chevy86

David Archer and Fast Track

61 posts in this topic

Is anybody able to actually quantify how much money Mr Archer has passed over to Racing Clubs for punters transferring their insurance to him? Perhaps it is "commercially sensitive" but prospective customers surely have a right to know. Fast Track seems to get a lot of exposure on Trackside as the name features as every 4th or 5th word out of Brendan Popperwell's mouth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tasman man 11 said:

IMO Mr Archer and Fast Track should be thanked and encouraged for this initiative...should be a win/win for all concerned.

Good on him ,I say .

Giving the Industry a chance for some funds ,while at the same time promoting his insurance company.

Just asking who is having the biggest win. Not too difficult surely. All I hear these days is "Fast Track" which admittedly gives "jumping out of trees" a reprieve.  Forums such as this are supposed to be inquisitorial, congratulatory, informative? So give us the numbers. I am always sceptical of an industry that IMO is a natural haven for smooth-talking hustlers at all levels. If the numbers stack up I will offer my congratulations to an initiative that benefits all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Beck"s said:

Insurance is just another form of gambling.... they are just taking the punt against you ( bookies )

He is not debating the rights and wrongs of insurance.  He is asking a legitimate question about a promotion that is supposedly benefiting the industry and the actual benefit received to date. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chevy86 said:

Is anybody able to actually quantify how much money Mr Archer has passed over to Racing Clubs for punters transferring their insurance to him? Perhaps it is "commercially sensitive" but prospective customers surely have a right to know. Fast Track seems to get a lot of exposure on Trackside as the name features as every 4th or 5th word out of Brendan Popperwell's mouth!

I would not be surprised if the answer to your question and the answer to the question of how much farce track insurance pays for advertising on trackside are the same.

This has a pursmell all over it- meanwhile long time insurance brokers both nationally and locally have supported our product for years so why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Beck"s said:

Insurance is just another form of gambling.... they are just taking the punt against you ( bookies )

Yes and in the last 10 yrs, European/Carribean  re-insurers have lost billions of $ to the punters in NZ, which will take them nearly 100yrs to recover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barryb said:

Yes and in the last 10 yrs, European/Carribean  re-insurers have lost billions of $ to the punters in NZ, which will take them nearly 100yrs to recover.

Ah Barryb!  What about the billions of dollars we pay every year in premiums?  I recently read an article about the payouts on disability insurance(ie income protection) policies in this country - they were complaining because the payout was more than 20c in the dollar of premium received.  Now John Allen and his crew would be proud of a takeout like that!

You don't think(for instance) the Crombie Lockwood principals(who admittedly no longer own the company) got to be on the rich list through sheer luck do you?  

Insurance is a (necessary) rort.  NZ Racing would be better to set its own insurance company up just like the Clubs would be better off setting up their own gaming agency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A relevant question might be "how much did the industry lose in sponsorship when they effectively forced Crombie Lockwood out of the game by embracing the Fast Track alternative ?".

I don't know the answer but it must be significant because Crombie Lockwood was a big sponsor across all three codes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

Ah Barryb!  What about the billions of dollars we pay every year in premiums?  I recently read an article about the payouts on disability insurance(ie income protection) policies in this country - they were complaining because the payout was more than 20c in the dollar of premium received.  Now John Allen and his crew would be proud of a takeout like that!

You don't think(for instance) the Crombie Lockwood principals(who admittedly no longer own the company) got to be on the rich list through sheer luck do you?  

Insurance is a (necessary) rort.  NZ Racing would be better to set its own insurance company up just like the Clubs would be better off setting up their own gaming agency.

 

Tom I know a little bit about the Insurance industry, which clearly you don't. You are confusing Brokers with Insurance companies,

Brokers deal with you the customer, collect premiums & absorb administrative costs, run a sales team etc. But pay zero claims as they are covered by the Insurer who the broker has placed your business with. Brokers receive between 20-30% of the premium you pay to cover those costs + a fee they tack on which is often called a premium charge, this ranges from $50 to $0000's dependent on a few factors.

Insurers operate on very tight margins and pay somewhere between 45-60% of there income in day to day claims, They pay around 15-20% for re-insurance (they insure themselves with various, often European companies) and must use modelling on a 1 in 1000 yr event when factoring in what re-insurance they need to buy. Then obviously they have marketing and admin on top.

Now life, Income and Medical insurers are a different category and often pay brokers exorbitant fees for when they bring on a client, These fees Tom can be in excess of 200% of the first years premium, now you can understand why brokers are so keen to talk to you about you personal risk covers, its a gold mine for them.

