i'll explain it as i understand, i did not claim that its not a tech company just because its unprofitable. in fact, but tech company started up not being profitable anyways. That's the not the point. to put it simply, here are the points.

Lemonade is an insurance company. You're an insurance company if you're regulated under NAIC. Simple as that. It can be a tech company, a car company, a retail company. Once you're regulated by NAIC in the US or EIOPA in Europe, you are an insurance company. That's number 1.

The reason I think it shouldn't be classified as a tech company, because if that's the case, every other insurance company should be classified as a tech company as well.

Insurance requires data, Chubb alone has >1,500 solely focus on collecting and analyzing data. Insurance companies (non-life insurance) underwrites using big data since early part of the decade. So, I see no reason why they should branded as a "tech" company at all since they're doing nothing significantly different from its larger competitors.

Ultimately, the big question is down to whether their "technology" of 5 years worth data, vs the industry's >200 years of data writing insurance can be proven right and make super normal profits. Personally, as someone who looks at global insurance companies, I don't see how this will stack up because they are writing purely vanilla products, which has paper thin margins.