The Law of Unintended Consequences: How UK Insurance Regulation Made Things Worse
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Americans know it as Murphy’s Law. Britons call it Sod’s Law, to which Finagle’s Law adds “… at the worst possible time.”
The road to hell is famously paved with good intentions. Similarly, life teaches us that no good turn goes unpunished. All these laws and observations are subsets of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Karl Marx’s homeboy, Friedrich Engels, argued that history is nothing more or less than a record of unintended consequences. Unexpected outcomes fall into three groups: unanticipated benefits, unforeseen drawbacks and perverse results. Benefits happen rarely. Drawbacks occur when a good idea attracts an accompanying bad effect. Perverse results see a planned improvement make the problem worse.
A recent regulatory upgrading of motor and home insurance in the UK falls into the third category. In January 2022, the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates financial services and markets in Britain, acted to stop insurers enticing new customers by offering lower premiums than those available to renewing insureds. (Some magazines do the same to attract new readers.)
Before the upgrade, “80% of people were being undercharged, funded by the 20% who were loyal, and being overcharged,” said Stephen Kennedy of insurance pricing consultancy Pearson Ham Group. The policy was intended to make prices fairer and end the “loyalty penalty.” All very noble … and dead wrong. Not for nothing do critics refer to the FCA as the “fundamentally clueless agency.”
As a result of the change, motor and home premiums increased for everyone, customers old and new. An increase in claims is partly to blame, but the FCA’s interference made matters worse. Perverse result, indeed. Needing a new pricing model, insurers introduced a tiered range of alternative policies, began charging extra for “add-ons,” and increased deductibles.
You can’t blame them. With their pricing policies being dictated by the FCA, they had to find a way to remain profitable. Loath to admit the mistake the FCA had made, its director of insurance, Matt Brewis, said: “We acted to protect … consumers … and create a fairer … market for all.”
Hands up if you believe that life is fair or can be made fair. If your hand is up, you are either a dreamer or a four-year-old. (Probably the former: Not too many four-year-olds read.)
In 1936, sociologist Robert K. Merton (whom some credit with coining the term “unintended consequences”) listed five possible causes of unexpected outcomes.
They were: ignorance, based on incomplete analysis; believing that what worked in the past must apply to the present; immediate interests overriding long-term interests (vide politics); a set of values that may require or prohibit certain actions, even if an unwanted outcome is thereby likely; and finding solutions before a problem occurs, if the problem later doesn’t occur.
The FCA’s error falls into the fourth (and probably also the first) of those outcomes, but its basic error was thinking that the authority needed to be seen to do something, and that more regulation is always the something. Yet it so rarely is. &