This debate seems to have died, but as a new user maybe I can kick start it again?
Firstly a vested interest - I work in the life industry, and have been involved in product development (but am hopefully objective with it . . .!)
Like many issues, I see some black and some white, with the truth being somewhat grey. A few arguments for both sides of the coin (concentrated on Life rather than General/P&C) are set out below.
Some examples of how the industry is innovative :
- Critical Illness cover: Although invented in Sth Africa, Irish insurers have really "picked up the ball and run with it", and have contributed many features now considered commonplace. Examples would be Hospital Cash Cover, Overseas Surgery Cover, "Double cover", Guaranteed rates etc. As a result the product (and market) is more developed than, for example, the UK.
- Investments: Consensus investment funds (led by irish Life but followed by all the major players), "nap" funds (e.g. New Ireland's Smart Stocks, Focus 15 etc) etc have all appeared as new ideas in the last few years and served customers reasonably well. Also, some of the "tracker" structures introduced here have been pretty well advanced compared to the "vanilla" products common in other markets . . .
- Unit linked: The vast majority of our products are now "unit linked" in some way . . big deal? Try telling that to continental Europe - unit linked is really only getting off the ground there, and we've had it for well over 20 years.
- Pensions: some of the charging structures currently available - particularly where commission is being funded by the insurer - could be regarded as having "pushed the boat out" further than in other countries (I have direct knowledge of Germany and the UK). You could argue this is a reaction to the greediness of brokers rather than true innovation (and you might have a point . . .) but it certainly represents Irish insurers taking risks with their product designs.
- "Niche" products: while I wouldn't say they were always a good thing (and in any case the recent tax change makes them redundant) some of the ideas around property/stockbroker "gross rollup" products demonstrated innovative thinking . . .
Ways in which it's not innovative:
- Administration: still very "paper heavy" and based on old technology. The life industry is unique in that it requires systems to support not just it's current product range but that sold over the past 40+ years too . . . and in a small market like Ireland the capex/disruption involved in migrating to new systems can be prohibitive. Impacts on product design too, mainly on speed to market of new ideas.
- Health: notwithstanding the strength of the Critical Illness market, health cover is still pretty dispersed - you have PMI (VHI/Bupa); PHI (Income protenction cover), CI; TPD (lump sum on disability).
- The last 3 years: I think there's been a real slowdown in true innovation over the last 3 years, primarily driven by the resources being devoted to relaunch whole product ranges for Gross Roll Up, implement disclosure etc. Then there have been mergers (NU+Hib+CGU, IL+IP, NI+Lifetime etc) and "imposed" products like SSIAs and PRSAs (by imposed I don't mean they're necessarily a bad thing, but the "shape" of them has largely been externally determined).
The above is not exhaustive and I'd happilly accept other views on some of the issues . . . if I was to sum up in one sentence I think there has been plenty of innovation in the past, but over the past few years innovative thinking has been diverted to other issues at the cost of genuinely new product ideas.