Insurance

Partners Life loses staff

Friday 26th of April 2013

In September last year, the insurer axed upfront medical commissions in favour of as-earned commissions, because it was getting higher volumes of medical insurance than expected.

A lack of reinsurance financing for medical insurance meant that commission payments had to come out of capital.

The company had been on track for $50 million in issue premium last year. “That’s too hot when you are paying upfront medical commissions.”

Instead it had $37 million, managing director Naomi Ballantyne said.

The change led to a slow-down in business, which had prompted the restructure.

Ballantyne said seven months had passed and it was an appropriate time to consider how the firm’s budgets were being spent. “Expenses were higher than they should have been for the volume of business… efficiency is a serious part of our strategy.”

Partners Life’s headcount was reduced by eight, although the number out of a job was higher than that as senior underwriter positions were replaced by more trainee underwriters. Other people made redundant included sales administrators and operational roles. “We picked places where on balance we felt we could do without one of the jobs.”

Ballantyne said the company was sad to have lost people. “The restructure is difficult for everyone but particular for those who haven’t got a job and hadn’t done anything wrong.”

But she said Partners Life had to be sure that every dollar was spent properly.

Comments (9)
Chris Aynsley
Good price, good policy words, high medical limits, and a company ready to accept a policy from anyone. No wonder they have been successful. Other than the small fact that the book is based upon churn so I guess after 2 years the easy in businesses is now and easy out business....I guess the oldsaying of living by the sword is true here.
0 0
11 years ago

Tim Anderson
I have been a supporter of Partners Life over the 18 months. However I have to agree with a few of the negative comments on this blog. Dropping eight staff after changes to health insurance commission?? WTF?! Partners keep telling us how well things are going and how they are still growing. This kind of action makes you wonder if you are hearing the truth?
0 0
11 years ago

Broker Broker
You can't blame them for not wanting too much medical insurance on the books - and you also can't blame them for managing their expenses...smart if you ask me...
0 0
11 years ago

Craig Knox
To grow as fast as PL has in a market growing at CPI can only mean one thing 'business was being replaced from other providers'. With the low hanging fruit picked the game has become harder and doesn’t look any easier with judgement from the Reserve Bank on Financial Strength using the reinsurer not far away.
0 0
11 years ago

Michael Loghmani
Best policy wording in the market, very competitive pricing and decisive management that will take action to keep the company's balance sheet strong, sounds like a winner to me.
0 0
11 years ago

Giles Thorman
Sorry if I am being a tad cynical but this just smacks of spin to me. Why make any mention of changes to commission when answering a query about making staff redundant? Since when have senior underwriters been required to underwrite medical insurance? As Aibee above states, either the Medical product was good enough to be recommended or it was not; regardless of how the commission was paid. Otherwise there are a LARGE number of Partners Life Brokers who were recommending a product for the wrong reasons and they have now reverted to using companies that pay up front commission on Medical Insurance. Not a good look for Brokers meant to be working in the clients best interest surely? According to my Maths that means that Partners Life are claiming they have not written 13 million in premium purely because they stopped paying up front commissions on Medical Insurance 8 months ago. I would also suggest that those 8 staff were being worked to death if they were expected to underwrite and process 13 million dollars worth of New business all on their own; they likely need the rest! That is a lot of Medical Insurance. That is a very big claim.
0 0
11 years ago

Simon Rule
To hear that some advisers might have stopped recommending Partners Life to their clients based solely on them no longer paying up-front commission on health cover really worries me. No scrub that. It actually makes me very mad. Are these “clowns” really working in this industry for themselves or their clients? If these idiots had half a brain they would realise that "as earned" as opposed to "up-front" commission on medical can be extremely lucrative for an adviser over time. Clients who decide to actually pay for private medical cover through a health insurer are likely to have their policy in place for a considerable amount of time. Anyone who has been in this game for a while knows that. That makes “as earned” on health very very attractive to advisers. I think it’s only a matter of time before other health insurers adopt the same stance as Partners on health commission to keep things affordable for all concerned. It was a smart move back then and it remains so.
0 0
11 years ago

Giles Thorman
Unfortunately Ray I did not see the article from 2 months ago where Janie states she was "shot down in flames", so my comments might be a little skewed because of that, apologies if they are. From what I can surmise you asked the question of Janie when Partners Life were being discussed a couple of months ago as to how could anyone use "claims experience" as a basis for placing business with Partners when they had in fact not at that time paid any (or very few) claims. Is that correct? I would suggest that every Broker uses a different method to determine with whom they place business (otherwise we would all use the same company/ies). For myself I look at and compare the following A/ Premium B/ Policy wordings C/ Claims paying ability (credit rating) D/ Attitude towards paying claims and E/Company ownership; are the shareholders long term investors and what might they be willing to sacrifice in the future;are they stable? Possibly Janie uses a similar method to this and not being happy about D felt she could not support Partners Life, that is her prerogative. If on the other hand Ray you are possibly happy to look past both C and D, that is also your prerogative. I suggest however when premiums can change on 30 days notice and policies can be closed to new business and a small company can be sold fairly quickly that deciding to place business (particularly Medical business) solely on A and B could perhaps be just a little risky.
0 0
11 years ago

Broker Broker
Na I'd prefer 'we are the champions' by Queen...
0 0
11 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.