Steadfast Insurer Value Score - Report 2 (March 2023)

Steadfast Insurer Value Score Network Report Network report #2 (March 23) STEADFAST BROKER NETWORK

1 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Table of contents

Introduction

3

Section 1 Comparative analysis – June 2022 to March 2023

4

Overall results – as at 31 March 2023 – Graph 1

7

Overall results including claims satisfaction – Graph 2

8

Overall results including claims satisfaction & Broker Survey feedback – Graph 3

9

Benchmarking against objectives

10

Relationship between SIVS & SCTP objectives

11

Section 2 SIVS on individual classes of risk

13

Individual product results - (as at 31 March 2022)

14

Section 3 Broker Survey Results

33

Breakdown by classes of risk

34

Improvements required by our network brokers

44

Section 4 Methodology

2 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

45

Introduction

Steadfast Group is pleased to bring you the second version of this report, which features data primarily captured as at 31 March 2023.

The report is a significant commentary on changes observed during June 2022 to March 2023, together with insights on the outlook for the value provided by each of the insurers to the Steadfast broker network and their clients.

To ensure a more “reader friendly” report format we have not only moved commentary on individual classes of risk to Section 2 of this report; but we have now added Section 3 which is a summary of the results from our Broker Survey on insurers conducted early April 2023. The Broker Survey is our annual feedback survey from brokers in the field on the performance of insurers.

This encapsulates observation and commentary from the front line which shouldn’t be ignored.

What has been observed?

Clearly the Underwriting Agencies and limited focus Insurers resonate with our brokers and their clients. The major insurers are struggling to produce similar service levels. However, it would be folly to feel that Underwriting Agencies are thus the preferred answer.

Without the major general insurers, many of our clients would not enjoy the breadth of policy classes of insurance coverage they have. The existence of both is an equilibrium the marketplace must have.

It clearly shows that movement will occur when better service levels are available, particularly as we are now seeing the emergence of Insurance alternatives that were unavailable six months ago.

We hope you find the results and observations of use in your dealings with Insurers.

3 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Section 1 Comparative analysis June 2022 to March 2023

The Steadfast Group has a very mature portfolio of Insurance Risks and a long-standing relationship with most Insurers.

As such, you would expect no significant movements in GWP nor significant change in the value provided to Steadfast brokers and their clients.

Table A As expected, the existing four major insurers remain the same. However, further down the ranking, we see the beginning of an upward movement of some new insurers compared to some of our existing traditional Insurers.

Could this be the march of new capacity to pinpoint opportunity while not subject to legacy?

Table B Earlier, we highlighted the significance of Underwriting Agency capacity to our clients.

What must be addressed is that many of these Underwriting Agencies operate with the backing and support of the major general insurers. On one hand, they act as competition to the insurers and on the other hand, they don’t exist without the backing of these major General Insurers. As such, we incorporate many Underwriting Agencies within the scores of the relevant major General Insurers. Table B is an update of this relationship.

The Insurer Value Score The score shown is a representation of: • The scale of the insurer portfolio participation and the number of risk classes supported.

• The Broker Survey which focuses on claims satisfaction and insurer performance commentary.

• Insurer’s progress on the transition to SCTP being the prime transaction method.

• Other factors as detailed in Table A.

4 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Table A: Major metrics within the SIVS

Graphic representation of the major metrics within the SIVS. Number of Classes of Risk Supported

Steadfast Insurer Survey Ranking

Support Northern Australia Property

Participate in Claims Database

Triage Aligns to Portfolio

Brokers are Satisfed with Claims Performance

Broad Support or Specialists

—

19 out of 19

1st 

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Broad Support

2nd

2nd —

16 out of 19

2nd 

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Broad Support

127

4th

3rd



14 out of 19

3rd —

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Broad Support

296

124

3rd

4th



14 out of 19

4th —

Yes

No

Yes

No

Broad Support

Vero

296

81

7th

5th



10 out of 19

5th —

Yes

No

No

Yes

Broad Support

Zurich

296

77

5th

6th



12 out of 19

9th 

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Broad Support

Hollard

296

73

6th

7th



5 out of 19

6th 

No

Yes

No

No

Specialist

Miramar

296

47

9th

8th



4 out of 19

11th 

Yes

Yes

No

No

Specialist

Blue Zebra

296

45

14th

9th



7 out of 19

8th 

-

-

-

No

Specialist

AIG

296

38

8th

10th 

12 out of 19

8th 

No

No

No

No

Broad Support

NTI

296

28

10th

11th 

5 out of 19

13th 

-

-

-

Yes

Specialist

Dual

296

28

11th

12th 

7 out of 19

7th 

-

-

-

Yes

Specialist

Berkley

296

17

13th

13th —

5 out of 19

10th 

-

-

-

No

Specialist

Liberty

296

15

12th

14th 

8 out of 19

14th —

-

-

-

-

Specialist

GT (Global)

