Tag Archives: paul carroll

Wisdom From Some Very Smart People

I’d bet that most of you would be excited to learn that the factory of the future was being built in your hometown. Probably your enthusiasm would be driven by your knowledge of factories of the past. Unfortunately, the difference between the factory of the past and the factory of the future is change – TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE.

Warren Bennis (a very smart man) offered the following observation in “New Work Habits for a Radically Changing World” in 1994: “The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.”

From an insurance standpoint, my first questions on the new risks associated with the factory of the future would be:

  1. What is the workers’ comp rate on a dog feeder and a watchdog?
  2. Can you afford to insure this type of new risk?
  3. Is Bennis right about the factory of the future?
  4. What are you doing to prepare to be a profitable agent insuring risks of the future?

Before you call me crazy, remember the travel agents, bookstores and video stores that are no more because they kept admiring their past success in the mirror of yesterday and did not consider the horizon of TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE THAT IS TECHNOLOGY.

The bad news is that TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE is coming (and in some cases is already here). The good news is the buyers and sellers in our industry who leverage this TRANSFORMATION can be big winners if they TRANSFORM with it or allow themselves to be TRANSFORMED by it.

Recently, I received an e-mail from a very creative industry leader, Ryan Collier, chief digital officer of Risk Placement Services, celebrating innovation/TRANSFORMATION:

“Trying to live the ‘eThink Insurance’ mantra every day. A fun side note for you – the platform that we have developed started offering a ‘friction free’ cyber buying experience officially in 2015. It literally takes a company about one minute (four questions) to buy cyber insurance. Since we have launched it we have taken our proprietary/partner insurance carrier (BCS Insurance) from ZERO premium up to the sixth-largest cyber insurance carrier by premium and third by policy count in the U. S. – all by completely redesigning the process. For me, it is all about the process – and tailoring that process toward the buyer and not the carrier. This is a nascent product that needs to be bought – not sold. We now have 12 products that can be quoted/bound/issued in a moment, which has been a boatload of fun and an extreme amount of work as this old industry doesn’t like to change.”

I call this intimacy being “client-defined and client-driven.” Ryan is a very innovative industry leader, a rare resource in a “me, too” world. We’re more copycats and fat cats than lean and mean innovators. Casual Friday is not innovation.

Our industry will be TRANSFORMED from without – not from within.

See also: 3 Ways to an Easier Digital Transformation  

To reinforce this opinion, I offer the following from an insurance industry leader, Paul Carroll, who from his Innovator’s Edge platform asked: “Will Apple enter insurance? Google? Microsoft? Amazon?” He said, “Apple’s market value crested $1 trillion last week, and its big tech brethren Google, Microsoft and Amazon aren’t far behind; all are valued north of $800 billion.”

I wasn’t shocked until he said, “All have extensive data about customers. And all have the size to tackle mind-bending problems that insurance faces – by contrast, you’d have to combine AIG, Prudential and Allstate just to surpass $100 billion in market value.”

Now that I have your attention: Consider the comments that follow from Peter Drucker and Theodore Levitt, who were TRANSFORMATIONAL leaders in a world that did not voluntarily embrace change.

Levitt – “We habitually celebrate him [Henry Ford] for the wrong reason, his production genius. His real genius was marketing. We think that he was able to cut price and therefore sell millions of $500 cars because his invention of the assembly line had reduced the costs. Actually, he invented the assembly line because he had concluded that at $500 he could sell millions of cars. Mass production was the result, not the cause, of his low prices.”

Peter Drucker, in a Wall Street Journal article titled “The Five Deadly Business Sins” (Oct. 21, 1993), explains the need for a new paradigm in all of our operations:

“The third deadly sin is cost-driven pricing. The only thing that works is price-driven costing. Most Americans and practically all European companies arrive at their prices by adding up all costs and then putting a profit on top. And then, as soon as they have introduced the product, they have to start cutting the price, have to redesign the product at enormous expense, have to take losses – and often have to drop a perfectly good product because it is priced incorrectly. Their argument – ‘we have to recover our costs and make a profit.’ This is true but irrelevant: CUSTOMERS DO NOT SEE IT AS THEIR JOB TO ENSURE MANUFACTURERS A PROFIT.”

Drucker further states, “Cost-driven pricing is the reason there is no American consumer electronics industry any more.”

When I started in the agency business (1975), we were paid 25% commission on homeowners insurance. Agents boldly stated, “I won’t sell homeowners for less than that.” They were wrong. I believe, in my lifetime (and I’m old), insurance will be quoted net of commission or with full disclosure of commission. That will ensure TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE.

See also: Core Transformation Is Not Negotiable  

Want to be here tomorrow? Heed Drucker’s advice: “There are only two functions in business, marketing and innovation.” Our world is transforming because the people and the global marketplace are changing. They now enjoy unlimited options.

Consider the following simple outline of the marketing process:

  1. Who is your customer (prospect) base? As a niche of one, customers can shop anywhere.
  2. What are their wants and needs? Do not limit your research based on just what you sell.
  3. What products/services and client intimacy must you offer to meet these wants and needs?
  4. How will these be priced to sell?
  5. How will you anticipate these needs and deliver a solution to customers at a profit?

