Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. Gregory A. Kuhlemeyer, Associate Professor of Business Administration at Carroll College in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Phone: 970-351-1240. Fax: 970351-1097. E-mail:gakuhle@unco.edu
2. Garth H. Allen, Associate Professor, Department of Finance, Kenneth W. Monfort College of Business, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
80639, Phone: 970-351-1234. Fax: 970-351-1097. E-mail: gallen@unco.edu
The authors would like to thank Diana Harrington and others at the 1998 Academy of Financial Services Conference, Ken Cyree, Atul Saxena, and
Christine McClatchey for their time and thoughtful comments.
1999, Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
35
1999, Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
37
38
Ins. unknown
Non-resp.,
unusable
surveys
# resp.
243
48
2207
Median
amount ($)
120,000
----
----
Mean ($)
224,563
----
----
Mean age
49.2
48.6
60.5
49.5
% married
74.5
60.4
0.0
49.8
% single
23.5
39.6
50.0
27.9
% male
56.4
60.4
0.0
49.8
% with ug
degree
31.3
39.6
50.0
----
% with grad.
degree
29.6
20.8
0.0
----
# resp.
Median
amount ($)
Mean ($)
Mean age
% married
% single
% male
% ug degree
Direct
purchase
only
132
130,000
56
158,000
47
80,000
Own but
did not
indicate
method
8
150,000
249,800
51.3
76.5
21.2
54.5
25.8
269,624
56.4
78.6
17.9
64.3
42.9
120,569
45.2
63.8
36.2
51.1
34.0
133,333
47.9
75.0
25.0
62.5
25.0
Table 2
Attitudes Toward Agents by Agent Only Versus
Combination
Statements
Agent
only
Agent +
direct
z
value
3.76
3.60
0.87
3.57
3.40
0.94
1.75
1.91
-0.85
3.24
3.00
1.11
My agent is knowledgeable.
3.81
3.73
0.52
3.14
3.04
0.57
3.32
3.33
-0.03
3.45
3.09
1.90
3.67
3.55
0.62
1999, Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
39
3.60
3.44
0.94
3.04
2.85
0.97
3.38
3.02
1.61
My agent understands my
financial goals and needs.
3.34
2.94
1.78 *
3.02
2.89
0.60
Unsatisfied
z-value
1.92
9.28*
1.26
3.58
-7.31*
3.71
1.96
6.48*
2.24
9.80*
Professional designations
(e.g., CLU or CFP indicate
increased agent
competence.)
3.38
2.55
3.23*
3.41
3.16
0.95
2.42
4.06*
Satisfied
2.00
8.77*
2.04
9.73*
3.55
1.50
11.45*
2.25
4.98*
My agent understands my
financial goals and needs.
1.88
8.19*
3.80
Agent only
Agent +
direct
Direct only
I am satisfied with my
3.73
life insurance company. (n=132)
3.56
(n=55)
3.84
(n=45)
3.46
(n=52)
3.93
(n=42)
1.63
(n=124)
1.98
(n=55)
1.59
(n=44)
3.38
(n=124)
3.38
(n=55)
3.14
(n=44)
4.03
(n=124)
3.93
(n=55)
4.02
(n=42)
3.07
(n=124)
3.27
(n=55)
2.49
(n=43)
1999, Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
41
3.46
(n=119)
3.43
(n=51)
3.41
(n=44)
My life insurance
company puts my goals
and needs above their
own.
2.83
(n=122)
2.69
(n=55)
2.57
(n=44)
3.58
My life insurance company
(n=139)
provides a variety of financial
products that meets all of my
financial needs.
Significant using a 2-tail test at p<0.01.
My life insurance
3.37
3.32
2.95 *
company provides a
(n=125)
(n=53)
(n=43)
variety of financial
products that meets all
of my financial needs.
Significant using a 2-tail test at p<0.05 versus agent+direct subgroup
Significant using a 2-tail test at p<0.1 versus both agent-only
subgroup and direct-only subgroup.
Significant using a 2-tail test at p<0.01 versus agent+direct subgroup
and at <0.05 versus agent-only subgroup.
* Significant using a 2-tail test at p<0.1 versus agent-only subgroup.
Table 5.
Attitude Toward Company by Satisfied or Unsatisfied
With Life Insurance Company
Statements
Satisfied
Unsatisfied
z-value
4.38
(n=145)
1.57
(n=23)
24.9
4.20
(n=138)
1.86
(n=22)
11.5
1.33
(n=138)
3.22
(n=23)
-5.8
3.74
(n=138)
2.04
(n=23)
6.5
4.35
(n=138)
2.48
(n=23)
6.8
3.14
(n=137)
2.83
(n=23)
0.9
3.84
(n=135)
1.95
(n=21)
8.8
3.14
(n=136)
1.43
(n=23)
11.1
42
2.04
(n=23)
6.1
1999, Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
43
Table 6
Product Satisfaction
Sample grouped by consumer stated method of purchase and examined by type of product. The average response to consumer satisfaction with their agent
(company), percent satisfied, and number of responses are provided for each product group.*
Satisfaction with Agent
Satisfaction with Company
Products
Agent only
(n=132)
Agent/Direct
(n=55)
Agent only
(n=132)
Agent/Direct
(n=55)
Direct only
(n=45)
Term
Whole life
Universal / Variable
Other
Unknown
1.39
1.71
1.51
1.69
1.11
* The number of responses to the satisfaction statements by product type may vary depending if the consumer responded to that particular question in the
survey.
