| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2002 : 00:23:21
|
This morning I made a few comments in the "complaint" forum, related to "supply and demand". That has all sat heavy on me today while I was driving around.
Aside from an alternative concept that I mentioned, the following two statements have played in my mind all day. An exploration of these, makes the alternative concept more palatable to study.
(a) The traditional concept is that the vendor creates the demand and the adjuster is the supply. If so, that is based on the vendor being the only source of generating the demand for the supply of the adjuster.
(b) Having said that, I do think it is one of the fundamental pieces of the "harness" that has been enslaving the "cat adjuster" to their solitary bondage of the "storm" claim.
Part (a) above, just seemed to lack logic or clear understanding to me. I did have to do some research to try and get re-acquainted with some established economic principals.
As you consider the following, remember the above stated traditional concept - "the vendor creates the demand and the adjuster is the supply". Stated in yet clearer terms, to mesh with the following, the vendor is the "buyer / purchaser" and the adjuster is the "product / commodity".
Economists approach the analysis of demand for a "product" by considering each of these determinants;
1. price of the product
2. level of desire for the product by the buyer
3. income / purchasing power of the buyer
4. price of related products (i.e. substitute products in the opinion of the buyer that directly compete with the initial product selected)
5. future expectations of the buyer (i.e. expected income of the buyer and the expected price of the product)
6. the total market demand (i.e. not just by one buyer, because the number of buyers in the market is also a determinant of the amount purchased)
Economists give "price" a special look in this analysis, by considering three factors;
1. "the income effect" - as the price of a product decreases, the buyer can buy more with the amount of funds allocated or budgeted for the purchase
2. "the substitution effect" - the buyer recognizes other products that he regards as a substitute, and the buyer may be inclined to switch to that other product if the "measure of quality or value" appear to decline in the original product
3. "the diminishing marginal utility effect" - over time the purchaser of this product will develop a decreasing level of satisfaction with the product, and in time will only want to continue purchasing this product if it is at a reduced cost
Now remember, the vendor is the "buyer / purchaser" and the adjuster is the "product / commodity"; in our so called supply and demand chain.
Think and recall all the things bantered about in various forums about what has happened and what is happening to your market niche.
There appears to be an inherent fault or imbalance created within the fundamental traditional principal of supply and demand, when the purchaser of a product, sets the price of the product.
We do not walk into Best Buy with a "price / fee schedule", that states what we as purchasers are willing to pay for a commodity. We do not sit down at Denny's and tell them we want ice tea but will only pay .50 cents for it.
The margins of that inbalance is likely most volatile when collective agreements are bargained and settled. A professional football team, a purchaser of athletes, negotiates with a supllier's (player) agent; and either they come to terms or the commodity is offered for sale in the next city.
Oddly, our own specific economic engine seems quite in conflict with the "laws of supply" which states that the amount / volume of product offered for sale, rises as the price increases. But, if the price of our product is set by the buyer, there is an inherent disinterest in the price rising. Yet still, we seem to offer ourselves (the product) enmass with reluctant willingness at reducing prices.
I need a "history lesson". When and by who was the "fee schedule" created, and adopted by adjusters?
I understand the concept of flat rate billing. I see too much of it up here and the sorry results in claims it creates. A vendor comes along and tells a carrier the sky is blue and they are the savior for all their claims under $10K for a flat rate of about $200.. The carrier can take that "known" to the bank, but has to be damned blind not to realize that vendor can only utilize juniors and all claims are fast tracked to close within cost parameters of the vendor. That gets multiplied up the line with many flat rate agreements encompassing claims up to $25K at $450 to $500.
But the "fee schedule" - seemingly "imposed" by the carrier is at direct odds with accepted economic principals of supply and demand. |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 08:22:39
|
Great topic Clayton and timely too. Time to pull out the old econ text.
Couple of questions:
(1) Under your economic model, are claim events or individual claims (storms or non-storm) the currency? If so, do claim events or claims become the money supply? If not, what and how would you label them?
(2) What role in the economic model do the insurers perform? (Is there a supply/demand relationship between the vendors and carriers as equal as the one between vendors and adjusters?)
(3) What is the money supply in your equation? How does elasticity limit or expand that supply?What forces determine elasticity in your model?
(4) What happens when there is a demand and/or supply but a restricted money supply?
