Does It Get Any Better Than An Amalgam of Property/Casualty Insurers And Robots?

Not in our little corner of the blogosphere it doesn't.
From FT Alphaville:

Insurers will destroy themselves to nudge us into robot utopia

How to tell that serious investors are yet to take the Morgan Stanley robot car wonderland seriously? Insurance companies still have value.

The point is this: where we’re going we’ll still need roads, but there won’t be (much) call for car insurance.
Moreover, insurers are going to be the agents of their own demise. They have no choice, the logic of robots is just too compelling, and the process has already begun.


For now, the option is simply to have a little robot track your driving in return for a discount on your car insurance. The insurer learns how you drive, you quiet your boy racer instincts, and when it comes to working out what happened after a crash the electronic witness caught every squeal of rubber.

Over time, as more and more drivers sign up, the premium for refusing a robot could become significant. Oh, you’re the type of guy who doesn’t want us to see how you hare around, are you? Young drivers facing very expensive insurance will lead the way.

Then apply this logic to our favourite Morgan Stanley chart, which may be the least bonkers aspect to the whole report.

To begin with, cars warn you if you drift out of lane, or if the driver shows signs of drowsiness. They turn the lights on when it’s dark, the wipers when it rains, and help you park....MUCH MORE

And the way the writer has this play out the trend is less an amalgam and more a danse macabre.
Feasting on the bones of financial intermediaries, Partaaay!

Actually the interplay is a fairly serious issue with the best guesses being initially large payouts as case law is hammered out and then the decline that is the focus of the above. You could probably find a dozen refs on the GOOG without much trouble.