The last will be first, and the first will be last:tension in the InsurTech entrant and incumbency environment

entrants and incumbents

 

 

Funny how things can change- one week riding the funding train, next week sitting in the startup exit car.  Skinny jeans, Vans and untucked shirts change into a wardrobe that has a descriptor- business casual.  Same idea in start-up accounting- paid in option value becomes the eagle flying twice a month and performance bonuses.  Evolving from a role that suggests you handle all tasks to the paint drying on the corner cubicle placard that reads, “Chief Marketing Officer.”  Startup to post-IPO organization, and in time-incumbency. Welcome to quarterly reports and silo culture.  All the same customers, however.

An unexpected tension exists between insurance start-up culture with the unicorn hunt, and the cash flush, ‘we are happy with a combined ratio under 100’ culture of the incumbents- the status of industry legitimacy is pursued but once gained is treated like being in the clique the other players deride.  It’s clear that much of insurance innovation is founded in the existing industry being seen as an unresponsive, callous, cash grabbing, seldom paying monolith.  A product that is sold, seldom bought, with businesses that hide behind clever spokespersons to craft a façade of ‘hip’.

And the legacy monolith?  Always comfortable riding a train of convention.  Think of it- incumbent carriers know the route they traverse, little option to change the route because the route is like a rail track.  Hook up the cars, open the throttle of written premiums, hope there aren’t unexpected steep grades that might depress the profitable results of the trip.  Not that incumbents don’t occasionally start a string of cars that take a new path, but seldom does the main string of cars slow to allow connection of the cars that tried the new path.

Consider the recent comments cited from the Financial Times attributed to UK-based insurer, Aviva’s former CEO, Mark Wilson:

“(Aviva) took space in an old garage in London’s Hoxton Square to house the digital projects that he believed would transform the insurance company. The idea was that, away from the actuaries and the bureaucrats at head office, trendy millennials with coding skills could let their creativity loose and turn Aviva into an insurer fit for the future.” 

Not waiting for that parallel-running train to catch speed, the current CEO for the firm, Maurice Tulloch, suggests the firm’s course remains upon the main track, “and (Aviva) is set to take a more hard-nosed look at the garage and the projects that are housed there.”  Seemingly not patient enough for results to take hold, and in probability a disconnect between the ‘garage’ and the existing culture.

Even the Street is discouraging alternate routs for the insurance incumbent. From the same article is found:

“Huge amounts of money were being invested (at Aviva) and it looks like it got out of control,” said Barrie Cornes, analyst at Panmure Gordon. “Reining it in is the right thing to do. They need to look at the costs and it wouldn’t surprise me if they looked to cut some of the expense,” he added.  Looks like?  Based on what?

It was controversial how much he talked about it. He said that pulling back some of the digital investments could add 5 percent a year to Aviva’s earnings per share. Few people expect the garage to close, at least in the short term. Aviva is not the only insurance company to sharpen the focus of its tech investments in recent years.  (thanks, Graham Spriggs for the share of the article)

Five percent per year additional profit by reining in the firm’s potential future.  Huh.   If “All the Insurance Players will be InsurTech”, by InsurTech influencer, Matteo Carbone voices the insurance industry’s future, a five percent savings to the bottom line might be better spent on maintaining competitive advantage by leveraging tech and process innovation.  It’s that tension between quarterly expectations and seeing down the road.

Along the same line, incumbents that take the path of innovation often stray from the InsurTech digital path when results aren’t immediate.  A key player in the US P&C market that touts itself as a data company has initiated many digital service changes; same company however reaches for the analog diagnosis methods when unexpected (read as not positive) results are experienced.  Digital/AI innovations should be addressed using the same AI if there’s to be an effective feedback loop, right?  Not if the quarterly results demon is waiting.   No naming names because all are guilty of the method- it’s too hard to change right away.

A recent announcement by Lemonade regarding the firm considering exercising an IPO, further exemplifies how a poster-child insurance start-up may migrate to insurance ‘legitimacy’, and potentially step aside from its game theory approach to serving customer needs.  The very basis of the firm’s leading principle supporting its charitable giving approach to claim handling/premiums, the Ulysses Contract, may be preempted post-IPO by the quarterly ratio chase and Daniel Schreiber’s hands will be tied no more, and will become available to take the cash or craft the next opportunity.  The firm has traveled far from the day where the first seventy renters’ policies were observed rolling in through the company website.

Not that there aren’t innovating companies/startups that have either migrated to conventional insurance forms through investment exit or by IPO- see German Family Insurance-Deutsche-Familienversicherung, the first European InsurTech IPO, or firms that have made effective partnerships with incumbent carriers, e.g., Lucep PTE that forged an effective working basis with MetLife Portugal .  Each of those firms found effective ways to bridge the perceived gap between innovation and incumbency.

It just doesn’t matter which insurance route your organization is following- incumbent or entrant, each customer is dear, all firms need to act with a sense of customer service urgency.  Today’s startup chasing seed money is next year’s IPO, and in quick time an incumbent that even newer entrants are focused on disrupting.  And there’s no reason skinny jeans can’t be worn at one’s corner cubicle while the wearer peruses the corporate 10-Q or ECOFIN dictates.

image source

Patrick Kelahan is a CX, engineering & insurance professional, working with Insurers, Attorneys & Owners. He also serves the insurance and Fintech world as the ‘Insurance Elephant’.

I have no positions or commercial relationships with the companies or people mentioned. I am not receiving compensation for this post.

Subscribe by email to join the other Fintech leaders who read our research daily to stay ahead of the curve. Check out our advisory services (how we pay for this free original research).

$100 Billion++ , is Softbank’s Vision fund blinding the market?

The tech IPO market is having a bonanza year so far and NASDAQ hit an all time high in April. However, confidence in the tech giants and their ethics in dealing with consumer data is perhaps at rock bottom. Cheap money is causing ballooning valuations. With Zoom, Pinterest, Lyft, Slack, Uber, WeWork all going for the big day at the market, are we witnessing a repeat of the dot com boom and bust?

Image Source

The other question to ask is “Is Technology the new Banking?”. As they say, “Follow the money” to catch the bad guys in crime stories. The other way to look at it is, when people make good money, they are often portrayed as the bad guys. The world loves to see them fall. Behavioural and philosophical points aside, several market trends are shouting out for caution.

Analytics company Intensity’s April prediction puts the chances of a recession happening in the next 18 months at 98.9% and in the next 24 months at 99.9%. They are expecting a recession to happen in October 2019. Out of curiosity, I went through all their previous months’ predictions, to check for consistency. The confidence levels had increased steeply between Aug-Sep 2018, and have stayed high since.

Irrational exuberance in the markets is on display yet again. The Crypto bubble burst two years ago, but didn’t cause much of a pain as the market cap was not big enough. But with tech stocks driven by late stage VCs like Softbank, we have more to lose.

Global debt levels are at an all time high at $244 Trillion, and almost everyday economists are writing about a crisis triggered by debt markets.

One of the key trends over the last two years in the VC industry is the rise of late stage venture funds. Softbank led the boom, with Sequioa and others following up with relatively modest sized funds to catch “Unicorns” before their big day in the public markets. The strategy is to get in, pump the firms with steroids and fatten them up for the markets to consume. In the process, make some huge multiples.

Softbank’s investment timeline: Source, Crunchbase

Some stats around the Softbank fund

  • $100 Billion to invest
  • ~$70 Billion deployed so far in about two years,
  • $15 Billion more
  • $10 Billion in Uber and $5 Billion in WeWork
  • Improbable, NVidia, Grab, Kabbage, Flipkart, Oyo, Slack, PingAn, Alibaba and more recently OakNorth are some big names in the porftfolio
  • $45 Billion from Saudi’s Sovereign Wealth Fund represents the biggest investor in the Softbank Vision Fund.

However, both Uber and WeWork have struggled to demonstrate a sustainable business model inspite of their rise. The Growth vs Profitability conundrum remains, and these two might well be case studies on how not to spend VC money, if (when?) their “Going-Public” goes sour.

The Softbank Vision fund could also be a case study of “How not to do Venture Capital”. As a late stage Venture Capital investor, they have an opportunity to look for firms with robust business models and help them go public.

One bright spot is their investment into OakNorth, a UK based Fintech, who tripled their profits in 2018.

The strategy with firms like WeWork or Uber should have been to identify where the business model needed tweaking and pivoting. That could be achieved with $100 Billion in the bank. As a fund with so much capital, they have a responsibility to make healthy VC investment decisions. Not just for their investors, but also for the markets.

I am sure Softbank will make handsome multiples when some of these shaky businesses go public. However, the success these firms managed with private money, would be hard to replicate in the stock market. If a few of them fail, that would trigger pain.

There is enough negative PR about the tech industry’s lack of ethics, diversity and how they manage data monopoly. Creating a bubble, riding it and exiting it before a market crash might just make Tech the New Banking. Softbank might have accelerated that process.

Arunkumar Krishnakumar is a Venture Capital investor at Green Shores Capital focusing on “Sustainable Deeptech Investments” and a podcast host.

I have no positions or commercial relationships with the companies or people mentioned. I am not receiving compensation for this post.

Subscribe by email to join the 25,000 other Fintech leaders who read our research daily to stay ahead of the curve. Check out our advisory services (how we pay for this free original research).