the not-too-distant future, all of us will receive a
potential pre-approved offer in the mail for a product that’s customized for us and all we have to
do is sign on the dotted line. Anyway, that may be too futuristic, so I’d like to hear your
viewpoint, please. Why don’t we start with Pamela?
Speaker Kwiatkowski: I think that’s a great idea. I’m not sure that my colleagues, Kris and
Chris, would agree, but could you imagine if an advisor could send out a thing and say, “Here’s
your pre-approved, sign here, press hard, second copy is yours, and have a great day.”
Unknown: Why would they need the advisors?
Speaker Kwiatkowski: Because it’s still sold. I always say, “No one wakes up in the morning and
says, ‘Today would be a great day to buy a life insurance policy.’”
Unknown: They do. They do if you want to sell it to them.
Speaker Kwiatkowski: Yes, exactly, because it might be their last day.
At Assumption, we cover both ends of the spectrum and I think that we have an SI product for
the healthy, both in the term and the permanent genre of products, as well as the substandard or
the impaired risk. I anticipate that more and more carriers will do the same and look at SI as not
limited to the final expense. It’s not limited just to that impaired risk. There is a community of
consumers that are more interested in procuring life insurance quickly and effectively than they
are price-driven. The younger ages, when we look at their buying consumer behaviour and what
they pay for a pair of jeans, it makes sense. They want to have value but they want it quickly.
They don’t want to have that long and painful application process. Higher limits, flexibility and
plan design, I think we’d like to see—and this is the distribution wish list. It is not necessarily
going to happen, but DI riders, CI riders, more additional features, child riders on your SI
products, perm and term solutions that are bundled together. So that it really meets the needs of
the consumer for their entire lifespan.
Further development in electronic processes. We have an electronic process that you can do on
an iPad, an Android, your Mac, your PC. That is where we need to be because that’s where the
consumer is.
More non-face-to-face solutions. I think as we become more global and our families are living in
different places, this is something that we’re going to have to look at, to make it profitable for
everybody. All of those wish list experiences and compliance and consumer demand will
Vol. 45, June 2014
16
eventually dictate what’s to come. From my purview and I think from most of us, we all believe
that the end goal is that fewer and fewer Canadians are without a personal life insurance policy. I
think that is the cornerstone of what we’re doing here.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Chris?
Speaker Ricketts: Like with what Pamela said, we anticipate seeing the higher face amounts and
more offerings in terms of different riders and such. People are looking for better options, more
comprehensive options, an increase in the non-face-to-face, and an increase certainly in internet
sales from a distribution perspective. I know I’m supposed to be talking about underwriting, but
the thing that I’m hearing all the time is, even for advisors, it’s great to have something
electronic for them to tap into. It’s got to be really simple and easy for them to use. Going out
and talking to them. What does simple mean to you? How can we make it intuitive and easy to
use? That’s the way that you’re going to start driving business coming your way.
On cases where underwriter intervention is still required, underwriters have to continue to adapt
their investigative and critical thinking skills. I still think that we’re sort of falling short in that
area. We have to look more closely for anti-selection, understand those demographics and target
markets. We have to be aware of real-time claims data and adapt our underwriting philosophy
accordingly. We need to think outside the box. I really can’t say that enough. I think it is, as I
said, a big challenge for our industry. We need to focus on that when developing our
underwriters.
We’re going to continue to see a huge shift in trend towards adopting and accepting eapplications, e-signatures, virtual signatures, voice-recorded signatures. We have a way to go and
we need to see some changes with the laws in our own country with respect to that, but I think
it’s going to come fairly soon.
Insurers are going to continue to look for ways to adopt the latest technologies and that’s going
to help them increase the volume of applications being fed through underwriting engines.
Looking to be able to feed data from various data points, whether it’s a lab or your MBR data or
your APS data or whatever it is. I know we’re talking about simplified issues. This is a little bit
larger-picture thinking, really tapping into other databases. Like the U.S. model, I would love it
if we had the pharmaceutical database available up here. As an underwriter, I’m almost thirsty
for that type of information. I think it could greatly enhance our opportunity from an
underwriting perspective.