(5) What about consumption? |
Edited by - JimF on 12/11/2002 08:26:27 |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 10:08:15
|
I'm not convinced the topic is timely, given the level of erosion that I sense has occured in the "cat claim" niche. However, I suppose it is never too late to try and assess the issues with the goal to at least try and identify where the "buckles of the harness" are, and how the "future cat adjuster" may some day loosen their bondage from the "storm claim".
(1) I don't see the traditional economic model I stated as being my model, but simply my vision of an existing situation. The "claim event" is the currency and the money supply. The "individual claim" (i.e. all claims other than those caused by 'storm events') are not in this model; their absence is a distinct contributor to the bondage I have referred to.
(2) I do struggle trying to place the correct econ term to the participants and elements of this situation, however the insurer is on the "buyer" side of the rail, with their ultimate need for the "adjusting" product. There is a supply/demand relationship with carriers/vendors, but it has few similarities to the one that exists between vendors/cat adjusters. However, I don't doubt that if a vendor tip toed into this forum, the suggestion would be otherwise. I can only base my assessment of these two quite different relationships on my experiences as a carrier in need to purchase the adjusting commodity from vendors - for both "claim event" and "individual claims" occurrences. Perhaps the purchaser (me), the point in time (resulting in different economic forces), and the marketplace all contributed to a different perspective of the relationships. Plus, my experiences as a vendor supplying a commodity to a carrier - where my perception of the commodity value is measured by the buyer. Then finally in time, my experiences as an independent contractor; subcontracting my services as a commodity to be purchased by a vendor. So, considering those three phases - one as a buyer and two as a commodity - it is clear to me that any economic factors that could / should play to the advantage of the commodity price, were not made available to me as an independent contractor subcontracting my services in a "claims event".
(3) Again, hopefully using the right economic label, the "claim event" is the money supply. With the narrow parameters of the money supply, I am not sure whether elasticity limits or expands that supply.
(4) Therein lies the major problem. There is little demand with a restricted money supply. The specific commodity (cat adjuster) has no selling value when the currency (claim event) can only purchase a product with one defined usage (i.e. 'adjust' a weather peril). We seldom even hear the word "adjust" anymore as a feature the "cat adjuster" commodity provides. Remember a fundamental concept of marketing - sell the features not the benefits [i.e. the car has power steering (the benefit), not the car is easy to steer (the feature)]. All I seem to hear anymore with regards to what the "cat adjuster" commodity provides are the 'benefits' which are limited to - inspect or estimate. If that is how the commodity is perceived by the buyer, well then I better understand why that commodity price is less than the normal selling price of the "adjuster that adjusts claims" commodity.
(5) Consumption - maybe this is too simplistic, but, if the buyer only makes 'one time' purchases as the money supply dictates (the claims event), and if those 'one time' purchases are quite infrequent - then that results in little consumption of a product with such limited usage potential. |
|
|
|
tomgriffin56
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 12:12:57
|
 Way too deep for this poor ol' texan who never took economics. But if I understand what you two are bandying about, what are the options of the product in affecting the market conditions? There seems to me to be only a few things that can affect them and as the product there aren't many that we have control over.
There could be a limiting of the product availability---this could occur in many ways; 1. increased licensing requirements 2. decreased numbers of adjusters willing to go out for the amount offered 3. increased demand (claim events)
Of those I only see one that we have control over and it seems to head towards GB's rallying cry for a "trade association". |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 12:19:43
|
| My take on this is the vendor was the supllier of one commodity and has branched out, this is where the bone of contention has risen. While the IA (cattleman) thought the vendor was selling to him, he finds out he is selling to another (sheepherder). Both of which use different products, simular but different. This upset the Adjuster because he thought the vendor was cutting him out of his commodity. This could be the truth or as the IA suspected, the vendor needs to vendicate his position with an explaination. I think I understand but not all do. Its a gray area that needs some clarification. A hard line drawn on both sides and a lot of pent up fellings will serve no purpose. This is a good topic and has logical views that may ease some tension that was brought about by the IA not being informed of changes taking place. No one likes a suprise when his livelyhood is suspected of being threatened. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 16:09:03
|
Tom, please don't consider this topic as too deep, and I hope no one else does. As independent contractors we are business people, we must be aware of the forces that adversely affect the growth of our businesses. The object was to equate the economic labels to the parties in our supply and demand soup. That I think is clear, and I see from your comments that you have a handle on that.
What are the options of the 'product' (you & me) in affecting market conditions? Good question and I hope we hear from lots of others on that issue. I'll throw a few on the plate, so there are some crumbs to pick at.