There we go an education for you on a Thurs morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barryb said:

Tom I know a little bit about the Insurance industry, which clearly you don't. You are confusing Brokers with Insurance companies,

Brokers deal with you the customer, collect premiums & absorb administrative costs, run a sales team etc. But pay zero claims as they are covered by the Insurer who the broker has placed your business with. Brokers receive between 20-30% of the premium you pay to cover those costs + a fee they tack on which is often called a premium charge, this ranges from $50 to $0000's dependent on a few factors.

Insurers operate on very tight margins and pay somewhere between 45-60% of there income in day to day claims, They pay around 15-20% for re-insurance (they insure themselves with various, often European companies) and must use modelling on a 1 in 1000 yr event when factoring in what re-insurance they need to buy. Then obviously they have marketing and admin on top.

Now life, Income and Medical insurers are a different category and often pay brokers exorbitant fees for when they bring on a client, These fees Tom can be in excess of 200% of the first years premium, now you can understand why brokers are so keen to talk to you about you personal risk covers, its a gold mine for them.

There we go an education for you on a Thurs morning.

First you want to learn to spell.  The word is 'their' not 'there'

Secondly for your information I do know a lot about insurance(clearly significantly more than you)

And thirdly that is such a sad story I will just get my hankie out.  Can you just explain to us poor mortals how it is that there are still insurance companies in the market when they are making such huge losses?  Surely they would have all fallen by the wayside in financial ruin by now?

I would like to go on but am overcome with grief for those poor insurance companies.  I would respectfully suggest a moments silence and all riders to wear black armbands this weekend in honour of the truly wonderful work they do on our behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you have failed to understand the difference between Insurers and Re-Insurers, for a person with such big knowledge on the subject.

For Example:

Lloyd's Syndicates have paid out $6 Billion in claims for Christchurch & there annual income from NZ is as follows

Lloyd's NZ premiums from
*Property: $370m
*Casualty: $48m
*Aviation: $21m
*Marine: $15.8m
*Energy: $9.8m
*Accident & health: $9.7m
*Motor vehicles: $5m

Not that hard to work out is it Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, barryb said:

Again you have failed to understand the difference between Insurers and Re-Insurers, for a person with such big knowledge on the subject.

For Example:

Lloyd's Syndicates have paid out $6 Billion in claims for Christchurch & there annual income from NZ is as follows

Lloyd's NZ premiums from
*Property: $370m
*Casualty: $48m
*Aviation: $21m
*Marine: $15.8m
*Energy: $9.8m
*Accident & health: $9.7m
*Motor vehicles: $5m

Not that hard to work out is it Tom.

So what?

They have have years and years and years where they never had a major claim paid out in NZ so what did they do with all the premium they accumulated then?

And why do they keep offering cover it if they are so unprofitable?

And why do the Warren Buffet's of this world fall over to invest in insurance companies if they are so unprofitable?

Trying to somehow split things into reinsurers, insurers and brokers is a red herring as well - they all(and clearly you too from the piffle you are bleating) have their snouts in the insurance trough. 

Anyway looking at those numbers I would be extremely dubious of their accuracy - they look massively understated to me.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barryb said:

I won't even waste my time looking at that.  Can you just give us a comprehensive list of major(I am not talking Western Pacific and that Local Authority outfit)NZ insurers who went broke after Christchurch.  AMI doesn't count either because it survived(albeit luckily). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't even waste my time looking at that.  Can you just give us a comprehensive list of major(I am not talking Western Pacific and that Local Authority outfit)NZ insurers who went broke after Christchurch.  AMI doesn't count either because it survived(albeit luckily). 

Ansvar NZ couldn't afford to pay their losses and relied on their English parent company to bale them out. Ansvar insured many of the Historic Buildings / churches.  

China Insurance left New Zealand due to increased reinsurance costs. Don't know how many actual earthquake losses they had.

Not aware of any others other than AMI which you already mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hacko said:

I won't even waste my time looking at that.  Can you just give us a comprehensive list of major(I am not talking Western Pacific and that Local Authority outfit)NZ insurers who went broke after Christchurch.  AMI doesn't count either because it survived(albeit luckily). 

Ansvar NZ couldn't afford to pay their losses and relied on their English parent company to bale them out. Ansvar insured many of the Historic Buildings / churches.  

China Insurance left New Zealand due to increased reinsurance costs. Don't know how many actual earthquake losses they had.

Not aware of any others other than AMI which you already mentioned.

Hardly major players Ansvar and China Insurance are they?(Ansvar was the 'local authority' one I was thinking of - bit cocked up there)

Anyway this thread started out talking about how much Fast Track has put back into NZ racing  and has degenerated into an argument over insurance in general.  Lets get back to the topic.  So does anyone know how much has been returned?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom the figures Barry provided is with regard to Reinsurance whereby the risk is spread amongst of shore companies which is actually the basis of all insurance (spreading the risk). Much the same as a bookie laying off bets.

