Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 73

Thread: AMI Insurance

  1. #46
    Join Date
    19th August 2003 - 15:32
    Bike
    RD350 KTM790R, 2 x BMW R80G/S, XT500
    Location
    Over there somewhere...
    Posts
    3,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    My house and contents and vehicles are all with AMI.
    If a major earthquake or similar hits Nelson and munts my house, will I get anything from AMI?
    Is it worth the risk staying with them?
    I would rather change to another insurer and have them pay than have the gummint pay with money they don't really have.
    The problem that AMI made in Chch was not buying enough re-insurance, and being overexposed geographically. However, even if they haven't changed their arrangements they still have $600m to cover any other catastrophe (and they are unlikely to cover 35% of the households in your area).

    So the answer is they are unlikely to have to call on Govt. funds in your scenario.

    However
    - if they suffer cash flow difficulties caused by mass cancellations of cover, they may struggle to pay day to day claims and expenses. It may also be too late now to rely on getting a premium refund.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    5th August 2005 - 14:30
    Bike
    Various
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    You should have stopped typing after you admitted your naivety.
    BWAHAHAHAHA that wont stop him.
    In fact he's even more forthright when he knows fuck all - which co-incidentally is pretty much everytime he comments online.

    I suspect mashman is actually an icecream seller from edgecombe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tank
    You say "no one wants to fuck with some large bloke on a really angry sounding bike" but the truth of the matter is that you are a balding middle-aged ice-cream seller from Edgecume who wears a hello kitty t-shirt (in your profile pic) and your angry sounding bike is a fucken hyoshit - not some big assed harley with a human skull on the front.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    6th May 2008 - 14:15
    Bike
    She resents being called a bike
    Location
    Wellllie
    Posts
    1,494
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by davereid View Post
    AMI did have about a billion dollars in reserves, its possibly more related to the fact that AMI were geographically unbalanced compared to other insurers - they carreid a lot of CHCH based risk. I am sure there are other insurers with a similar problem if Wellington or Auckland had a major disaster, it just happened to be CHCH.

    ACC is different. As you are a customer on a compulsory basis, ACC does not need reserves. If they need more money, they simply hike premiums. You cant choose to be uninsured or go elsewhere, so reserves are not required.

    Thats why ACC is as much as I hate to say it, best operated by Government, OR best completely abandoned.

    Its NOT a model that can be operated at reasonable cost otherwise.
    Thanks for the explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    You should have stopped typing after you admitted your naivety.

    There is no $1b payout, the Govt. is providing a backstop in case claims escalate and also to provide some protection against a run of the company. A run that will be caused by uninformed and stupid comments such as yours.
    There is the potential for a $1 billion payout according to the government. OMG, i'm someone who doesn't understand how the insurance industry ticks... AMI should be kicked into touch! They gambled, they lost. Get yer fuckin hands of my taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Stranger View Post
    BWAHAHAHAHA that wont stop him.
    In fact he's even more forthright when he knows fuck all - which co-incidentally is pretty much everytime he comments online.

    I suspect mashman is actually an icecream seller from edgecombe.
    You read me how you read me ... I can asure you, I ain't your ice cream vendor.
    I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!

  4. #49
    Join Date
    19th August 2003 - 15:32
    Bike
    RD350 KTM790R, 2 x BMW R80G/S, XT500
    Location
    Over there somewhere...
    Posts
    3,954
    Quote Originally Posted by mashman View Post
    There is the potential for a $1 billion payout according to the government. OMG, i'm someone who doesn't understand how the insurance industry ticks... AMI should be kicked into touch! They gambled, they lost. Get yer fuckin hands of my taxes.


    He said it could cost up to $1b - it could cost nothing.
    There will certainly be no "payout" along the lines of SCF.

    If you would stop worring about your own wallet for a minute, you should work through the ramifications of allowing that many claims to remain unpaid. Y

  5. #50
    Join Date
    27th September 2008 - 18:14
    Bike
    SWM RS 650R
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    3,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    The problem that AMI made in Chch was not buying enough re-insurance, and being overexposed geographically. However, even if they haven't changed their arrangements they still have $600m to cover any other catastrophe (and they are unlikely to cover 35% of the households in your area).

    So the answer is they are unlikely to have to call on Govt. funds in your scenario.

    However
    - if they suffer cash flow difficulties caused by mass cancellations of cover, they may struggle to pay day to day claims and expenses. It may also be too late now to rely on getting a premium refund.
    Thanks for that, but I was just reading the Nelson Mail and consumer NZs chief exec sue Chetwin is saying that "AMI customers outside Christchurch should consider another insurer". Thats not going to help ami is it?
    I mentioned vegetables once, but I think I got away with it...........

  6. #51
    Join Date
    6th May 2008 - 14:15
    Bike
    She resents being called a bike
    Location
    Wellllie
    Posts
    1,494
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    He said it could cost up to $1b - it could cost nothing.
    And I said

    Quote Originally Posted by mashman
    There is the potential for a $1 billion payout according to the government
    That could also mean $0.

    Quote Originally Posted by oscar
    There will certainly be no "payout" along the lines of SCF.
    I never said there was.

    Quote Originally Posted by oscar
    If you would stop worring about your own wallet for a minute,
    , yeah, i was worrying about my wallet, and the wallets of others that are going to be out of pocket because a PRIVATE enterprise failed and is getting bailed out. If it was Bob's Chip Shop down the road, you wouldn't give a fuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by oscar
    you should work through the ramifications of allowing that many claims to remain unpaid.
    I did and came to a completely different conculsion than you.

    If it crashes, the govt will bail them.

    To keep it afloat, the govt MAY have to bail them, in which case a 3rd decent earthquake and the govt will either bail them again, or let them go to the wall. ad infinitum. Hey, they're in insurance, it's a calculation game right? Well what are your calculations telling you now about the potential for a 3rd crisis (not trying to be scaremongering, tis a calculation i'm sure the insurance industry have done. Otherwise there wouldn't be any problem getting insurance right now, would there?)

    They stay in business and we carry on as normal. It may eventually go to the wall because people have lost faith in the ability of the provider to payout in the event of another crisis. It may be that customers stay Brand loyal. Like that's gonna happen where it's their money involved... but ya never know.

    Pointless the govt getting involved in all of the above, IF (imho) the result is that the business is likely to go to the wall because of no confidence. What are your odds Oscar? Do you reckon a bailout will save them?

    Instead. Let AMI go to the wall. Pay off as much as they can and let the govt take the assistance package of $1 billion (they said the figure, not me) and pay out those that aren't covered. It may be less than $1 billion. It could be $0. All that's lost is a business. We can all buy insurance somewhere else.
    I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!

  7. #52
    Join Date
    5th August 2005 - 14:30
    Bike
    Various
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by mashman View Post
    And I said

    That could also mean $0.
    I never said there was.

    , yeah, i was worrying about my wallet, and the wallets of others that are going to be out of pocket because a PRIVATE enterprise failed and is getting bailed out. If it was Bob's Chip Shop down the road, you wouldn't give a fuck.

    I did and came to a completely different conculsion than you.

    If it crashes, the govt will bail them.

    To keep it afloat, the govt MAY have to bail them, in which case a 3rd decent earthquake and the govt will either bail them again, or let them go to the wall. ad infinitum. Hey, they're in insurance, it's a calculation game right? Well what are your calculations telling you now about the potential for a 3rd crisis (not trying to be scaremongering, tis a calculation i'm sure the insurance industry have done. Otherwise there wouldn't be any problem getting insurance right now, would there?)

    They stay in business and we carry on as normal. It may eventually go to the wall because people have lost faith in the ability of the provider to payout in the event of another crisis. It may be that customers stay Brand loyal. Like that's gonna happen where it's their money involved... but ya never know.

    Pointless the govt getting involved in all of the above, IF (imho) the result is that the business is likely to go to the wall because of no confidence. What are your odds Oscar? Do you reckon a bailout will save them?