Conclusion
This study provides an objective benchmark of consumer
satisfaction with life insurance agents, life insurance
companies, and satisfaction with agents and companies
as it relates to different life insurance products. As
expected, overall consumer satisfaction with the agents
ability to assess products, the agents ability to meet the
financial goals and needs of the consumer, consumers
trust in the agent, and consumer perception of agent
competence was consistently higher for a subgroup
consisting of consumers who buy life insurance with an
agent-only than it was for consumers using both an agent
and the direct purchase method. This is consistent with
the hypothesis that consumers purchasing through the
agent, as well as the direct purchase approach, are in that
group because of an undesirable experience with an
agent or because they failed to attach a significant
positive value to the use of an agent. In other words, the
agent only group may be characterized as a pro-agent
group and the agent plus direct purchase group may be
characterized as a less pro-agent or agent neutral group.
44
Appendix
Regression Results
Appendix Table 1
Determinants of Agent Satisfaction
A multiple regression of each agent statement response to the satisfaction response of all consumers owning life insurance. In addition, identifying
characteristics were also incorporated. The resulting regression is Agent Satisfaction = f(Age, Income, Education, Quantity of Insurance, Marital status,
Gender, and the thirteen statement responses hypothesized to be related to agent satisfaction). Model 2 considers only those characteristic variables
showing relative importance and the set of agent statements. Model 3 considers those variables that impact satisfaction most prominently after eliminating
strongly correlated statement response variables and those items consumers viewed as marginally important to their agent satisfaction.=
Initial Full Model DesignSATAGNT = a0 + b1 AGE + b2 INCGRP + b3 EDUCATE + b4 QUANT + b5 MARITAL + b6 GENDER + b7 TRUST1 + b8
TRUST2 + b9 TRUST3 + b10 COMP1 + b11 COMP2 + b12 COMP3 + b13 COMP4 + b14 PROD1 + b15 PROD2 + b16 PROD3 + b17 GAN1 + b18 GAN2 +
b19 GAN3
Variable Description
Variable Name
Adjusted R
(F-value)
Full Model
Model 2
Model 3
0.819
(28.2)
0.836
(56.7)
0.842
(130.7)
0.752
0.817
0.869
Intercept of the model (Expect it to equal 1" as the minimum value using
the Likert 5-point scale)
Intercept
Age of respondent.
AGE
-0.004
(0.227)
INCGRP
0.012
(O.912)
EDUCATE
-0.006
(0.914)
QUANT
-0.000
(0.477)
MARITAL
0.231
(0.096)
GENDER
0.034
(0.734)
TRUST 1
0.226
(0.008)
0.098
(0.117)
0.114
(0.054)
TRUST 2
-0.166
(0.002)
-0.215
(0.000)
-0.211
(0.000)
TRUST 3
0.041
(0.379)
0.057
(0.141)
My agent is knowledgeable.
COMP 1
0.322
(0.000)
0.328
(0.000)
COMP 2
-0.032
(0.586)
-0.081
(0.084)
COMP 3
0.023
(0.650)
0.018
(0.692)
An agent is more competent the longer the agent has been in the insurance
profession.
COMP 4
0.027
(0.610)
0.025
(0.546)
PROD 1
0.161
(0.020
0.163
(0.006)
0.162
(0.004)
PROD 2
0.113
(0.231)
0.158
(0.045)
0.172
(0.021)
PROD 3
0.048
(0.563)
0.067
(0.322)
0.127
(0.012)
GAN 1
-0.029
(0.634)
-0.003
(0.956)
0.099
(0.321)
1999, Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
0.327
(0.000)
45
Variable Name
Full Model
Model 2
GAN 2
0.020
(0.803)
0.009
(0.891)
My agent always puts my financial goals and needs above his/her own.
GAN 3
0.009
(0.890)
0.054
(0.332)
Model 3
We also incorporated a categorical variable for the different distribution methods to test if there is a shift in the slope coefficient of specific independent
variables. We incorporated an additional set of variables equal to the initial set of variables multiplied by either the categorical (0, 1) variable. Although
some shift in the slope coefficients is found to be significant, the model experienced significant multicollinearity and resulted in numerous coefficients
that did not make theoretical sense and were highly unstable. We also employed factor analysis (PROC FACTOR via SAS) on the data, but it did not
generate any additional insight as the first factor was strongly linked to the variables showing statistical significance in our Model 3.
