The Effect of ULIP Cost Structure on Investor Persistency: The Moderating Role of InsurTech Adoption

This paper develops a framework that is conceptually theoretical to define the composite relationship between the cost structure of Unit Linked Insurance Plans (ULIPs) and investor persistency- a key determinant of the long-term sustainability and financial performance of insurance providers. The front-loaded pricing structure of ULIPs, including high initial charges and surrender penalties, is generally regarded as a factor that discourages long-term investment. Nevertheless, this study suggests that these costs may also contribute to investor persistency by affecting investors' behavioural and rational decision-making processes. Drawing on agency theory, behavioural finance (particularly loss aversion and the sunk cost effect), and the Technology Acceptance Model, the study investigates whether InsurTech adoption moderates the relationship between ULIP cost structure and investor persistency.
This study is based on the premise that the cost structure of Unit Linked Insurance Plans (ULIPs), particularly high initial charges and surrender costs, may influence investor persistency by increasing the perceived financial and psychological costs associated with discontinuing a policy. These perceived switching costs can encourage investors to maintain their policies over a longer period despite the initial financial burden. However, the strength of this relationship is expected to depend on the extent of InsurTech adoption. Digital innovations, including robo-advisory services, personalized policy management platforms, AI-enabled customer support, and behavioural nudges, have the potential to enhance transparency, improve customer engagement, and help investors better understand the long-term value of their investments. As a result, InsurTech adoption may shift investors' focus from short-term costs to the overall benefits and value of continued policy ownership, thereby strengthening investor persistency. In contrast, limited access to digital insurance services may amplify the perceived burden of policy charges, increase dissatisfaction, and contribute to higher lapse rates. By integrating perspectives from insurance economics, behavioural finance, and digital financial services, this study develops a comprehensive framework to examine the relationship between ULIP cost structure and investor persistency, while highlighting the moderating role of InsurTech adoption. The findings are expected to contribute to the growing literature on digital transformation in insurance and provide practical insights for insurers seeking to improve customer retention through effective product design and technology-enabled service delivery.

