Tag Archives: investment

Implications of Our Aging Population

Aging is a key force shaping our societies and the economy. Too often, the current debate on aging and demographic change narrowly focuses on the direct implications for pensions system and healthcare and neglects the broader economic implications. An understanding of the wide ranging economic implications of demographic change, however, is fundamental for insurers and policymakers in order to make sound long-term decisions.

The world of shrinking workforces

The world is quickly entering a new phase of demographic development. The new world is characterized by a shrinking or – at best – stagnating workforce due to the continuous decline of birth rates since the “baby boomer generation.” While Germany’s working age population peaked about 15 years ago, according to UN figures, China is currently at a record. In the U.S., the working age population is expected to continue to grow due to immigration, albeit at a much slower pace than in the past.

But decreasing birth rates not only mean that that the workforce is shrinking (or at least not growing). It also means that the average age of the workforce is increasing, especially until the baby boomer generation will be retired within the next decade. We refer to this phenomenon as “silver workers.”

Furthermore, as people live longer, the proportion of retirees in the total population is going to increase. This increase will be far more pronounced in the future than it was in the past. In developing economies, this trend is starting at a much lower level, but the eventual change will be far more rapid and dramatic than in developed economies.

The economics of aging

These demographic developments – shrinking workforces, the rise of silver workers and increasing share of retirees – will have profound economic implications.

In a world of shrinking workforces, we cannot expect the economy to expand rapidly, unless productivity can be increased far beyond long-term historical averages. In fact, past growth rates were driven considerably by an increasing labor force. This is especially true for some developing economies like Brazil and Mexico. But also in the U.S., more than 40% of economic growth over the past 25 years can be attributed to an increasing working age population. We will have to get used to low GDP growth rates.

See also: The Great AI Race in Insurance Innovation  

However, overall GDP growth says little about the development of individual living standards. To assess living standards, we need to consider the implications of demographic change on GDP per capita.

Three forces are at play:

First, because fewer workers will have to provide for more retirees, demographic change depresses GDP per capita. In the U.S., the share of working age population to total population is expected to decline from 60% to 54% over the next 25 years. In China and Germany, the decline is more pronounced: from 67% to 57% in China and from 61% to 51% in Germany. This implies that, as long as the production of each person of working age does not change, per capita GDP would decrease by 9% in the U.S. and by 15% in China and Germany by 2040.

Second, future GDP per capita will depend on the development of investments and savings. As people will have to live longer on their savings in retirement, we expect saving rates to increase. As these savings are invested, there will be more machines per person (i.e. the capital stock will increase relative to the labor force). This will partly compensate for the negative impact of the labor force development on GDP per capita.

Finally, advances in productivity may entirely or partially offset the demographic pressure on GDP per capita. Projections of productivity growth are fraught with high uncertainty. However, based on historical productivity growth rates (about 1.5% per year in most developed countries), productivity growth will likely compensate for the negative demographic impact on GDP per capita in most countries (Italy being a potential exception).

Taking these three factors together, we conclude that GDP per capita will continue to grow in most countries, albeit at a slower pace than in the past.

The next question is: How will this per capita income be distributed among workers and retirees?

We expect that aging will depress real interest rates as the demand for capital is likely to shrink relative to savings. In fact, real interest rates have been steadily declining over the last three decades. We will have to get used to a low-interest environment and, hence, low returns on retirement savings.

At the same time, the relative scarceness of labor should bolster wages. Hence, the future workers will likely benefit relative to future retirees (who are today’s middle-aged savers).

A threefold challenge

This analysis suggests that there is a threefold funding challenge from aging.

First, low interest rates make it difficult for individuals to accumulate sufficient savings to fund their retirement.

Second, the increasing share of retirees in society exerts a rising funding pressure on public pay-as-you go pensions systems. While in the U.S. there are currently 25 people of retirement age per 100 of working age, it will be 40 people of retirement age in 25 years.

Third, the increasing average age of the workforce raises the risk of disability. Inability to work due to critical illness or disability reduces the ability of individuals to accumulate sufficient savings to fund retirement.

Policymakers have to consider a number of policy measures to address this threefold funding challenge. Potential measures include increasing the retirement age, providing incentives for individual savings, enhancing productivity, increasing labor force participation and increasing pensions contribution or reduce benefits.

See also: Demographics and P&C Insurance  

In most countries, however, none of these measures seems desirable or politically feasible on its own. In the U.S., for example, pension contributions would have to be increased by 63% between 2015 and 2040 to compensate for the increasing share of retirees in the population. Alternatively, the retirement age would have to be increased by seven years.

Policymakers therefore need to develop strategies that combine a broad range of different measures in varying degrees. There is a risk, though, that measures to enhance productivity, namely investments in education, will be de-prioritized as public finances come under increasing strain.

For insurers, this analysis suggests that they must adapt to a world of slow growth and low interest rates in the longer term. Furthermore, in a world of aging workforces, products designed to protect the income against disability and inability to work will become more important. Hence we expect to see a stronger shift from savings products to protection products.

data symmetry

Competing in an Age of Data Symmetry

For centuries, people have lived in a world where data was largely proprietary, creating asymmetry. Some had it. Others did not. Information was a currency. Some organizations held it, and profited from it. We are now entering an era of tremendous data balance — a period of data symmetry that will rewrite how companies differentiate themselves.

The factors that move the world toward data symmetry are time, markets, investment and disruption.

Consider maps and the data they contained. Not long ago, paper maps, travel books and documentaries offered the very best views of geographic locations. Today, Google allows us to cruise nearly any street in America and get a 360° view of homes, businesses and scenery. Electronic devices guide us along the roadways and calculate our ETA. A long-established map company such as Rand McNally now has to compete with GPS up-and-comers, selling “simple apps” with the same information. They all have access to the same data. When it comes to the symmetry of geographic data, the Earth is once again flat.

Data symmetry is rewriting business rules across industries and markets every day. Insurance is just one industry where it is on the rise. For insurers to overcome the new equality of data access, they will need to understand both how data is becoming symmetrical and how they can re-envision their uniqueness in the market.

It will be helpful to first understand how data is moving from asymmetrical to symmetrical.

Let’s use claims as an example. Until now, the insurer’s best claims data was found in its own stockpile of claims history and demographics. An insurer that was adept at managing this data and applied actuarial science would find itself in a better position to assess risk. Competitively, it could rise to the top of the pack by pricing appropriately and acquiring appropriately.

Today, all of that information is still very relevant. However, in the absence of that information, an insurer could also rely upon a flood of data streams coming from other sources. Risk assessment is no longer confined to historical data, nor is it confined to answers to questions and personal reports. Risk data can be found in areas as simple as cell phone location data — an example of digital exhaust.

Digital exhaust as a source of symmetry

Digital exhaust is the data trail that all of us leave on the digital landscape. Recently, the New York City Housing Authority wished to determine if the “named” renter was the one actually living in a rent-controlled apartment. A search of cell phone tower location records, cross-referenced to a renter’s information, was able to establish the validity of renter occupation. That is just one example of digital exhaust data being used as a verification tool.

Another example can be found in Google’s Waze app. Because I use Waze, Google now holds my complete driving history — a telematics treasure trove of locations, habits, schedules and preferences. The permissions language allows Waze to access my calendars and contacts. With all of this, in conjunction with other Google data sets, Google can create a fairly complete picture of me. This, too, is digital exhaust. As auto insurers are proving each day, cell phone data may be more informative to proper pricing than previous claims history. How long is it until auto insurers begin to look at location risk, such as too much time spent in a bar or frequent driving through high-crime ZIP codes? If ZIP codes matter for where a car is parked each night, why wouldn’t they matter for where it spends the day?

Data aggregators as a source of symmetry

In addition to digital exhaust, data aggregators and scoring are also flattening the market and bringing data symmetry to markets. Mortgage lenders are a good example from outside the industry. Most mortgage lenders pay far more attention to comprehensive credit scores than an individual’s performance within their own lending operation. The outside data matters more than the inside data, because the outside data gives a more complete picture of the risk, compiled from a greater number of sources.

Within insurance, we can find a dozen or more ways that data acquisition, consolidation and scoring is bringing data symmetry to the industry. Quest Diagnostics supplies scored medical histories and pharmaceutical data to life insurers — any of whom wish to pay for it. RMS, AIR Worldwide, EQECAT and others turn meteorological and geographical data into shared risk models for P&C insurers.

That kind of data transformation can happen in nearly any stream of data. Motor vehicle records are scored by several agencies. Health data streams could also be scored for life and health insurers. Combined scores could be automatically evaluated and placed into overall scores. Insurers could simply dial up or dial down their acceptance based on their risk tolerance and pricing. Data doesn’t seem to stay hidden. It has value. It wants to be collected, sold and used.

Consider all the data sources I will soon be able to tap into without asking any questions. (This assumes I have permissions, and barring changes in regulation.)

  • Real-time driving behavior.
  • Travel information.
  • Retail purchases and preferences.
  • Mobile statistics.
  • Exercise or motion metrics.
  • Household or company (internal) data coming from connected devices.
  • Household or company (external) data coming from geographic databases.

These data doors, once opened, will be opened for all. They are opening on personal lines first, but they will open on commercial lines, as well.

Now that we have established that data symmetry is real, and we see how it will place pressure upon insurers, it makes sense to look at how insurers will use data and other devices to differentiate themselves. In Part 2 of this blog, we’ll look at how this shift in data symmetry is forcing insurers to ask new questions. Are there ways they can expand their use of current data? Are there additional data streams that may be untapped? What does the organization have or do that is unique? The goal is for insurers to innovate around areas of differentiation. This will help them rise above the symmetry, embracing data’s availability to re-envision their uniqueness.

cyber

Cyber Threats and the Impact to M&A

As investment bankers and their lawyers pore over the details of a potential corporate merger, a new and troubling issue has emerged that could affect the terms of the deal, or even derail it. Cyber risk is now a top agenda item, not only for deal makers but for shareholders, regulators and insurance companies.

While assumption of risk is nothing new when acquiring a company, assuming cyber risk raises a whole new set of concerns that must be addressed early in the M&A process. Specific industries, such as healthcare, financial services and retail might require detailed attention to data risk as it applies to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) standards, financial regulation and PCI (payment card industry) compliance. A thorough analysis of the target company’s network systems needs to be part of the due diligence process and may require the services of a network assessment vendor. Insufficient cyber security and the need for significant remediation of these networks could lead to unforeseen expense and may be a consideration in final negotiations of the target price.

Understanding the evolving face of hackers should also be a consideration. Hackers have traditionally been motivated solely by financial gain. However, as evidenced by recent cyber attacks against Sony, Ashley Madison and the Office of Personnel Management, hackers may be driven by political agendas or moral outrage or may be part of state-sponsored cyber espionage. If the acquired company comes with intellectual property or produces controversial products or services, it could be at higher risk of attack.

Regulatory Issues Affecting M&A

Increased regulatory risk for the acquiring company should also be of concern. Regulators in the U.S. and around the world have had a laser focus on privacy matters and have made their authority known in two recent court decisions.

  • On Aug. 24, 2015, a decision was made that will have profound impact on how the CIO, compliance officers, cyber security officials and others view what is an acceptable level of cyber security. In Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. et al. No. 14-3514, slip op. at 47 (3rd Cir. Aug. 24, 2015), the FTC alleged Wyndham failed to secure customers’ sensitive data in three separate incidents. As a result, 619,000 customer records were exposed, leading to $10.6 million in fraudulent charges. The Third Circuit Appeals Court affirmed the FTC’s authority to regulate cyber security standards under the “unfair practices” of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Therefore, key stakeholders in the acquiring and target companies need to come to terms regarding acceptable levels of cyber security before the deal is closed.
  • On Oct. 5, 2015, the European Union’s Court of Justice declared the U.S. and E.U. Safe Harbor framework invalid. The ruling abolishes an agreement that once allowed U.S. companies to move E.U. residents’ digital data from the E.U. to the U.S., and it will affect approximately 4,000 companies. For some companies, the ruling could drastically alter their business models. Therefore, an acquisition of any of these companies will require careful consideration as to how the company collects and uses the online information of the residents in the 28 countries that make up the E.U. An acquiring company could face regulatory scrutiny and costly litigation for noncompliance of their newly acquired entity.

Transferring Your Cyber Risk

One method to provide protection for the acquiring company would be to enter into a cyber security indemnity agreement with the targeted company. The agreement can exist for a period after closing, but there should be an expectation that—after a specified length of time long enough to remediate and integrate the target company’s IT networks—the agreement will expire. The liability protections should be as broad as possible and should include all directors and officers, who are often named in derivative lawsuits in the aftermath of a data breach. The agreement should address the many different actions that might be required after an unauthorized network intrusion of the target company. Costs related to defense attorneys, IT forensics firms, credit monitoring vendors, call centers, public relations companies and settlements should be anticipated. The firms to be hired, the rates they will charge and the terms of reimbursement to the acquiring company should be outlined in the agreement.

Many businesses have also turned to cyber insurance as a means to transfer cyber risk. In fact, the cyber insurance industry has grown to $2 billion in written premiums, with some expecting it to double by 2020. Cyber policies typically cover a named insured and any subsidiaries at the time of policy inception. Parties in a merger should be aware that M&A activity will likely have an impact on existing cyber insurance policies and often require engagement with insurance companies. When an insured makes an acquisition during the policy term, the insurance carrier often requires notification of the transaction pursuant to policy terms specifically outlined in the policy. Because cyber insurance policies are written on manuscript forms, there is no one standard notification requirement, and compliance terms will vary from insurance company to insurance company. If the target company has revenue or assets over a certain threshold, the named insured may be required to:

  • ƒProvide written notice to the insurance carrier before closing;
  • Include detailed information of the newly acquired entity;
  • Obtain the insurer’s written consent for coverage under the policy;
  • Agree to pay additional premium;
  • Be subject to additional policy terms.

Cyber risk can have a huge impact on any M&A activity. Legal liability and the means to transfer it should be a top priority during the transaction. There likely will be a big impact on existing insurance coverage. All parties need to focus on their rights and responsibilities and must engage the right experts to maximize protections in the process.

Zenefits: Disrupting Lives, Not Just the Insurance Industry

I’m sure you are as tired of reading about Zenefits as I am of writing about it, but, as much as I may want to, it’s hard to turn away from a train wreck in progress.

Wendy Keneipp and I have spent more time reading, writing and talking about Zenefits than we care to admit. We have spent time analyzing its model, discussing how to compete against the company and breaking down its impact on the industry. But this past week has had us shaking our heads at its arrogance and recklessness. I would like to promise this will be my last article about Zenefits, but, well….

No doubt you have recently read about Zenefits’ allegedly selling insurance without proper licenses, and we have now learned the company “may have” (according to new CEO David Sacks) taken shortcuts on at least some of the licenses it did have. May have?! At least take real ownership of the failures, Mr. Sacks!

According to several online articles, the shortcut Zenefits “may have” taken involved writing a program called Macro, which made it appear as if individuals were completing the 52 hours of online training required by the state of California to obtain a license when, in fact, they weren’t. According to a BuzzFeed.com article, those wannabe brokers were then required to sign their name, under risk of perjury, certifying they had completed the required training when, in fact, they hadn’t.

The lack of conscience, level of arrogance and number of culpable “leaders” required to execute on something like this is absolutely mind-blowing. It was bad enough when we thought this was simply a misguided company, confused as to whether it was a tech company or an insurance broker, but that possibility pales in comparison with the malicious company it is proving to be.

Zenefits garnered untold positive press for disrupting an industry and for becoming the fastest-growing SaaS (software as a service) company in Silicon Valley history, but now we are learning just how ugly the reality was behind that thin veil of success.

More than disrupting an industry, Zenefits has built an organization that is disrupting people’s lives—and not in a positive way.

Here are the victims:

INVESTORS

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for this group because they provided the currency that fueled Zenefits’ reckless behavior; they are clearly part of the problem. It was investors who perpetuated a RIDICULOUS valuation and, in doing so, put untold pressure on the company to grow at a rate that would somehow validate the investors’ irrational exuberance over the Zenefits machine.

But, in addition to fueling the behavior, the investors are also victims; they invested in an illusion. They had every reason to believe their investment would be protected by legitimate (albeit misguided) business practices. It should have been reasonable for investors to assume the growth they were witnessing—and using to substantiate their investment—was being driven in a legal manner. It wasn’t.

We have already seen Fidelity cut the valuation of its investment in half. What will be the final financial toll on other investors once the dust settles? How much of investors’ collective $500,000,000 will be lost?

CLIENTS

Zenefits’ clients are potentially victimized in two ways. The first potential problem they could run into is having policies canceled as a result of having been written by non-licensed brokers. While I’m certain this is a possibility, I think it is unlikely the carriers would want to take that black eye. What is a more certain, yet difficult to measure, victimization is the fact that Zenefits’ clients did not have access to adequate advice and guidance in making policy decisions in the first place.

It would be one thing if Zenefits was simply in the online gaming business (as an example). If it was, the model would be to allow customers to download a free game and then make money by selling additional services/features. Essentially, if the game sucks, oh well. Unfortunately, Zenefits chose to play a much more serious game in a highly regulated industry.

Zenefits’ model infringes on two of the most critical aspects of client’s lives: their financial and medical well-being.

When Zenefits takes this responsibility as carelessly and recklessly as it has, it puts people’s financial lives at risk. Even worse, Zenefits could put people’s (literal) lives at risk. That may sound overly dramatic, but protecting the financial lives of its clients (employers and employees alike) and ensuring clients have coverage in place that provides for the right medical attention at time of need, is at the core of what this industry does, has always done and must continue to do for its clients.

For Zenefits, insurance is merely an afterthought, a means to an end, a way to finance the technology it touts as “free.” The company really should be ashamed for hijacking something so critical to people’s well-being and using it so carelessly.

ADVISERS

This may surprise you, but I also see the young advisers of Zenefits as victims. While I have been more than willing to share my criticism of their inexperience in the past, I believe these are mostly well-intentioned young professionals.

The Zenefits leadership team sold these young men and women on a vision that is simply proving to be an illusion. They were sold on the idea of disrupting an industry, being a part of a “unicorn” organization doing something that hasn’t been done before. Who wouldn’t buy into something like that?

Now, don’t get me wrong; while inexperienced in the business world, these young folks still had a personal responsibility to know right from wrong. They had to know they were cheating when they skirted the 52-hour requirement. And, they had to know the personal risk they were taking when they signed their name claiming to have completed training they hadn’t.

Bad on them for not taking a stand. But, even worse on the leadership team for putting them in that position.

I can hear the arguments against me on this point, and I don’t necessarily disagree. However, anytime someone in a position of authority uses their power to coerce and take advantage of a subordinate, there is a level of victimization.

NOW WHAT?

Of course, I don’t know how the rest of this story is going to play out, but I have my suspicions.

I don’t see how David Sacks can be allowed to remain as CEO. He has received great praise for the email he sent to the Zenefits employees, and he is being hailed as the leader who will correct all of what ails Zenefits. Maybe he will be, but I have serious doubts.

The positive media response to his succession scares me. Not that I think Parker Conrad should have remained CEO, but because the change seems to be providing Zenefits a free pass—if not in the eyes of regulators, at least in the public eye.

Outside our industry and Silicon Valley, most people have no idea about how this company has been operating. I guarantee you that Zenefits is about to take its marketing and sales machine to a much higher gear. And there are countless business owners oblivious to the potential danger of a purchase through Zenefits who are awaiting promises of easier HR, shiny user interface and no cost. These business owners need, and deserve, to be protected by the regulators put in place to provide such protection.

In my opinion, Sacks, as the chief operating officer, was as culpable for Zenefits’ failures as anyone. As the executive in charge of all things operational, how could he not have known about the lack of licenses or the fraudulent acts taking place under his nose? And, if he somehow didn’t know, that is simply another kind of failure on his part. How can he be allowed to remain?

I also don’t see how state insurance departments can allow Zenefits to earn another dollar off another insurance policy. The company has left too many victims in its wake, and I believe it is about to go on an even more aggressive hunt for even more “victims.” How can Zenefits be allowed to remain in the insurance business?

It’s time for Zenefits to transform its business model, get out of the insurance business and operate as the technology company it has always been; it’s time for the company to start putting people ahead of growth. After all, done properly, taking care of people first ensures growth will take care of itself. And, if you can’t take care of people and turn a profit, you don’t deserve to be in business.

I’m not holding my breath, however. As a self-described “hyper-growth addict,” Sacks has to manage his addiction with the demands and responsibilities of his new role—a role in which he will have to balance the demands of leading a company in a highly regulated industry (requiring attention to detail and ethical behavior above all else) against the demands of delivering an acceptable return for investors who have entrusted him with $500 million of their money. Early results are not very promising.

Stay tuned. I’m certain there’s more to come.

A version of this article was originally published on Crushing Mediocrity. The article appeared here at Q4intel.com.

Broader Approach to Workplace Violence

With the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA, fresh on people’s minds, workplace violence has received major media coverage, but little to no attention is paid to deaths by suicide even though rates in the U.S. have gone up considerably in recent years. Suicides claim an average of 36,000 lives annually, and, while most people take their lives in or near home, suicide on the job is also increasing.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that workplace suicides rose to 282 in 2013, the highest level since the numbers have been reported. In 2014, the suicide rate went down slightly to 271, but that is still the second highest level. The annual average number of suicides deaths that occurred at work during the time period 2003 – 2014 is 237, for a total of 2,848. Since 2007, the numbers have been above the average.

Screen Shot 2015-12-28 at 3.30.07 PM

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries

The rise in suicide rates at work is even more significant given that overall homicides in the workplace have been steadily decreasing since the mid-’90s.

The obvious question is: Why is this startling rise in suicide rates at work occurring?

“The reasons for suicide are complex, no matter where they take place,” said Christine Montier, CMO of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. “Usually, many factors are at play.”

Many suicide prevention experts linked the increase in one way or another to the Great Recession. I believe the recession played a major role because it put a triple whammy on people. Housing, which has traditionally been the major investment and retirement source for Americans, was in the toilet. Foreclosures were at an all-time high. Companies were laying off people, and job prospects were slim.

I believe that many working people experienced daily stress about employment. Every day, they might be laid off. Many were severely overworked because they needed to pick up the slack caused by reductions in workforces. They faced continuous fear of taking time off for vacations or illness and had few options to leave because jobs elsewhere were scarce.

Put all these issues in the pot together, and some people could not see their way out of their dilemma except through suicide.

Researchers in a study published by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine suspect that suicides occur at work because the perpetrators wanted to protect family and friends from discovering their bodies.

In the midst of the fear of terrorist attacks and active shooting incidents, organizations are significantly challenged in how to deal with the spectrum of violence they may face. However, it is critical that organizations not shy away from addressing these issues and muster the resources to engage their employees.

Managers need clear guidelines on healthy approaches to manage and prevent violence in the multiple forms it can take. Two industries that have taken the issue of suicides at work head-on are construction and law enforcement.

What can management do?

Promote awareness

Stop thinking and acting like “it couldn’t happen at your company.Provide regular communications through the channels that are most effective in your company regarding the potential warning signs that employees or others are at risk of acting in a violent manner. See a list of the classic early warning signs of workplace violence here. Many of the signs are also telltale signs symptoms of depression and suicidal behavior.

Sally Spencer-Thomas, Psy.D., co-founder of Working Minds, a Colorado-based workplace-suicide-prevention organization, described a giveaway that’s more obvious than one might suspect: The employee will tell you.

When contemplating suicide, a person can be entirely consumed by the thought, she said. The problem may be coded in conversation—the individual may talk about death often, for instance.

As uncomfortable as it may seem, it’s important to bite the bullet and ask the awkward questions. “It is very hard to resist a human who is coming at you with compassion,” Spencer-Thomas observed. She suggests that HR professionals frame their questions in an understanding manner, giving the employee the opportunity to explain his or her condition. Statements such as, “I’ve noticed that …,” “It’s understandable given …,” and “I’m wondering if it’s true for you…” should be followed by a nonjudgmental statement.

Promote resources available to help employees

If your firm has an employee assistance program (EAP) or your healthcare provider offers counseling service, make sure that managers are trained about the program and skilled in how to make an effective employee referral. If your employee usage rates are below your industry average, you need to assess why and take action to increase usage. Talking to a professional counselor can make a big difference to a troubled employee.

If your firm does not offer an EAP, then identify community resources that can assist your employees and keep the list current.

HR should also have a strategy to deal with the devastating impact of a homicide or suicide at work.

I believe the time has come for executives to take a comprehensive approach to violence that occurs in the workplace and especially to bring mental health and suicide issues out of the closet into mainstream workplace conversations. We are past the point where organizations can think of suicide as a dirty little secret and hope it will go away. The time has come for meaningful action.

Don’t wait until something happens and people lose their lives. If you really mean that your employees are your most important asset, now is the time to step up.