The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-08-24
q REPLY
To the Attack of Heber Jede-
diah Grant on Guardian
Fire Insurance Co., Backed
by the Home Fire Insurance
Co. of Utah.

\
u rival by assaulting those undertaking
to promote the Guardian Fire Insurance
! company To this end the Homo Fire
directors discredlt the earnings OF their
own company from fire premiums and
seek to prevent competition by stating
T that the fire insurance business is not
profitable, and is becoming less profit
able day by day The excuse given for
the attack on the fire business and on
ness pay was the republication of an
advertisement which the Home Fire
and Heber j. Grant & Go, had published
in the Deseret News. This advertise
ment admonished citizens to buy their
| insurance in the Home Fire and so
keep money at home The Guardian
| advertisement reproduced this because
| Heber j. Grant as president both OF the
Home Fire and Of Hober j. Grant g.
| Co, had been secretly busying himself
in opposition to the formation of tho
Guardian Fire Insurance company, and
had, for a considerable time before the
Guardian advertisement appeared, made
it his particular business to declare to
intending purchasers of the new com
pany IS stock that the business was un"
safe and Improbable, and that the
promoters were not men after his own
aw-abiding hcarti The natural reply
to these secret utterances was repro
duction Of his Home Fire advertise.
ment. Patriotic, retiring and devoid of
self-seeking as Mr.. Grant Is, no one will
credit him with advertising for insur-
ance so he can lose money for himself
and the Home Fire or just so he can
'keep money at home Is it unfair
to assume that somewhere there is q
profit in the business for Mr., Grant9
Were it true that the Home Fire is
not making money, then it is not unjust
to presume that Mr.. Grant is keeping
the Home Fire in q business that he
says is not profitable SO that Heber j..
commissions as general agents for the
Home Fire7 Very naturally Mr.. Grant
does not want any rival in the field
which might reduce his commissions.
Evidently it has not occurred to Mr..
Grant that an increase in fire rates ls
possible, but he has yet to discuss this
possibility with any of the gentlemen
he has endeavored to dissuade from par
ticipating in the formation Of another
fire company as patriotic in it's purpose
as his own and which also Will strive
to 'keep money at homo
Mr.. Grant makes the Home Fire say:
"We can have no objection to tho or
ganlzation Of new local fire insurance
companies, as we have always stood for
home industry and the policy Of keep
ing money at home" Now Mr.. Grant
has visited practically every one Of the
gentlemen advertised as having con-
sented to become directors of the Guar
dian Fire. He has written letters to
many persons advising them against
buying stock in the new company. This
work has been gratuitous on his part.
He has advised each person he has seen
hot fha, hoir pa
has set himself apart to protect the
public from the Vaccinations of those
who are endeavoring to organize the
new local fire company yet he says
he can have no objection to such
new local organization. It will require
more ingenuity than Mr.. Grant has dis
played in this connection to reconcile
his conduct with the statement in the
Home Fire advertisement.
If the insurance business Is unprofit-
able and rates are not increased Ca pre-
sumption very, properly not considered),
then time will come when all compa-
MES, including the Home Fire, will fail;
and those who have paid premiums will
not only lose their money, but will also
be unable to collect for losses sustained
and for protection against which they
paid their money to the Home Fire. If
the statement Of want of profit In the
business is true, Mr.. Grants attitude
is similar to that of the banker who
takes deposits when he knows his bank
is going to fail. On the other hand, if
the payment of premiums means pro-
lection against fire losses (and that is
what every person insuring in a reputa-
BILE company knows is true), then the
insurance business must be profitable.
Mr.. Grant may take either horn of the
dilemma but he can protect his char
acter for honesty only at the expense
Of his intelligence, or his intelligence at
the expense of his honesty.
The intimation that the Home Fire
is not making money on its fire bust
ness is disputed by the sworn state
ments of that company for the past ten
years. These statements show that the |
December 81, 1912, paid out for fire |
losses only 36,7 per cent Of the money |
it received as fire premiums. These |
sworn statements also show that it cost |
the Home Fire during the same period |
s6.7 per cent for expenses, The 367 |
per cent paid out for losses and the
1911 per cent paid out for expenses
make a total loss and expense outlay of
S3,4 per cent on every dollar received
'or fire premiums and left what is
allied an underwriting profit of 1876
L
| million dollars IN assets. 1t costs
money to invest these assets and pro.
ect them. Loans have to be made,
commissions paid, rents and interests
taxes paid, clerks hired, office
ent met--these, with lights, heat, tele.
hone. printing. postage and every 9th
r item of labor are all charged against
he premium income, and these items
re part of the 46.7 per cent expense.
Hence all the company s invested mil
ion dollars and its income from every
ource, including losses from bad loans
nd investments, are cared for and paid
ut of the money collected in for fire
remiums. No bank has such an advan-
age. Is it any wonder, therefore, that
insurance investments are profitablc7
)r that the Home Fire makes so much
Money out Of its investments, when the
ost Of caring for them is met out of
he insurance premiums' 1t is a safe
igure that it will cost easily $25 900
year TO take care Of million dollars
nvested. The Home Fire wrote in new
ire premiums in the ten years ended
December 81, 1912, $564,30 Sixteen
nd sixtenths per cent profit on that
um is 93,673,S0. Considering that tho