Unit-Linked Insurance Plans (ULIPs), Cost Structure, Investor Persistency

1. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bhattacharya, S., & Gursoy, D. (2019). Unit-linked insurance plans: Product structure, costs, and regulatory challenges. Journal of Insurance and Risk Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching costs: A typology, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 109-126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Carson, J. M. (1994). An analysis of the net present value of backdating life insurance. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 48(3), 57-62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Carson, J. M., & Forster, W. H. (2000). Policy replacement: A review of the literature and issues. Journal of Insurance Issues, 23(1), 1-23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Carson, J. M., Clark, J. M., & Ostaszewski, K. (2012). The incentives and welfare economics of life insurance backdating. Journal of Insurance Issues, 35(2), 157-182. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Carson, J. M., & Ostaszewski, K. (2004). The actuarial present value of backdating life insurance. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 58(1), 68-77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cawley, J., & Philipson, T. (1999). An empirical examination of information barriers to trade in insurance. American Economic Review, 89(4), 827-846. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chiappori, P. A., Jullien, B., Salanié, B., & Salanié, F. (2006). Asymmetric information in insurance: General testable implications. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(4), 783-798. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Colgate, M., & Lang, B. (2001). Switching barriers in consumer markets: An investigation of the financial services industry. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(4), 332-347. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cooper, R., & Hayes, B. (1987). Multi-period insurance contracts. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(2), 211-231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cutler, D. M., Finkelstein, A., & McGarry, K. (2008). Preference heterogeneity and insurance markets: Explaining a puzzle of insurance. American Economic Review, 98(2), 157-162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. D'Arcy, S. P., & Doherty, N. A. (1990). Adverse selection, private information, and lowballing in insurance markets. Journal of Business, 63(2), 145-164. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. De Meza, D., & Webb, D. C. (2001). Advantageous selection in insurance markets. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(2), 249-262. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-113. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Eling, M., & Kochanski, M. (2013). Research on lapse in life insurance: What has been done and what needs to be done? Journal of Risk Finance, 14(4), 392-413. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Eling, M., & Lehmann, M. (2018). The impact of digitalization on the insurance value chain and the insurability of risks. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 43(3), 359-396. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fang, H., & Kung, E. (2010). Why do life insurance policyholders lapse? The roles of income, health, and bequest motives. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 77(3), 567-596. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Fei, W., Fluet, C., & Schlesinger, H. (2015). Risk aversion, risk prudence, and the demand for insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 82(4), 819-842. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Feldman, R. (2013). Behavioral economics and insurance: A review. Journal of Insurance Regulation, 32, 127-152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Finkelstein, A., McGarry, K., & Sufi, A. (2005). Dynamic inefficiencies in insurance markets: Evidence from long-term care insurance. American Economic Review, 95(2), 224-228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Gatzert, N., & Schmeiser, H. (2008). The impact of surrender options on the risk profile of unit-linked life insurance products. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 75(4), 909-936. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Gottlieb, D. (2012). Adverse selection in life insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 79(1), 1-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Gottlieb, D., & Smetters, K. (2014). Lapse-based insurance. American Economic Review, 104(5), 181-185. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Hendel, I., & Lizzeri, A. (2003). The role of commitment in dynamic contracts: Evidence from life insurance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 299-328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Hofmann, A., & Browne, M. J. (2013). The role of front-loading in life insurance contracts. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 80(4), 935-962. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2000). Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in services. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 259-274. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kiesenbauer, D. (2012). Main determinants of lapse in the German life insurance industry. North American Actuarial Journal, 16(1), 52-73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Kuo, W., Tsai, C., & Chen, W. K. (2003). An empirical study on the lapse rate of life insurance policies. Journal of Risk Management, 5(1), 1-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Liebenberg, A. P., Carson, J. M., & Dumm, R. E. (2012). A dynamic analysis of the demand for life insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 79(3), 619-644. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Linton, M. A. (1932). Life insurance and the emergency fund. In Proceedings of the Actuarial Society of America, 33, 139-154. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 5-44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mulholland, B., & Finke, M. (2014). The effect of behavioral biases on life insurance lapse rates. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 68(4), 72-80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Mussa, M., & Rosen, S. (1978). Monopoly and product quality. Journal of Economic Theory, 18(2), 301-317. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Nahata, B., Ostaszewski, K., & Sahoo, P. K. (1999). Buffet pricing. Journal of Business, 72(2), 215-228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Nicoletti, B. (2020). The future of insurance: InsurTech and the digital transformation of the insurance industry. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Oi, W. Y. (1971). A Disneyland dilemma: Two-part tariffs for a Mickey Mouse monopoly. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85(1), 77-96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Outreville, J. F. (1990). Whole-life insurance lapse rates and the emergency fund hypothesis. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 9(4), 249-255. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Outreville, J. F. (2011). The economics of insurance. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Pesando, J. E. (1974). Determinants of life insurance policy lapse rates. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 41(4), 669-685. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Purushotham, M. (2006). Lapse rates in the life insurance industry. LIMRA International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Schott, F. H. (1971). The economics of policy replacements. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 38(3), 423-432. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Shefrin, H. (2002). Beyond greed and fear: Understanding behavioral finance and the psychology of investing. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Stoeckli, E., Dremel, C., & Uebernickel, F. (2018). Exploring characteristics and transformational capabilities of InsurTech innovations to understand insurance value creation. Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Information Systems, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Swiss Re. (2021). World insurance: The recovery begins. Swiss Re Institute Sigma Report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Walsh, G. (2002). A cross-national comparison of consumer switching costs. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2(1), 46-62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Wang, Y. (2020). The role of robo-advisors in the insurance industry: A TAM-based analysis. Journal of Financial Services Research, 58(2), 145-163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria