Some firms ‘earn much more money than it costs to provide pay monthly insurance'
Some 'pay monthly' customers may also face a higher charge for the underlying insurance premium – a practice sometimes described as 'double dipping'.
Concerns have been raised that the decision to pay monthly may be factored into the pricing of the underlying insurance premium itself.
The Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) rules require firms should not increase the insurance premium to customers using premium finance without objective and reasonable basis for the change.
Some insurers have said the choice of payment method is correlated with insurance risk for those paying monthly.
The FCA's update paper on its premium finance market study said: 'If we see evidence of firms not having an objective and reasonable basis for taking such an approach, we will consider our supervisory approach on a firm-by-firm basis.'
The update added: 'Where firms charge for premium finance, revenues appear to materially exceed costs for some providers.
'Whereas the profit margin earned on a core insurance policy may be relatively low, we see margins on premium finance that are somewhat higher.
'Different business models will have different ways of recovering costs.
'In some cases, they recover all costs through the insurance product itself, or recoup returns on lower margin insurance product through higher APRs (annual percentage rates).'
The FCA's analysis found premium finance margins (revenue less economic costs as a proportion of revenue) ranging between 14% and 62% across insurers, intermediary lenders, intermediary brokers and specialist premium finance providers (SPFPs) in the period between 2018 and 2023.
SPFPs averaged the lowest margins out of these four, with a weighted average margin of 24% between 2018 and 2023.
Insurers had the highest weighted average margins of 53%, the regulator said.
Financial Conduct Authority">
Firms offering premium finance incur some operational costs, for instance staff, IT and compliance.
Lenders also incur funding costs or must sacrifice investment income by delaying the date of full payment, it added.
Consumer credit products are also priced to compensate firms for high levels of bad debt or default, among other costs.
The update said: 'Nevertheless, we find that some bad debt is incurred by premium finance lenders (with the ratio of bad debt to loan balanceranging from 0.6% for SPFPs to 1% for intermediary lenders) but not at the levels of other consumer credit products (1.9% for credit cards based on a sample of retail banks).'
The FCA said premium finance is an important way of paying for insurance, and in 2023 it was used for around 48% of motor and home policies.
For some consumers, premium finance is a choice, but for many, especially those in more vulnerable groups, it is a necessity because they cannot afford to pay annually, the regulator said.
In 2024, 60% of motor and 41% of home (buildings and contents combined) policyholders who paid by instalments did so because they could not afford to pay in a single annual payment, it added.
There is wide variation in the rates firms charge for paying by instalments.
Typically, when firms charge extra for premium finance, the APRs are in the range of 20% to 30% but almost 20% of consumers pay more than 30%, the report said.
Around 60% of consumers pay headline APRs that are between 20% and 30%.
This would cost an extra £19 to £28 on an illustrative home policy and £35 to £51 on an illustrative motor policy – suggesting that it costs consumers typically between 8% and 11% more to pay monthly rather than annually, the regulator said.
Interest rates on consumer credit vary across products and between consumers, but these APRs compare with monthly advertised interest rates in 2023 of 35% for overdrafts, 11% on a £5,000 personal loan and 23% for credit cards issued by financial institutions as reported by the Bank of England, the FCA's paper said.
It added: 'Our own data, which captures a larger proportion of the market including cards marketed as 'credit builders', shows average APRs on new credit card agreements ranged between 26-32% at the end of 2023.'
The cost of paying monthly also differs substantially between motor and home insurance, the FCA said.
More than a third of home insurance customers pay no more for paying monthly than annually, compared with less than 3% of motor insurance customers.
Some firms have indicated that cancellations and changes of policy tend to occur at a higher rate in motor than home, which leads to higher costs for providing motor insurance premium finance, the regulator said.
Zero per cent finance options for home insurance also seem to be more common than in motor insurance in part because there is greater prevalence of buying direct from the insurer, enabling firms to more easily offset the funding and operational cost of offering monthly payments.
The FCA now plans to carry out further analysis to look more closely at higher-priced products, the value these products provide, profitability, and the extent to which these prices are paid by vulnerable customers.
Where it finds products with prices which are not reflective of the value offered, the regulator said it will be challenging firms to make sure they have considered all these aspects fully.
The FCA will also investigate the extent to which consumers can effectively compare premium finance with other credit products.
Its premium finance market study was launched in October 2024 as part of wider work on motor and home insurance, following concerns that premium finance may not represent fair value for some customers and that competition may not be functioning effectively.
The FCA's findings are based on evidence and data that it has gathered from a request for information (RFI) from a sample of firms.
