In recent months, I have been networking with insurance sales leaders in the Northeast U.S., having conversations about their experience building insurance agencies and sales teams. See also: Agency Succession Plans: Do It Now!   The following patterns surfaced as we discussed the current agency and sales team's challenges and opportunities: 1. Insurance agency and team leaders report that staffing and recruiting is their top challenge. Agency owners report staffing their offices to be most challenging, in particular regarding producer roles. Insurance sales team leaders, such as self-employed professionals with Primerica, report challenges with recruiting team members who are credible and have the qualities to succeed. 2. Lead generation was another challenging area.  One of the sales team leaders indicated that he has found referrals to be the best way to find prospects.  He reported that he routinely obtains 10 or more referrals from his customers. 3. Mindset and having the ability to stay the course was mentioned as another area of challenge. See also: Could Your Agency Pass a Risk Audit?   4. Finally, some mentioned retention. The problem of retention surfaced when we discussed new recruits experiencing difficulty in dealing with rejection. Further training on business building and on how to build relationships with prospects was mentioned as a potential solution. What do you think about these challenges? Do they reflect the challenges that you find in building your business?

During his campaign, President Trump identified tax reform as a central pillar of his agenda to create 25 million jobs over the next decade. Similarly, Congressional Republicans have said that tax reform is essential to increasing economic growth and hope to complete action on tax reform legislation before the end of this year. Many Congressional Democrats, including Senate Democratic leader Schumer and Senate Finance Committee ranking member Wyden, also have supported corporate rate reduction to boost U.S. international competitiveness, provided it is done on a revenue-neutral basis. While there is little detail on specific tax reform proposals at this early stage in the process, insurance companies will be asking how various tax reform proposals may affect the U.S. tax treatment of their domestic and foreign operations as tax reform efforts advance in 2017. With the proviso that the tax-reform situation is very fluid, here is what the proposals currently put forward by the president, the House and the Senate could mean: During his campaign, President Trump proposed reducing the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. He also would repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT). His plan would eliminate “most business tax expenditures,” except for the research credit. President Trump’s tax plan also would impose a one-time, 10% repatriation tax on overseas corporate profits. Earlier in his campaign, Trump’s tax plan specifically called for the repeal of tax deferral on the foreign earnings of U.S.-based companies, but his most recent plan does not address the taxation of future foreign earnings. A House Republican task force on tax reform, led by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brady, prepared the Blueprint. Chairman Brady and committee staff have been working since July of last year to draft statutory language that reflects the goals and principles outlined in the Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the top U.S. corporate income tax rate would be reduced from 35% to 20%. The Blueprint generally proposes eliminating all business tax expenditures except for the research credit. In addition, the Blueprint would move the U.S. from a worldwide international tax system to a “territorial” 100% dividend-exemption system and impose a mandatory “deemed” repatriation tax (8.75% for cash or cash equivalents and 3.5% for other accumulated foreign earnings). The cash flow system proposed by the Blueprint includes immediate expensing of all depreciable and amortizable new business investment and denying a deduction for net interest expense. The Blueprint notes that special rules are needed for banking, insurance and leasing business activities under the proposed border adjustable destination-based cash-flow tax system. As of mid- February 2017, the details of such special rules remain under consideration by Chairman Brady and his staff. The Blueprint proposes to establish a “destination-based” business tax system that would be “border adjustable” by exempting the gross receipts from export sales and imposing tax on imports, which could be achieved through the denial of a deduction for the cost of the imports. In recent interviews, Chairman Brady has described border adjustability as a critical part of the Blueprint, stating, “It became clear we needed border adjustability to eliminate all the incentives for companies to move jobs, innovation and headquarters overseas.” Chairman Brady and other House Republican leaders also have cited border adjustability as a key means of offsetting the cost of lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate to 20%. Although there are no official revenue estimates for the House Republican Blueprint, the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center has estimated that border adjustment raises $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The cost of lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate to 20 percent and the cost of repealing the corporate AMT was projected to be $1.8 trillion over the same period. House Republican leaders have noted that they would need to identify alternative means offsetting a reduction in corporate tax rates if their border adjustment proposal is not adopted. In 2014, former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) introduced a tax reform bill (H.R. 1) that included provisions to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate to 25% and included a broad range of revenue offsets affecting various industries. Revenue offsets in H.R. 1 affecting insurance companies included proposals to change the way life insurance reserves and non-life insurance reserves are computed, and changes to the taxation of deferred acquisition costs (the “DAC” tax). Other offsets included changes to life and non-life insurance company proration for DRD and tax-exempt interest. H.R. 1 also proposed an increase in the discount rate used to compute life insurance reserves. Under H.R. 1, U.S. insurance companies also were not permitted to deduct reinsurance premiums paid to a related company that is not subject to U.S. taxation on the premiums, unless the related company elects to treat the premium income as effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business (and thus subject to U.S. tax). The Blueprint states that transition rules will be needed for tax reform in general and in particular for the move to a destination-based cash-flow business tax system; however, it does not describe those transition rules. Chairman Brady recently has reaffirmed that he does not support exemptions for individual business sectors, but he is prepared to consider transition relief. See also: Implications for Insurance Taxation?   Senate tax reform proposals In a Feb. 1 speech, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said the Senate is working on its own tax reform plan, and the “hope is to have a tax reform proposal in one form or another to discuss publicly in the near future.” Chairman Hatch has expressed hope that the Senate tax reform effort will be able to secure bipartisan support. Without Democratic support, Chairman Hatch has noted that “we’ll basically need universal Republican support to pass anything through [budget] reconciliation” procedures that allow for legislation to pass with a simple majority. Most Senate legislation requires approval by a 60-vote supermajority. Chairman Hatch has not taken a position on the border tax adjustment. However, he has noted that several senators have expressed concerns or opposition to the House proposal. Senators who have announced opposition to the House border adjustment proposal include Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), who also serves on the Finance Committee, and Sen. David Perdue (R-GA). “What it means is that the Senate will have to work through its own tax reform process if we’re going to have any chance of succeeding,” Chairman Hatch said in his Feb. 1 remarks. “No one should expect the Senate to simply take up and pass a House tax reform bill, and that’s not a bad thing.” While now focused on pursuing comprehensive tax reform, Chairman Hatch and his staff had been working over the last two years on a corporate integration proposal that would subject business income to a single level of tax. The proposal, which has not been released to date, has been expected to adopt a dividends-paid deduction approach in which dividends are treated like interest (i.e., deductible payments) and a withholding tax is imposed on both to ensure one level of U.S. tax on interest and dividend income. Implications

• There is little detail on specific tax reform proposals that could affect the insurance industry at the time of this document’s publication. Accordingly, insurance companies will need to closely monitor how various tax reform proposals may affect the U.S. tax treatment of their domestic and foreign operations as tax reform efforts advance later in 2017. PwC will provide timely updates on developments as they arise.

Administrative Developments A number of administrative developments occurred in 2016 concerning insurance companies. These developments affected insurers in various lines of business:

• Life insurers – The most significant development for life insurers remains the adoption of Life Principles Based Reserves (PBR), effective as early as Jan. 1, 2017, for some companies and some contracts issued on or after that date. Life PBR has a number of related tax issues, and the IRS and Treasury Department provided its first guidance in Notice 2016-66, setting forth rules for implementing the 2017 CSO mortality tables. Life PBR remains on the annual Priority Guidance Plan, was recently identified as one of 13 “campaigns” to which the IRS will devote significant resources in the coming months, and is the subject of an Industry Issue Resolution (IIR) project.

Two other 2016 administrative developments are particularly important for life insurers. First, Notice 2016-32 provides an alternative diversification rule under section 817(h) for a segregated asset account that invests in a government securities money market fund. The new, alternative diversification rule in Notice 2016-32 facilitates such investments. Second, Field Attorney Advice 20165101F concludes that a change in the computation of the statutory reserves cap that applies to life insurance reserves is a change in basis and therefore required to be spread over 10 years. Although Field Attorney Advice is not precedential, this conclusion was controversial, and companies are still considering the issue as potential changes in basis arise.

• Non-life insurers – IRS Attorney Memorandum (“AM”) 2016-002 addresses the mechanics of a change in method of accounting for unearned premiums by a Blue Cross or Blue Shield organization that fails to meet the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement of section 833(c)(5). The guidance is helpful to a broader class of nonlife insurers than Blue Cross organizations because it illustrates the operation of the unearned premium reserve and the application of section 481 to changes in accounting method more generally.

In addition, in early 2017, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury issued Frequently Asked Questions about ACA implementation, including guidance defining the term “health insurance coverage.” Under that guidance, the provision of Medicaid coverage to Medicaid recipients as a managed care organization, and the provision of coverage under a Medicare Advantage organization or plan or a Medicare prescription drug plan is not “health insurance coverage.” This interpretation could excuse some companies from the compensation deduction limitation of section 162(m)(6) and could clear up confusion created by two prior Chief Counsel Advice memoranda (201610021 and 201618010).

• Health insurers – No payments will be required in 2017 under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Health Insurance Provider fee, as a result of that fee’s suspension under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. Health insurance providers are still required to file Form 8963 for the 2016 year pending legislative developments on the ACA.

In addition, some insurers (particularly health insurers) anticipate significant guaranty fund assessments as a result of the liquidation of Penn Treaty America Insurance. Many such companies (other than Blue Cross organizations) account for those payments on a reserve basis as premium- based assessments under Rev. Proc. 2002-46.

• Captive insurance companies – Section 831(b) allows certain small, non-life insurance companies to elect to be taxed only on investment income and not on underwriting income. The IRS and Treasury Department have not provided guidance on changes that the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 made to the requirements to qualify for that provision.

See also: Be on the Lookout for These 3 Tax Scams   Captive insurance companies – particularly small (“micro”) captive insurance companies -- remain a significant administrative priority, however. For example, Notice 2016-66 identifies a significant number of such companies as “transactions of interest” for which reporting is required. Those reporting requirements are drafted broadly, and a large number of companies are in the process of reporting. The IRS also has identified “micro captive” insurance companies as a “campaign” issue that is a priority for the IRS in targeting its examination resources. Furthermore, practitioners and taxpayer alike are still waiting for the Tax Court’s decision in Avrahami v. Commissioner, which could provide even more judicial guidance on insurance qualification in the context of captive insurance.

• Regulations under Section 385 (characterization as debt or equity) – In spring 2016, the IRS and Treasury Department proposed regulations that would establish a contemporaneous documentation requirement that must be satisfied for certain related- party debt to be respected as debt and recharacterize as equity certain instruments that were intended to be treated as debt for Federal income tax purposes if they are issued in connection with certain distributions and/or acquisitions, even if they met the documentation requirements. The proposed regulations generated significant Congressional and taxpayer concern, including nearly 200 unique comment letters. In fall 2016, the IRS and Treasury Department released final and temporary regulations. The government made significant changes in the final regulations in response to taxpayer comments. The overall scope of the proposed regulation has been reduced through a number of exemptions in the final and temporary regulations. The final and temporary regulations do not apply to debt instruments issued by foreign corporations. They also do not apply to interests issued by regulated insurance companies other than captive insurance companies. The final regulations also treat surplus notes of an insurance company as meeting the documentation requirements of the regulations, even though approval or consent of a regulator may be required for payments under the notes. However, the final regulations make no special provision for life insurance companies that are prevented from joining a consolidated return by the life-nonlife consolidated return limitations, nor do they provide specific guidance on the treatment of a company’s obligations under funds withheld reinsurance.
• Regulations Under Section 987 – The IRS has issued final and temporary Section 987 regulations in December 2016. The final regulations implement an accounting regime based largely on proposed regulations issued in September 2006, to account for income earned through a qualified business unit (QBU) that operates with a functional currency different than that of its owner (e.g. foreign branches). Similar to the 2006 proposed regulations, the final regulations generally do not apply directly to insurance companies but may be relevant to non-insurance affiliates.

2016-17 Priority Guidance Plan As in prior years, the IRS and Treasury jointly issued a Priority Guidance Plan outlining guidance it intends to work on during the 2016-2017 year. The plan continues to focus more on life than property and casualty insurance companies. The following insurance-specific projects, many of which carried over from last year’s plan, were listed as priority items:

• Final regulations under §72 on the exchange of property for an annuity contract. Proposed regulations were published on October 18, 2006;
• Regulations under §§72 and 7702 defining cash surrender value;
• Guidance on annuity contracts with a long-term care insurance rider under §§72 and 7702B;
• Guidance under §§807 and 816 regarding the determination of life insurance reserves for life insurance and annuity contracts using principles-based methodologies, including stochastic reserves based on conditional tail expectations;
• Guidance on exchanges under §1035 of annuities for long-term care insurance contracts; and
• Guidance relating to captive insurance companies.

Less clear is what projects the 2017-2018 Priority Guidance might include. For example, the Trump administration may have different guidance priorities than its predecessor. In addition, a recent Executive Order requiring agencies to relieve existing regulatory burdens in exchange for imposing new ones could complicate the number of guidance items that may be published or the form those items may take. Implications

• Life insurers should consider the effect of Life PBR tax issues on product development, financial modeling, and compliance as some companies consider a January 1, 2017, effective date.
• Nonlife insurers who move in and out of insurance company status (or whose products move in and out of insurance contract status) should consider whether the recent Attorney Memorandum sheds light on the application of section 481 to insurance- specific items such as unearned premium reserve.
• Health insurers can expect significant changes in tax rules and, in particular, one-time transition rules as a result of the 2017 suspension of the Health Insurance Provider Fee and the likely repeal (and possible replacement) of the ACA.
• Captive insurers should be prepared for additional IRS scrutiny as a result of the Priority Guidance Plan item promising guidance, identification of the micro captive issue as a “campaign,” and the possibility that a decision in the Avrahami case could shed more light on insurance qualification for Federal income tax purposes.