296

11

15th

15th —

2 out of 19

12th —

-

-

-

Yes

Specialist

Berkshire

296

11

16th

16th —

9 out of 19

14th —

-

-

-

-

Specialist

Metrics

Top Score Possible (All Insurers)

Insurer Score – Include Agencies Support

Insurer SIVS Ranking – Report #1

QBE

296

201

1st

1st

CGU

296

167

Chubb

296

Allianz

5 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Insurer SIVS Ranking – Report #2

Table B: Insurer support of agencies

Insurer support of agencies is an important feature of market participation. This diagram shows the various agencies supported by major insurers within SI.

6 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Overall results – as of 31 March 2023 Graph 1 Graph 1 is calculated on the same basis as our first SIVS report and incorporates all the same rating factors as before.

200

The graph shows the overall SIVS results for each insurer partner for brokers. It then shows the further score with their inclusion of agencies. These overall scores were compared to the Steadfast Benchmark of 100.

A few insurers have improved dramatically since the last report including: • Chubb has improved to the third position.

• Vero has improved into the fifth position.

• Blue Zebra has elevated to the ninth position.

7 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

41

160

11

140 6

120 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

As identified in the graph only four insurers are sitting above the Steadfast benchmark, that being QBE, CGU, Allianz (only after including agencies), and Chubb.

180

32

100 Steadfast Benchmark

100 160

156

121

80

5

6 8

60 4

40 92

76

71

65

47

45

4

5

6

7

8

9

20

0 1

st

2

nd

3

rd

th

th

th

th

th

th

34

28

21

17

15

12

11

10

11

12

13

14

15

16th

th

th

th

th

th

th

Overall results inc. claims satisfaction Graph 2 Graph 2 shows the comparative movement when the claims satisfaction scores from the recent Broker Survey are isolated and included.

200

Brokers and their clients are currently suffering significant angst about claims handling and settlement by Insurers.

The graph is adjusted based on the satisfaction scores provided by our broker network.

This percentage was calculated from the Insurer Survey we sent to the network in April.

A clear indication that QBE, CGU and Allianz are experiencing some negative claims satisfaction sentiment.

reduction

180

addition

-17 160

140

+2 -24

120 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

We calculated a percentage of brokers who were satisfied with the claims per product line, and then scored the insured based off the percentage they received.

-23

100 Steadfast Benchmark 100 178

150

129 -9

80

-10

60 -11

-15

34

32

-9

40 100

81

68

63

+4

+4

-8 -7

20

0 1

st

8 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

8

th

9

th

29

25

22

20

15

11

10

10

11

12

13

14

15

16th

th

th

th

th

th

th

Overall results inc. claims satisfaction & Broker Survey feedback Graph 3 Graph 3 shows the comparative movement when Broker Survey feedback is added to the claims satisfaction scores.

200

When the Broker survey is conducted our network brokers have the opportunity to provide positive and negative feedback regarding the performance of insurers.

What is shown is the cumulative effect of claims satisfaction and feedback scores.

reduction

180

addition

- 42 160

140 - 13

- 40

120 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

The score provided in this graph is the Net Score when the positive feedback score is deducted from the negative feedback score (generally there was more negative feedback than positive feedback on each insurer).

- 46

100 Steadfast Benchmark 100 155

125

114

-11

80

-22

-20

60 +8

-20

-22 -19

-12

40 84

70

55

53

36

-1

-1

20

0 1st

9 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

25

25

24

20

19

16

15

11

9th

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

Benchmarking against objectives SCTP objectives Total: $4 billion

Currently reached Benchmarking establishes objectives that should lead to a required improvement. Incremental improvement can only be measured if we are trying to reach targets, otherwise SIVS would be simply an update of the ‘status quo’.

Our primary focus is to eventually have all business transacted via the SCTP. With the SCTP platform growing significantly we have designed a set of SCTP objectives that each of our insurer partners can work towards.

Progress will dramatically influence the growth of their individual SIVS. Our goal is to reach $4 billion across all existing products transacted via SCTP through our top 16 insurers.

This $4 billion goal is only 40% of the entire Steadfast portfolio. When put into perspective, this represents a realistically achievable milestone.

$1.02billion

The chart below shows the contribution by all the top 16 insurers and non-core insurers, including some insurers outside the top 16. This makes up the total SCTP objective of $4 billion.

As of 31 March, we have reached 25.5% of our overall SCTP objective of $4 billion. The white area of the chart represents the premium that insurers have placed on the SCTP platform and thus, their progress.

