RELATIVE EFFICIENCIES OF NON-LIFE REINSURANCE MARKETING METHODS

IF 1.1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Risk Management and Insurance Review Pub Date : 2009-04-27 DOI:10.1111/J.1540-6296.1997.TB00063.X
James Barrese, Jack M. Nelson
{"title":"RELATIVE EFFICIENCIES OF NON-LIFE REINSURANCE MARKETING METHODS","authors":"James Barrese, Jack M. Nelson","doi":"10.1111/J.1540-6296.1997.TB00063.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": This paper extends the study of the relative cost efficiency of insurance delivery systems from the primary market to the market for non-life reinsurance services. As in the primary market for insurance services there are two predominant methods of marketing reinsurance services: reinsurers who rely on employees, termed direct writers, and those who rely on brokers. \n \n \n \nAn extensive literature relating to the primary market for non-life insurance consistently indicates that independent agency insurers have a cost disadvantage relative to exclusive agency insurers. This literature also suggests that independent agency insurers may supply superior service but a continuing erosion of the market share of independent agency insurers suggests that the perceived service differential is not valued sufficiently to offset the perceived cost differential. \n \n \n \nThe authors find evidence that, cet. par., broker supplied reinsurers operate with lower costs than direct reinsurers but we find less convincing evidence of a service differential favoring direct reinsurers. More significantly, we observe that the largest component of the traditional measure of the reinsurer's cost is the commission paid back to the primary insurer: the seemingly lower cost brokers provide a higher net cost product. Yet brokers thrive in the marketplace suggesting the existence of a product differentiated by service or quality. With the important caveat that measures of service are imperfect and data is limited, we find no evidence of a service differential.","PeriodicalId":35338,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Insurance Review","volume":"72 1","pages":"51-64"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Insurance Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-6296.1997.TB00063.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: This paper extends the study of the relative cost efficiency of insurance delivery systems from the primary market to the market for non-life reinsurance services. As in the primary market for insurance services there are two predominant methods of marketing reinsurance services: reinsurers who rely on employees, termed direct writers, and those who rely on brokers. An extensive literature relating to the primary market for non-life insurance consistently indicates that independent agency insurers have a cost disadvantage relative to exclusive agency insurers. This literature also suggests that independent agency insurers may supply superior service but a continuing erosion of the market share of independent agency insurers suggests that the perceived service differential is not valued sufficiently to offset the perceived cost differential. The authors find evidence that, cet. par., broker supplied reinsurers operate with lower costs than direct reinsurers but we find less convincing evidence of a service differential favoring direct reinsurers. More significantly, we observe that the largest component of the traditional measure of the reinsurer's cost is the commission paid back to the primary insurer: the seemingly lower cost brokers provide a higher net cost product. Yet brokers thrive in the marketplace suggesting the existence of a product differentiated by service or quality. With the important caveat that measures of service are imperfect and data is limited, we find no evidence of a service differential.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非寿险再保险营销方式的相对效率
本文将保险交付系统相对成本效率的研究从一级市场扩展到非寿险再保险服务市场。在保险服务的初级市场中,有两种主要的再保险服务营销方法:一种是依靠雇员(称为直接承保人)的再保险公司,另一种是依靠经纪人。有关非寿险初级市场的大量文献一致表明,独立代理保险公司相对于独家代理保险公司具有成本劣势。该文献还表明,独立代理保险公司可能提供优质服务,但独立代理保险公司市场份额的持续侵蚀表明,感知到的服务差异没有得到足够的重视,不足以抵消感知到的成本差异。作者发现证据表明,等等。同样,经纪人提供的再保险公司比直接再保险公司的运营成本更低,但我们发现没有令人信服的证据表明直接再保险公司存在服务差异。更重要的是,我们观察到再保险公司成本的传统度量的最大组成部分是支付给原保险人的佣金:看似成本较低的经纪人提供了更高的净成本产品。然而,经纪商在市场上蓬勃发展,表明存在一种以服务或质量区分的产品。重要的警告是,服务的措施是不完善的,数据是有限的,我们没有发现服务差异的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Risk Management and Insurance Review
Risk Management and Insurance Review Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Risk Management and Insurance Review publishes respected, accessible, and high-quality applied research, and well-reasoned opinion and discussion in the field of risk and insurance. The Review"s "Feature Articles" section includes original research involving applications and applied techniques. The "Perspectives" section contains articles providing new insights on the research literature, business practice, and public policy. The "Educational Insights" section provides a repository of high-caliber model lectures in risk and insurance, along with articles discussing and evaluating instructional techniques.
期刊最新文献
Risk‐based thinking for extreme events: What do terrorism and climate change have in common? Insurance and the public–private management of risk at US commercial nuclear power plants InsurTech in the United States and Germany—What are the drivers behind the different business models? The importance of risk and insurance teaching within the ARIA mission On the correlation of self‐reported and behavioral risk attitude measures: The case of the General Risk Question and the Investment Game following Gneezy and Potters (1997)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1