As the on-demand workforce continues to grow -- reaching 55 million freelancers in the U.S. in 2016 -- insurers are tapping into the so-called gig economy. It's only logical that agents should follow suit. There are processes within every agency that can be adapted to the gig economy, where the agent can save money and have access to experienced personnel at the same time. Claims Processing There are millions of gig workers across North America ready to be assigned to conduct a variety of tasks of relevance to insurance carriers. These include asset verifications, property inspections, document retrievals, salvage verification, taking photos of damaged vehicles, meeting with customers and so much more. My experience as CEO of WeGoLook, one such provider of the above services, shows me how leveraging gig workers can reduce overhead, improve efficiency due to mobile innovation and speed claims processes. Workload Surge Support Many insurance carriers require agents to provide pictures of risks such as homes, autos and commercial properties with an application. All carriers also require photos of these risks when writing new business immediately following the lifting of a weather-related moratorium. Using workers contracted through experienced gig economy field services providers enables the agency to leverage experienced professionals at a moment’s notice. Literally the swipe of a smartphone or click of a dashboard button! See also: Gig Economy: Newest Tool for Insurance   Customer Service Every agency owner recognizes that a substantial portion of resources goes to providing services that do not generate a premium. Typically, these tasks include driver changes, address and contact information changes and taking payments over the phone. Because these tasks to do not involve insurance transactions, discussing coverage and offering advice, they can in most cases be handled by a non-licensed representative. Having an on-demand gig service standing by to accept these calls and conduct the necessary will save you money. And we aren't just talking about phone calls. All web service requests can also be directed to a mailbox monitored by a gig worker. It's Time to Embrace the Gig More people are working in the gig economy, many more are using it, and insurance providers and agencies can leverage it for cost savings and claims efficiencies. Simple as that. No doubt, seasoned agency owners and managers may push back from embracing the gig economy and understanding how on-demand workers can streamline agency processes. Seasoned agents have tried and true methods they use for writing business and that's completely understandable. But when there's a way of doing something better and cheaper, it's best to at least test the waters. Remember that in this new digital economy, innovation is paramount.

Our cities are built brick by brick, often using construction practices that have evolved little in the last century and giving little regard to proper planning and sustainable development. Yet innovations and new technologies have produced progressive means of constructing the built environment to ensure that urban infrastructure, once in place, can make a valuable contribution to the workings of a city for centuries to come, withstanding many changes in use and function. Good urban infrastructure needs to anticipate change, be built to adapt and to be resilient. The Global Agenda Council on the Future of Cities has detailed 10 of the most important urban innovations that will shape the future of our cities. At the heart of these innovations is an understanding that the cities of the future need to be flexible and adaptive on a day-to-day level – doing more with less space and resources – and, in the long term, be able to adapt to the powerful mega-trends placing heavy pressures on the urban environment. The three key trends that will shape the agenda of cities for years to come are: demographic shifts, a changing environment and resource scarcity and technology and business model disruption. Demographic shifts The UN reports that the global population will rise to 9.6 billion by 2050. Nearly all of this population growth will occur in cities – it estimated that 66% of the global population will live in urban areas by 2050. Most of these cities are located in the global South and, at present, lack the capacity and resources to ensure that growth is sustainable. Unchecked urban population growth can lead to vast unsustainable urban sprawl, or the creation of dense slums. Cities will need to accommodate more people without increasing their urban footprint; increasing density, without decreasing quality of life. This can be achieved with reprogrammable living space such as MIT’s reprogrammable apartments or by building structures with multiple uses in mind, ensuring that they can be used for different purposes at different times of the day or week, such as reusing office space or schools for social or leisure activities during the evenings or at the weekend. In the developed world, years of declining birth rates and longer life expectancy are leading to a rapidly aging population, with its own set of challenges. The effects of this demographic shift are already being felt in countries including Japan, Italy, Germany and Norway, with pressure being put on cities to rethink the provision of urban infrastructure, embrace universal design and reuse and repurpose buildings and infrastructure that is becoming obsolete. See also: Moving Closer to the ‘Smart City’   This trend is also increasing the demand for health and social services and the provision of housing that will meet the needs of people during their 100-year life. Tokyo is at the forefront of this trend; an estimated 200 schools per year are closing, and the city is repurposing them as adult education centers, senior homes and places of leisure and exercise for the elderly. Cities in other advanced economies need to prepare for this eventuality. Changing environment and resource scarcity The world’s climate over the next century is likely to shift dramatically. Increased occurrences of extreme weather events, desertification and rising sea levels all threaten the world’s cities. Fifteen of the world’s 20 largest cities are located in coastal zones threatened by sea-level rise and storm surges. To prepare for these challenges, cities need to be resilient, building coping mechanisms into their urban fabric. If well-designed, infrastructure that protects against high-impact climate events can also be flexible, serving a valuable purpose for the entirety of its life. Projects such as New York’s Dry Line, or Roskilde’s flood defense skatepark combine resilient infrastructure with a space for community leisure activities. [caption id="attachment_24740" align="alignnone" width="600"] Source: Outlook on the Global Agenda 2015[/caption] The urban planner Patrick Abercrombie, who created London’s post-World War II master plan, reserved its hinterland as a “green belt” aimed to preserve the countryside, while also providing nourishment to the city. Today, the city’s greenbelt is global, and water and resource scarcity in any region can easily disrupt the delicate balance between a city and its worldwide network of production. The advent of urban farming will help to alleviate this risk. Urban farms are largely hydroponic – feeding water and nutrients directly to the roots – and closed-loop, meaning they use as much as 90% less water. They can be placed anywhere and stacked vertically, making them as much as 100 times more productive per hectare. By 2050, the world’s population will demand 70% more food than is consumed today; urban farms will help cities to feed their growing populations, creating a vertical green belt, adding flexibility into the food system with guaranteed yields and low-risk supply chains. Cities consume vast amounts of all resources, from the materials of which they are constructed, to the demands of their citizens for products and packaging. Cities cannot continue to follow a take/make/waste pattern, filling landfills and depleting finite resources, and need to move toward a more circular economy. Systems of reuse and recycling need to be in place to smartly deal with waste, and building materials themselves need to be designed for reuse. The European Union program Buildings as Material Banks creates reusable buildings that store and record the value of their composite materials over their lifetime. Others use up-cycled materials such as shipping containers to provide low-cost, flexible housing to students and young professionals. Technology and business model disruption Cities are economic engines. According to McKinsey, 600 cities are responsible for 60% of global GDP. The healthy economy of a city sustains its population through salaries and entrepreneurial activity. However, all economic activity is subject to disruption; shifts in business models can create opportunities, but cites from Detroit to Liverpool have seen the possible negative effects of industrial change. In the fourth industrial revolution, we are likely to see the biggest industrial shifts in a generation, changing the way we work and live in the urban environment. Innovations such as 3D printing, artificial intelligence and next-generation robotics will shift models of work and production in ways that are impossible to predict. Cities and businesses need to be adaptive. Google, a company at the forefront of this change, anticipates that its business model could shift dramatically. The company's new Mountain View, CA, headquarters is adapted for this, a series of giant domes under which any number of structures, fit for any purpose, can be quickly assembled; making it completely reprogrammable for any eventual use. Cities need to take a similar approach to construction. See also: Can Insurance Become Utility, Like Electricity?   The sharing economy can be defined as the distribution and sharing of excess goods and services between individuals, largely enabled by modern technology. This new model is having a deep impact on the urban environment. Many consumers are moving away from ownership and toward access, renting access to mobility, entertainment or space. Companies of the sharing economy naturally add a layer of flexibility into the city. Airbnb, for example, allows people to rent out their apartments when they are out of town, easily increasing a city’s capacity to accommodate influxes of visitors as demand increases. As the sharing economy develops, similar companies will enable cities to turbocharge their efficiency, ensuring that no excess capacity is wasted. Humanity faces the mammoth task of adding more than two billion people to the urban population before 2050, the equivalent of creating a city the size of London every month for the next two decades. To house, feed and employ these people, cities will have to do more with less. They have to be smarter, greener and more efficient. They will have to innovate.

