Tag Archives: catastrophe risk

Insurtech Innovator – HazardHub

“HazardHub combined risk data information for every property in the U.S. with cutting edge technology so we can deliver risks for any property, across the country, with an API for lightning speed, giving unprecedented levels of insight about properties in the U.S.,” says Bob Frady, CEO of HazardHub

View more Insurtech Innovator videos

Learn more about Innovator’s Edge

Insurance at a Tipping Point (Part 2)

This is the second in a series of three articles. The first is here.

With the entire insurance industry at a tipping point, where many of the winners and losers will be determined in the next five to 10 years, it’s important to think through all the key strategic factors that will determine those outcomes. Those factors are what we call STEEP: social, technological, environmental, economic and political.

In this article, we’ll take a look at all five.

Social: The Power of Connections

The shifts in customer expectations present challenges for life insurers, many of which are caught in a product trap in which excessive complexity reduces transparency and increases the need for advisers. This creates higher distribution costs.

A possible solution lies in models that shift the emphasis from life benefits to promoting health, well-being and quality of life. In a foretaste of developments ahead, a large Asian life insurer has shifted its primary mission from insurance to helping people lead healthier lives. This is transforming the way the company engages with its customers. Crucially, it’s also giving a renewed sense of purpose and value to the group’s employees and distributors.

Further developments that could benefit both insurers and customers include knowledge sharing among policyholders. One insurer enables customers to share their health data online to help bring people with similar conditions together and help the company build services for their needs. Similarly, a DNA analysis company provides insights on individual conditions and creates online communities to pool the personal data of consenting contributors to support genetic studies.

A comparable shift in business models can be seen in the development of pay-as-you-drive coverage within the P&C sector. In South Africa, where this model is well advanced, insurers are realizing higher policyholder retention and lower claims costs.

This kind of monitoring is now expanding to home and commercial equipment. These developments are paving the 
way for a move beyond warranty or property insurance to an all-’round
 care, repair and protection service. These offerings move the client engagement from an annual transaction to something that’s embedded in their everyday lives. Agents could play
 an important role in helping to design aggregate protection and servicing.

In banking, we’ve seen rapid growth in peer-to-peer lending; the equivalent in insurance are the affinity groups that are looking to exercise their buying power, pool resources and even self-insure. While most of the schemes cover property, the growth in carpooling could see them play an increasing role within auto insurance.

Technological: Shaping the Organization Around Information Advantage

More than 70% of insurance participants in our 2014 Data and Analytics Survey say that big data or analytics have changed the way they make decisions. But many insurers still lack the vision and organizational integration to make the most of these capabilities. Nearly 40% of the participants in the survey see “limited direct benefit to my kind of role” from this analysis, and more than 30% believe that senior management lacks the necessary skills to make full use of the information.

The latest generation of models is 
able to analyze personal, social and behavioral data to gauge immediate demands, risk preferences, the impact of life changes and longer-term aspirations. If we look at pension planning, these capabilities can be part of an interactive offering for customers that would enable them to better understand and balance the financial trade-offs between how much they want to live off now and their desired standard of living when they retire. In turn, the capabilities could eliminate product boundaries as digital insights, along with possible agent input, provide the basis for customized solutions that draw together mortgages, life coverage, investment management, pensions, equity release, tax and inheritance planning. Once the plan is up and running, there could be automatic adjustments to changes in income, etc.

Reactive to preventative

The increasing use of sensors and connected devices as part of the Internet of Things offers ever more real-time and predictive data, which has the potential to move underwriting from “what has happened” to “what could happen” and hence more effective preemption of risks and losses. This in turn could open up opportunities for insurers to gravitate from reactive claims payer to preventative risk adviser.

As in many other industries, the next frontier for insurers is to move from predictive to prescriptive analytics (see Figure 2). Prescriptive analysis would help insurers to anticipate not only what will happen, but also when and why, so they are in a better position to prevent or mitigate adverse events. Insurers could also use prescriptive analytics to improve the sales conversion ratio in automated insurance underwriting by continually adjusting price and coverage based on predicted take-up and actual deviations from it. Extensions of these techniques can be used to model the interaction between different risks to better understand why adverse events can occur, and hence how to develop more effective safeguards.

figure-2

Environmental: Reshaping Catastrophe Risks and Insured Values

Catastrophe losses have soared since the 1970s. While 2014 had the largest number of events over the course of the past 30 years, losses and fatalities were actually below average. Globally, the use of technology, availability of data and ability to locate and respond to disaster in near real-time is helping to manage losses and save lives, though there are predictions that potential economic losses will be 160% higher in 2030 than they were in 1980.

Shifts in global production and supply are leading to a sharp rise in value at risk (VaR) in under-insured territories; the $12 billion of losses from the Thai floods of 2011 exemplify this. A 2013 report by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and PwC concluded that multinationals’ dependencies on unstable international supply chains now pose a systemic risk to “business as usual.”

Environmental measures to mitigate risk

Moves to mitigate catastrophe risks
 and control losses are increasing. Organizations, governments and UN bodies are working more closely to share information on the impact of disaster risk. Examples include R!SE, a joint UN-PwC initiative, which looks at how to embed disaster risk management into corporate strategy and investment decisions.

Governments also are starting to develop plans and policies for addressing climatic instability, though for the most part policy actions remain unpredictable, inconsistent and reactive.

Developments in risk modeling

A new generation of catastrophe models is ushering in a transformational expansion in both geographical 
breadth and underwriting applications. Until recently, cat models primarily concentrated on developed market peak zones (such as Florida windstorm). As the unexpectedly high insurance losses from the 2010 Chilean earthquake and the 2011 Thai floods highlight, this narrow focus has failed to take account of the surge in production and asset values in fast-growth SAAAME markets (South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East). The new models cover many of these previously non-modeled zones.

The other big difference for insurers is their newfound ability to plug different analytics into a single platform. This offers the advantages of being able to understand where there may be pockets of untapped capacity or, conversely, hazardous concentrations. The result is much more closely targeted risk selection and pricing.

The challenge is how to build these models into the running of the business. Cat modeling has traditionally been the preserve of a small, specialized team. The new capabilities are supposed to be easier to use and hence open to a much wider array of business, IT and analytical teams. It’s important to determine the kind of talent needed
 to make best use of these systems, as well as how they will change the way underwriting decisions are made.

Emerging developments include new monitoring and detection systems, which draw
 on multiple fixed and drone sensors.

Challenges for evaluating and pricing risk

Beyond catastrophe risks are disruptions to asset/insured values resulting from constraints on water, land and other previously under-evaluated risk factors. There are already examples of industrial plants that have had to close because of limited access to water.

Economic: Adapting to a Multipolar World

Struggling to sustain margins

The challenging economic climate has 
held back discretionary spending on life, annuities and pensions, with the impact being compounded by low interest rates and the resulting difficulties in sustaining competitive returns for policyholders. The keys to sustaining margins are likely to be simple, low-cost, digitally distributed products for the mass market and use of the latest risk analytics to help offer guarantees at competitive prices.

The challenges facing P&C insurers center on low investment returns and a softening market. Opportunities to seek out new customers and boost revenues include strategic alliances. Examples could include affinity groups, manufacturers or major retailers. A further possibility is that one of the telecoms or Internet giants will want a tie-up with an insurer to help it move into the market.

More than 30% of insurance CEOs
 now see alliances as an opportunity to strengthen innovation. Examples include the partnership between a leading global reinsurer and software group, which aims to provide more advanced cyber risk protection for corporations.

Surprisingly, only 10% of insurance CEOs are looking to partner with start- ups, even though such alliances could provide valuable access to the new ideas and technologies they need.

SAAAME growth

Growth in SAAAME insurance markets will continue to vary. Slowing growth 
in some major markets, notably Brazil, could hold back expansion. In others, notably India, we are actually seeing a decline in life, annuity and pension take-up as a result of the curbs on commissions for unit-linked insurance plans (ULIP). Further development in capital markets will be necessary to encourage savers to switch their deposits to insurance products.

As the reliance on agency channels adds to costs, there are valuable opportunities to offer cost- effective digital distribution. Successful models of inclusion include an Indian national health insurance program, which is aimed at poorer households and operates through a public/private partnership. More than 30 million households have taken up the smart cards that provide them with access to hospital treatment.

The already strong growth (10% a year) in micro-insurance is also set to increase, drawing on models developed within micro-credit. The challenge for insurers is the need to make products that are sufficiently affordable and comprehensible to consumers who have little or no familiarity with the concept of insurance.

Rather than waiting for a market-wide alignment of data and pricing, some insurers have moved people onto the ground to build up the necessary data sets, often working in partnership with governments, regional and local development authorities and banks and local business groups.

Urbanization

The urban/rural divide may actually be more relevant to growth opportunities ahead than the emerging/developed market divide. In 1800, barely one in 50 people lived in cities. By 2009, urban dwellers had become a majority of the global population for the first time. Now, every week, 1.5 million people are added to the urban population, the bulk of them in SAAAME markets.

Cities are the main engines of the global economy, with 50% of global GDP generated in the world’s 300 largest metropolitan areas. The result is more wealth to protect. Infrastructure development alone will generate an estimated $68 billion in premium income between now and 2030. Urban citizens will be more likely to be exposed to insurance products and have access to them. Urbanization is also likely to increase purchases of life, annuities and pensions’ products, as people migrating into cities have to make individual provision for the future rather than relying on extended family support.

Yet as the size and number of mega-metropolises grow, so does the concentration of risk. Key areas of exposure go beyond property and catastrophe coverage to include the impact of air pollution and poor water quality and sanitation on health.

Tackling under-insurance

A Lloyd’s report comparing the level 
of insurance penetration and natural catastrophe losses in countries around the world found that 17 fast-growth markets had an annualized insurance deficit of $168 billion, creating threats to sustained economic growth and the ability to recover from disasters.

Political: Harmonization, Standardization and Globalization of the Insurance Market

Government in the tent

At a time when all financial services businesses face considerable scrutiny, strengthening the social mandate through closer alignment with government goals could give insurers greater freedom. Insurers also could be in a stronger position to attract quality talent at a time when many of the brightest candidates are looking for more meaning from their chosen careers.

Government and insurers can join forces in the development of effective retirement and healthcare solutions (although there are risks). Further opportunities include a risk partnership approach to managing exposures that neither insurers nor governments have either the depth of data or financial resources to cover on their own, notably cyber, terrorism and catastrophe risks.

Impact of regulation

Insurers have never had to deal with an all-encompassing set of global prudential regulations comparable to the Basel Accords governing banks. But this is what the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and its sponsors in the G20 now want to see as the baseline requirements for not just the global insurers designated as systemically risky, but also a tier of internationally active insurance groups.

The G20’s focus on insurance regulation highlights the heightened politicization of financial services. Governments want to make sure that taxpayers no longer have to bail out failing financial institutions. The result 
is an overhaul of capital requirements 
in many parts of the world and a new basic capital requirement for G-SIIs. The other game-changing development is the emergence of a new breed of cross-state/cross-border regulator, which has been set up to strengthen co-ordination of supervision, crisis management and other key topics. These include the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the U.S.

Dealing with these developments requires a mechanism capable of looking beyond basic operational compliance at how new regulation will affect the strategy and structure of the organization and using this assessment to develop a clear and coherent company-wide response.

Technology will allow risk to be analyzed in real time, and predictive models would enable supervisors to identify and home in on areas in need
 of intervention. Regulators would also be able to tap into the surge in data and analysis within supervised organizations, creating the foundations for machine-to-machine regulation.

A more unstable world

From the crisis in Ukraine to the rise of ISIS, instability is a fact of life. Pressure on land and water, as well as oil and minerals, is intensifying competition for strategic resources and potentially bringing states into conflict. The ways these disputes are playing out is also impinging on corporations to an ever-greater extent, be this trade sanctions or state-directed cyber-attacks.

Businesses, governments and individuals also need to understand the potential causes of conflict and their ramifications and develop appropriate contingency planning and response. At the very least, insurers should seek to model these threats and bring them into their overall risk evaluations. For some, this will be an important element of their growing role as risk advisers and mitigators. Investment firms are beginning to hire ex-intelligence and military figures as advisers or calling in dedicated political consultancies as part of their strategic planning. More insurers are likely to follow suit.

The final article in this series will look at scenarios that could play out for insurers and will lay out a way to formulate an effective strategy. If you want a copy of the report from which these articles are excerpted, click here.

2 Shortcuts for Quantifying Risk

Most companies that take up risk management start out with subjective frequency-severity assessments of each of their primary risks. These values are then used to construct a heat map, and the risks that are farthest away from the zero point of the plot are judged to be of most concern.

This is a good way to jump-start a discussion of risks and to develop an initial process for prioritizing early risk management activities. But it should never be the end point for insurers. Insurers are in the risk business.  The two largest categories of risks for insurers — insurance and investment — are always traded directly for money.  Insurers must have a clear view of the dollar value of their risks. And with any reflection, insurance risk managers will identify that there is actually never a single pair of frequency and severity that can accurately represent their risks. Each of the major risks of an insurer has many, many possible pairs of frequency and severity.

For example, almost all insurers with exposure to natural catastrophes have access to analysis of their exposure to loss using commercial catastrophe models. These models produce loss amounts at a frequency of 1 in 10, 1 in 20, 1 in 100, 1 in 200, 1 in 500, 1 in 1000 and any frequency in between. There is not a single one of these frequency severity pairs that by itself defines catastrophe risk for that insurer.

Once an insurer moves to recognizing that all of its risks have this characteristic, it can now take advantage of one of the most useful tools for portraying the risks of the enterprise, the risk profile. For a risk profile, each risk is portrayed according to the possible loss at a single frequency. One common value is a 1 in 100 frequency. In Europe, all insurers are focused by Solvency II regulations on the 1-in-200 loss. Ultimately, an insurer will want to develop a robust model like the catastrophe model for each of its risks to support the development of the risk profile. But before spending all of that money, there are two possible shortcuts that are available to rated insurers that will cost little to no additional money.

SRQ Stress Tests

In 2008, AM Best started asking each rated insurer to talk about its top five risks.

Then, in 2011, in the new ERM section to the supplemental rating questionnaire, Best asked insurers to identify the potential impact of the largest threat for six risk types. For many years, AM Best has calculated its estimate of the capital needed by insurers for losses in five categories and eventually added an adjustment for a sixth — natural catastrophe risk.

Risk profile is one of the primary areas of focus for good ERM programs and is closely related to these questions and calculations. Risk profile is a view of all the main risks of an insurer that allows management and other audiences the chance to compare the size of the various risks on a relative basis. Often, when insurers view their risk profile for the first time, they find that their profile is not exactly what they expected. As they look at their risk profile in successive periods, they find that changes to their risk profile end up being key strategic discussions. The insurers that have been looking at their risk profile for quite some time find the discussion with AM Best and others about their top risks to be a process of simplifying the detailed conversations that they have had internally instead of stretching to find something to say that plagues other insurers. The difference is usually obvious to the experienced listener from the rating agency.

Risk Profile From the SRQ Stress Tests

Most insurers will say that insurance (or underwriting) risk is the most important risk of the company. The chart below, showing information about the risk profile averaged for 31 insurers, paints a very different story. On average, underwriting risk was 24% of the risk profile and market risk was 30%. Twenty of the 31 companies had a higher value for market risk than underwriting risk. For those 20 insurers, this exercise in viewing their risk profile shows that management and the board should be giving equal or even higher amounts of attention to their investment risks.

Untitled

Stress tests are a good way for insurers to get started with looking at their risk profile. The six AM Best categories can be used to allow for comparisons with studies, or the company can use its own categories to make the risk profile line up with the main concerns of its strategic planning discussions. Be careful. Make sure that you check the results from the AM Best SRQ stress tests to make sure that you are not ignoring any major risks. To be fully effective, the risk profile needs to include all of the company’s risks. For 20 of these 31 insurers, that may mean acknowledging that they have more equity risk than underwriting risk – and planning accordingly.

Risk Profile From the BCAR Formula

The chart below portrays the risk profiles of a different group of 12 insurers. These risk profiles were determined using the AM Best BCAR formula without analyst adjustments. For this group of companies on this basis, premium risk is the largest single category. And while there are again six risk categories, they are a somewhat different list. The risk category of underwriting from the SRQ is here split into three categories of premium, reserve and nat cat. Together, those three categories represent more than 60% of the risk profile of this group of insurers. Operational, liquidity and strategic risks that make up 39% of the SRQ average risk profile are missing here. Reinsurer credit risk is shown here to be a major risk category, with 17% of the risk. Combined investment and reinsurer credit is only 7% of total risk in the SRQ risk profile.

Untitled

Why are the two risk profiles so different in their views about insurance and investment risks? This author would guess that insurers are more confident of their ability to manage insurance risks, so their estimate of that risk estimated in the stress tests is for less severe losses than the AM Best view reflected in the BCAR formula. And the opposite is true for investment, particularly equity risk. AM Best’s BCAR formula for equity risk is for only a 15% loss, while most insurers who have a stock portfolio had just in 2008 experienced 30% to 40% losses. So insurers are evaluating their investment risk as being much higher than AM Best believes.

Neither set seems to be the complete answer. From looking at these two groups, it makes sense to consider using nine or more categories: premiums, reserves, nat cat, reinsurer credit, bond credit, equities, operational, strategic and liquidity risk. Insurers with multiple large insurance lines may want to add several splits to the premium and reserve categories.

Using Risk Profile for Strategic Planning and Board Discussions

Risk profile can be the focus for bringing enterprise risk into the company’s strategic discussions. The planning process would start with a review of the expected risk profile at the start of the year and look at the impact on risk profile of any major proposed actions as a part of the evaluation of those plans. Each major plan can be discussed regarding whether it increases concentration of risks for the insurer or if it is expected to increase diversification. The risk profile can then be a major communication tool for bringing major management decisions and proposals to the board and to other outside audiences. Each time the risk profile is presented, management can provide explanations of the causes of each significant change in the profile, whether it be from management decisions and actions or because of major changes in the environment.

Risk Profile and Risk Appetite

Once an insurer has a repeatable process in place for portraying enterprise risk as a risk profile, this risk profile can be linked to the risk appetite. The pie charts above focus attention on the relative size of the main types of risks of the insurer. The bar chart below features the sum of the risks. Here the target line represents the expected sum of all of the risks, while the maximum is an aggregate risk limit based upon the risk appetite.

Untitled

In the example above, the insurer has a target for risk at 90% of a standard (in this case, the standard is for a 400% RBC level; i.e. the target is to have RBC ratio of 440%). The plan is for risk at a level that produces a 480% RBC level, and the maximum tolerance is for risk that would produce a 360% RBC. The 2014 actual risk taking has the insurer at a 420 RBC level, which is above the target but significantly below their maximum. After reviewing the 2014 actual results, management made plans for 2015 that would come in just at the 440% RBC target. That review of the 2014 actual included consideration of the increase in profits associated with the additional risk. When management made the adjustment to reach target for 2015, its first consideration was to reduce less profitable activities. Management was able to make adjustments that significantly improve return for risk taking at a fully utilized level of operation.