It is seeking comments to further inform the next phase of the market study, and is inviting views to be sent by 5pm on September 30 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
Plans for covers at a Grade II listed lido in Peterborough
Plans for mechanical covers at a city's Grade II listed open-air swimming pool to help reduce energy costs have been lido currently faces "significant financial challenges", according to council December a report highlighted the art deco-style facility costs more than £400,000 a year to run, including entrance covers would retain heat, "potentially extending the swimming season and increasing revenue", planning documents have stated. A heritage statement submitted to Peterborough City Council said the lido "stands as a distinguished example of interwar public leisure architecture".It has a 50 yard (45m) main pool, as well as learner and paddling statement said "careful consideration" was required "to ensure that the cover's materials and mechanisms are sympathetic to the existing aesthetic and do not detract from the building's historic ambiance".The plans - which have been submitted by the council - stated: "The retractable cover offers a cost-effective solution to enhance the lido's functionality without compromising its historic fabric."The running costs are expected to reduce as a result, which generates a saving in the best interest of the taxpayer." Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Times
11 minutes ago
- Times
A 20% return in 4 months? I'm riding the investment trust wave
When it comes to investing, there's a pretty simple motto that you will hear spouted by novices and experts alike: buy low, sell high. It is a mantra that needs little explanation. Try to buy when prices are low and avoid selling at a loss if you can (after all, you only crystallise a loss when you sell an asset). Traders do this on a daily basis, but long-term investors typically consider 'time in the market', rather than timing the market, to be the best way to ride out losses and ultimately make a profit. Since I'm invested for the long term, I lean away from trying to time the market. My diversified portfolio in theory should tick along nicely in the background, with enough exposure to different regions and sectors to weather short-term market movements. So I don't buy and sell based on headlines — usually. But this month has been an exception. This is because the Downing Renewables & Infrastructure trust, which invests in renewable infrastructure in the UK and northern Europe, has quickly become my best performing investment. I bought £500 of shares in a portfolio reshuffle in March, when the price was about 82p a share. Today it's worth just over £1 a share — a 20 per cent return in a few months. The jump is a result of the fact the trust, which had returned 6 per cent year-to-date in mid-June, is set to be bought and privatised by its biggest shareholder, Bagnall Energy, in a £175 million deal. The move places this price tag on the trust's assets and gives shareholders like me the right to £1.02 a share. My £500 investment is now worth about £600 in cash. Winner, winner for me — and a good sign for the investment trust sector as a whole. Investment trusts are similar to investment funds in that they aim to make money for their investors by buying shares and other assets. The difference is that unlike investment funds, investors buy and sell shares in investment trusts on the stock exchange the way they would Lloyds Banking Group or Microsoft. This means that the price you get for your investment when you sell is generally determined by what someone is willing to pay for it on the open market. The popularity of investment trusts (also known as investment companies or closed-ended funds) boomed in the 2010s, but the past few years have been tricky for the sector. There has been a prolonged spell of poor performance; the market was flooded with small trusts that struggled to last, and discounts widened massively. In the investment trust world, a trust is trading at a discount when its assets are worth more than the share price of the trust. It's a touch confusing, but an investment trust has two prices: its net asset value (NAV), which is the value of its investments, and its share price, which is the price you pay to buy shares in the trust. If a trust's NAV is worth more than its share price, it's trading at a discount. This usually means that the trust is out of favour. If the opposite is true, it means investors are willing to pay more than the trust's assets to buy shares, so the trust is in demand. • Our guide to investing in stocks and shares Isas A discount is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for new investors who may be able to bag a deal. But in January a whopping 322 of the 345 trusts listed on the website of the Association of Investment Companies were trading at a discount. Some had discounts as wide as 50 per cent, and the average at the end of 2024 was 15.3 per cent. This pointed to a general dampening of investor sentiment towards the investment trust sector. But the tide could be turning. For the first half of this year, the average discount narrowed to 13.9 per cent. Downing's buyout was one of six mergers and acquisitions to boost the price returned to shareholders. The Warehouse real estate investment trust is set to be bought by Blackstone, a move that will increase its share price to from 82.4p to £1.13 — a 39 per cent uplift. The Harmony Energy Income trust sold its entire portfolio to Foresight for 92.4p a share, which was about 80 per cent more than its shares were worth last year. Share buybacks, where a trust buys a portion of its shares to reduce the number of them in the market and boost the price for existing shareholders, are at a record high. There were almost a third more buybacks in the first six months of this year than there were in the first half of 2024, according to the Association of Investment Companies. Nick Britton from the association said: 'Wide investment trust discounts often spell opportunity for investors. This opportunity can be realised in different ways, such as the discount narrowing thanks to improving market sentiment; a merger or acquisition; or activist investors buying up deeply discounted trusts. • Why Gen Z are investing in gold 'In the past year we've seen all three of these. Given that the average investment trust discount is still in double digits, these trends probably have further to run.' It's not a slam dunk, but the sector is certainly moving in the right direction. Several trusts that have discounts of 10 per cent or more have stated their goal to narrow their figures to single digits, which should give investors a degree of hope that share prices will start to move in the right direction. So, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and reinvest the £600 in another investment trust — preferably one with a wide discount today that's on its way to narrowing. The question is, which one to choose?