As shown in the earlier chart, insurers such as Hollard and Blue Zebra are reaching objectives in relation to current SCTP usage, well ahead of other insurers. This progression will appear positive against the benchmarking of the other insurers.

Dual

$33,273,837

GT (Global) $95,335,955

Liberty

Non - core Insurers

$54,630,493

Berkshire

QBE

$677,607,952

$303,461,469

$33,714,710

W R Berkley $62,692,142

NTI

$187,196,880

Blue Zebra

28%

$118,541,620 29% 9

97%

Miramar/SUA $73,906,860

10% 6% %

33%

10%

CGU

$696,528,315

86%

Hollard

$266,429,319 28%

21%

17%

18%

71%

AIG

$124,452,951

Zurich

Chubb

$210,621,977

$298,836,410

Vero

$322,440,197

Allianz

$423,879,642

= Current

10 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Relationship between SIVS & SCTP objectives

A�er benchmarking the SIVS and the SCTP objectives, we have mapped the relationship between the two. The exponential line in red, illustrates the objective path we would like to see the insurers follow.

250

HISTORIC

200

We have split this into four quadrants: the historic, narrow focus, expansive and future quadrants.

150

SIVS

The top le� quadrant is the Historic quadrant. The insurers within here have a high SIVS score but a low objective progression percentage. As the four insurers within this quadrant are our biggest insurers, they have the highest SCTP objectives. We aim to see these four insurers move toward the exponential curve within the future quadrant.

FUTURE

100

The bottom le� quadrant is the Narrow Focus quadrant. This quadrant includes insurers below the benchmark on the SIVS scoring system and need to progress significantly on their SCTP objectives. The aim is to move these insurers in the same direction as the exponential curve towards the future quadrant.

11 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

50

EXPANSIVE

NARROW FOCUS

0 0

20

40

60

80

Objective Progression (%)

100

120

140

Relationship between SIVS & SCTP objectives continued

The bottom right quadrant is the Expansive quadrant. This quadrant includes insurers that are progressing quickly towards their SCTP objectives (nearly reaching them). However, still sit under the SIVS benchmark of 100. Our aim for these insurers is to eventually move them above the benchmark and develop them into the future quadrant in the same position as the exponential curve. This will be done as they expand their appetite within the Steadfast portfolio.

The top right quadrant is the Future quadrant. This is where we aim for all our insurer partners to reach.

Conclusion The changes experienced since our first SIVS scoring, and report are not unexpected. The four major insurers remain prevalent as the source of value and support to our network brokers and their clients. Given their historic involvement it would be unexpected if their value was to drop significantly. However, when the claims satisfaction and feedback adjustments are considered; a significant drop in the value score is noted.

This reflection of sentiment and the transactional relationship has translated into a noticeable reduction in the “barrier to entry”.

For many years, the barriers to entry were very high for new insurers. Very aggressive pricing was the only way to gain entry and market share. This aggressive pricing many times led to significant financial losses when the inevitable claims occurred. This is no longer the case. Market share is being gained by the new entrants without the need for aggressive pricing. The general dissatisfaction with many traditional insurers has opened the gate for our network brokers to seek and place coverage elsewhere.

We are noticing significant growth by the new entrants and the underwriting agency marketplace.

We believe this trend will be more demonstrable in the next edition of the SIVS report.

12 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Section 2 SIVS on individual classes of risk

For guidance purposes, we have provided the individual SIVS for each class of risk.

The metrics used for these individual classes of risk are quite rudimentary and are currently more based on participation rather than performance.

The insurer’s performance criteria are subsequently introduced at a “whole of portfolio” participation level.

The insurer’s performance criteria is an essential element of SIVS as it is the performance of insurers that is often the most important feature in providing insurance support to our network brokers and their clients.

It is all very well for an insurer to offer participation in a class of risk; but more importantly it is how broadly they provide effective support across a broad array of client types and activities.

Major changes • QUS and Mansions no longer support AIG. Mansions now supports QBE. • Split Householders SIVS into two individual scores: • Home & Contents.

• Landlords.

• Split Construction SIVS into two individual scores: • Construction.

• Engineering.

• Included two new metrics within the SIVS score. The below metrics came from the results of the insurer survey which was a clear indication of what our broker network thinks of underwriters.

• Claims satisfaction.

• Positive and negative broker feedback and commentary.

As SIVS progresses, more importance will be applied to performance instead of scale.

13 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Individual product results (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Business Pack

We calculated each insurers Business Pack value score by using several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Business Pack portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

• % participation via the SCTP.

14.0

14.0

= SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

12.0 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

The Business Pack SIVS rated very well overall, with 11 out of the 16 insurers providing support to this class of risk.