Humans are not inspired to act on reason alone. Using conventional rhetoric — which, in the business world, usually consists of a PowerPoint presentation where you say, “Here is our company’s biggest challenge, and here’s what we need to do to prosper,” building your case through statistics, facts and quotes from authorities — doesn’t connect with your audience. The problem with such rhetoric is twofold. First, the people you are talking to have their own set of authorities, statistics and experiences; so, while you are trying to persuade them, they are arguing with you in their heads instead of being motivated to reach certain goals. Second, if you do succeed in persuading the people you're talking to, you’ve only done so at an intellectual level, and that’s not good enough. The theory of rational action that claims human beings are abstract symbol manipulators (much like computers that seek to maximize their self-interest) has dominated most of the 20th century and is the foundation for major institutions, from stock markets to governments. Over the last couple of years, research has led to a profound shift in how we understand human thought and behavior. Scientists have pieced together enough evidence to know that humans are embodied beings, which means we work the way we do because of the kinds of brains we have, the kinds of bodies we have and the typical experiences that pervade our evolutionary history. We know now how real human nature works (mostly). The big picture is that we are profoundly moral beings; our behavior is shaped by value judgments, deeply held beliefs and assertions about right and wrong. We are profoundly social beings; our behavior is influenced by the behavior of those around us through shared stories, common expectations and need for cooperation (and competition). We make decisions through context-based logic determined by how we understand the situations we find ourselves in and reasoning with our emotions. Try asking someone on a date without those subtle emotional cues of presence, enthusiasm and appeal. See also: Hacking the Human: Social Engineering   The speed camera lottery I believe something as simple as fun can influence human behavior for the better. In a series of experiments, Volkswagen tested this theory. Can we get people to obey the speed limit by making it fun to do so? The winning idea was so good that Volkswagen, together with the Swedish National Society for Road Safety, actually made this innovative idea a reality in Stockholm. Check it out... Piano Stairs Can we get more people to take the stairs instead of the escalators by making it fun to do so? Piano stairs created on Odenplan underground station in Stockholm have become a hit in cities worldwide — from Milan to Santiago, Chile, and more. See also: LiveMed Brings Digital Human Touch   The way to persuade people is by uniting an idea with an emotion. It comes down to good design in our attempts to change human behavior and will depend on our understanding of REAL human nature. We can engage and design models to promote socially desirable outcomes such as the reduction of environmental impact and greater sensitivity to the needs of others.

Third-party risks—the notion that a contractor or a supplier could inadvertently expose the first-party organization to a network breach—may not be the sexiest cybersecurity issue out there. But at RSA 2017—the weeklong cybersecurity conference that drew 43,000 attendees to San Francisco’s Moscone Center last month—there was much talk that third-party risks are destined to ascend as a bellwether phenomenon. I mean that in this sense: Actually addressing third-party risks is something companies of all sizes—from enterprise-class first-party organizations to SMB-size third-party suppliers—must come to grips with, probably sooner than later. What’s more, as the journey to mitigate third-party risk unfolds, trustworthiness of internet-centric commerce naturally will rise, perhaps dramatically. New market emerges One marker is that tech research firm Gartner has begun monitoring a dozen or so technology vendors marketing third-party risk solutions to large enterprises. Gartner refers to this fledgling cottage industry as the “IT vendor risk management” market. In a report last fall, Gartner predicted that the IT VRM market would expand 30% by 2019. See also: Ransomware: Growing Threat for SMBs   The main growth driver: regulatory requirements. Case in point: New York state’s freshly minted Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, which took effect March 1, includes provisions that require financial services companies to ensure the security of the systems used by their third-party suppliers. Meanwhile, Europe has begun to roll out a comprehensive set of data-handling rules that also call out the need to address third-party risk. These include the new framework for commercial data exchange between the U.S. and the European Union, referred to as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, as well as the new EU privacy rules known as General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR. SMBs in hackers’ cross-hairs To be clear, the burden does not solely rest with large enterprises to mitigate third-party risks. This issue profoundly affects small and medium-size organizations. SMBs no doubt will face increasing requirements to prove their cybersecurity fitness to win contracts from first-party business customers. “Third-party issues are driven by the fact that outsourcing trends are continuing unabated,” says Jonathan Dambrot, CEO and co-founder of Prevalent, one of the leading IT VRM vendors tracked by Gartner. He says third-party suppliers, in fact, are believed to be the source of as much as 70% of the network breaches that occur today, Professional cyber criminals are fully aware of capabilities of the multimillion-dollar security systems that large companies have in place. So they wisely target “the small provider who’s providing some service and who doesn’t have their security controls,” Dambrot says. Vendors lack knowledge Meanwhile, all too many third-party suppliers continue to operate either ignorant of, or in denial of, the exposures they’re creating by failing to adhere to security best practices. “A lot of smaller firms are still struggling with even understanding what they need to do, from a policies standpoint all the way down to the technical controls,” Dambrot says. “Do they have appropriate controls for encryption, identity management and multifactor authentication?” It’s very early in the ballgame. A Ponemon Institute survey conducted last May found that the majority of the 600-plus respondents agreed that third-party risk was both serious and has been significantly growing in their organizations. See also: Cyber Attacks Shift to Small Businesses   However, Ponemon found that only a third of those organizations had formal programs in place to manage third-party risks, and only about a quarter of them purchased cyber insurance to reduce the economic impact of third-party risks. But the potential for elevating internet security, in the longer run, is palpable. This post originally appeared on ThirdCertainty.