(1) The product must have more diversity, more useful options, to appeal to a wider range of buyers.
(2) The product, regardless of how it is 'produced', must be produced to provide better and more consistent quality in operation.
(3) The product when 'produced' (currently with no relationship to trended buyer demands or forecasted buyer demands) must be processed through a standardized calibration of proficiency; prior to being offered for sale.
Nothing new there from me, I've said those things before. Again, I believe the 'market conditions' would improve with any one of those factors coming to fruition.
However Tom, concerning your thoughts on limiting the product availability, I see no shared sentiments of this among the products on the shelf awaiting purchase. The 'law of supply' is a straightdorward concept - as the price paid for a product rises, more product will make itself available for sale. That is a common sense principal, easy for all to grasp. Why then, does our product willingly wear 'sale' a/o 'discounted' tags and fill the shelves in increasing numbers wanting to be purchased? I just don't understand that.
Correct me if I am very wrong here - look at the last 2 years of shopping activity for our product. Again, the product I am referring to is the 'traditional cat adjuster'.
There is likely a decent handful of folks who worked at least 26 to 39 weeks in each of the last 2 years, at only 'cat adjusting' and that term is given a broad envelope of definition.
There is likely a real big handful of folks who worked at least 13 to 25 weeks in each of the last 2 years at only 'cat adjusting.
But, isn't there armfulls, truckloads, or busloads, who were less productive (in terms of weeks worked) than the last category, in that time period, within the work model product of the 'cat adjuster'?
That has left a lot of product on the shelf, and hence a big supply glut, and is a big motivator for sticking that 'sale' or 'discount' tag on.
In the meantime, parallel to the actions of the traditional product; the buyers of the product, those that set the demand, have reached certain determinants that are adversely affecting the purchase of the traditional product as follows -
(a) the level of desire has dropped off
(b) in the opinion of the buyer, there are substitute products that compete (i.e. call centers)
(c) the diminishing marginal utility effect is in play, which forces the price down for the traditional product
With these forces at play in our marketplace, the erosion will continue and there is no likelihood of a price increase.
I go back to the three basic options I suggested earlier in this post; pick any one of them, the more picked the better. That is what is required to counter the current spiral of the traditional 'cat adjuster' product. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 20:35:19
|
Clayton, I appreciate this thread, and honestly believe you and I could sit down and have a marvelous evening over drinks, discussing the nuances of the topic; perhaps best if we both reread and reviewed our college level Econ 101 texts beforehand.
But I do think we are trying to talk about things which are really quite simple, yet by using the 'language' and 'theories' of economics (which everyone might not be familiar with nor understand), readers are losing the thrust of the topic, as well as it's importance, by our doing that.
Perhaps we need to go back and start again from the question I originally posed, which is whether demand is created by Mother Nature or by the vendor/carrier.
Unlike the real world of economics, regardless of what we label it or which role a player is assigned to, in trying to neatly categorize the different players into the various economic roles: supply, demand, currency, consumption, we must not fail to realize that the demand for the adjustment of a claim is not an optional 'purchase' but rather one required by law and contract.
Again, please don't take this as a personal criticism of the thread, nor anything you or others have said. Because I have had some exposure to Econ 101, I am following what you are saying, and generally agreeing with you. But in honesty, you are so very well ahead of me in both your knowledge and the refreshment of the economic principals and theories, that I honestly literally have to go pull out the old college text and read for quite a while to keep up with you, to fully comprehend exactly what you are saying and meaning.
I suppose what I am asking, is if there isn't an easier way to express the principles of what you are saying, without running the risk of trying to do it be relying on economic terms which many may not be familiar with?
I'll abide by your wisdom in any event and think the topic is both timely and important, as I have said before. You're on the right track, if you can only find a more meaningful way of presenting it so as to allow the readers to understand and learn.
Clayton, perhaps another idea would be for you to set up an educational thread (similar to the CPCU Econ course) wherein you lead and mentor a discussion of Econ 101 for Adjusters and Insurance, starting with the basic concepts and proceeding from there. |
Edited by - JimF on 12/11/2002 20:48:13 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 01:23:47
|
Lets get 'econ 101' and my grasp of it straight first and on the table. It is not my thing, other than being an interested reader and follower of the issues from time to time and of its business applications to me as a small business. I am not the one to present an educational thread on 'econ 101'.
However, I'll take the opportunity to try and give the same mesaage without the baggage of the terms. I'll take it as yet another opportunity to explain the plight I see that is causing a decline in the measured value of the traditional cat adjuster. It as well, allows me to again express the steps that I believe could be taken to take the 'cat adjuster' away from the traditional parameters and aid the independent contractor in creating for themselves a new value added benefit to take to their marketplace.
If or when the bell tolls marking the end of the 'traditional era' of this niche, the satisfaction is not in having been the village crier; but will be found with my respect for those who did what they could - individually or collectively - to prepare and rise above it.
The existing 'business system' of the cat claim niche has the vendor creating the demand for the cat adjuster, but in essence they are just an intermediary business unit established because of their entrepreneurial spirit to capture a need to service a void between the storm event and the carriers obligation to deal with that storm event. The vendor simply provides an organizational service need to the carrier during times of high units of unexpected (but annually predicted) claims arising from storm events. How and why there are so many of these vendors is beyond me. Likely it is not unlike the presence today of so many Ford dealerships, each selling the same thing - in the same price range - with a different jingle. To me the key to both, regarding the success of any of them is their 'organizational service management'; i.e. how can they (a cat vendor or a Ford dealer) provide the customer service to their respective clients to keep and develop a sustainable advantage.
In the meantime, the cat adjuster - that person with some policy knowledge, adequate construction knowledge, estimating and computer proficiency, able to work independently to inspect and estimate weather related damage - sits by virtually as pawns to the vendors in a basket that contains names that are recycled by vendors to carriers.
If there had to be a head count today of people who wanted to say they were a 'cat adjuster' with some reasonable expectation of potential deployment - how many would there be? Is there really 1,500, or have the numbers swollen to about 2,000? I'd like to hear some thoughts - with some supporting opinions - on that.
Because of what I have said so far, I believe and say again, the independent contractor who depends on cat work, is enslaved to the vendor by their solitary bondage to the 'storm claim'.
The carriers need these 'organizational service management units' as vendors. Obviously, carriers can not staff claims people for these storm event blips in claims units, nor can they add administrative staff to gear up at storm event time to contract direct with adjusters to deal with storm unit claims.
Everyone knows - you, me, vendors and carriers; that there is more than the required supply of both warm and able bodies to deal with claims from a storm.
That makes it easy for the carrier in many regards, a supply of people to handle the work is not an issue, there is an abundance of vendors vying for the opportunity to organize the claims event for the carrier. The carrier has no need to suppress any inclination of forcing the price up for the work. The two factors mentioned above will continue to stagnate the pricing or likely even drive it lower.
At the same time, carriers are looking for alternate ways to have the same job done in a different way; i.e. the claims call center. This job is also made easy for them - the same two reasons above - plus technology vendors developing 'desk top solutions' which takes much of the guess work out of the process if less experienced people are used. But this method gives the carrier the control of the process that they didn't have in the traditional process method. The vying vendors are now no more than bulk personnel placement agencies supplying the bodies that the carriers accept on contract with no need to pay any benefits. The control the carrier gains is a coveted prize. There is no point in detailing this control, other than to suggest its gain in the call center makes its absence in the traditional method really stand out.
So I don't blame the carriers at all for what they are doing or why.
The vendoors will do whatever a carrier wants - that is their source of income. The vendors inability to at times comply with the promises made, further strengthen the carrier's resolve to gain control.
So here you are today - more of you than what is reasonably required. Generally, and it is not my intent or wish to stomp on any toes, a group with a limited skill set that is focused only on weather perils. A group generally perceived as a group of bodies, more so than individuals with varying levels of insurance skills. A group of very independent people who are totally dependent on vendors trying to please their customer the carrier. You are independent but you have no input in the pricing of your services.
I think there is a lot that can be grasped from my last post and my analogy of you as a product.
I think there are three fundamental things that the traditional cat adjuster can do to free themselves from their bondage of the 'storm claim'. One of the things is in your complete individual control and the other two are more easily accomplished collectively.
(1) You must give yourself more diversity, have more useful options so you can create a greater demand for your individual services in the insurance industry. Get past the weather perils in your skill set on insurance claims. Get education, training and experience in many of the other required needs of an insurance company. Don't keep your eggs all in one basket. You have control over this item. You can reach out with the core skill set you have and learn to do other revenue producing services needed by carriers, and in turn expand that to other private industry where those newly acquired skills are transferrable. This one is entirely up to you, the work is out there, you don't need any collective group to walk the trail with you.
(2) In the big picture of traditional cat work, the work product produced is not consistent in quality or technique. That is a fact, or there would not be the abundance of 'clean up' or re-opens that exist. This has to stop. You can pass the buck and say it's the vendors fault for allowing it to happen, or relate it to the level of compensation paid; but they are excuses and do nothing to solve the problem. You can say it is not your problem - it is someone else doing the mess - but it is your problem. You have to recognize that it is your problem and do something about it, because it is reflecting on you as a participant in this market niche. There seems to be two simple choices - fix it or stop it.
To fix it you must take the poor performer aside and determine if the root of the problem is knowledge, attitude or effort. With that determined, offer to help.
To stop it, if the knowledge level is clearly insufficient or the attitude and effort are beyond repair, you must do what is required to get that person out of your work stream. Radical, but consider the success of the nationally implemented 911 system for having impaired drivers removed from the road by participating and concerned public. They are doing it for their own good, as you must do to take this undesirable element out of the field.
(3) The cat game is too easy to get in to, an obvious contributor to your increased number of bodies. Carriers serve their own interests by some of their own certification programs. Some are helpful, some are useful; most do little to measure an individual's skill set. A good example of this is the evolution of the FWUA cert program from the 90's to what it is today. The horror stories created the need and it evolved into a two stage process because of continuing horror stories. There is little general knowledge gained from one carrier's cert program to another carrier's needs.
This niche needs to standardize proficiency levels. I've said all I can say about that in another forum; where little interest was raised.
If you don't do this the 'warm bodies' syndrome will contribute quickly to the demise of this traditional niche. If the carrier proceeds with their initiatives to standardize proficiencies at their level, and this niche sits back, you will quickly morf into a dinosaur much as the typist became who would not let go of her IBM Selectrix typewriter, or the middle manager who would not ditch his dictaphone and learn keyboard skills.
All of this - every bit of it - affects the supply and demand issues facing the traditional cat adjuster niche.
Now I've gone on and on, and I apologize for belaboring my points. I am in the twilight of my insurance career, and long ago came to realize that 'change' is a constant in the business world; I ramble only because I care. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 06:49:55
|
| Excellent Post Clayton. |
|
|
|
tomgriffin56
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2002 : 19:28:33
|
Clayton and Jim,
I appreciate your posts on this thread and cannot believe that no one else has jumped in. The apparent lack of concern in this subject astounds me. This discussion goes to the very core of our livelihood and should be hoppin'!
I have noticed a lack of participation on this site before but thought that others, like I did the first year or so, were just lurking until they had enough info to figure out if they had a shoe in their mouth or not. Apparently this is not the case. Are IAs so independent that they won't even participate at this level? |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2002 : 22:11:24
|
Well Tom, you think you are astounded, I'm baffled and feeling quite foolish. With all the ballywho and bellyache I've heard in the last 2 years, about all the issues and reasons why adjusters were not working more; I'm at a real loss to understand this apparent apathy. The issues go way beyond any 'fee schedule' rates and percentages of it; but that appears to be what has stuck in people's minds - but that ain't it.
Being a simple person, I look for simple answers. I can only walk away from this sensing there are only a few answers to this apathy.
(a) the messenger is not conveying the message correctly
(b) people don't care, too many in the community were just trying to be / wanted to be a cat adjuster; and just took a "flyer" at it on spec.
(c) people want to be fed the answers, without participating in developing the issues
(d) it is easier to take another 'job' route, than to work at being a professional and busy claims person
(e) people are afraid to speak up
I was going to say it is unfortunate, but maybe it isn't. Anyway, this thread and the marketing thread I started, were just the 2nd and 3rd step along a 6 or 7 step trail, I had wanted to progress with this through to March.
I just wanted to try and give something back by providing ideas and methods, with this latest effort on CADO. It would have worked if there was participation from a wide range of folks who cared, and were willing to discuss and critique how we can adapt to our changing profession |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2002 : 22:16:10
|
Tom and Clayton: maybe all the cat adjusters are out shopping for Christmas with all that money they made this year in order to spur the economy.
I don't understand it either. |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2002 : 22:40:38
|
WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US !
Could it possibly be that the MAJORITY of cat adjusters left in the business today are a product of what the carriers have been PAYING for over the past few years. The GOOD adjusters I know are all staying fairly busy. What is needed is a MAJOR cat like Andrew to wake up the insurance companies that have been screwing the adjusters. |
|
|
|
tomgriffin56
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2002 : 17:03:36
|
Well, if you don't mind and would be willing to stick your oars in from time to time on a limited discussion of this I will continue to stick my 2 cents worth in.