QBE finished with the highest score of 14.0, followed by CGU with a score of 9.5 and Vero with a score of 9.1.

16.0

10.0

9.5

9.1 8.0

8.0

6.8

6.4

6.0 4.4 4.0

3.6

2.0

1.5 0.5

Inclusion of agencies: • TIO added a further 1.1 points to Allianz’ Business Pack SIVS. • All Parks Insurance added a further 0.3 points to Hollard’s Business Pack SIVS.

14 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

0.2

0.0 1

st

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

8

th

9

th

10

th

0

11

th

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Commercial motor

25.0

Commercial Motor was another product line with a high proportion of insurers participating in this class of risk. The top three insurers are Allianz in first position with a score of 22.7, QBE in second position with a score of 18.6, and NTI in third position with a score of 16.2.

We calculated the Commercial Motor value score by using several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Commercial Motor portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

• % participation via the SCTP.

20.0 = SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

18.6 16.2 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

Allianz with the support of GT Insurance hold 25% of Steadfast’s entire commercial motor portfolio with 34% of this written via the SCTP platform, contributing to their number one position on the product line.

22.7

15.0 13.2

10.0 8.4

7.7 6.3 5.0 3.7 1.6 0.0 1st

2nd

3rd

Inclusion of agencies: • UAA added a further 11.5 points to QBE’s Commercial Motor SIVS. • GT Insurance added a further 12.5 points to Allianz’ Commercial Motor SIVS. • ATL added a further 2.0 points to Hollard’s Commercial Motor SIVS.

15 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

• NTI added a further 7.3 points to CGU’s Commercial Motor SIVS. • NTI added a further 4.4 points to Vero’s Commercial Motor SIVS.

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Home & Contents – New SIVS

When calculating the Home & Contents value score, we used several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Home & Content portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

• % participation via the SCTP.

16.5 16.0

15.7

14.0 12.4

12.0

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

We decided to split the householders SIVS into two separate scores, Home & Contents and Landlords. The Home & Contents portfolio was supported by six out of the 16 insurers. After calculating the SIVS, QBE finished with the highest score of 16.5 sitting them in first position, CGU with a score of 15.7 in second position and Blue Zebra in third position with a score of 12.4.

18.0

10.8

10.0

9.7 9.0

8.0

8.0 6.0 4.0

2.0 0

0.0 1

st

Inclusion of agencies: • Mansions added a further 3.1 points to QBE’s Home & Contents SIVS.

16 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Landlords – New SIVS

When calculating the Landlords value score, we used several metrics.

These included: •

% of entire Steadfast Home & Content portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

• % participation via the SCTP. Inclusion of agencies: • SGUA added a further 5.2 points to Hollard’s Home & Contents SIVS.

17 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

20.7 20.0

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

The other split of the householders SIVS is Landlords. The Landlords portfolio was supported by six out of the 16 insurers. The SIVS results shows CGU in first position with a score of 20.7. In second position was Hollard with a score of 14.8, and in third position was Blue Zebra with a score of 12.0.

25.0

14.8

15.0

12.0 10.0

8.7

5.0 3.4

2.7

0

0.0 1

st

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Private motor

10.0

The Private Motor portfolio was supported by seven out of the 16 insurer partners. The SIVS results for Private Motor showed Allianz in first position with a value score of 9.2, CGU in second position with a score of 5.2 and QBE in third with a score of 3.3.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Private Motor portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

• % participation via the SCTP. There were 9 underwriters that received a score of 0 as they do not write Private Motor Insurance, as seen below in the graph.

Inclusion of agencies: • Dawes added a further 4.3 points to Allianz’ Private Motor SIVS.

18 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

= SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

8.0

7.0

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

We calculated the Private Motor value score by using several metrics.

9.2 9.0

6.0 5.2 5.0

4.0 3.3 3.0 1.9

2.0

1.6 0.9

1.0

0.2 0.0 1

st

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

ISR

10.0

ISR was a product line with a high proportion of insurers participating on this class of risk. The top three insurers are QBE in first position with a SIVS of 8.6, Chubb have now moved into second position with a score of 7.6 and CGU in third position with a score of 6.9.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast ISR portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

• % participation via the SCTP.

8.6

8.0

7.6 6.9

7.0

6.3 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

We calculated the ISR value scores by using several metrics.

9.0

= SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

6.0

5.0 4.6 4.1

4.0

3.8

3.0 2.3 2.0

1.0

0.5 0.2

0

0.0 1

st

19 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

8

th

9

th

10

th

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Liability

We calculated the Liability value score by using several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Liability portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

• % participation via the SCTP.

8.0

7.6

= SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

7.0

6.0 5.2 5.0 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

Most of our insurer partners contributed to the Liability portfolio with 12 of our 16 partners given a value score. The results showed Chubb being in first position with a score of 7.6, Berkley in second position with a score of 5.2 and QBE in third position with a score of 4.5.

4.5 4.0 3.4

3.2

3.0 2.2 2.0

2.0

1.8 1.3

1.0

1.1

0.9

0.9

0

0.0 1

st

20 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

8

th

9

th

10

th

11

th

12

th

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Professional indemnity

When calculating the Professional Indemnity SIVS, we used several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Liability portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

• % participation via the SCTP. This change should be made for all product lines.

3.5

= SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

3.5 3.2

3.0

2.7

2.5 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

Professional Indemnity is a product line with a high proportion of insurers participating on it. The top three insurers are CGU finishing in first position with a SIVS of 3.5, Liberty Specialty Markets in second position with a score of 3.2 and Chubb in third position with a score of 2.7.

4.0

2.3 2.0

1.9

1.5 1.3 1.0

1.0

0.7

21 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

0.7

0.5 0.3 0

0.0 1

st

The underwriters of Hollard, Miramar, Blue Zebra, NTI, and GT insurance all received a score of 0 for this product as they don’t participate.

1.8

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

8

th

9

th

10

th

11

th

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Management Liability & Cyber

Dual hold 23% of the entire Steadfast ML & Cyber portfolio, contributing to their number one position on the product line.

5.0

4.0

3.1

2.0

1.7 1.1

1.0

These included:

0.0

22 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

3.8

3.0

When calculating the ML & Cyber SIVS, we used several metrics.

• % of entire Steadfast ML & Cyber portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

= SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

5.4

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

The Management Liability & Cyber (ML & Cyber) portfolio was supported by nine out of the 16 insurer partners.

For the ML and Cyber SIV scores, Dual received the highest scores of 5.4 sitting them in first position, Chubb in second position with a score of 3.8 and AIG in third position with a score of 3.1.

6.0

0.3

1

st

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

0.3

7

th

0.2

0.1

8

9

th

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Worker’s compensation

When calculating the Worker’s Compensation SIVS, we used several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Worker’s Compensation portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

11.2 10.6 10.0 9.0 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

The Worker’s Compensation portfolio was saturated by five of our major partners, Vero, Allianz, QBE, CGU and Zurich. The top three insurers are Allianz in first position with a score of 11.2, Vero in second position with a score of 10.6 and QBE in third position with a score of 9.0.

= SIVS increased = SIVS decreased

12.0

8.0

7.5

6.0

4.0

2.1

2.0

0

0.0 1st

23 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Farm pack

We calculated the Farm Pack value score by using several metrics.

These included: • % of the entire Steadfast farm pack portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

Inclusion of agencies: • Primacy adds a further 1.5 points to Allianz’ Farm Pack SIVS.

24 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

8.0

7.6

= SIVS increased = SIVS decreased

7.0 6.1 6.0 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

Only three insurers out of 16 support the Farm Pack portfolio. In first position is CGU with a score of 7.6, Allianz in second position with a score of 6.1, and QBE in third position with a score of 4.0.

5.0 4.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 0

0.0 1st

2nd

3rd

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Construction - New SIVS

We calculated the Construction value score by using several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Construction portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

8.0 7.2 7.0

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

The Construction portfolio was supported by seven out of the 16 insurers. The top three insurers were Chubb in first position with a value score of 7.2, CGU in second position with a score of 4.8 and AIG in third position with a score of 4.3.

6.0

5.0

4.8 4.3

4.0

3.0 1.8

2.0

1.5 0.8

1.0

0.5 0

0.0

Inclusion of agencies: • Protescure added a further 5.5 points to Chubb’s construction SIVS. • Mecon added a further 4.2 points to AIG’s construction SIVS.

25 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Engineering - New SIVS

12.0

We split out Engineering from the Construction SIVS to form its own separate score. The Engineering portfolio was supported by 10 out of 16 insurers. Vero sit in first position with a SIVS of 11.3, CGU are in second position with a score of 2.9 and Miramar are in third position with a SIVS of 2.8.

11.3 11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Engineering portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

We calculated the Engineering value score by using several metrics.

6.0

5.0

4.0 2.9

3.0

2.8 2.5

2.0 1.4 1.0 0.5

0.4

6

7

0.2

0.1

0.1

8

9

10

0.0 1

st

26 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

th

th

th

th

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Directors & Officers Liability

We calculated the D&O value score by using several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast D&O portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

27 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

5.0 = SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

The Directors & Officers Liability (D&O) portfolio was supported by nine different underwriters. The top three insurers were Liberty Specialty Markets in first position with a final value score 3.9, Chubb in second position with a score of 3.4 and AIG in third position with a score of 1.9.