Consumers really want products that suit their needs and offer an easy process. We’ve said that
time and again throughout our discussions today: better data, better decisions, better pricing,
better profitability, better client experience. That’s really what we’re driving to at the end of the
day.
Speaker Boundy: A lot of my comments are very similar to what Pamela and Chris said, but I’ll
add a little bit more. The products that we see today are fairly simple. As more companies enter
this space, it’ll be interesting to see what the differentiators ultimately will be. How will
companies make sure that it’s their product that you actually end up purchasing? Ultimately, I
think the big thing that we’ll have to see in the evolution here is a better way to actually reach
that target market. Looking at different marketing strategies, use of social media, creativity and
innovation. I saw a session this morning talking about Met Life selling in Walmart in the U.S. It
Vol. 45, juin 2014
17
is things like that that are really out of the box that are customer experience. We are seeing a lot
of focus on underwriting automation today. There are definitely steps being taken to move in that
direction, in terms of improving the client experience, the turnaround time, which will all help
reach this market.
I don’t think Cathy’s suggestion is necessarily crazy, in terms of finding opportunities to use
existing data, historical data, and maybe data that you have from clients from other channels that
you may operate in. Making use of that data to figure out where are the healthy cohorts of the
population and approaching them with that insurance. Ultimately, maybe even removing some of
the need for, potentially, some advisors or even some underwriters in cases where you know that
life is healthy, it can simplify the process. I certainly think there are lots of areas where that
won’t be possible, but certainly that would be an exciting change to start to see in this market
down the road.
I do expect we’ll probably start to see face amounts increasing over time. Although as the
actuary on the panel, I will say that I think that’s something that should be approached
cautiously. This is a new market and there isn’t a lot of experience in Canada at this point. That
is something that I think is important to approach cautiously.
Ultimately, we know the Canadian population is underinsured. Hopefully simplified issue is a
product that we will see evolved and actually reach that market, that middle market.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you. We would welcome any questions you may have. John,
you’re going to start us off. Thank you.
John Dark: I won’t put Chris on the spot. I’ll ask the underwriter and the marketer. Specifically,
my question was about non-face-to-face. How can you be sure that the person answering the
questions is the person about whom the questions are asked? We place some implicit trust in our
agent to go and be there and look at the people. When you open yourself up to the anonymity, if
you will, of the internet or the phone line, how do you really know that you’re getting
information about the people that you’re being asked to insure?
Speaker Ricketts: That’s a great question. You don’t always know. That voice-recorded
signature becomes an important piece of things, especially at claims time. Other disclosures, in
terms of the choices that you make, in terms of the wording that you’re going to use during that
recorded tele-interview, with respect to what you’re asking the client to agree to in terms of the
information that they’re giving, it is a big challenge. Interestingly enough, I saw a case a couple
of weeks ago where a client had applied for insurance coverage and the tele-interviewer was on
the phone with the client and the client said, “I sound like a man, but I’m a woman.” In a
nutshell, it was a man not a woman, but it was a woman that had applied for insurance coverage
and it was a man doing the tele-interview, so not the person. These are exactly the types of things
we really need to be attuned to and aware of.
I think that part of the challenge in our industry is a lot of folks have jobs and they’re very
singularly focused. They’re thinking about, “I’m a tele-interviewer, I’m collecting data, and
that’s all I’m doing.” Whether you’re a tele-interviewer, an auditor looking at things, or an
underwriter looking at things, you really need not only the depth of doing your own job, but
understanding the breadth. What are the risks and challenges, and always thinking about that
when you’re actually doing your job. Holding up the red flag—when something doesn’t feel
Vol. 45, June 2014
18
right, it’s not right, and it’s really important to bring that forward and do some further
investigations. It is a big challenge.
Speaker Kwiatkowski: Just to add to that. That’s one of the good news stories about technology.
We “blue sky” a lot in terms of technology in our head office. You have the ability, with
webcams, Skype, to do the non-face-to-face, face-to-face. The other thing is we’ve thought
about: “Let’s check their Facebook account.” You can do a check and have a signature via the