Appendix Table 2
Determinants of Life Insurance Institution Satisfaction
A multiple regression of each institution statement response to the satisfaction response of all consumers owning life insurance. In addition, identifying
characteristics were also incorporated. The resulting regression is Institution Satisfaction = f(Age, Income, Education, Quantity of Insurance, Marital status,
Gender, and the eight statement responses hypothesized to be related to institution satisfaction). Model 2 considers only those characteristic variables
showing relative importance and the set of agent statements. Model 3 considers those variables that impact satisfaction most prominently after eliminating
strongly correlated statement response variables and those items consumers viewed as marginally important to their agent satisfaction.=
Initial Full Model Design
Variable Description
Full Model
Model 2
Model 3
Adjusted R2
(F-value)
0.602
(17.4)
0.603
(26.6)
0.604
(47.4)
Intercept of the model (Expect it to equal 1" as the minimum value using the
Likert 5-point scale.
Intercept
1.672
1.271
1.326
Age of respondent
AGE
-0.003
(0.434)
INCGRP
-0.153
(0.196)
EDUCATE
(0.041
(0.501)
QUANT
-0.000
(0.168)
MARITAL
0.206
(0.123)
GENDER
-0.111
(0.276)
TRUST 1
0.280
(0.000)
0.266
(0.000)
0.274
(0.000)
TRUST 2
0.170
(0.003)
-0.172
(0.003)
-0.178
(0.001)
TRUST 3
0.014
(0.775)
0.011
(0.818)
SAFE
0.132
(0.069)
0.128
(0.068
ADS
-0.038
(0.336)
-0.036
(0.363)
46
Variable Name
0.173
(0.129)
Variable Name
Full Model
Model 2
Model 3
My life insurance company handles all claims and paper work efficiently and
effectively.
CLAIM
0.180
(0.008)
0.188
(0.005)
0.184
(0.003)
My life insurance company puts my goals and needs above their own.
GAN
0.189
(0.001)
0.208
(0.000)
0.209
(0.000)
PROD
0.007
(0.899)
-0.004
(0.944)
We also incorporated a categorical variable for the different distribution methods to test if there is a shift in the slope coefficient of specific independent
variables. Thus, we incorporated an additional set of variables (not shown here) equal to the initial set of variables multiplied by both of the categorical
(0, 1), (0,1) variables. Although a shift in the slope coefficient of the PROD variable is found to be significant, the model experienced significant
multicollinearity and resulted in unstable coefficients for the remaining variables. We also employed factor analysis (PROC FACTOR via SAS) on the
data, but it did not generate any additional insight as the first factor was strongly linked to the variables showing statistical significance in our Model 3.
Endnotes
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
References
American Council of Life Insurers. (1999). Life Insurance Fact
Book: 1999.
Auerbach, A. J. & Kotlikoff, L. J. (1991). The adequacy of life
insurance purchases. Journal of Financial Intermediation,
1 (1), 215-241.
Barrese, J., Doerpinghaus, H. I. & Nelson, J. W. (1995). Do
independent agent insurers provide superior service? the
insurance marketing puzzle. Journal of Risk and Insurance,
62 (2), 297-308.
Covaleski, J. M. (1995). Industry says its no surprise. Best's
Review - Life-Health Insurance Edition, 96 (5), 23.
Ferling, R. L. (1991). Fees or commissions? Best's Review Life-Health Insurance Edition, 92 (7 ), 33.
Gandolfi, A. S. & Miners, W. (1996). Gender-based differences
in life insurance ownership. Journal of Risk and Insurance,
63(4), 683-693.
Ghee, W. K. & Moore, C. W. (1989). Does gender make a
difference. Best's Review - Life-Health Insurance Edition,
89 (11), 49(4).
Gravelle, H. (1994). Remunerating information providers:
commissions versus fees in life insurance. Journal of Risk
and Insurance, 61 (3), 425-457.
Hayes, B. E. (1998). Measuring consumer satisfaction:
Development and use of questionnaires. McGraw-Hill.
Kim, W.-J., Mayers, D. & Smith, C. W. (1996). On the choice
of insurance distribution systems. Journal of Risk and
Insurance, 63 (2), 207-227.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.
Archives in Psychology, No. 140, 32-45.
LIMRA International. (1996). Consumer preferences for
1999, Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
47
48
Back issues:
ii
1
13
25
39
49
67
79
89
Book Reviews
Boomernomics: The Future of Your Money in the Upcoming Generational Warfare
93
Maximizing Your Health Insurance Benefits: A Consumer's Guide to New and Traditional Plans
95
reviewed by Deanna L. Sharpe
The Psychology of Saving: A Study of Economic Psychology
97
reviewed by Jean M. Lown
Expenditures of Older Americans
100
reviewed by M. J. Alhabeeb
The Best Way to Save For College: A Comprehensive Guide to State-Sponsored College Savings Plans and Pre-paid Tuition
Contracts
103
reviewed by Peng Chen
Rationality Gone Awry: Decision Making Inconsistent with Economic and Financial Theory
reviewed by Jing J. Xiao
New Methods in Financial Modeling: Explorations and Applications
reviewed by Bradley T. Ewing
105
107
[Not included in Volume 10 (1). See page 87 of this issue, Volume 10 (2)]
For information about obtaining back issues, contact the AFCPE Executive Director, Sharon Burns.
Upper Arlington, OH 43221. Phone: 614-485-9650. Fax: 614-485-9621. Email: request@afcpe.org
1999, Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
49