Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Life insurance

Why life insurance will be more expensive in 12 months

Robert Powell
by Lovemoney Staff Robert Powell on 16 April 2012  |  Comments 7 comments

Don't have life insurance? If you don't pick up a policy before the turn of the year, you'll pay for it.

Why life insurance will be more expensive in 12 months

Life insurance was always a glimmer of good value in an otherwise expensive sector.

But that may not be the case for much longer.

Yes, the cover that has been falling in cost for the past thirty years is about to price up. It’s all thanks to a perfect storm of four factors that will substantially push up premiums over the next 12 months.

1. Gender ruling

The much maligned gender ruling handed down last year by the European Court of Justice is set to come into force in December. The verdict means that insurers can no longer take gender into account when determining premiums. And while the decision has huge implications for car insurance, it will also radically alter life insurance rates.

As it stands, women pay less for life insurance than men. This is for the simple reason that the female of our species lives longer than the male. Hence, insurers expect to get more monthly premiums from a woman before they have to pay out on the person’s death.

But from the 21st December, pricing gender into premiums will be banned. Inevitably, women will end up paying more as their life expectancy trump card is blotted out. In response to this price rise, you may expect premiums for men to fall. But there’s a good chance they won’t. This is because of the admin costs caused by the changes, which will be soaked up by insurers and may wipe out any price drops.

Protection insiders are also expecting many insurers to scrap the 30-day price guarantee currently granted to most policies as the 21 December deadline edges closer. Premiums may also start to ramp up in the months ahead of the legislation’s introduction as insurers prepare for the change.

Needless to say, the protection sector is not happy about the ruling. As one industry figure put it: “Two hippies in Brussels have spoilt it for everyone.”

2. Retail Distribution Review

The Retail Distribution Review, or RDR, is a regulatory revamp being pushed through by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The key aim of the review is to ensure consumers are offered fairness and transparency when buying financial products. A vital part of achieving this is changing the way financial advisers are regulated.

But these alterations come at a price. The FSA recently said that it would need a 15.6% increase in funding in 2012/13. This will cause fee levels for insurers and other FSA-regulated companies to increase. Kevin Carr, a protection specialist who runs his own consultancy, estimates that the review will cost the industry £3.6 billion over the next ten years.

It’s highly likely that these increased industry costs will trickle down into higher premiums for the consumer. And to add insult to injury, the RDR is set to come into force less than a fortnight after the gender directive, on 31st December 2012.

3. Tax changes

Another change coming in from January 2013 concerns the tax arrangements of protection companies. Broadly, the move will change the current system where businesses are only taxed on their profits. So the companies that will suffer the most are the protection providers that offer life insurance policies which come with an investment element.

This increased tax bill could well trickle down to the customer in the form of higher premiums. Andy Milburn, head of marketing at Ageas Protect, estimates that the change could increase costs for consumers by 10% across the sector, with the exception of income protection which should stay fairly level.

4. Solvency II

Solvency II is another set of guidelines handed down from the EU. Essentially, it forces protection providers to keep more cash in the bank to guard against potential business problems. The guidelines are often referred to as ‘Basel for insurers’ – a nod to the Basel frameworks that force banks to store more capital.

The aim of Solvency II is to guard against a credit crunch style crash by ensuring businesses carry enough capital to guard against bankruptcy. However, this will eat into the profits of insurers and mean that premiums will probably go up.

The only slight relief is that Solvency II is not due to come in until January 2014. But that still shouldn’t stop you getting hold of life insurance as soon as possible.

When to buy

The exact amount life insurance premiums will rise by is tricky to predict – though many sector figures place it around the 30% mark.

The protection industry is also expecting a busy fourth quarter as the perfect storm of the gender ruling, RDR and tax changes – along with several more articles like these urging you buy before prices rise – take hold. This increase in business could also add to premium rises, giving you yet another reason to act now if you haven’t got a policy.

Head over to our life insurance calculator now to get hold of a quote quickly and easily.

More on life insurance:

You’re never too young for life insurance

Save 50%+ on your life insurance

Why life insurance is more puzzling than Einstein

The bonus perks of life insurance

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (7)

  • DaveB60
    Love rating 6
    DaveB60 said

    What's the point of life insurance?

    I can't see the benefit, except where you're covering a mortgage.

    1) You have to wait for 2 years to get the benefit.

    2) If you stop paying, the cover stops and you get nothing back.

    For all the criticisms of endowment policies, at least you get something back for your investment.

    Not a lot maybe, but it's better than a smack round the head with a wet haddock.

    You don't even get that with a life insurance policy.

