value-partners-insurance distribution in italy

8/6/2019 Value-partners-Insurance Distribution in Italy

1/4

1

In Italy, the debate on the insurance business is generally limited to the only widespread mandatory insurance

the motor class with tedious, endless disputes on whether the high cost o motor policies is either air or unair.But is this really the central issue hampering the insurance business in Italy? And how much o it has to do with

the distribution structure? The ban on exclusive agency clauses was expected to x the problem. Why has it now

virtually turned into a asco, with costs rising by the hour?

The Italian insurance business is a long-established system, based on agent networks, and has experienced only

minimal changes over time. Non-lie insurance seems particularly stagnant. Rightly or not, banks have been

considering the lie class (worth over 54 billion in 2008) as an alternative to asset management and other orms

o short/medium-run investments. Their presence has consequently become signicant. With a 58% market share,

banks represent a concrete alternative to agent networks which, in 2008, accounted or a 20% market share.

In non-lie business (worth over 38 billion in 2008), on the contrary, things are much more crystallised. Over 84% o

the market is occupied by insurance agents. The much-hyped direct (telephone- and Web-based) insurance achieveda share o less than 4%. Considering that the broker channel the second distribution orce in Italy, with a share o

approximately 8% is primarily ocused on the corporate segment, it is evident how the agency channel plays a clear-

cut leading role in amily-oriented insurance distribution.

Over 28,000 individual agents are currently active on the Italian market, collected into some 10,000 distribution rms.

This means that in 2008, each o them dealt with an average 3.3 million in non-lie business and 1.5 million in the lie

class. To put these gures in perspective, lets keep in mind that big Italian banks operating at a national level manage

7 to 22 million per branch that is 50 to 450% more. Such ragmentation prevents the Italian insurance distribution

structure rom achieving scale economies. Not by chance, distribution and general expenses account or 25% o

the total amount o premiums. In other words, some 38 billion in non-lie premiums were collected in 2008. This

represents approximately 10 billion in unded operating and distribution processes, rather than product as such.

Undoubtedly, an inecient distribution structure contributes to the high cost o motor insurance. Evidently,

however, this is not the only cause. Among other signicant actors, the raud system is particularly prominent.

In certain areas o the country, this is a veritable proessional activity. We should ask, however, i any changes

will occur in the wake o the current downturn phase, which is making amilies more aware o costs and savings

opportunities than beore.

Past, present and uture o the Italian insurance distribution system

In Italy, the development o insurance agent rms has been uelled by a strong synergy between companies and

their agent networks, especially with exclusive agency agreements maximising customer loyalty. Compared to

other integrated distribution systems the banking sector, or instance it is critical that agencies are individual

rms, entitled to independent and autonomous business decisions. This extremely integrated system is, thereore,paradoxically made up o sel-governing components. For a bank, decisions translate immediately into actions say,

merging three branches into one, or redesigning end-to-end (rom headquarters to branch) operating processes.

P

ER

SP

EC

TIV

E

Insurance Distribution in Italy: post-downturn scenarios

Alessandro Scaro

Director

The existing insurance distribution structure in Italy, like that in continental Western

Europe, is becoming outdated. This is a major obstacle or the various countries

insurance systems, now struggling towards increased efciency. What kind o

transormation is possible or agent networks, currently intermediating the largest

part o amilies nonlie insurance coverage?


2/4

2

For an insurance company, decisions are not so easily implemented. Negotiations with the agencies involved

are needed, and this oten involves interacting with their respective labour unions. The resulting unbalanced

development has led to a structurally inecient system the result o too many compromises.

Ironically, the many mergers o the past 20 years havent helped, either. A merger is supposed to achieve greater

economies o scale, with all o the economic parties involved beneting rom the resulting higher eciency levels.

Managing a merger, however, would require a redesign o the entire operating context, rom the company itsel

to agencies (local presence, product mix, agency-specic IT systems, and so on). This has always been impossible,

due to the absence o a common vision o development. Mergers might have been great opportunities to better

serve the market and achieve higher returns. Instead, individual parties interests and advantages have been

saeguarded and the transer o signicant amounts o activity rom company to agency has oten been the only

tangible result. While companies were allowed to submit reasonable levels o post-merger synergies to business

analysts, agencies were being saddled with extra workloads, increasingly turning rom sales-oriented structures to

plodding managing entities. Any complaints were hushed by increased commissions. All o this has burdened the

whole insurance system. In times o low sensitivity to price levels, periodic and systematic increases o distribution

costs were being transerred to premiums, against a backdrop o a huge range o actors working to inate costs.

Lastly, over time, a series o regulatory requirements has been imposed on agencies. Although these were

intended to control the quality o sales processes and secondary intermediaries (subagents, producers, and so

on), they ended up urther burdening agencies administrative/management requirements, depressing their sales

potential and growth prospects.

The reezing o such a ragmented distribution landscape led to the ailure o the ban on exclusive agency

agreements: the agencies were too small to really able to manage two or more product mixes, or two or more

accounts to principal companies, without being buried under the weight o management duties and the

associated xed costs.

The challenge awaiting the insurance distribution system

The economic market is evolving, especially now that economies worldwide are going through a downturn

phase. There is a need to nd easible alternatives or companies, allowing them to acquire quality products

and services while maximising savings. Is it reasonable to assume that insurance companies alone will escape

this trend and keep burdening premiums with general and distribution expenses (25% o what policyholders

pay)? Obviously, the current scenario is not sustainable in the medium term. The opposition it creates between

companies and distributors economics can no longer be resolved by transerring the systems ineciencies to

product prices. Moreover, regulatory commissions are intensiying their scrutiny.

Which concrete, viable alternatives can we imagine at the moment? There are three possible scenarios:

The company-agency supply chain is redesigned An aggregation model brings agencies together

An entirely new distribution model is introduced

The company-agency supply chain is redesigned

Each company identies an ecient distribution model, in which a ew basic paradigms are respected:

Simple, measurable, and ecient end-to-end processes;

Management and back oce activities are minimised by automation and centralised outside of agencies;

Agencies become much smaller and focus on sales/customer service activities

and proposes such a model to its own agencies (potentially, to others as well) as a New Deal to help overcome

the current impasse and shape a new role or insurance agents. A newly acquired awareness and agents concerns

or their uture leads them to weigh the proposal, this time with a view to long-term sustainability, rather than

P

ER

SP

EC

TIV

E


3/4

3

to the saeguarding o consolidated advantages. A signicant number o agencies accept that this is a concrete

possibility. Obviously, the scenario requires that companies have large investment potential, now that investments

are less easily sustained due to signicantly reduced returns. The ideal moment to turn this corner would probably

have been a ew years ago, but bold, innovative decisions are oten prompted by dicult times.

An aggregation model brings agencies together

Agencies nd a way to organise themselves, independently rom their principal companies, starting partnerships

(either geographically based or within the various agent groups) and sharing back oce activities, so as to relieve

their respective workloads and concentrate all eforts on sales. These structures operate as purchase centres as

well, selecting the product mix ofered to customers and competitively urging companies to improve products

and services and reduce costs.

This kind o aggregation, which could generate a model comparable to that o the US market (big independent

agencies, minute and articulated networks, and extremely ecient operations), will necessarily incorporate a

number o eatures, such as:

The presence of a recognised leader among agencies willing to band together;

The market availability of operating/IT platforms suitable to manage this kind of organisation and to grant

customers access to ecient and low-cost services;

The capability to execute larger-scale projects than the vast majority of insurance agents has ever had to deal

with.

This aggregation model would signicantly reduce the number o insurance distribution companies operating on the

market, increasing their average size and clearly afecting the ban on exclusive agency clauses. A more balanced (i

not equal-to-equal) relationship between company and agency would emerge, as well.

An entirely new distribution model is introduced

Given a backdrop with deep-rooted aws and no real will to change, the solution could come rom an external

catalyst, be it a foreign player not yet active (or marginally active) on the Italian market or a project/nancial entity

capable o organising a number o distribution players around a shared vision.

The aggregation o these parties could give intermediaries a large enough average size to create a proessional

entity to manage back oce activities, an ecient and customer-oriented operating/IT system, and a distribution

structure (retail locations, light oces, producers) ocused on selling a ew, simple products or amily needs. This will

represent some orm o direct insurance, but with actual retail locations, so as to remove the real critical issue o that

business model: the absence o a human interace in key moments such as the underwriting o policies and, more

importantly, claim processes.

The new player would have a huge advantage in establishing this aggregation on novel principles completely

diferent rom those currently regulating the Italian insurance distribution system. The risk, on the other hand, is that

in such a closed and sel-centred world an external entity could be associated solely with oreign experiences,

unsuited to the specic reality o the country.

Conclusions

It is not easy to divine which one o the aorementioned scenarios will unold. Will one o those solutions prevail on

the Italian market, or will it be a combination o the three? It is likely that the push or change will come rom a number

o companies willing to herald a distinctive value proposition or customers and insurance intermediaries. The entry

o new and determined players, carrying a diferent ramework with them, would obviously speed up any changes inthe insurance business. Current players would read that as a threat and eel pressed to adopt unconventional models

themselves.

P

ER

SP

EC

TIV

E


4/4

4

In any case, in the medium, i not the short term, we will witness change in the distribution system. The demands rom

customers struggling with amily budget cuts and more pressing needs or insurance products due to a reduced

social expenditure will denitely push in that direction. The answer this time will necessarily be a sea change,

driven rom the perspective o long-term sustainability. It will also represent a contribution to the modernisation

o the country. An ecient insurance sector is crucial or the entire Italian economic system. People should not be

turned away by it, but rather educated and helped in managing the risks inherent in their jobs and lives.

P

ER

SP

EC

TIV

E

About Value Partners

Founded in 1993, Value Partners

is a global management

consulting rm that works with

multinational corporations and

high-potential entrepreneurial

businesses to identiy and pursue

value enhancement initiatives

across innovation, international

expansion, and operational

efectiveness. It comprises two

sister companies: Value PartnersManagement Consulting and

Value Team IT Consulting &

Solutions.

With 14 oces across Europe,

Asia, South America and

MENA, Value Partners expertise

spans corporate strategy and

nancial business planning, cost

transormation and organizational

development, commercial

planning, technology decisions,

and change management.

Its 3,100 proessionals,

rom 25 nations, combine a

methodological approach and

analytical ramework with a

hands-on attitude and practical

industry experience developed in

an executive capacity within their

sectors o ocus: media, telecomsand IT, luxury goods, nancial

services, energy, manuacturing

and hi-tech.

For more inormation on the issues

raised in this note, please contact

alessandro.scaro@valuepartners.

com or one o our ofces below. Find

all o our contact details at www.

valuepartners.com

Milan

Rome

London

Munich

Helsinki

Istanbul

Dubai

So Paulo

Rio de Janeiro

Buenos Aires

Mumbai

Beijing

Hong Kong

Singapore

value-partners-insurance distribution in italy

Documents