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
An attempt to salvage the rubble of our investment thesis
Questor is The Telegraph's stock-picking column, helping you decode the markets and offering insights on where to invest We must now pick through the rubble of our investment thesis after last week's profit warning from landscaping and building and roofing products supplier Marshalls. The share price caved in, to leave us sitting on a nasty book loss of around 30pc and with a decision to make as to whether to cut and run, or to try and tough it out. We shall go for the latter, partly because we are habitually reluctant to liquidate a holding in a company where the shares are no higher than in 2000, and partly because we try to adhere to legendary investor Charlie Munger's assertion: 'You don't make money when you buy, and you don't make money when you sell. You make money when you wait.' The update was undeniably disappointing. In the first six months of the year, Marshall's revenues rose 4pc, as higher volumes offset lower prices. Roofing and building products both showed a higher top line, but landscaping offered a 1pc drop, and this is where the outlook turned ugly. Lower volumes, price competition, an unhelpful product mix and input cost inflation have left the unit near breakeven and weighed heavily on overall group profits. After the alert from the West Yorkshire-headquartered company, analysts slashed their earnings forecasts by a fifth for 2025 and by around a sixth for next year. The net result is that the shares are more expensive now than they were 15 months ago on an earnings basis, even after the share price calamity, thanks to those downgrades. That said, a forward price-to-earnings ratio of some 15 times does not seem so unappealing given the multiple is based on what should prove to be depressed profits. Marshalls made nearly 30p in earnings per share (EPS) in 2019, and the share price represents barely seven times that figure, which is a lot more enticing. Granted, that 30p number looks a long way away when the consensus analysts' forecast for 2025 is 14p, the macroeconomic backdrop does not feel unduly helpful, and even the putative recovery only takes EPS estimates to 17.5p by 2027. But management is already looking to take out further costs and at some stage it seems logical to expect further interest rate reductions from the Bank of England. Governor Andrew Bailey and the Monetary Policy Committee may need further signs of a cooling in inflation before it moves decisively to cut headline borrowing costs once more, although lower oil and gas prices (and thus energy price caps), a higher pound and softer economic activity thanks to tariffs and trade wars could all provide encouragement in this respect in the second half of 2025 and beyond. Marshall's share price may well respond to the prospect of such monetary stimulus long before sales and profits start to motor. In the meantime, we must wait, and the balance sheet enables us to do so. Admittedly, there is relatively little asset backing in the business, given how more than 80pc of the £661m in net assets are intangible. But net debt is relatively low, even including pensions and leases, and interest cover is still around four times, even using the downgraded forecasts for this year. Questor says: buy Ticker: MSLH Last share price: 203p Update: Shaftesbury Capital We went looking for trouble at Marshalls and found it, but another contrarian pick has maybe just started to go our way. Real estate investment trust (Reit) Shaftesbury Capital also had a share price chart that went from the top left of the screen to the bottom right when we first studied it, but in this case we have accrued a one-sixth paper gain with 3.5p a share in dividends on top. This week's interim results suggest there could be more to come. The owner of large chunks of Chinatown, Soho, Carnaby Street and Covent Garden pointed to another increase in the net asset value (Nav) of its property portfolio, thanks to higher rents, increased letting activity and lower vacancies. That Nav was also underpinned by the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund's swoop for a 25pc stake in Shaftesbury Capital's Covent Garden assets at a cost of £570m this spring. The Reit's shares still trade at a discount to Nav of more than a fifth and further asset growth looks possible. As with Marshalls, interest cuts would also be helpful for both the underlying business and sentiment toward the shares. Lower borrowing costs can boost economic growth and reduce the company's interest bill on its debt, while a lower return on cash can also make the dividend yields offered by Reits look relatively more attractive.