DIAmond Award winner Trōv is one of the most widely referred to cases when speaking about disruption in the insurance sector. But what is Trōv exactly about? What is the business model? How successful is it? Trōv’s founder and CEO Scott Walchek will share his vision in a keynote presentation at DIA Amsterdam, this May. To warm up, I interviewed Scott last week. Trōv is the world’s first on-demand insurance platform for single items. It is a mobile app that allows users to insure whatever, whenever. It empowers customers to insure "just the things you care about" for whatever period you prefer. Trōv users simply snap a picture of a receipt or the product code of a product. This creates a personal digital repository for all things tangible. For selected items, Trōv offers a quote to insure each individual item. Customers can then simply "swipe to protect" to purchase the insurance. It is equally simple to "swipe to unprotect." With Trōv, long contracts are not necessary. Even the claims process is automated with the use of chatbots and available on-demand on a smart phone. Trōv is founded by Scott Walchek. Scott is a successful technology entrepreneur. Over the past 25 years, he built companies such as Macromedia, Sanctuary Woods, C2B Technologies and DebtMarket. He was also a co-lead investor and founding director of Baidu, China’s largest search engine. Scott is also one of the 75 thought leaders who contributed to our new book "Reinventing Customer Engagement. The next level of digital transformation for banks and insurers." What inspired you to create Trōv? Scott: “At some point I realized there is an enormous latent value in the information related to the things people own. From obvious things such as receipts and warranties to actually having an overview of what you own and what the current replacement value of each item is. We want to curate ways to turn this into value for consumers. From keeping information on items up to date to, for instance, arranging insurance for these items. We're a technology company, not an insurance company. We’re new in this space. So I started with testing our first ideas about a proposition and the assumptions behind it with several senior executives of large P&C insurers such as AIG and ACE. What I assumed is that at the end of the day the core metric of success is the ratio of insurance to actual value. The better this ratio, the better the balance sheet. Of course, this is an oversimplification, but everyone agreed that in essence this is how over the past 200 years value in insurance is created. Now, what is remarkable is that insurers do not really know what consumers own, and what the exact value of these goods is … What if they did know? This would disrupt markets. It would lead to much better risk assessment driven by real knowledge of the true value of what people really own.” See also: Insurtech: The Approaching Storm   Trōv's main target users are millennials, a target segment that most incumbents find very difficult to reach and engage with. Why does Trōv strike the right chord among this generation? Scott: “We’re in the Australian market for a year now and entered the U.K. market a few months ago. Around 75% of our users are aged between 18 and 24. It appears that we are successful in tapping into the specific needs of this group. We do this by explicitly tapping into four key millennial trends. The first is "on-demand." We can see that from how millennials consume entertainment, shopping etc. Services need to be now, 24 hours a day, on my device. The second trend is, "Don’t lock me into a lengthy contract." We enable micro-duration. Customers can turn their insurance on and off as they see fit. In practice, they hardly do. But it is about the psychological benefit of being able to do so. The third is what we call "unbundled convenience": "Let me choose what to protect, the things I really care about." The fourth is: "people/agent optional." Millennials want to engage with their smartphone without having to talk to an actual person.” Trōv is based in the San Francisco Bay Area. But you decided to launch first in Australia and the U.K. Why there? Scott: “Ha ha – there’s a linear story and a non-linear story to that! The linear story is that microduration is still new to the industry, so our hypothesis requires testing. The regulatory environment is important if you want to get to market fast. Australia and the U.K. have a single regulatory authority versus the 56 bodies in the U.S. But we’re also in the process of filing in the U.S. The non-linear story is that I just happened to meet Kirsten Dunlop, head of strategic innovation at Suncorp Personal Insurance, at a conference in Meribel in France. She immediately understood the strategic impact of Trōv, and that is when it took off.” Because the Trōv concept is so new to consumers, it must be extremely interesting to learn what exactly strikes the right chord … Scott: “Customers just love the experience. Our NPS is +49. However, we’re learning every day. With a completely new concept such as Trōv, it is impossible to know exactly what to expect, honestly. It turns out that Trōv reveals new consumer insights. There is still a significant number of valuables that our audience wants to insure but that we cannot provide a quote for, for instance. Although more than 60% never turn off an insurance, the ability to switch an insurance on and off turns out to be an important psychological benefit. This appears to be category-dependent. Sporting goods are switched on and off more often than smartphones and laptops. We’re constantly measuring and improving every step of the funnel. From leaving Facebook to downloading the app, to registration, to actual swipes. We will share concrete numbers on uptake and conversion rates at DIA Amsterdam. But to already share two big learnings: We designed Trōv for use on smartphones, but, much to our surprise funnel figures multiplied when we decided to add a web interface. And we are actually even attracting better-quality customers.” In Australia, you decided to partner with Suncorp, in the U.K. with AXA and in the U.S. with Munich Re. What are the success factors of a partnership between an insurtech and an incumbent? Scott: “At the end of the day, it is about relationships and people. We understand their internal challenges. Everyone agrees that real knowledge of individual insured goods and the actual value of those goods improves the loss ratio. But we need to figure out how this works exactly through experimentation. This requires internal dedication, throughout the whole organization, starting at the top. It is not about conducting small pilots, but the willingness to experiment while going all the way, invest for several years and learn as we go what insurance will look like in the future and how consumers want to engage.” What are your future plans and ambitions with Trōv? We can imagine that Trōv could also be an interesting partner for retailers and producers of durables. With Trōv, they could seamlessly sell insurance ... Scott: “We have three lines of business. The first is what we call "solid." This is about expanding the Trōv app geographically, covering more categories and continuously developing the technology. Trōv will be launched in Japan, Germany and Canada shortly. Then there is "liquid"; offering white-label solutions to financial institutions, for instance in relation to connected cars and homes. The third line of business is "gas"; basically Trōv technology embedded in other applications; insurance as a service. This could be attractive for all sorts of merchants, telco operators etc.” See also: Understanding Insurtech: the ABCs   This would make Trōv even more part of the context in which consumers makes decisions about the risk they are willing and not willing to incur. And it also taps into the exponential growth of connected devices, similar to how machine-to-machine payments are increasingly taking place … Scott: “Yes. What we’re now doing with Trōv is really the beginning. Trōv is about providing our customers with exactly the protection they want, exactly when they want it. With more and more connected devices and sensors and new data streams everywhere we can make the whole experience so seamless they don’t have to do anything at all.”