    Life assurance is different. Don't mix the two up.

    Report on 16 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • pc2574
    Love rating 13
    pc2574 said

    I think this presents a slight one sided view. The article focusses on the potential negative impacts of the impending changes, rather than the positive aspects.

    In fact, the Gender Directive could actually reduce premiums for men, although not as much as it could increase premiums for women. The majority of breadwinners, hence those that need protection products, are men. So it is likely that more people will see a fall in premiums as a result of this.

    The RDR means that brokers' commission will be separate from premiums. At the moment, a life insurance quote is included in premium, often in excess of 10%, for advising on the sale of a simple product. The impact of separating it is that brokers will have to charge up front commission, promoting competition between brokers selling such products. Further to this, I suspect more insurers will offer direct sales via their websites as people are increasingly able to work out what they need from advice sites (such as this one) and arrange their own cover. Would you pay a broker £100 to fill in some forms that you could do yourself?

    Tax affairs are hard to sum up in two paragraphs, but most regulatory initiatives are being driven by a focus on transparency, increasing competition. From a strategic perspective, it is quite likely that some insurance company shareholders would prefer to compete on price rather than pass on their tax expenses to customers at the risk of losing new business to competitors. While it is true that more taxes could lead to higher premiums, it is equally true that some companies will let their profits (and therefore their shareholders) take the hit to gain an advantage by growing their business.

    Solvency II is in place to protect people from the collapse of their insurer. Many insurers will already hold a similar amount of regulatory capital, but will have to change their approach as to how they reach the final number. Any changes in capital limits will be covered by retaining profits, so it will be the shareholders that suffer most. There will be an administrative burden in preparing, but I would expect most insurers to be well on the way to getting new procedures in place, meaning we are paying the price already.

    Overall, I disagree that we will be worse off next year. Anything that we can predict, so can insurers and will have been factoring it in to their prices for as long as they have known to expect them. What we can take comfort in is that we are better protected and getting better value for our money as a result of these changes...except tax. No one likes paying tax.

    Report on 16 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • silkycat
    Love rating 38
    silkycat said

    Life Insurance is just that. Don't expect anything wonderful. I have a Norwich Union/Aviva policy which I have had for around 10 years. It is an accidental death policy giving a payout of £40,000 in the event of my accidental death up to age 81.

    I pay £3 per month and treat it as a forget it and pay, peace of mind policy. By the time I hit 81 I will have paid them around £1100. I'm not planning on being hit by a bus or train or fall off a cliff, but if I did my wife would have a useful additional sum.

    I don't know what the odds are of it happening to me, presumably Aviva have worked it out. But it only has to happen to me once and, if it does, it won't be me worrying about it!

    Report on 16 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • BobbyW
    Love rating 10
    BobbyW said

    @ PC2574, are you sure about your RDR comments? I was under the impression that any broker offering protection only would not be bound by the changes requiring upfront remuneration and could inded continue to be paid a 'commission' by the provider. Only investment offering firms would be required to 'charge'?

    Contrary to your own opinion I also think we will be in a much worse position financially in terms of costing for insurance post 21st December, maybe not as high as the 30% predictions flying about, but certainly in the region of 12-15% that has been estimated (not guesstimated) by many of the providers I have discussed this with. I also struggle to see how or why any provider would factor these imminiment increases in prematurely as this would be counter productive by way of needlessly charging the client an inflated price well before law dictated it.

    Any clarification would be appreciated?

    Thanks

    Report on 01 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • BobbyW
    Love rating 10
    BobbyW said

    @ Dave regarding points

    1/ This tends only to be the case on an over 50's Guaranteed Plan - Not on any other Whole Of Life or Term Plan with high street provider.

    2/ The point of the policy is to 'insure' against an event happening - Do you get money back from your car insurance if you dont make a claim? Why do most people insure their car Fully Comprehensive rather than Third Party Only? The law on insists that your vehicle is insured, not that you have to take the most expensive kind of cover. 'Assurance' is to cover something that will certainly happen - ie we will all die at some point.

    Report on 01 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • pc2574
    Love rating 13
    pc2574 said

    @BobbyW - correct - RDR only applies to investment products, but I stand by the opinion that it will force commissions down. I'm not really at liberty to say why though!

    Report on 22 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • BobbyW
    Love rating 10
    BobbyW said

    @ PC2574 Ok, I respect your position that you cant disclose why you think this, I can only surmise that you must be in a position to know womething that us mere mortals dont :-)

    Report on 22 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (2.98% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.9% to 2.98% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (2.47% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.5% to 2.47% (T&Cs apply)

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3