The Christchurch earthquakes obviously resulted in a loss for insurance companies.

The rating of insurance is  AA-, AA AA+ is built around their ability tp pay so they need to have built up funds in order to be able pay in in such disasters. With so many natural disasters from earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, flooding, tornados etc in the past few years and notwithstanding events such as the Twin Towers etc they will have taken a beating and would have needed those funds from better years in order to meet their claim obligations.

One of the world's biggest insurers AIG had a liquidity problem in 2008 after a number of incidents and had to be bailed out by the American government and whilst it does remain low there are a number of insurance companies that have folded.

Whilst most people complain about insurance premiums there are also many whom are grateful that they have.  

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't confuse AIG with IAG who own State, Lumley, NZI and AMI here. They are very well run and have huge reinsurance cover purchased through European giants like Swiss RE and Zurich.

AMI had the big problem here in Christchurch because they had not purchased sufficient re-insurance cover and found themselves in a big hole after the Earthquakes. IAG bought their business book, but not their Earthquake liabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, rdytdy said:

Tom the figures Barry provided is with regard to Reinsurance whereby the risk is spread amongst of shore companies which is actually the basis of all insurance (spreading the risk). Much the same as a bookie laying off bets.

The Christchurch earthquakes obviously resulted in a loss for insurance companies.

The rating of insurance is  AA-, AA AA+ is built around their ability tp pay so they need to have built up funds in order to be able pay in in such disasters. With so many natural disasters from earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, flooding, tornados etc in the past few years and notwithstanding events such as the Twin Towers etc they will have taken a beating and would have needed those funds from better years in order to meet their claim obligations.

One of the world's biggest insurers AIG had a liquidity problem in 2008 after a number of incidents and had to be bailed out by the American government and whilst it does remain low there are a number of insurance companies that have folded.

Whilst most people complain about insurance premiums there are also many whom are grateful that they have.  

   

Bang on Ted, & like a lot of things in life the 80-20 rule applies here as well. The silent majority are bloody happy with how things went and are thankful they had insurance in the first place. Its an emotive subject that sees people very vulnerable in the worst of situations at times and yes Tom there are plenty of legitimate people who have been dealt poor outcomes from Insurers, just like any other business.

& No I don't have my snout in an Insurance trough, I just like to have a balanced look at these sorts of things as often they are not what they seem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too right Barry. There are plenty that did very well here, getting rundown old places replaced with new. And others that took the insurance payouts and then sold their properties "as is, where is" have done very nicely thanks. Little wonder the insurance companies have now switched policies to "sum insured" rather than same replacement. That cost them a fortune.

I don't have too much sympathy for people who don't insure, then cry " poor me" when disaster strikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rdytdy said:

Tom the figures Barry provided is with regard to Reinsurance whereby the risk is spread amongst of shore companies which is actually the basis of all insurance (spreading the risk). Much the same as a bookie laying off bets.

The Christchurch earthquakes obviously resulted in a loss for insurance companies.

The rating of insurance is  AA-, AA AA+ is built around their ability tp pay so they need to have built up funds in order to be able pay in in such disasters. With so many natural disasters from earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, flooding, tornados etc in the past few years and notwithstanding events such as the Twin Towers etc they will have taken a beating and would have needed those funds from better years in order to meet their claim obligations.

One of the world's biggest insurers AIG had a liquidity problem in 2008 after a number of incidents and had to be bailed out by the American government and whilst it does remain low there are a number of insurance companies that have folded.

Whilst most people complain about insurance premiums there are also many whom are grateful that they have.  

   

AIG must have been stoney broke Ted 

Just refresh my memory about how much they have paid out to sponsor the All Blacks again?

I told you offsider Barryb there is no need to start trying to explain or justify the way insurance companies operate.  I know all that already.  What you or Barryb have not been able to advise is that comprehensive list of major NZ insurance companies that went broke as a result of Christchurch.

Even if AIG did go broke I would say the Japanese earthquake and tsunami(ten times the loss no doubt) would have had more to do with it as did Christchurch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, barryb said:

Bang on Ted, & like a lot of things in life the 80-20 rule applies here as well. The silent majority are bloody happy with how things went and are thankful they had insurance in the first place. Its an emotive subject that sees people very vulnerable in the worst of situations at times and yes Tom there are plenty of legitimate people who have been dealt poor outcomes from Insurers, just like any other business.

& No I don't have my snout in an Insurance trough, I just like to have a balanced look at these sorts of things as often they are not what they seem.

 

You're not a bloody Accountant are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now