Last week's announcement by Next Insurance that it would sell insurance via Facebook Messenger brings chatbots to the fore of the discussion on insurtech—where they belong.

At a time when so many companies are trying to come to grips with all the innovation in the industry, chatbots can provide a relatively easy win. They cut costs for insurance companies while providing better service to customers, who can use their phones (by now an extension of the hand for many people) to text an inquiry rather than have to navigate a phone tree and eventually sit on hold for several minutes while listening to bad music or ads, only to eventually arrive at a customer service rep who doesn't really understand the issue.

At ITL, we became believers in this use of artificial intelligence more than a year ago and, once we saw the great work being done at Pypestream, decided that the technology was mature enough that we would help spread the word about the company and its chatbots, starting last summer. Pypestream initially focused on using chatbots to streamline communication between existing customers and companies, but, as the Next-Facebook announcement shows, the technology has developed enough to be used in almost any sort of interaction. If artificial intelligence can power "robo-advisers" for investment companies, it can handle an introductory sales presentation or answer routine customer inquiries.

That said...it's always important to consider technology developments in the right context. While the Silicon Valley types tend to think in binary ways, and will suggest that chatbots will eliminate agents, call centers and so on, disintermediation rarely follows such a stark script. There are more bank tellers today than there were decades ago when ATMs were going to put them out of business. Realtors are thriving. Even travel agents are still around, albeit about 60% fewer of them than in their heyday. A landmark study by McKinsey found that it's actually right to think about pieces of jobs being automated rather than to assume whole classes of jobs will disappear—only the elevator operator has truly gone away because of automation.

So, it's important to think about integrating chatbots, rather than assume they'll take over the world. Customers will still, in many parts of a process, want to talk with a real, live human being, and insurers need to make sure the right one is available instantly to jump in. The good news is that chatbots will save so much money that insurers can afford to invest in the right processes and expertise.

I live for the day when ITL is so big that we need to invest in chatbots. In the meantime, if you email us with any questions, comments or concerns, you can be sure it's one of us fallible humans responding.

Cheers,

Paul Carroll,
Editor-in-Chief 

Borrowing a line from James Carville’s presidential campaign advice, “It’s the economy, stupid,” we need to grasp the real source of sustained growth and say to ourselves, “It’s the customer experience, stupid.” Can we wake up and focus on the customer experience? Do we truly understand what they want? Do we understand that customer experience isn’t just about technology, transactions and 24/7 availability? Are we prepared to go beyond the processes and needs of the insurance company and look at insurance from the outside in? As you may have noticed, we are increasingly living in an experience-driven culture as opposed to a possessions-focused culture. In May 2016, Groupon launched an ad campaign surrounding the “Haves and Have Dones.” It’s a funny lampoon of those people who seek luxurious things vs. those who are looking for adventures and experiences. This cultural focus on doing more and buying less isn’t new; it’s just gaining traction. The implication for insurance is that customer experience is more relevant than ever because great experiences are highly valued. Insurers need to make their brand experiences into havens of ease, comfort and security that also fit into customers’ desired lifestyles. To dig deeper in understanding, insurers need to create customer personas and develop customer journey maps that will bring empathy into experience design. See also: How the Customer Experience Is Shifting   Personas — Bridges to Empathy Customer personas synthesize real-life examples into one, easy-to-understand picture of a common role or person. For example: Roger Thompson is a veterinarian. He works long hours, and most of them aren’t at a desk with easy access to his laptop. He makes a good income, but he isn’t wealthy. He is forced to fit his paperwork into Sunday afternoons. He cares passionately about animals and is not so passionate about anything that adds administrative time to his already-packed schedule. If faced with a choice between price and convenience, he will almost always pick convenience —though he remains price-conscious. This is just a slice of a persona. It instantly transports us into the shoes of that customer type, so that we can begin to see life from behind his eyes. If we know Roger’s motivations, worries and life pain points, we can better craft his customer journey. Personas simplify business conversations. If we all understand Roger’s needs, we are far more likely to agree about what it will take to make his experiences better. We can replicate this many times over with any type of role that is relevant to the insurance experience. Every time we do, we’ll get beyond our tendency to see customers as giant groups to capture an individual’s feelings during moment-by-moment needs and choices. Once the persona is created, a customer journey map can be developed. It is difficult to create the one without the other. The persona operates as the constant filter of feelings and issues that provide the real empathy while we consider what the journey looks like. Customer Journey Maps — Paths to Understanding Journey mapping is just what it sounds like — walking through the customer experience through the persona’s eyes and in the persona’s shoes. For example, Reema Patel is a sales rep for a shoe manufacturer. She commutes with a company car. Most days, her personal vehicle sits in the garage. She enjoys most of her interactions with her home/auto insurer, but every time she sees the insurance statement she gets a little irritated that she pays to cover something that gets so little use. Slicing the journey into common interaction and reaction points will help insurers see where the journey has hurdles. What aren’t we seeing in customer service surveys? What parts of the journey can we improve? Is there any part of life where the persona is prone to dislike their insurance experience? This is where journey mapping pays off for insurers. Our goal is to give the customer a brand experience that exceeds expectations, even if that experience requires less interaction and even if it changes the nature of our relationship. We simply need to be paying attention to what the experiences are and what they could be. Tesla makes a great example of an organization translating customer personas into customer journeys and then into improvement in customer experience. At some point, Tesla executives must have asked, “How can we improve auto ownership for Tesla customers?” The answer was to bundle the vehicle, its insurance and its maintenance (which it is actually experimenting with in Asia). In one step, Tesla removed hundreds of transactions from the owner over the life of the vehicle, consolidating payments and creating a lower-stress experience. A person like Reema might like the idea that coverage and ownership are all-in-one. How can insurers capitalize on customer journey mapping? Precisely by doing what Tesla did — using the maps to redesign the experience. You may insure small business owners. What does their day look like? What are their common risks? What happens when something goes wrong? Is there a way to move their brand experience from good to great? Redesigned Experiences — “That brand fits me” It’s an experience, not a transaction. If insurers adopt the mindset that we are shifting from core transactional experiences to customer experiences, then they will instantly be able to brainstorm new ways of supporting the customer. These might fall outside of traditional insurance operations. A high-volume motorcycle insurer, for example, might build an online community for cycle enthusiasts. Anyone can join. The company creates an experience that moves from the road into the living room. The insurer may capitalize on promotional opportunities to sell insurance, but is also gaining a deep understanding of the motivations and experiences of those who are insured. The company will understand the many types of motorcycle riders. It won’t be creating products that are one-size fits all. Those who ride will ultimately see that the brand fits them. “This is the insurer that understands riders like me.” See also: How to Bottle Great Customer Experience It’s an experience, not a technology. If sensors in my basement notify my insurer that I have water damage and the company schedules remediation without my making a claim, then my experience has improved and my loyalty has been assured. Likewise, if my auto insurer sends me a message to put my car in the garage because of an approaching hail storm, the company is looking out for my welfare and has improved my experience. These would be benchmark experiences for customers. They use new technology, but they are still focused on the experience. When we focus on the customer experience, we peek into customer minds and feed our own opportunity list with inspirations based on their thoughts, actions and feelings. We introduce a loop of feedback and improvement that will provide sustainable growth. And, we unify our organizations behind a culture of empathy and action. A focus on customer experience will give customers brand love — and that’s about the best result we could ask for.