4.0

3.9 3.4

3.0

1.9

2.0

1.7 1.4

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.0 1

st

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

8

th

9

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Marine

We calculated the Marine value score by using several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Marine portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

7.0

6.0

= SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

5.9

5.1 5.0 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

The Marine portfolio was supported by seven out of the 16 insurers. The top three insurers were Zurich in first position with a score of 5.9, NTI in second position with a score of 5.1 and Allianz in third position with a score of 4.3.

4.3 4.0

3.0

2.0 1.5 1.0

1.0

0.7

Inclusion of agencies: • Nautilus Marine added a further 4.2 points to Zurich’s marine SIVS. • Club Marine added a further 1.9 points to Allianz’ marine SIVS. • AM&T added a further 0.7 points to Allianz’ marine SIVS.

28 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

0.1 0.0 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Strata property

30.0

The Strata Property product line was only supported by four insurers. QBE sits a long way in front in first position with a score of 26.7, Allianz in second position with a score of 6.1 and CGU in third position with a score of 5.9.

We calculated the Strata Property value score by using several metrics.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Strata Property portfolio • Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

25.0

20.0 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

QBE is supported by CHU, and with this inclusion they together hold 50% of the entire Steadfast Strata Property portfolio.

= SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

26.7

15.0

10.0 6.1

5.9

5.0

3.8

0

0.0

Inclusion of agencies: • CHU adds a further 26.7 points to QBE’s Strata Property SIVS. • SUU adds a further 5.9 points to CGU’s Strata Property SIVS. • SCI adds a further 6.0 points to Allianz’ Strata Property SIVS.

29 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

1

st

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Accident & Health

14.0

The Accident & Health portfolio was supported by eight out of the 16 insurers. The top three insurers were QBE in first position with a score of 12.8, in second position is Zurich with a score of 2.3 and AIG with a score of 0.8.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Accident & Health portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

Inclusion of agencies: • AFA adds a further 1.6 points to Zurich’s Accident & Health SIVS.

= SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

12.0

10.0

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

We calculated the Accident & Health value score by using several metrics.

12.8

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.3 2.0 0.8

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

4

5

6

7

8

0.0 1

st

30 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2

nd

3

rd

th

th

th

th

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Travel

8.0

The Travel portfolio was supported by seven different underwriters. In first position with a score of 7.1 is Chubb, in second position with a score of 2.8 is AIG and in third position with a score of 1.4 is Liberty Specialty Markets.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Travel portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

6.0

5.0 Steadfast Insurer Value Score

We calculated the Travel value score by using several metrics.

= SIVS decreased

7.1 7.0

4.0

3.0

2.8

2.0 1.4 1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8 0.4 0

0.0 1

st

31 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Individual product results continued (as at 31 Mar 2023)

Information technology

10.0

The Information Technology is supported by eight of the top 16 insurers. The top three insurers are Chubb in number one position with a score of 8.8, Berkley in second position with a score of 2.6 and Dual in third position with a score of 2.5.

These included: • % of entire Steadfast Information Technology portfolio.

• Comparison to Steadfast benchmark participation.

8.8 = SIVS increased = SIVS remains constant = SIVS decreased

8.0

7.0

Steadfast Insurer Value Score

We calculated the Information Technology value score by using several metrics.

9.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.6

2.5

2.0 1.4

1.3

1.0 0.4

0.3

0.3

7

8

0.0 1

st

32 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

th

th

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Section 3 Broker survey results

The Broker Survey entails research on insurers and underwriting agencies reviewing their performance on various aspects including risk appetite, competitiveness, claims service and communications methods. Here are some results.

We know that all insurers are heavily focused on improvement. We await the results of our next Broker Survey in March 2024 so we can gauge if their efforts for improvement are making a difference. If not, the trend to new entrants may increase.

In general terms, there has been an overall decline in the Broker Survey results produced. The survey was conducted in late March 2023. There are some instances where individual insurers have improved on certain classes of risk, but generally, the trend was down.

The question has to be asked: Is this decline due to a hangover from operating under Covid conditions, or are the issues being encountered the new norm?

33 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Breakdown by classes of risk

Business pack Cost insurers have illustrated downward trends in Business Pack, with significant declines seen by Hollard, AIG, and CGU. Allianz and Chubb remain stable with their 2022 score.

70%

Hollard

65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35%

QBE

60% 56% 52% 51% 45% 44% 42% 39% 39%

55% 49% 47% 42% 38% 41% 37%

CGU 52% 

AIG

50%

Allianz 2023

 39%38% Avg. 41% 38% 37% 36% 36%

30%

Vero Chubb

25% 20% 2021

34 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

Commercial motor GT, NTI, and Hollard have experienced marginal improvements, while CGU declined significantly in Commercial Motor. GT and NTI maintain a strong lead against other insurers in this offering.