    Instead. Let AMI go to the wall. Pay off as much as they can and let the govt take the assistance package of $1 billion (they said the figure, not me) and pay out those that aren't covered. It may be less than $1 billion. It could be $0. All that's lost is a business. We can all buy insurance somewhere else.
    Please don't take this the wrong way, but you completely misunderstood Oscars response. Just for the hell of it, assume Oscar knows what he's talking about then see if you can figure out where you went wrong.

    Oscar. S&P or Moodys rank insurers don't they?
    Do you happen to know please the ranking of AMI and say Vero prior to the first quake?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tank
    You say "no one wants to fuck with some large bloke on a really angry sounding bike" but the truth of the matter is that you are a balding middle-aged ice-cream seller from Edgecume who wears a hello kitty t-shirt (in your profile pic) and your angry sounding bike is a fucken hyoshit - not some big assed harley with a human skull on the front.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    19th August 2003 - 15:32
    Bike
    RD350 KTM790R, 2 x BMW R80G/S, XT500
    Location
    Over there somewhere...
    Posts
    3,954
    Quote Originally Posted by mashman View Post
    And I said



    That could also mean $0.
    That's what I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by mashman

    I never said there was.
    You did actually.
    You said:
    Bin it, pay the people directly..
    Quote Originally Posted by mashman


    To keep it afloat, the govt MAY have to bail them, in which case a 3rd decent earthquake and the govt will either bail them again, or let them go to the wall. ad infinitum. Hey, they're in insurance, it's a calculation game right? Well what are your calculations telling you now about the potential for a 3rd crisis (not trying to be scaremongering, tis a calculation i'm sure the insurance industry have done. Otherwise there wouldn't be any problem getting insurance right now, would there?)

    They stay in business and we carry on as normal. It may eventually go to the wall because people have lost faith in the ability of the provider to payout in the event of another crisis. It may be that customers stay Brand loyal. Like that's gonna happen where it's their money involved... but ya never know.

    Pointless the govt getting involved in all of the above, IF (imho) the result is that the business is likely to go to the wall because of no confidence. What are your odds Oscar? Do you reckon a bailout will save them?

    Instead. Let AMI go to the wall. Pay off as much as they can and let the govt take the assistance package of $1 billion (they said the figure, not me) and pay out those that aren't covered. It may be less than $1 billion. It could be $0. All that's lost is a business. We can all buy insurance somewhere else.
    Don't you think that the Govt. did their sums before making the offer?
    Do you seriously think that the Govt. would pay more money than there are claims to save a doomed company? The best outcome is that AMI get swallowed up by another insurer, and that the claims don't exceed the combined reinsurance cap + reserves. The worst is that the claims do exceed reinsurance and the taxpayer is involved.

    What you don't seem to understand is the mutual ownership off this particular company. We're not talking about sharemarket speculation here - AMI is owned by it's policyholders - if you let it go bust it's the ordinary people that suffer.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    19th August 2003 - 15:32
    Bike
    RD350 KTM790R, 2 x BMW R80G/S, XT500
    Location
    Over there somewhere...
    Posts
    3,954
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stranger View Post
    Please don't take this the wrong way, but you completely misunderstood Oscars response. Just for the hell of it, assume Oscar knows what he's talking about then see if you can figure out where you went wrong.

    Oscar. S&P or Moodys rank insurers don't they?
    Do you happen to know please the ranking of AMI and say Vero prior to the first quake?
    There is Govt. site listing them all, I'll try and find it.

    As far as it goes, AMI had a reasonable ranking as they have an acceptable amount of capital reserves. The problem was a catastrophic error in judgement in respect of reinsurance.

    This may have been related to the fact that the rates offered by AMI have always been stupidly cheap (which may have put the pressure on to reduce expenses such as reinsurance premiums).

  10. #55
    Join Date
    6th May 2008 - 14:15
    Bike
    She resents being called a bike
    Location
    Wellllie
    Posts
    1,494
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by oscar
    That's what I said.
    So what was the reason behind highlighting the word "could"?

