RSA...why hasn't the central bank fined them yet?

Mr.Carter

They were caught out big time, as far as I can see they have been given a lot of time to sort things out....why? Whats so special about them?
This f#k up happened in 2013 and we're all paying 100s more per year for car/house insurance because of them.

To Elland Back

Mr.Carter wrote: »

They were caught out big time, as far as I can see they have been given a lot of time to sort things out....why? Whats so special about them?
This f#k up happened in 2013 and we're all paying 100s more per year for car/house insurance because of them.

Where are you getting that from?

thebiglad

Mr.Carter wrote: »

They were caught out big time, as far as I can see they have been given a lot of time to sort things out....why? Whats so special about them?
This f#k up happened in 2013 and we're all paying 100s more per year for car/house insurance because of them.

The reason paying more 'because' of RSA is that 123.ie whom they purchased were driving down premium to unrealistic levels for years.

Whatever about the unrealistic reserving practices of RSA, had they and formerly 123.ie not discounted then true you would not be seeing a premium increase but then, your premiums would have been higher every year for probably the last 5 years.

It all ends up in the same place, insurance premium goes in cycles, cheap premiums will return some day. In the meantime the cost of injury claims needs to be addressed if you are ever to see sustainably low premium

the UK Chancellor's plan to eradicate minor whiplash claims when fully announced early in 2016 will be interesting - in ireland a 'minor' whiplash will cost the insurer up to €20k per person - that is why insurance premiums are so high - covering costs rather than operating at a loss

Insurance companies are regulated businesses, not charities.

Mr.Carter

RSA underwrite a lot of broker insurances too...my motorbikes with Adelaide insurance it's RSA that's the underwriters

To Elland Back

Mr.Carter wrote: »

RSA underwrite a lot of broker insurances too...my motorbikes with Adelaide insurance it's RSA that's the underwriters

And why is all of that costing us 100s more for our car and house insurance like you stated?

Mr.Carter

To Elland Back wrote: »

And why is all of that costing us 100s more for our car and house insurance like you stated?

Read "thebiglad's" post.....also have you been living under a rock??...RSA underpriced the entire market and held about 40% of the market.

To Elland Back

But you stated it had cost us 100s for insurance. No levy has been applied, so it cost the taxpayer nothing. I've never been insured with RSA, so it has cost me nothing personally. If you've been insured with them, you've benefited from below cost premiums. If they've increased your premium now, move

Mr.Carter

To Elland Back wrote: »

But you stated it had cost us 100s for insurance. No levy has been applied, so it cost the taxpayer nothing. I've never been insured with RSA, so it has cost me nothing personally. If you've been insured with them, you've benefited from below cost premiums. If they've increased your premium now, move

I never said that taxes or levies went up...premiums have.
You worked for an insurance company, are you still involved in the industry?
Are you also telling me that there is no car insurance and home insurance hikes in the last 12 months, some even up to 50%.

To Elland Back

Mr.Carter wrote: »

I never said that taxes or levies went up...premiums have.
You worked for an insurance company, are you still involved in the industry?
Are you also telling me that there is no car insurance and home insurance hikes in the last 12 months, some even up to 50%.

Would you ever go back and read your own original post and thread title? You wanted to know why RSA haven't been fined for causing us to pay 100s extra and now you're talking market price increases

RSA's previous practice of below cost selling forced competitors to try and offer lower than ideal premiums to try and stay in the game. Everyone enjoyed the short term benefits of this, but the market has hardened and all insurers are heading towards premium levels that reflect the true claim conditions

Mr.Carter

To Elland Back wrote: »

Would you ever go back and read your own original post and thread title? You wanted to know why RSA haven't been fined for causing us to pay 100s extra and now you're talking market price increases

RSA's previous practice of below cost selling forced competitors to try and offer lower than ideal premiums to try and stay in the game. Everyone enjoyed the shrt term benefits of this, but the market has hardenmed and all insurers are heading towards premium levels that reflect the true claim conditions

Are you still involved in insurance?

To Elland Back

Mr.Carter wrote: »

Are you still involved in insurance?

What has that got to do with it? You're asking for one Insurer, RSA, to be fined for increasing their premiums when there are dozens of alternative companies out there. I fail to see your logic and have asked you to clarify it, that's all.

Mr.Carter

RSA were involved in practices that caused huge problems i.e. had to be bailed out to the sum of 300million approx.
They are due a fine from the central bank...why the delay?
Again you seem to have a interest...Are you still in the insurance business?

To Elland Back

Mr.Carter wrote: »

Again you seem to have a interest...Are you still in the insurance business?

Answer my question first and then I'll respond to yours. Why do you feel that the actions of 1 insurer, RSA, have cost us 100s in extra premiums, other than the fact that they have increased the premiums for those customers that wish to stay with them?

Mr.Carter

RSA were/are a large insurer in Ireland, they f#cked up and had to increase premiums directly and also indirectly through brokers..
They will be fined by the central bank...why is there such a delay??
Why are you defending them so much?

Mr.Carter

To be honest you're behaving like a troll at this stage.

dr.fuzzenstein

thebiglad wrote: »

The reason paying more 'because' of RSA is that 123.ie whom they purchased were driving down premium to unrealistic levels for years.

Whatever about the unrealistic reserving practices of RSA, had they and formerly 123.ie not discounted then true you would not be seeing a premium increase but then, your premiums would have been higher every year for probably the last 5 years.

It all ends up in the same place, insurance premium goes in cycles, cheap premiums will return some day. In the meantime the cost of injury claims needs to be addressed if you are ever to see sustainably low premium

the UK Chancellor's plan to eradicate minor whiplash claims when fully announced early in 2016 will be interesting - in ireland a 'minor' whiplash will cost the insurer up to €20k per person - that is why insurance premiums are so high - covering costs rather than operating at a loss

Insurance companies are regulated businesses, not charities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/12017931/slate-and-gordon-whiplash-george-osborne-autumn-statement.html

I just wish this would happen here, how a system is allowed to remain in place where I can rub my neck after a 5 km/h tip and go "oh I think my neck hurts a tiny bit" and immediately the insurer will fall over themselves to shove €20k in my pocket is beyond insane. anyone who says that this is right or fair is obviously brain damaged or cashing in on the racket. Of course for the legal profession it's the gravy train with biscuit wheels so my guess is, since the legal profession owns or is related to half the government, they can just lean on them a bit "Listen here, we have a good thing going, so you better not spit in our soup, you wouldn't want to make family meetings awkward, now would you? Here, have an envelope with a little something for yourself in it".
In Germany (and most other countries) you could get €6k for neck injury. For that there would have to be real, actual injuries like broken bones, torn ligaments or dislocated vertebrae. you know, real injuries, not made up or imagined ones.

Liam McPoyle

Mr.Carter wrote: »

RSA were/are a large insurer in Ireland, they f#cked up and had to increase premiums directly and also indirectly through brokers..
They will be fined by the central bank...why is there such a delay??
Why are you defending them so much?

I think you are a bit confused.

123.ie are owned by RSA.

When the hole in their (123's) reserves was discovered it was not the government or the tax payer that plugged the hole, it was RSA, they funneled money into 123 to balance the books.

Why would the central bank fine them?

Axa, Allianz, FBD, Aviva etc all have had to increase their rates too, should they be fined?

To Elland Back

Mr.Carter wrote: »

To be honest you're behaving like a troll at this stage.

If you won't listen to me, listen to the poster above. And yes, I do work in insurance, have done so for 35 years, never with RSA, currently with a broker.

Mr.Carter

This is why...
http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/rsas-irish-employees-face-fines-up-to-1m-over-law-breaches-29907759.html

And this.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-16/rsa-ireland-probe-at-advanced-stage-irish-central-bank-says


And this...
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/insurer-rsa-likely-to-face-maximum-fine-of-about-5m-1.2131266

To Elland Back

Mr.Carter wrote: »

This is why...
http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/rsas-irish-employees-face-fines-up-to-1m-over-law-breaches-29907759.html

And this.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-16/rsa-ireland-probe-at-advanced-stage-irish-central-bank-says


And this...
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/insurer-rsa-likely-to-face-maximum-fine-of-about-5m-1.2131266

You still don't get it. None of that is going to cost us a penny.

Mr.Carter

Business Cat wrote: »

I think you are a bit confused.

123.ie are owned by RSA.

When the hole in their (123's) reserves was discovered it was not the government or the tax payer that plugged the hole, it was RSA, they funneled money into 123 to balance the books.

Why would the central bank fine them?

Axa, Allianz, FBD, Aviva etc all have had to increase their rates too, should they be fined?

Confused...yes you are, do you think that the RSA group will give RSA Ireland 300million and not want it back through increased prices

Liam McPoyle

Mr.Carter wrote: »

Confused...yes you are, do you think that the RSA group will give RSA Ireland 300million and not want it back through increased prices

What are you talking about?

The prices are being increased with 123's policies.

Same as they are with nearly every insurer in the country.

Thats because of a worsening claims environment ie the number of claims and the amounts been paid, and the fact that alot of the insurers were underpricing to try and gain market share.

There are no rules about reducing premiums.

The rules that are coming in from 01/01/2016 relate to having adequate money in reserve to cover claims costs.

Thats why prices with all insurers are increasing.

Mr.Carter

To Elland Back wrote: »

If you won't listen to me, listen to the poster above. And yes, I do work in insurance, have done so for 35 years, never with RSA, currently with a broker.

That explains your stance, as a broker, your telling me you never ever used rsa even as a underwriters...that's hard to believe

Mr.Carter

Business Cat wrote: »

What are you talking about?

The prices are being increased with 123's policies.

Same as they are with nearly every insurer in the country.

Thats because of a worsening claims environment ie the number of claims and the amounts been paid, and the fact that alot of the insurers were underpricing to try and gain market share.

There are no rules about reducing premiums.

The rules that are coming in from 01/01/2016 relate to having adequate money in reserve to cover claims costs.

Thats why prices with all insurers are increasing.

And RSA are a large part in creating this mess. Simple :-)

Mr.Carter

They are due a fine...why is there a delay?

To Elland Back

Mr.Carter wrote: »

That explains your stance, as a broker, your telling me you never ever used rsa even as a underwriters...that's hard to believe

This is part of your problem, interpreting facts in your own unique way. I said I never worked for RSA but you've taken that as me saying I never had dealings with RSA. I have, along with dozens of other suppliers.

I'm done here, I'm off to check my bank account to see if RSA have cost me any money. I should be OK though because I am insured with Zurich. Fingers crossed

peteb2

Mr.Carter wrote: »

They are due a fine...why is there a delay?

get over it. they aren't due a fine. no breach of any rules.

Mr.Carter

peteb2 wrote: »

get over it. they aren't due a fine. no breach of any rules.

I think you need to educate yourself.

Toots

Mr.Carter wrote: »

To be honest you're behaving like a troll at this stage.

If anyone is behaving like a troll, you are.

Thread locked.