View more on these topics

Sex and the annuity

Arguments both for and against EU advocate-general Juliane Kokott’s demand that gender underwriting be outlawed are powerful. But applying anti-discrimination principles to insurance will always be problematic as underwriting is all about treating different groups of people differently.

With the European Court of Justice set to make a final ruling on the subject in a few months’ time, the ABI is lobbying hard to get an exemption.

You might expect all UK life offices to rubbish Kokott’s argument, yet Legal & General pension expert Adrian Boulding thinks she is right and says a far greater influence on longevity is ethnic origin, a factor we would never dream of using to underwrite insurance products.

Boulding’s argument has considerable weight. While the ethnic minority groups anti-discrimination supporters want to protect would be better off in terms of annuity rates if under-writing was permitted on such a basis, there would be uproar if that translated through to worse rates for other forms of insurance – and rightly so.

Selecting against people on grounds of ethnic origin is discriminatory. But when it comes to insurance, that argument is further complicated by today’s market.

While you cannot discriminate according to what passport somebody holds, you can on where in the UK people live. The deep-fried Mars Bar eaters of Glasgow or the pork scratching munchers of my native Wolverhampton for that matter may be a cliche of unhealthy living but they rightly get more for their annuity pound than those in better off areas. Meanwhile, they generally have to stump up more for their car insurance.

According to Kokott: “Gender, like race and ethnic origin, is inseparably linked to the insured person as an individual, over which he or she has no influence.”
But the same could be said of other genetic dispositions that qualify people for higher annuity rates and higher life and medical insurance premiums.

Do we allow underwriting in relation to some genetic differences that manifest themselves in medical conditions but not gender? And when it comes to medical underwriting, how do you treat conditions specific to each sex?

The ABI’s moratorium on using genetic information remains in place until November 2011. As long as it does so, we are limiting our underwriting to information we can access without having to do genetic tests – and gender is one such set of information.

But however you look at it, grouping individuals on grounds of gender and charging them more as a result has to be sex discrimination. It seems futile to argue otherwise. So it becomes an issue of whether the insurance industry should have an exemption to the EU’s equal treatment directive.

For the exemption to be taken away we would need to know that women will actually be better off to the extent that men’s rates get worse as a result of the change. Given the industry’s track record of transparency when it comes to how annuities are priced, it is easy to agree with those who believe they will not.

One expert suggested to me that only if annuity providers actually publish the loadings they give for every part of their product pricing could we be confident that a switch to unisex pricing would not be used to boost life office profits.

Furthermore, if the system is changed it would distort the market as annuity providers would do all they can to avoid getting women customers and motor insurers avoiding men.

The current annuity system discriminates on gender in the same way the group income protection system discriminates on age. The question is, do you need to do anything about it?

John Greenwood is editor of Corporate Adviser


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Richard Brown, Managing Director, Moneynotion Limi 2nd December 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Bearing in mind how poorly most of the population have provided for pensions, AND that women have generally provided less than men, equalising annuity rates is going to hurt us all. Women will get better rates on smaller funds and men will get worse rates on larger (still inadequate) funds.

    This can only hurt the nation en masse. Isn’t it time we told Europe where to get off when it comes to interfering with our financial services? I expect to have to follow French rules if I sold product in France and I expect them to follow our rules if they sell here. Why should it be the same rules everywhere?

    Another example of how we’ve lost the plot!

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers. Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm