The insurance industry by the numbers
Posted by Mason Power - December 4th, 2009 at 08:12:29 amAccording to this week’s webinar produced by TechDecisions and conducted by SMA:
4,200………is the number of carriers in North America including Life and Property / Casualty (probably only top-level companies – it’s usually quoted as 6,000 including subsidiaries of these 4,200) (see breakdown by tier in the nearby image)
$1.3 trillion…..the total premium for these 4,200 carriers (and their subsidiaries)
2,500,000….the total employees for these 4,200 carriers
$50 billion….the total technology spend for these carriers
Filtering for the list of property & casualty carriers in North America:
3,000………the number of carriers
$475 billion…..the total premium for these 3,000 carriers
78 %…the percentage of premium earned by only 4% of the carriers
83%….the percentage of IT spending by these 4% of the carriers
Looking at the vendor landscape:
1,000+….the number of IT vendors serving the P&C market 
500….the number of these 1,000 that have insurance content
178/121….of these 1,000 vendors, 178 sell claims systems and 121 sell underwriting systems
105….the number of these 1,000 that deal in distribution management/sales (broad definition)
61/19/25….of these 105 distribution providers 61 sell to carriers (including SwordAgencyPort), 19 to agencies, 25 sell to both
Despite recent consolidation among vendors, these facts paint a picture of P&C IT spending by component. If the P&C market only bought end-to-end solutions, you’d have a much lower vendor count. The data also underscores the importance of partnerships such as between AgencyPort and our Sword sister products (Ciboodle for multi-channel CRM and Intech for a global policy/claims/billing administration system) and among our other distinguished partners.
What do you conclude from the data? Drop your thoughts in the comments.
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Does this data indicate not only that the P&C market isn’t buying end to end solutions, but that one might not actually exist? Given the degree of specialty that a vendor would need to have to produce a superior solution in any one of these stacks, it’s hard to imagine that any one vendor, no matter how big, could do so in all of them.
Comment by Michael Albert — December 4, 2009 #