When you're shopping for disability insurance—known in Germany as Berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung (BU)—you're not just buying a policy; you're making a long-term commitment to protect your income. The question of long-term stability is becoming increasingly critical as benefits expand and tariffs grow more flexible, putting pressure on pricing and risk assessment. For you, knowing which providers can sustainably deliver on their promises—and where risks might be building up—is essential. Think of it like comparing the financial strength of U.S. disability insurers such as Guardian, Principal, or Northwestern Mutual: you want a company that will be there decades from now.
Advertisement
The long-standing MAP-Report from Franke and Bornberg provides guidance by regularly analyzing the stability of life and disability insurers. Their latest BU stability rating reveals a clear picture: only a small group of top-tier providers achieve the highest ratings, while most fall in the middle. A persistent problem remains—not all insurers provide enough data for a transparent evaluation. This is similar to how U.S. rating agencies like A.M. Best or Moody's assess insurers' financial strength, but with a specific focus on disability insurance stability.
The rating uses a multi-stage model combining three key areas: Premium, Stability, and Financial Strength. First, it analyzes premium calculations—not just the amount but their appropriateness compared to the market. Unusually low premiums can be as concerning as high ones, as they may indicate aggressive pricing or heavy reliance on future surplus. The spread between gross premium (the tariff rate) and net premium (after surplus deductions) is critical: a wide gap suggests a tariff depends heavily on future surpluses, making it more vulnerable to later premium adjustments.
The rating also considers actuarial risks like dynamic adjustment clauses, options to increase coverage without new medical underwriting, and the design of health checks. While these features offer you flexibility, they can create selection and pricing risks for insurers. The second area, business stability, examines how risk surpluses and loss ratios have evolved over time—frequent adjustments or declining surpluses signal pressure on the original pricing. The third area, financial strength, assesses solvency, safety reserves, profitability, and cost structures, ensuring the insurer can meet obligations even in tough market conditions.
The scoring system awards up to 1,850 points across the three areas. Ratings range from "mmm+" (excellent) at 80% of max points, to "mmm" (very good) at 75%, "mm" (good) at 65%, and "m" (satisfactory) at 55%. Special top categories "FFF+" and "FFF" are reserved for insurers that not only achieve high scores but also demonstrate exceptional transparency by fully disclosing all relevant data. This means the best rating goes beyond mere points—it reflects a commitment to openness, much like how U.S. insurers with strong AM Best ratings also tend to be more transparent in their financial reporting.
Advertisement
In the current rating, five insurers reach the highest category. Nürnberger, HDI, and Ergo Vorsorge earn the top "FFF+" mark, while Stuttgarter and Generali follow closely with "FFF." In the second-highest "mmm+" category, Continentale leads with 85.5%, followed by LV 1871 (83.4%) and Allianz (82.2%). HUK-Coburg (81.4%) and Debeka (80.9%) round out the excellent group. Fifteen insurers achieve "mmm" (very good), with DEVK Eisenbahn, Europa, and InterRisk each at 79.9%. Thirteen receive "mm" (good), indicating basic stability but notable weaknesses in areas like pricing or financial metrics.
Notably, no ratings fall below "mm" (good), but a different problem emerges: 15 insurers receive the label "without rating" (o.W.). This doesn't necessarily mean they're weak—it reflects significant transparency deficits, as they didn't provide enough data for a solid evaluation. For you, this is a red flag: if an insurer isn't transparent now, how reliable will they be when you need to file a claim? This is akin to U.S. insurers that avoid public disclosure of their claims data or financial reserves, making it harder for you to trust their long-term promises.
Advertisement
The new MAP-Report No. 943, titled "Stability Rating of Disability Insurers," is now available from Franke and Bornberg. It includes detailed analyses of gross and net premiums, premium trends, and key risk factors in tariff design. For you, this report is a valuable tool to compare insurers' stability, much like how you'd check a U.S. insurer's AM Best or Standard & Poor's rating before buying a policy. Whether you're a broker or a policyholder, understanding which companies combine strong finances with transparency can help you make a more informed choice for your long-term income protection.
Independent professionals are often doers—they shape their work and life on their own terms. And retirement? For that, an efficient and return-oriented retirement plan belongs on your bucket list.