Payment Protection Insurance Ripoff

I've just stumbled across this article on The Motley Fool. I'm surprised at the level of profits.

"Now, here's my confession. Before becoming a Foolish writer, I worked for several PPI insurers over an eleven-year period. My career included claims and legal roles before I settled into a marketing position. So, I know the industry very well, which is the reason why I decided to write this article. From my inside experience, I'm aware of so many problems with PPI that it's hard to know where to begin!

Nevertheless, here's an explanation of why I have never bought a PPI policy - and never will.

PPI is massively over-priced

Thanks to the UK public's insatiable appetite for credit, PPI premiums have soared over the last ten years, perhaps approaching £4 billion in

2002 alone.

However, only around 20% of total premiums collected is paid back to us in claims (and even less for the most expensive products). So, about 80% of the price we pay is pure profit for the lenders and insurers. This is a grossly excessive level: we pay around five times the net cost for PPI (what it costs the lenders and insurers to meet claims and admin expenses).

This over-pricing means that commissions we pay are absolutely vast. The PPI industry works hard to keep this secret from us: PPI is one of their most lucrative and profitable products. Last year alone, I would estimate that lenders and insurers shared profits from PPI of nearly £3 billion pounds!

Somewhat predictably, many of the most expensive policies are sold by the High Street banks and building societies, whose products can be up to ten times as expensive as the best-value policies. Conversely, there are a few praiseworthy online lenders that sell PPI policies at realistic prices, often at a fraction of what many mainstream lenders charge."

Reply to
Daytona
Loading thread data ...

By my estimate, the typical PPI policy costs about 8 times what equivalent or better cover costs from a decent insurance broker.

Eg MBNA charges 72p per 100 of statement balance. The *premiums* are calculated off the whole statement balance, but the *benefit* is limited to the *minimum* payment, i.e. 3% of the outstanding balance. So if you had a

1000 balance you'd pay 7.20 a month, but the maximum benefit would be 30. You'd only get it after 30 days and for a maximum of 12 months, so you'd never actually get more than 360. Meanwhile, your balance of 1000 would be racking up interest at whatever rate MBNA normally applies to your card - if it's 15% you're going to hand over about 120 in interest over that 12 month period so the true benefit is all of about 240.

If you wanted a benefit of 20 a month through someone like Goodfellows, who do mine, it's too small to quote for. Their minimum is 200 - 10 times what MBNA would pay - and they'd charge you a tenner a month for that. It also applies from day one.

So if they did a policy as tiny as MBNA, it would be 1. MBNA is around 7.7 times more costly for a lesser benefit.

Reply to
John Redman

Faulty maths here surely? If 20% is paid back, the cost of running and administering the scheme must come out of the remaining 80%, so it must be less than 80% profit?

Shim

Reply to
Shim

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.