    Quote Originally Posted by oscar
    You did actually.
    You said:
    No I didn't. Because I also said

    Quote Originally Posted by mashman
    Pay out what it can, the use that $1 billion of our tax money to cover what AMI couldn't.
    out of context much?

    Quote Originally Posted by oscar
    Don't you think that the Govt. did their sums before making the offer?
    To what end? Please, with cherries on , please tell me what sums the govt have done?

    Quote Originally Posted by oscar
    Do you seriously think that the Govt. would pay more money than there are claims to save a doomed company? The best outcome is that AMI get swallowed up by another insurer, and that the claims don't exceed the combined reinsurance cap + reserves. The worst is that the claims do exceed reinsurance and the taxpayer is involved.
    SCF? but they were covered by a guarantee (plus interest, plus inflation backdated.. ), so yes the Govt would pay more just to save a company. How much do you reckon SCF or AMI will sell for? How much do you think it will cost to find a new buyer? (given the top lawyers and accountants will be required for a deal of this size )? All of that money could pay the policy holders that are currently claiming. Everyone else can go get another insurer (by default that will happen anyway, in all but 1 scenario). Perhaps, and due to a large amount of people seeking cover (how many policies do AMI cover?), the insurance market might become a tad more competitive with the smell of fresh blood in the water.

    Quote Originally Posted by oscar
    What you don't seem to understand is the mutual ownership off this particular company. We're not talking about sharemarket speculation here - AMI is owned by it's policyholders - if you let it go bust it's the ordinary people that suffer.
    So I have come to learn - How will the ordinary people suffer?
    I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!

  11. #56
    Join Date
    19th August 2003 - 15:32
    Bike
    RD350 KTM790R, 2 x BMW R80G/S, XT500
    Location
    Over there somewhere...
    Posts
    3,954
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stranger View Post
    Please don't take this the wrong way, but you completely misunderstood Oscars response. Just for the hell of it, assume Oscar knows what he's talking about then see if you can figure out where you went wrong.

    Oscar. S&P or Moodys rank insurers don't they?
    Do you happen to know please the ranking of AMI and say Vero prior to the first quake?
    AMI were A+ on 6/10/10 and subsequently downgraded to A-

    Vero are (and were) A+

    Here's the site:
    http://www.isu.govt.nz/upload/40411/ratings.pdf

  12. #57
    Join Date
    5th August 2005 - 14:30
    Bike
    Various
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    AMI were A+ on 6/10/10 and subsequently downgraded to A-

    Vero are (and were) A+

    Here's the site:
    http://www.isu.govt.nz/upload/40411/ratings.pdf
    Interesting then to see Vero mouthing off at AMI and at those accepting AMI's cheap policies.
    I'm with AMI and I usually do look at the rating as a guide - hell what other guide does the average punter have?
    So I feel one can hardly blame people for accepting the cheapest price under such circumstances.

    Surely the rating agency deserves some of the responsibility and liability for this mess?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tank
    You say "no one wants to fuck with some large bloke on a really angry sounding bike" but the truth of the matter is that you are a balding middle-aged ice-cream seller from Edgecume who wears a hello kitty t-shirt (in your profile pic) and your angry sounding bike is a fucken hyoshit - not some big assed harley with a human skull on the front.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    13th June 2010 - 17:47
    Bike
    Exercycle
    Location
    Out in the cold
    Posts
    5,867
    Christ there's some crap being posted here....Oscar has the right of it as usual.
    You can't blame the regulating agencies, a concentration of risk in the SI would pre Sept have looked as safe as anywhere in NZ - would you have concentrated risk in Wgtn ? AMI started out as SIMU which was SI based and historically most of their risk has always been down here.
    Mashman, get real if the govt hadn't guarantee'd AMI - and basically thats all they've done - there would still have had to be a massive bailout of AMI customers here or we'd have been left bloody destitute and homeless....Yes, EQC is covering the first 100G but there's a bloody lot of people above that. If the ACT dicks had their way and AMI was left to sink you'd have had major social unrest to put it mildly. Personally, I'd have joined a march on Wgtn - and we'd have been armed....
    You can't compare SCF to AMI - just on the numbers, SCF involved saving what ? 2 - 300 investors at most, very few of whom to my knowledge risked losing their homes.
    If they'd let AMI go down and the reinsurances did prove inadequate the consequences could have been dire.
    And BTW, according to some statements coming out AMI's level of reinsurance was at least as good as several others and better than some....