This is the first part of a two-part series. Abstract Examining the intersection of research on the effects of (re)insurance risk diversification and availability of big insurance data components for competitive underwriting and premium pricing is the purpose for this paper. We study the combination of physical diversification by geography and insured natural peril with the complexity of aggregate structured insurance products, and furthermore how big historical and modeled data components affect product underwriting decisions. Under such market conditions, the availability of big data components facilitates accurate measurement of inter-dependencies among risks, and the definition of optimal and competitive insurance premium at the level of the firm and the policy holders. In the second part of this article, we extend the discourse to a notional micro-economy and examine the impact of diversification and insurance big data components on the potential for developing strategies for sustainable and economical insurance policy underwriting. We review concepts of parallel and distributed algorithmic computing for big data clustering, mapping and resource reducing algorithms. Introduction This working paper will examine how big data and fast compute platforms solve some complex premium pricing and portfolio structuring and accumulation problems in the context of flood insurance markets. Our second objective is to measure the effects of geo-spatial insurance risk diversification through modeling of interdependencies and show that such measures have impact on single risk premium definition and its market cost. The single product case studies examine the pricing of insurance umbrella coverage. They are selected to address scenarios relevant to current (re)insurance market conditions under intense premium competition. Then we extend the discourse to a micro-economy of multiple policy holders and aim to generalize some finding on economies of scale and diversification. The outcomes of all case studies and theoretical analysis depend on the availability of big insurance data components for modeling and pricing workflows. The quality, usability and computational cost of such data components determine their direct impact on the underwriting and pricing process and on definition of the single risk cost of insurance. 1.0 Pricing Aggregate Umbrella Policies Insurers are competing actively for insureds' premiums and looking for economies of scale to offset and balance premium competition and thus develop more sustainable long-term underwriting strategies. While writing competitive premium policies and setting up flexible contract structures, insurers are mindful of risk concentration and the lower bounds of fair technical pricing. Structuring of aggregate umbrella policies lends itself to underwriting practices of larger scales in market share and diversification. Only large insurers have the economies of scale to offer such products to their clients. Premium pricing of umbrella and global policies relies on both market conditions and mathematical modeling arguments. On the market and operational side, the insurer relies on lower cost of umbrella products due to efficiencies of scale in brokerage, claims management, administration and even in the computational scale-up of the modeling and pricing internal functions of its actuarial departments. In our study, we will first focus on the statistical modeling argument, and then we will define big data components, which allow for solving such policy structuring and pricing problems. See also: 3 Reasons Insurance Is Changed Forever   We first set up the case study on a smaller scale in context of two risks -- with insured limits for flood of $90 million and $110 million. These risks are priced for combined river-rain and storm surge flood coverage, first with both single limits separately and independently and then in an aggregate umbrella insurance product with a combined limit of $200 million: (1.0) Umbrella(200M) = Limit 1 (90M) + Limit 2 (110M) The two risks are owned by a single insured and are located in a historical flood zone, less than 1 kilometer from each other. For premium pricing, we assume a traditional approach dependent on modeled expected values of insured loss and standard deviation of loss. To set the statistical mechanics of the case study for both risks, we have a modeled flood insurance loss data samples Q_t and S_t respectively for both risks, from a stochastic simulation - T. Modeled insured losses have an expected value E[.] and a standard deviation σ[.], which define a standard policy premium of π(.) When both policies’ premiums are priced independently, by the standard deviation pricing principle we have: (1.1) π(S_t) = E[S_t] + σ[S_t] π(Q_t) = E[Q_t] + σ[Q_t] With non-negative loadings, it follows that: (2.0) π(S_t) ≥ E[S_t] π(Q_t) ≥ E[Q_t] Because both risks are owned by the same insured, we aggregate the two standard premium equations, using traditional statistical accumulation principles for expected values and standard deviations of loss. (3.0) π(Q_t)+π(S_t)= E[S_t]+σ[S_t]+E[Q_t]+σ[Q_t] π(Q_t)+π(S_t)= E[S_t+Q_t]+σ[S_t]+σ[Q_t] The theoretical joint insured loss distribution function f_S,Q(S_t,Q_t) of the two risks will have an expected value of insured loss: (4.0) E[S_t + Q_t] = E[S_t] + E[Q_t] And a joint theoretical standard deviation of insured loss: (4.1) σ[S_t + Q_t] = √(σ²[S_t] + σ²[Q_t] + 2ρσ[S_t] * σ[Q_t]) We use further these aggregation principles to express the sum of two single risks premiums π(Q_t), π(S_t), as well as to derive a combined premium π(Q_t + S_t) for an umbrella coverage product insuring both risks with equivalency in limits as in (1.0). An expectation for full equivalency in premium definition produces the following equality: (4.2) π(Q_t + S_t) = E[S_t + Q_t] + √(σ²[S_t] + σ²[Q_t] + 2ρσ[S_t] * σ[Q_t]) = π(Q_t) + π(S_t)  The expression introduces a correlation factor ρ between modeled insured losses of the two policies. In our case study, this correlation factor specifically expresses dependencies between historical and modeled losses for the same insured peril due to geo-spatial distances. Such correlation factors are derived by algorithms that measure dependencies of historical and modeled losses on their sensitivities to geo-spatial distances among risks. In this article, we will not delve into the definition of such geo-spatial correlation algorithms. Three general cases of dependence relationships among flood risks due to their geographical situation and distances are examined in our article: full independence, full dependence and partial dependence. 2.0 Sub-Additivity, Dependence and Diversification Scenario 2.1: Two Boundary Cases of Fully Dependent and Fully Independent Risks In the first boundary case, where we study full dependence between risks, expressed with a unit correlation factor, we have from first statistical principles that the theoretical sum of the standard deviations of loss of the fully dependent risks is equivalent to the standard deviation of the joint loss distribution of the two risks combined, as defined in equation (4.1). (4.3) σ[S_t + Q_t] = √(σ²[S_t] + σ²[Q_t] + 2σ[S_t] * σ[Q_t]) = σ[S_t] + σ[Q_t] For expected values of loss, we already have a known theoretical relationship between single risks’ expected insurance loss and umbrella product expected loss in equation (4.0). The logic of summations and equalities for the two components in standard premium definition in (4.0) and (4.3) leads to deriving a relationship of proven full additivity in premiums between the single policies and the aggregate umbrella product, as described in equation (4.2), and shortened as: (4.4) π(Q_t + S_t) = π(Q_t) + π(S_t) Some underwriting conclusions are evident from this analysis. When structuring a combined umbrella product for fully dependent risks, in very close to identical geographical space, same insured peril and line-of-business, the price of the