Clayton, by your comments I believe that you think that the product (us) has to change in order to affect the pricing. It also seems that you believe that the product also has to expand its usefulness and quality in order to affect the markets perception of it. Am I close? (I really think I may be sticking my neck out here)
I said before that I could only think of three things that would affect market conditions and of those three there are only two that the product could change. One is the number willing to go out for a given rate. The other is increased licensing requirements (I'm not sure how effective we would be in influencing this factor, but it is a possibility).
After thinking about your post it seems that an obvious increase in quality of a substantial number of IAs could drive the market to not accept the lesser quality at the going rate. This would only work if it was obvious to the carrier that there would be a substantial downside financially to using the inferior quality product. After many years dealing with the military, the government and large corporate purchasing departments, I'm not sure that this is doable.
The other side of this is how do we as the product drive up our own quality? Especially in the numbers necessary to force the issue on the market?
Mentoring is in many ways the best means of improving individual work product, but has the downside of a lack of consistency that a carrier or large corporation might insist on.
Cookie cutter training could meet the needs of the carriers if implemented properly but has the downsides of multiple carriers with different requirements and different states with different requirements. This is besides the sometimes lower quality of personal drive and initiative brought about by this type of training.
Wow, I just took off there, didn't I?
Now, this has all been about quality of the product. The other aspect was usefulness. This is a little different matter. We, as the product, could influence our range of usefulness with a little individual initiative and additional training. We would also, however, have to change our mindset from cat adjuster to adjuster and narrow the distance between ourselves and the staff folk. (I believe I just heard a shriek from GB.) I'm not sure that this is something that the majority of catadjusters would be willing to do. There is too much of the "Independent" in us to do this. If we wanted to be staff adjusters we wouldn't be starving right now or putting up with the 16 hour a day/7 day a week storms.
Have I got it about right? Let me know what you think about my musings and whether or not you disagree or if I'm missing something. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2002 : 17:56:34
|
Justin, if all that is wrong with 'cat adjusters' can be put into a simple phrase - you nailed it! If the 'us' is cat adjusters, then as a group, they truly are the 'enemy', their own worst enemy. There are only a few other 'hostile' forces affecting this lot, but they are a distant 2nd and 3rd.
If your reference to "PAYING" relates to the imposed fee schedules as a cause of our decline, I disagree; I believe it is quite a minor specific factor.
If your reference to "PAYING" relates to the imposed fee split arrangement as a cause of our decline, I agree; I see this as the 2nd adverse specific factor contributing to our decline.
The carriers have not been 'screwing' the adjusters, as you have suggested they are. I stand firmly behind my thoughts stated on this earlier up in this thread. It is the vendors who are driving the price points.
The insurance industry can not afford an 'Andrew' type event, certainly not before 2004. Aside from that issue, if such an event occured it would be the last bell tolling the end of cat adjusting as you know it, due to the current state of the general cat personnel. It would be a great short term gain for whoever the 'us' is. However, by the time the dust settled on the first 5000 claims a clear picture would exist to the carriers that would cause them to commit to never allowing that to happen again in that traditional manner; without their future control of all aspects. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2002 : 19:14:08
|
The product is on the shelf and there is not much demand for the generic, that is those without specialty training or the real talented. That leaves about 90 %. Could this trend continue, I think so. As improved weather forcasting and our satelite system we are better prepared for events that provide the market. We have no control over the market, that leaves us with price control and quality of product. Right now its a buyers market, and the buyer is looking for quality at a dirt cheap price, and getting it.
The vendor is the peddlar, selling our wares, he loads up with two bushels of oranges and only sells half a dozen, naturally he is going to pick the best because he wants to sell again. We can not blame the vendor for that, he wants repeat business and cash flow. He also must be prepared for the big event, therefore he tries to maintain a roster of Oranges (adjusters).
I think from a personal position my aim is to work for a carrier, and probably at dirt cheap price because of the tax and SSI. I couldn't afford a big salary because it would also effect my retirement income. Danged if I want to give that away just to work. Over thirty thousand and I would have to give up 33% of my retirement and ssi for every dollar I made over that amount, that is not including the tax on my income. Its a no win situation. Another plus is I have health insurance for life.
My goal at first was to try for CAT work, but with the glut, that doesn't seem to be an option.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Supply and demand ??
Forum Locked