  14. #59
    Join Date
    6th May 2008 - 14:15
    Bike
    She resents being called a bike
    Location
    Wellllie
    Posts
    1,494
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumph
    Mashman, get real if the govt hadn't guarantee'd AMI - and basically thats all they've done - there would still have had to be a massive bailout of AMI customers here or we'd have been left bloody destitute and homeless
    I AGREE, that if the govt didn't offer a bailout package, that the current policy holders could be up shit creek. So the govt are prepared to bail out AMI to cover the claims of its customers. Bailing the customers out indirectly.

    The result is the same, as you put it "there would still have had to be a massive bailout of AMI customers here or we'd have been left bloody destitute and homeless", because the govt would be bailing the customers out directly.

    Both ways bail the customer out. Wether AMI survives or not, AMI's customers are covered. So, how is that a lose for the customers?

    Worst case scenario. Everyone is covered because the govt is backing AMI wether it succeeds or fails. Individuals will have to pick up the phone and find a new insurance provider. Did i miss anything?

    My Reasons for not saving AMI are simple

    AMI generate $300 million in reserve over the next 3 years (ass hat figures). There's another big quake in Chch (touch wood it doesn't happen). Are AMI going to go under? Or are we going to bail them again?

    Look, for all of Oscars postings (not digging at ya fella), I'm still yet to see 1 single tabgible reason to keep AMI afloat. The best he's posted so far is "AMI is owned by it's policyholders - if you let it go bust it's the ordinary people that suffer.", which as we now know, due to the each way govt bailout, is a crock of shit. We can all pick up the phone and choose a new insurer.

    But please, hop on the bandwagon and play the man OR give me 1 good reason so that I change my opinion
    I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!

  15. #60
    Join Date
    19th August 2003 - 15:32
    Bike
    RD350 KTM790R, 2 x BMW R80G/S, XT500
    Location
    Over there somewhere...
    Posts
    3,954
    Quote Originally Posted by mashman View Post
    I AGREE, that if the govt didn't offer a bailout package, that the current policy holders could be up shit creek. So the govt are prepared to bail out AMI to cover the claims of its customers. Bailing the customers out indirectly.

    The result is the same, as you put it "there would still have had to be a massive bailout of AMI customers here or we'd have been left bloody destitute and homeless", because the govt would be bailing the customers out directly.

    Both ways bail the customer out. Wether AMI survives or not, AMI's customers are covered. So, how is that a lose for the customers?

    Worst case scenario. Everyone is covered because the govt is backing AMI wether it succeeds or fails. Individuals will have to pick up the phone and find a new insurance provider. Did i miss anything?

    My Reasons for not saving AMI are simple

    AMI generate $300 million in reserve over the next 3 years (ass hat figures). There's another big quake in Chch (touch wood it doesn't happen). Are AMI going to go under? Or are we going to bail them again?

    Look, for all of Oscars postings (not digging at ya fella), I'm still yet to see 1 single tabgible reason to keep AMI afloat. The best he's posted so far is "AMI is owned by it's policyholders - if you let it go bust it's the ordinary people that suffer.", which as we now know, due to the each way govt bailout, is a crock of shit. We can all pick up the phone and choose a new insurer.

    But please, hop on the bandwagon and play the man OR give me 1 good reason so that I change my opinion
    1. If AMI survives (which I doubt), they will simply buy more reinsurance (and probably increase their premiums) to protect against another disaster.

    2. I have never said that AMI should be protected. It's the policyholders that need protection, as far I'm concerned AMI deserves to die.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •