Jonathan said:
This doesn't by the way legitimise the argument that you're better off
putting money in a building society. Insurance is about transfer of risk.
If you put the money in a building society you haven't transferred the risk
at all. I once saw somebody fall apart because their £4 million nightclub
had burned down and they had cancelled the insurance to save money a year or
two earlier. Their entire life's work was in ashes because they hadn't
transferred risk - not nice.
Whether you are better off paying the price to transfer the risk or
retaining the risk and mitigating it by accumulating cash is entirely
dependant on the price and your personal exposure to risk.
IME, insurers seem to want 10% of the bike's value pa in order to
receive the risk. Let's, for the sake of argument, make the assumption
that this ensures a rapid and full payout if the risk matures. ie an
equal service level to self-insuring.
The insurer's assessment of risk, and therefore their price for
transferin the risk, is not based on your particular circumstances and
habits and I suggest that, for us sophisticated bikies with expensive
bikes, our exposure is appreciably lower than that of the wider
population. We use decent and multiple locks. We understand the
differences between "good" and "bad" places to leave a bike. We may
share local intelligence as to locations particularly prone to bike
theft. At home our bikes are more likely to be secured and/or alarmed.
Finally, if we self-insure and retain the risk, we do not have factor in
the cost of fraudulent claims.
I can't speak of the cost/benefit of nightclub insurance but I am clear
that there is no value in the current range of bike insurance. Far
better value to retain the risk, mitigating it with cash and minimising
it with locks and awareness.