Tag Archives: commerce

parties

In Third Parties We (Mis)trust?

Technology is transforming trust. Never before has there been a time when it’s been easier to start a distant geographical relationship. With a credible website and reasonable products or services, people are prepared to learn about companies half a world away and enter into commerce with them.

Society is changing radically when people find themselves trusting people with whom they’ve had no experience, e.g. on eBay or Facebook, more than with banks they’ve dealt with their whole lives.

Mutual distributed ledgers pose a threat to the trust relationship in financial services.

The History of Trust

Trust leverages a history of relationships to extend credit and benefit of the doubt to someone. Trust is about much more than money; it’s about human relationships, obligations and experiences and about anticipating what other people will do.

In risky environments, trust enables cooperation and permits voluntary participation in mutually beneficial transactions that are otherwise costly to enforce or cannot be enforced by third parties. By taking a risk on trust, we increase the amount of cooperation throughout society while simultaneously reducing the costs, unless we are wronged.

Trust is not a simple concept, nor is it necessarily an unmitigated good, but trust is the stock-in-trade of financial services. In reality, financial services trade on mistrust. If people trusted each other on transactions, many financial services might be redundant.

People use trusted third parties in many roles in finance, for settlement, as custodians, as payment providers, as poolers of risk. Trusted third parties perform three roles:

  • validate – confirming the existence of something to be traded and membership of the trading community;
  • safeguard – preventing duplicate transactions, i.e. someone selling the same thing twice or “double-spending”;
  • preserve – holding the history of transactions to help analysis and oversight, and in the event of disputes.

A ledger is a book, file or other record of financial transactions. People have used various technologies for ledgers over the centuries. The Sumerians used clay cuneiform tablets. Medieval folk split tally sticks. In the modern era, the implementation of choice for a ledger is a central database, found in all modern accounting systems. In many situations, each business keeps its own central database with all its own transactions in it, and these systems are reconciled, often manually and at great expense if something goes wrong.

But in cases where many parties interact and need to keep track of complex sets of transactions they have traditionally found that creating a centralized ledger is helpful. A centralized transaction ledger needs a trusted third party who makes the entries (validates), prevents double counting or double spending (safeguards) and holds the transaction histories (preserves). Over the ages, centralized ledgers are found in registries (land, shipping, tax), exchanges (stocks, bonds) or libraries (index and borrowing records), just to give a few examples.

The latest technological approach to all of this is the distributed ledger (aka blockchain aka distributed consensus ledger aka the mutual distributed ledger, or MDL, the term we’ll stick to here). To understand the concept, it helps to look back over the story of its development:

 1960/’70s: Databases

The current database paradigm began around 1970 with the invention of the relational model, and the widespread adoption of magnetic tape for record-keeping. Society runs on these tools to this day, even though some important things are hard to represent using them. Trusted third parties work well on databases, but correctly recording remote transactions can be problematic.

One approach to remote transactions is to connect machines and work out the lumps as you go. But when data leaves one database and crosses an organizational boundary, problems start. For Organization A, the contents of Database A are operational reality, true until proven otherwise. But for Organization B, the message from A is a statement of opinion. Orders sit as “maybe” until payment is made, and is cleared past the last possible chargeback: This tentative quality is always attached to data from the outside.

1980/’90s: Networks

Ubiquitous computer networking came of age two decades after the database revolution, starting with protocols like email and hitting its full flowering with the invention of the World Wide Web in the early 1990s. The network continues to get smarter, faster and cheaper, as well as more ubiquitous – and it is starting to show up in devices like our lightbulbs under names like the Internet of Things. While machines can now talk to each other, the systems that help us run our lives do not yet connect in joined-up ways.

Although in theory information could just flow from one database to another with your permission, in practice the technical costs of connecting databases are huge. Worse, we go back to paper and metaphors from the age of paper because we cannot get the connection software right. All too often, the computer is simply a way to fill out forms: a high-tech paper simulator. It is nearly impossible to get two large entities to share our information between them on our behalf.

Of course, there are attempts to clarify this mess – to introduce standards and code reusability to help streamline business interoperability. You can choose from EDI, XMI-EDI, JSON, SOAP, XML-RPC, JSON-RPC, WSDL and half a dozen more standards to “assist” your integration processes. The reason there are so many standards is because none of them finally solved the problem.