70%

68%

65%

63%

GT

67% 65% 64%

NTI TI

66%

CGU

60% 55% 50% 45%

53% 52% 50% 47% 46% 45%

Zurich 51% 50% 49% 48% 46% 40%

40%

49% 48% 47% 45% 42% 40% 39%

35%

2023 Avg.49%

Vero QBE Hollard Blue Zebra

30% 2021

35 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

Home & Contents All insurers trend downwards in Home & Contents, significantly against 2021. Blue Zebra debuts with a leading score of 49%.

70%

CGU

65% 60% 55% 50% 45%

Chubb

58% 56%  53%  47% 41%

52% 47%  44% 39%

40% 35%

37%

Hollard

49% 43% 41% 38% 34%

2023 Avg. 40%

QBE

33%

Blue Zebra

30% 25%

20% 2021

36 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

Farm While Allianz maintains its score from last year, all insurers offering Farm pack trend down against 2021; with a significant decline witnessed in Allianz and CGU.

70% 65% 60% 55% 50%

48%

45%

44%

40%

CGU

52%

43%

46% 

43%

35% 30%

QBE

46% 39% 39% 34%

33%

32%

2022

2023

25% 20% 2021

37 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2023 Avg. 36%

Argis Allianz

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

Professional Indemnity Berkley maintains the leading score for Professional Indemnity, performing consistently across the years. Dual and Procover improve against 2022, while CGU significantly declines against 2021.

70%

66%

65% 60%

64%

55%

54%

50%

48%

45%

44%

40% 35% 30%

65%

43%

36% 30%

Berkley

65% 60%

CGU

54% 52%

Vero

48% 44% 44% 37%

39% 35%

33%

25%

40%

2023 Avg. 44%

Procover

40% 39% 37% 31%

Chubb

30%

QBE

AIG

Allianz

20% 2021

38 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

ISR Vero experienced consistent growth in its ISR ratings, with CGU returning to the highs experienced in 2021. Zurich has softened against the lead it held last year, while Allianz remains lowest in this product.

60%

Zurich

55% 50% 45% 40% 35%

48% 44% 43%

44%

40% 37% 35%

50%

49%

47%

49%

45% 44% 44%

44% 44%

42%

41% 41%

Chubb 2023 Avg. 43%

CGU Vero

34%

QBE

31%

30%

Allianz

25% 20% 2021

39 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

Liability Berkley strengthens its lead in Liability, with only Vero showing some improvement against last year. AIG declines significantly by 12 points.

70%

67%

69%

70%

Berkley

65%

QBE

60% 55% 50% 45% 40%

CGU

54% 54% 48% 46% 45% 44% 43% 41%

50% 47% 46% 43% 41%

35%

40% 38%

30%

33%

Vero

47% 46% 42% 42% 42% 37% 35% 33%

25%

2023 Avg. 44%

Chubb Zurich Miramar AIG Allianz

20% 2021

40 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

Private Motor While Allianz remains stable against last year, all insurers in private Motor trend downwards against 2021, significantly for CGU and Hollard. Blue Zebra debuts in the lead at 49%.

60%

CGU

56%

55%

54%  52%

50%

45%

52% 48%

43%

47% 44%

Allianz 49% 47% 45% 42% 

40%

2023 Avg. 44%

Hollard

QBE

39%

35%

Blue lue Zebra 30% 2021

41 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

Management Liability While Dual remains in the lead for Management Liability, QBE has undergone a notable improvement, advancing into possessing the second highest score. CGU has declined significantly, and now in possession of the lowest score.

70% 65%

70% 62%

60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35%

AIG

59% 50% 48% 44% 40%

47% 44% 41% 39% 34%

42%

36%

25% 20%

42 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023 Avg. 46%

Chubb

41%

30%

2021

CGU

2023

QBE

Breakdown by classes of risk continued

Cyber Insurance Emergence maintains the lead in Cyber, with Dual holding a clear second place. QBE’s improvement enables an advancement from last year’s lowest rating into third place, with AIG now the lowest performing insurer

80%

70%

75%

59%

30%

Chubb 55%

48% 43%

40%

72%

67%

60%

50%

Emergenc e

76%

40% 35%

CGU

48% 41% 37%

42% 40% 33%

34% 24%

20% 2021

43 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

2022

2023

2023 Avg. 45%

AIG QBE

Improvements required by our network brokers

As part of the Broker Survey, we have always gauged the “service levels” that insurers provide to our network brokers.

This is more a qualitative assessment than many of the other quantitative assessments used.

