Private:
EQC pays homewoners with maximum amount of $100K, and contents with maximum amount of $20K. Insurance companies may provide top up earthquake cover.
Commercial:
Paid by insurance company. Lots of commercial property claims, and lots of business interruption claims.
Insurance company buys reinsurance. Most of the cost is covered under reinsurance due to low retention for most NZ insurers.
Reinsurance companies buys retrocession covers from othre reinsurance companies.
Also insurance companies may pay claims that should be declined (ex gratia) due to publicity concerns.
Underinsurance and uninsured properties may also receive money from the government (general revenue).
So I reckon the cost is born by (descending order)
1. reinsurance companies
2. EQC
3. insurance companies
4. government作者: _Alex_ 时间: 2010-9-9 23:38:09
保險公司是很賤的....
花天堂 发表于 2010-9-6 23:01
保险公司设置了很多exclusion, restriction, limit, excess, terms and condition,看起来好像非常难以理解,其实是很有必要的。在一个竞争市场中,如果没有这些,就会发生很强的逆选择,严重的话,很快会出现亏损,甚至公司倒闭。那样的话,新西兰市场上就没有保险了,即使还剩下几家,他们也可以狂涨保费。最坏结果,全部撤出保险市场,那么政府就要出面了。政府的保险机构未必比私营的有效率,说不定要更多纳税人的钱。
不严重的话,(比如取消所有excess),那么理赔平率会迅速上升,比如小到100 NZD的理赔,往往管理费用(理赔处理人员claims handler, loss adjusters的工资,IT系统维护费用,等等)是理赔本身的很多倍。那么成本上升必然导致保费上升。那些不容易发生事故的人就会首先选择不投保。他们的离开导致盈利进一步恶化,保费继续上升。很多人就负担不起了。
其实如果你去看澳洲保险公司过去几十年平均收益率的话,你会发现是远远低于市场预期的。可以影响收益的风险实在太多了(catastrophe,latent claims, superimposed inflation, large claims, soft market phase of insurance cycle) 之所以人们认为保险公司赚钱是因为,理赔的频率一般都很小,也许每10年有一次理赔吧。大家觉得不值得。
不是的。这是由于把越多的风险单位聚集起来,其波动性就越小,就越容易估计出它的mean。(law of large numbers)。而且大部分人都是风险规避者,那么他们宁可多付这40块钱也要买保险。纯粹是为了把自己的风险转移到保险公司那里。而保险公司由于聚集了那么多保险,其支持这些风险的成本要远比个人支持这些风险的成本低。(个人也许为了准备house total loss of 500K,要往银行里存500K, 100% of mean,保险公司聚集了10000个这样的房子,mean = 5M,但不需要5M的资本金,也许只要1M)