aggregated umbrella product should approach the sum of single risk premiums priced independently. The absence of diversification in geography and insured catastrophe peril prevents any significant opportunities for cost savings or competitiveness in premium pricing. The summation of riskiness form single policies to aggregate forms of products is linear and co-monotonic. Economies of market share scale do not play a role in highly clustered and concentrated pools of risks, where diversification is not achievable, and inter-risk dependencies are close to perfect. In such scenarios, the impact of big data components to underwriting and pricing practices is not as prominent, because formulation of standard premiums for single risks and aggregated products could be achieved by theoretical formulations. See also: #1 Affliction Costing Businesses Billions   In our second boundary case of full and perfect independence, when two or more risks with two separate insurance limits are priced independently and separately, the summation of their premiums is still required for portfolio accumulations by line of business and geographic and administrative region. This premium accumulation task or "roll-up" of fully independent risks is accomplished by practitioners accordingly with the linear principles of equation (3.0). However, if we are to structure an aggregate umbrella cover for these same single risks with an aggregated premium of π(Q_t + S_t) , the effect of statistical independence expressed with a zero correlation factor will reduce equation (3.0) to equation (5.0). (5.0) π(Q_t + S_t) = E[S_t + Q_t] + √(σ²[S_t] + σ²[Q_t]) Full independence among risks more strongly than any other cases supports the premium sub-additivity principle, which is stated in (6.0). (6.0) π(Q_t + St) ≤ π(Q_t) + π(S_t) An expanded expression of the subadditivity principle is easily derived from the linear summation of premiums in (3.0) and the expression of the combined single insurance product premium in (5.0). Some policy and premium underwriting guidelines can be derived from this regime of full statistical independence. Under conditions of full independence, when two risks are priced independently and separately the sum of their premiums will always be larger than the premium of an aggregate umbrella product covering these same two risks. The physical and geographic characteristics of full statistical independence for modeled insurance loss are large geo-spatial distances and independent insured catastrophe perils and business lines. In practice, this is generally defined as insurance risk portfolio diversification by geography, line and peril. In insurance product terms, we proved that diversification by geography, peril and line of business, which are the physical prerequisites for statistical independence, allow us to structure and price an aggregate umbrella product with a premium less than the sum of the independently priced premiums of the underlying insurance risks. In this case, unlike with the case of full dependence, big data components have a computing and accuracy function to play in the underwriting and price definition process. Once the subadditivity of the aggregate umbrella product premium as in (6.0) is established, this premium is then back-allocated to the single component risks covered by the insurance product. This is done to measure the relative riskiness of the assets under the aggregate insurance coverage and each risk individual contribution to the formation of the aggregate premium. The back-allocation procedure is described further in the article in the context of a notional micro economy case. Scenario 2.2: Less Than Fully Dependent Risks In our case study, we have geo-spatial proximity of the two insured risks in a known flood zone with measured and available averaged historical flood intensities, which leads to a measurable statistical dependence of modeled insurance loss. We express this dependence with a computed correlation factor in the interval [0 < ρ' < 1.0]. Partial dependence with a correlation factor 0 < ρ' < 1.0 has immediate impact on the theoretical standard deviation of combined modeled loss, which is a basic quantity in the formulation of risk and loading factors for premium definition. σ[S_t + Q_t] = √(σ²[S_t] + σ²[Qt] + 2ρ'σ[S_t]σ[Q_t]) ≤ σ[S_t] + σ[Q_t] This leads to redefining the equality in (4.3) to an expression of inequality between the premium of the aggregate umbrella product and the independent sum of the single risk premiums, as in the case of complete independence. (7.0) π(Q_t + S_t) = √(E[S_t + Q_t] + σ2[S_t] + σ²[Q_t] + 2ρ'σ[S_t] * σ[Q_t]) ≤ π(Q_t) + π(S_t)  The principle of premium sub-additivity (6.0), as in the case of full independence, again comes into force. The expression of this principle is not as strong with partial dependence as with full statistical independence, but we can clearly observe a theoretical ranking of aggregate umbrella premiums π(Q_t+S_t) in the three cases reviewed so far. (7.1) π^{Full Independence} ≤ π^{Partial Dependence} ≤ π^{Full Dependence} This theoretical ranking is further confirmed in the next section with computed numerical results. Less than full dependencies, i.e. partial dependencies among risks, could still be viewed as a statistical modeling argument for diversification in market share geography, line of business and insured peril. Partial but effective diversification still offers an opportunity for competitive premium pricing. In insurance product and portfolio terms, our study proves that partial or imperfect diversification by geography affects the sensitivity of premium accumulation and allows for cost savings in premium for aggregate umbrella products vs. the summation of multiple single-risk policy premiums. 3.0 Numerical Results of Single-Risk and Aggregate Premium Pricing Cases In our flood risk premium study, we modeled and priced three scenarios, using classical formulas for a single risk premium in equation (1.0) and for umbrella policies in equation (7.0). In our first scenario, we price each risk separately and independently with insured limits of $90 million and $110 million. In the second and third scenarios, we price an umbrella product with a limit of $200 million, in three sub-cases with {1.0, 0.3 and 0.0} correlation factors, respectively to represent full dependence, partial dependence and full independence of modeled insured loss. We use stochastic modeled insurance flood losses computed with high geo-spatial granularity of 30 meters. The numerical results of our experiment fully support the conclusions and guidelines that we earlier derived from theoretical statistical relationships. For fully dependent risks in close proximity, the sum of single-risk premiums approaches the price of an umbrella product, which is priced with 1.0 (100%) correlation factor. This is the stochastic relationship of full premium additivity. For partially dependent risks, the price of a combined product, modeled and priced with a 0.3 (30%) correlation factor, could be less than the sum of single-risk premiums. For fully independent risks, priced with a 0 (0.0%) correlation factor, the price of the combined insurance cover will further decrease to the price of an umbrella on partially dependent risks (30% correlation). Partial dependence and full independence support the stochastic ordering principle of premium sub-additivity. The premium ranking relationship in (7.1) is strongly confirmed by these numerical pricing results. See also: How Quote Data Can Optimize Pricing   Less than full dependence among risks, which is a very likely and practical measurement in real insurance umbrella coverage products, could still be viewed as the statistical modeling argument for diversification in market share geography. Partial and incomplete dependence theoretically and numerically supports the argument that partial but effective diversification offers an opportunity for competitive premium pricing.