Take the problem of scaling collaboration. Say that two of us have paid the up-front costs of collaboration and have achieved seamless technical harmony, and now a third partner joins our union, then a fourth and a fifth … by five partners, we have 13 connections to debug, by 10 partners the number is 45. The cost of collaboration keeps going up for each new partner as they join our network, and the result is small pools of collaboration that just will not grow. This isn’t an abstract problem – this is banking, this is finance, medicine, electrical grids, food supplies and the government.

A common approach to this quadratic quandary is to put somebody in charge, a hub-and-spoke solution. We pick an organization – Visa would be typical – and all agree that we will connect to Visa using its standard interface. Each organization has to get just a single connector right. Visa takes 1% off the top, making sure that everything clears properly.

But while a third party may be trusted, it doesn’t mean it is trustworthy. There are a few problems with this approach, but they can be summarized as “natural monopolies.” Being a hub for others is a license to print money for anybody that achieves incumbent status. Visa gets 1% or more of a very sizeable fraction of the world’s transactions with this game; Swift likewise.

If you ever wonder what the economic upside of the MDL business might be, just have a think about how big that number is across all forms of trusted third parties.

2000/’10s: Mutual Distributed Ledgers

MDL technology securely stores transaction records in multiple locations with no central ownership. MDLs allow groups of people to validate, record and track transactions across a network of decentralized computer systems with varying degrees of control of the ledger. Everyone shares the ledger. The ledger itself is a distributed data structure held in part or in its entirety by each participating computer system. The computer systems follow a common protocol to add transactions. The protocol is distributed using peer-to-peer application architecture. MDLs are not technically new – concurrent and distributed databases have been a research area since at least the 1970s. Z/Yen built its first one in 1995.

Historically, distributed ledgers have suffered from two perceived disadvantages; insecurity and complexity. These two perceptions are changing rapidly because of the growing use of blockchain technology, the MDL of choice for cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies need to:

  • validate – have a trust model for time-stamping transactions by members of the community;
  • safeguard – have a set of rules for sharing data of guaranteed accuracy;
  • preserve – have a common history of transactions.

If faith in the technology’s integrity continues to grow, then MDLs might substitute for two roles of a trusted third party, preventing duplicate transactions and providing a verifiable public record of all transactions. Trust moves from the third party to the technology. Emerging techniques, such as, smart contracts and decentralized autonomous organizations, might in future also permit MDLs to act as automated agents.

A cryptocurrency like bitcoin is an MDL with “mining on top.” The mining substitutes for trust: “proof of work” is simply proof that you have a warehouse of expensive computers working, and the proof is the output of their calculations! Cryptocurrency blockchains do not require a central authority or trusted third party to coordinate interactions, validate transactions or oversee behavior.

However, when the virtual currency is going to be exchanged for real-world assets, we come back to needing trusted third parties to trade ships or houses or automobiles for virtual currency. A big consequence may be that the first role of a trusted third party, validating an asset and identifying community members, becomes the most important. This is why MDLs may challenge the structure of financial services, even though financial services are here to stay.

Boring ledgers meet smart contracts

MDLs and blockchain architecture are essentially protocols that can work as well as hub-and-spoke for getting things done, but without the liability of a trusted third party in the center that might choose to exploit the natural monopoly. Even with smaller trusted third parties, MDLs have some magic properties, the same agreed data on all nodes, “distributed consensus,” rather than passing data around through messages.

In the future, smart contracts can store promises to pay and promises to deliver without having a middleman or exposing people to the risk of fraud. The same logic that secured “currency” in bitcoin can be used to secure little pieces of detached business logic. Smart contracts may automatically move funds in accordance with instructions given long ago, like a will or a futures contract. For pure digital assets there is no counterparty risk because the value to be transferred can be locked into the contract when it is created, and released automatically when the conditions and terms are met: If the contract is clear, then fraud is impossible, because the program actually has real control of the assets involved rather than requiring trustworthy middle-men like ATM machines or car rental agents. Of course, such structures challenge some of our current thinking on liquidity.

Long Finance has a Zen-style koan, “if you have trust I shall give you trust; if you have no trust I shall take it away.” Cryptocurrencies and MDLs are gaining more and more trust. Trust in contractual relationships mediated by machines sounds like science fiction, but the financial sector has profitably adapted to the ATM machine, Visa, Swift, Big Bang, HFT and many other innovations. New ledger technology will enable new kinds of businesses, as reducing the cost of trust and fixing problems allows new kinds of enterprises to be profitable. The speed of adoption of new technology sorts winners from losers.

Make no mistake: The core generation of value has not changed; banks are trusted third parties. The implication, though, is that much more will be spent on identity, such as Anti-Money-Laundering/Know-Your-Customer backed by indemnity, and asset validation, than transaction fees.

A U.S. political T-shirt about terrorists and religion inspires a closing thought: “It’s not that all cheats are trusted third parties; it’s that all trusted third parties are tempted to cheat.” MDLs move some of that trust into technology. And as costs and barriers to trusted third parties fall, expect demand and supply to increase.

Solving the Insurance Talent Crisis

A lot of ink has been devoted to the looming talent crisis in insurance, bemoaning the difficulty of attracting qualified young people to careers in an industry that is a cornerstone of commerce and one that helps countless people and businesses around the globe recover when the worst occurs. And one need not look far to see the cause of the problem. More often than not, we –insurance professionals — are the cause.

How many of us have felt a twinge of embarrassment when strangers at cocktail parties ask what we do? How many of us have worried about being perceived as leading boring, little lives?

Yet, we in insurance get to spend our days thinking about hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, car crashes, cyber crime, fraud, pandemics, terrorism and a host of other equally exciting risks affecting people in all walks of life and businesses in every field of endeavor. And we are increasingly using cutting-edge technology, big data and predictive analytics to enhance risk assessment, pricing, loss adjudication and every other aspect of insurance operations. Moreover, insurers are intimately involved in capital markets, managing billions upon billions in investments, not to mention that insurers’ very reason for being is to provide vital help when people and businesses need it the most.

Bottom line, if you’re concerned about the amount of grey hair you see in the insurance business and the difficulty of enticing budding data scientists, technologists, entrepreneurial spirits and the best and brightest of tomorrow’s leaders to consider careers in insurance, please allow me to suggest that you become an ambassador in service to the cause.

All it takes is talking with pride about the problems we solve, the good that we do and the fun that we have along the way.

A Word With Shefi: David Stegall

This is part of a series of interviews by Shefi Ben Hutta with insurance practitioners who bring an interesting perspective to their work and to the industry as a whole. Here, she speaks with David Stegall, principal consultant with Risk Consulting & Expert Services, who often serves as an expert witness in insurance litigation.

To see more of the “A Word With Shefi” series, visit her thought leader profile. To subscribe to her free newsletter, Insurance Entertainment, click here.

Describe what you do in 50 words or less:

Risk Consulting & Expert Services is an insurance and risk management consulting firm providing services and counsel to commerce, industry and government on insurance, reinsurance and alternative risk transfer matters. I have more than 37 years of experience and often act as an expert witness in litigation.

What made you decide to start Risk Consulting & Expert Services?

After 30 years, I no longer had an interest in continuing to work within the industry as a purveyor of insurance.

And if it weren’t for the appeal of working in insurance, what profession would you be in today?

Film and/or music production. I like the creative process.

Describe your typical client:

A litigation attorney with the need for an insurance or risk management professional who can offer a professional opinion on the usual and customary practices of the insurance industry or the required standard of care used within the industry and can explain that opinion to a judge and jury in plain, simple English.

Memorable court trial:

Very few cases go to trial, yet I recall the irony of testifying on a case regarding flood insurance at the Cameron Parish Court House in Louisiana, which is about a stone’s throw away from the Gulf of Mexico.

Is there a carrier you would love to testify in court against?

I cannot answer that because I do not think of insurance companies as being either good or bad. They are only as good (or bad) as those individuals who are making decisions for them in a given instance, and even then the good (or bad) decision may be specific to that instant.

You have a talent for explaining complicated risk terms. In your experience, which P&C coverage is most baffling to consumers?

Water damage and flood. Flood is excluded in practically every insurance policy (except flood policies), and water damage may or may not be covered. Most people think of the terms synonymously, but they aren’t. The simplest way to think of it is: If the water comes from above (without hitting the ground) it is covered (note that pipes are considered as being above). If the water comes from below (lake, river, stream, ocean), it is not covered. But please read your policy and ask questions of your insurance representative or call a consultant!

You have more than a few designations, one of which is the Chartered Property & Casualty Underwriter. Has the role of underwriting changed much from when you last practiced it?

There are fewer underwriters now, but they are extending specific yet limited underwriting authority to more general agents (or some form or position of limited underwriting authority) that specialize in a particular industry or product offering.

What emerging technology keeps you up at night from a litigation standpoint?

The same as everybody else: cyber risk. The risks are emerging at the same rate as the technologies.

Speaking of cyber, you recently published a whitepaper on “Cyber Risk & Insurance.” The Ashley Madison hack is now correlated to at least two suicides; where do you think insurers should draw the line?

The same place they draw the line with the idea that, if you attend a baseball game, you might get hit by a foul ball. A person does take some risk by subscribing to any service or website – yes, there is an implicit, if not explicit, responsibility (in the form of statutes) to protect people’s privacy but some activities carry innate risk that insurance can only partially address.

Favorite quote/s:

“Everything’s Gonna Be Alright” (Muddy Waters and others) and “It is always getting too late and then it is.” I hope I made that one up, but I’m sure I’ve heard it somewhere, and it resonated.

When you are not working, you are most likely…

Playing with my seven grandchildren or playing the harmonica.

What are you most excited about at the moment?

That I feel happy, healthy and terrific! A phrase made famous by a former insurance professional and fellow lover of Chicago, W. Clement Stone.

Feeling Like a Keystone Cop

I’m beginning to feel like a Keystone Cop. You know the one; he’s the guy hanging on the back of the police car for dear life as the car speeds around the corner in hot pursuit of something.

Let me explain: For most of my professional career I have worked in the insurance industry, and I’ve diligently tried to keep hold of my personal steering wheel, directing my career toward what I thought might be the right way forward. Along the way, I’ve tried to keep on top of industry developments, people changes and company news.

But all of a sudden it’s beginning to feel harder. I can confidently say that I don’t think it’s just me. It seems that there’s a lot happening at the moment, and it’s happening more quickly than ever before. I’ve just got my head around advanced analytics; now I need to think about cognitive analytics. When I’ve sorted that one out, I will need to figure out “block chain” — then “sidechain.” By then, well, something else is bound to have come along.

So I’m hanging on like the guy on the back of the Keystone police car. From time to time, I try to convince myself that all of this change is founded on the basic principles of insurance, but I sense that the “rules” of insurance are also being reinvented. Is that a good thing, in an industry that is relatively unchanged for at least three hundred years? Perhaps it’s essential?

The danger – if there is a “danger” – is that we run the risk of technologically driven change with disregard to the basic foundations of the industry. Insurance as we know it now, with all its flaws and frustrations, remains as a critical part of society and commerce because we stand on the shoulders of giants. Technology is the great enabler of change, but should it be allowed to displace or threaten the basic tenets of our business – indemnity, utmost good faith and the rest? If we remove these, don’t we have something completely different than insurance as we know it?

From a professional point of view, change brings additional challenges. We all work hard to keep ourselves updated and, as a result, to remain relevant. But isn’t the speed of change making this harder? Mark Twain once said, “The only people who like change are wet babies.” Some of us are perhaps a little more tolerant of doing things differently — it’s in our personal DNA. If as individuals we are prepared to promote change, then we need as individuals to take our own medicine, whatever the consequences.

Continuous professional development has become more essential than ever before. Our ability to promote change, evangelize and manage change remains dependent on our personal ability to cope, and are critical success factors in our ability to remain professionally relevant.

It may feel uncomfortable hanging on to the back of the proverbial Keystone Cops car — but isn’t it better than being left behind?

How to Juggle the Present and Future

Unlike companies in quite a few other industries, insurers have a book of business of clients who potentially expect to conduct business in a different (and “older”) manner than new prospects might. Life insurers have to provide service to clients for three, four, five or more decades. P&C insurers selling long-tail coverage also have to provide service for multiple decades.

Why does this matter?

This matters because insurers that keep the same clients for 10 or more years have to approach applying technology like a juggler striving to keep multiple objects in the air. Insurers must juggle the technology expectations of present clients with what future clients will be comfortable using.

I’m not saying that insurers can expect to succeed in the present or the future by keeping the multiplicity of unique core administration systems that most insurers have. I am saying that insurers must craft their client go-to-market strategies and concomitant technology tactical initiatives to enable the insurers to service clients using a range of capabilities.

Commerce, and many other aspects of life (e.g., work and entertainment), are rapidly becoming mobile. Millions use social media channels throughout each day. But … that does not mean that insurers should look to mobile or social media to interact with all of their clients.

Continually probe

Insurers must continually probe the manner in which current and future clients want to interact with them.

I think the result will be a client interaction choice board supported by current and emerging technologies that will continually change at the pace of insurers’ clients’ comfort levels.

What do you think?