This year we changed the survey question: “Please think about the way you interact with the (INSURER), which includes a BDM or representative that provides face-to-face visits or meetings, interactions with a centralised team and/or direct contact to an underwriter, as well as interactions via electronic platforms. How would you rate the overall level of service across interactions provided by (INSURER).

And to what extent, if any, do you think improvements are needed for each of the following services?”

QBE is seen to need the most improvement, with an average 1 in 2 users (49%) reporting it needed a lot + a fair amount + or some improvement across evaluated aspects. It is closely followed by Chubb (47%), Allianz (46%), CGU (45%), AIG (44%) and Hollard (44%). Emergence was seen to need the least improvement (18%).

The results below represent the degree of improvement our network brokers seek from each of the insurers. In our discussions with the various insurers; many have seen this as a “reality check” in how they provide services and transact business with our network brokers.

Total QBE Chubb Allianz CGU AIG Hollard Zurich Vero Miramar Argis BlueZebra Procover DUAL NTI GT Berkley Emergence

Face-to-face contact

49% QBE 49 % CHUB 47% % Allia 46% % CGU 45% % AIG 44% % Holla 44% 39% Zurich Vero 38% 35% Miram Argis 34% BZ 31% Procov 29% DUAL 28% NTI 27% GT 22% Berkl 21% Emerg 18% Avg. 35%

Centralised Team Service

QBE 50% CHUB 44% Allia 46% CGU 49% AIG 51% Holla 48% Zurich 44% Vero 38% Miram 43% Argis 43% BZ 37% Procov 33% DUAL 39% NTI 35% GT 26% Berkl 35% Emerg 27% Avg. 40%

Underwriter Access

52% QBE 49% CHUB 50% Allia 49% CGU AIG 44% 45% Holla 39% Zurich Vero 40% Miram 34% Argis 33% BZ 31% Procov 26% DUAL 26% NTI 24% GT 17% Berkl 19% Emerg 13% Avg. 35%

51% 49% 50% 46% 49% 50% 44% 41% 37% 29% 37% 30% 31% 26% 18% 16% 16% Avg. 36%

Percentages are a sum of: Needs a lot + a fair amount + some improvement

44 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

Electronic Pla�orms QBE CHUB Allia CGU AIG Holla Zurich Vero Miram Argis BZ Procov DUAL NTI GT Berkl Emerg

42% 45% 39% 35% 32% 32% 29% 31% 27% 32% 22% 26% 16% 21% 25% 15% 16% Avg. 29%

Section 4 Methodology

Philosophical Approach What are the most important services insurers can provide to Steadfast, their network brokers and most importantly, their clients?

It is indeed the products and services for their clients insurance and risk management needs. This is our primary focus.

Without this support and a wide range of products and services, Steadfast cannot properly support the needs of their clients.

Creation of the Steadfast Insurer Value Score (SIVS) SIVS is designed to acknowledge and benchmark insurers in their provision and support of the necessary products and services and the overall Steadfast network portfolio.

Steadfast Group is a wide and varied network of brokers geographically spread throughout Australia.

To enable our network brokers to understand insurer support across the entire Steadfast portfolio; we have formulated a series of measurements that can be benchmarked. This provides comparative analysis that allows our network brokers to identify those insurers broadly supporting their clients and also enables our network brokers to identify those insurers with very limited appetite and narrow their underwriting focus. SIVS is not only focused on appetite but more importantly on the comparative provision of their products and services.

changes in the marketplace and insurer appetite.

There are of course specialist insurers who always had a narrow focus and specialise in certain types and classes of risk. Our network brokers and their clients continue to enjoy this support. A metric to identify this has also been included within SIVS.

2. Individual score results on each product line

Focus For Steadfast network brokers to provide their clients with a wide variety of competitive insurer’s support; it’s important to be constantly aware of the

45 Steadfast Insurer Value Score | Network report

SIVS will be produced half yearly and provided to Steadfast network brokers so they can be abreast of insurer performance and associated benchmarking.

This report contains: 1. Steadfast benchmark a) Steadfast Insurer Value Score results. b) Explain Steadfast benchmark.

a) Explanation on each with rankings 3. Broker Survey results This represents extracted results from the report and shows comparative analysis between insurers.

Significant changes that occurred between June 22 to March 23 period affect the final SIVS of each insurer.

Contact Us For enquiries, please contact the Broker Services team Glenn Schultz General Manager Broker Services glenns@steadfast.com.au M +61 411 108 257 Veronica Zarour Broker Service Analyst veronica.zarour@steadfast.com.au M +61 429 009 707 Matthew Saunders Sales and Operations Analyst matthews@steadfast.com.au M +61 466 840 119