Thursday Dec 26, 2024
Monday, 7 July 2014 00:12 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Global trends in microinsuranceWith there being high potential for insurance and microinsurance around the world and more so in developing regions, GIZ Regulatory Framework Promotion of Pro-poor Insurance Markets in Asia Program Director Dr. Antonis Malagardis noted that the current buzz word in the industry is inclusive insurance. Noting that inclusive insurance not only belongs to insurance promoting strategies, he said it also belongs to the strategy of promoting financial inclusion in the Government. “It is important to identify how this is linked to the development policy in terms of financial inclusion so the provision of risk protection and service which leads us to insurance is provided,” noted Malagardis. The progress that includes risk protection is important since it is necessary to look at financial inclusion and for this not only is good regulation needed but so are good products that can be tailored to the needs of the households of rural population. Health products having a higher demand worldwide, Malagardis noted that with it unfortunately being a complicate product, it will not work well for micro insurance. While countries that have attempted to bring health into microinsurance have failed completely, it is noted that if attempting to get into that segment strong regulatory framework is required. Since there is a lack of insurance on local protection, in most countries people leave it to fate. It is the low income groups that are the most vulnerable since it takes them longer to recover and come out of shocks. Therefore for them it is about assistance. Cash assistance can be given to them through life insurance as it is important for this group to have a cash inflow at the time of shock. “Such assistance will help them to believe in insurance and what it can offer. People should look at this as assistance. They might not use it to recover from the situation but might use for other purposes such as education, debt repayment and others,” he said. The strategy in the Philippines started with close collaboration between the public and the private sector. However, it took time for the government to understand that its role was to only create an enabling environment. Some parts of the public sector were of the view that they would have to be involved in subsidies, which was not expected. The private sector then looked at microinsurance not as a charity but as a real business. “An important lesson here is that the government has to take ownership of reforms. Not just the association of insurance they are part of, but the government has to own it. It is important for the regulator to be focused and understand all proposals put forward. The regulator should look back to the market every three or six months and listen to what the industry is saying, because insurance is based on what the market says,” pointed out Malagardis. |
Way forward for microinsurance in SLTo discuss the way forward, the workshop featured a panel discussion under the title ‘Future of Microinsurance in Sri Lanka and the way forward’. Moderated by IBSL Chairperson Indrani Sugathadasa, the panel members for the session were IBSL Acting Director General Damayanthi Fernando, GIZ Regulatory Framework Promotion of Pro-poor Insurance Markets in Asia Program Director Dr. Antonis Malagardis, Insurance Association of Sri Lanka President Prakash Schaffter and Lanka Micro Finance Practitioners Association President S. W. Kiriarachchi. Following are the excerpts of the session: Q: We understand that there are institutions collecting premium from those not registered with IBSL. Will the IBSL allow them to continue to operate in that manner? Sugathadasa: We should not allow them to continue. However, it is noted that there should be clear definition and some relaxation should be given along with legislation. There also should be a microinsurance centre. There are lots of suggestions on this and we will consider it. Q: What are the barriers or the bottlenecks for other companies to develop and sell microinsurance products? Schaffter: The reason why others do not sell microinsurance is that it goes back to the definition of microinsurance. If that is defined we will have a clear list of persons who are not doing microinsurance at the moment. But assuming that you define micro insurance products that are targeted at the low end of the society, the reason for some insurance companies not doing it is because it does not fit within their business model. For example, a company has taken a policy decision of being city-based and not having an extensive branch network and focusing on the corporate segment, then the business model determines that it will not provide products for microinsurance segment. If the business model is not limited to that and is focused on providing other products, that it means that micro insurance is an area where they are simply not thought about and focused upon. Alternatively it would mean that the cost structure involved in microinsurance is such that it does not make it economical considering the volume for that particular business. Q: Sanasa Insurance is not under the regulator. How do you view your organisation being in partnership with other registered organisations in promoting microinsurance products? Kiriarachchi: I don’t see any problems in doing that. It is up to the insurer to contact such originations and come to some amicable understanding. I think there is a necessity, but there are so many organisations having informal insurance. The models are different. All institutions have some sort of risk mitigation so the insurers can talk to the microfinance institutions. However the premium needs to be discussed. Q: When we discuss about standardising and formalising the microinsurance sector and bringing the organisations under the regulator, or to have a separate insurance for them, it is said that the capital cannot be different. Why is it so? Malagardis: Looking at the experience in the Philippines where in the beginning of the success was not commercial insurance. It was not MFIs, it was the Mutual Benefit Associations (MBAs). The capital structure is different as they sell only life insurance for the moment, and they were exempted from taxes. They started with five time’s lower capitalisation compared to the insurance companies. Now it is going to change. The cooperatives are also in a similar status. The commercial insurance companies have 8% tax and non-life insurance has 27.5% and they are still selling profitably. While now commercial insurance is thinking of starting microinsurance, it would need the same capital amount as it has for traditional insurance. The regulator will not permit relaxation. |