Facebook account which actually verifies the person is who they are. Although there is no
guarantee when you’re over the phone talking to that customer, there are a couple of things that
you can do. Technology is going to open that door. The non-face-to-face is really face-to-face;
it’s just not in the same room. I think that’s great news. To us, is how do you make that non-faceto-face compliant and really verify that that customer is that customer. I think the technology is
going to give us the tools that we need. That’s the exciting part of it.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you. Another question, perhaps? Simon.
Simon Curtis: I found that whole discussion interesting, but it makes me wonder. If you look at
the big picture from the public point of view, the simplified underwriting still isn’t very simple.
If the end result today is a process that leads to 30% to 60% rescissions, is this actually going in
a way that’s in anyone’s interest? Or is it being driven by the insurance industry but we’re not
really looking at what we’re achieving at the end of the day. I think if you really are getting 30%
to 60% rescissions, that’s a disaster for the reputation of the insurance industry in the mid-term.
Speaker Boundy: I agree with you. Seeing that level of rescissions is not something that you
want coming out of the development of a product like this. What I do think, ultimately, if you’re
coming into the application and you are disclosing everything then there shouldn’t be a concern
of having that policy rescinded. Now, how is that communicated to the market? How is that
understood? How are the questions written in plain language so there’s no misunderstanding and
that they’re asking the right thing? So that ultimately, we can get that rescission number down. I
do agree that that’s not an ideal place to land.
Moderator Shum-Adams: We have time for one more question. Paul.
Paul Gobeil: Hello. My comment/question is: I think if we looked at how business is done
now—not in insurance, but all industries—as if we were designing it from scratch, there’s no
way we would have the non-simplified process to sell insurance, but we have it because of the
past and legacy. How much of a hindrance do you think maintaining the status quo is to making
progress in simplified issue? I wonder if it’s going to be some new company that comes along
that doesn’t have to worry about the status quo, that just goes for it 100% simplified, that’s going
to capture that market?
Speaker Boundy: That’s interesting. There are a few elements of that that I think are interesting
considerations. One is actually the product offering. When you do have an existing company
with fully underwritten products one of the big things that they’re going to have to be concerned
with at time of creating the product is what overlaps exist in your market. What opportunities are
there for the advisor to actually anti-select within their own portfolio of products—their own
product shelf? That is an interesting idea that if you have someone coming in who’s focused on
this and doesn’t have that other business to really worry about, it does take a bit of an element
out of that aspect of it. Then the reputation side of it potentially to—sorry, not reputation so
Vol. 45, juin 2014
19
much as maybe channel conflict, even, or having . . . maybe it is reputation a little bit. How
things have been done in the past with their existing block of business and maybe how that’s
going to change going forward. I think that’s really interesting.
Speaker Kwiatkowski: I think there’s room for both. If you look at the banking industry, you’ve
seen that a new bank has come in, the virtual bank. I look outside; I don’t think it really hurt our
big banks around the corner here. Insurance products are still intangibles, and we’re still in the
relationship business. I think that consumers—there will be a portion as we’ve seen in the U.S.—
that will be driven to the commoditization of insurance. There’s also still that very strong
relationship from the customer to the advisor looking for someone to affirm whatever buying
choice that they make and hold their hand through the process of buying life insurance. It’s a
very interesting question. It’s one that, as an insurer, we need to be aware of. But when you’ve
got 45% of the Canadian consumer that doesn’t have an individual policy, there’s a lot of room
for growth for all of us. There’s room for all of us to get better at delivering SI products to the
market.
Moderator Shum-Adams: Thank you. That brings us to the end of the session. Thank you for
your attention and please join me in thanking the panellists for delivering an interesting
presentation.
[End of recording]
Vol. 45, June 2014

Development of Simplified Issue Products in Canada

Transcription

Documents pareils

Maison des Langues

programme

Horaire des messes /Mass Schedule

FREN S130 - Yale Summer Session

Germain Le Chapelain Goals Experience Blue Castle Games

SunAdvantage plan - Sun Life Financial

News Release - Vancouver Island Regional Library

overall heat transfer coefficient of water

Communications Internationales des équipes 2012