Plan to innovate everything: people, process, products, pricing, performance (expectations), places, etc. Try “everything,” and, if something doesn’t work, go back to what did. Your marketplace will be the judge and arbiter of what is good and what is not so good!

If this article starts making you sing “Crazy” – I like the Patsy Cline version best – consider how much online banking you do now and know that Capital Bank is now opening “branch cafes” in lieu of branch banks!

A Contrarian Looks ‘Back to the Future’

A recent week started with reading a page by Paul Carroll from his Innovator’s Edge platform. The title question was: “Will Apple enter insurance? Google? Microsoft? Amazon?” His opening statement was, “Apple’s market value crested $1 trillion last week, and its big tech brethren Google, Microsoft and Amazon aren’t far behind, all are valued north of $800 billion…”

I wasn’t shocked until he said, “All have extensive data about customers. And all have the size to tackle mind-bending problems that insurance faces – by contrast you’d have to combine AIG, Prudential and Allstate just to surpass $100 billion in market value…”

A day later, someone sent me Reagan Consulting’s “The Golden Age of Insurance Brokerage.” As I read through this short update, I could almost hear, “Happy days are here again” playing in the background for the brokers. The following captures the essence of this document: “We are living in the Golden Age of insurance brokerage. There are so many good things happening, it is hard to keep track of them all.” This was followed by six bullet points providing evidence of why the brokers are so happy. (No mention was made of insurance buyers, who may not be as HAPPY!)

A friend then sent me a link to “The Death of the Old School Agency,” by Michael Jans. This is a more in-depth view (30-plus pages) of the world as it may or will be.

From the executive summary, we learn that today’s agent faces a new world of:

  • Rapid changes in consumer behavior and expectations
  • Emerging, existing and well-funded competitive channels
  • A rising millennial generation with different expectations, both as consumers and workers
  • A pace of change unlike anything they’ve ever seen before.

Depending upon who, what and where you are, this report will bring good news or bad news, but nonetheless – it is news that (I believe) every agent needs to hear, consider, ponder and then decide on.

Agencies tomorrow are not “your daddy’s Oldsmobile.” Ask someone older than 40 to explain the phrase. This was the beginning of the end of a legendary line of General Motors automobiles and probably a foreshadowing of the collapse of General Motors.

I encourage you to study all three of these documents – they are well-written by very successful folks. Their ideas should be carefully considered, and, if properly adapted to your circumstances, all can improve your results. That is – as long as the world goes as “we the people” in this industry think it should. What follows is my contrarian view – less “raining on your parade” and more clearing the air as you look to the horizon in tomorrow’s consumer-driven economy. We are not in charge. We today are wagering on our individual and industry’s future. Place your bets. The market will pick the winners.

See also: 3 Myths That Inhibit Innovation (Part 3)  

This contrarian will offer his ideas by looking “back to the future.”

There will remain great opportunities in our future, but these will require transformational change. From today’s selling in an industry that is product-defined and product-driven, to a new client-defined and client-driven marketplace where we will facilitate our client’s buying – solving their problems and meeting their needs. In the competitive nature of tomorrow’s world – we’ll have to use artificial intelligence (AI) to anticipate these needs and deliver solutions before our clients “go shopping.”

Some of the people, gifts, expertise, disciplines, skills, etc. we’ll need will be much different than the mechanical process we use today. We will need communicators (verbal and nonverbal), empathizers, artists, inventors, designers, storytellers, caregivers, consolers, big picture thinkers, storytellers, caregivers and “techies.” This is not an all-inclusive list. (Consider reading “A Whole New Mind,” by Daniel Pink.)

Warren Bennis offered the following wisdom decades ago: “The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.”

Consider the following – brief observations from one man’s experience:

  • In 1978, Fireman’s Fund/Famex Agents offered a GM-endorsed insurance program for dealers. I was the SW Louisiana agent. In those days, the No. 1 concern of GM and its dealers was that GM would reach 65% market share and the federal government would break GM up into separate companies, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, etc. GM’s arrogance, the dealers’ complacency, foreign competition, a poor product and a marketplace wanting change reshaped their world. GM never made it to 65% market share. I believe the insurance industry is ripe for a similar transformational experience.
  • In 1994, I was speaking to a bank in St. James Parish (Louisiana) about change. I said, “Today, GM, Sears and IBM are the kings of their respective jungles. I believe, in my lifetime, one of these companies will fail.” I was laughed off the stage. Fourteen years later, I was vindicated with the bankruptcy filing by GM. I personally believe that I’ll also prove right on Sears.
  • In June 2008, I was an instructor for attendees in a risk and insurance class at the KPMG Advisory University in Chicago. This was a continuing education week for KPMG consultants. A rookie consultant asked, “How does an insurance company fail?” I explained with the Champion Insurance story.

Then he asked for an example of a “rock solid” insurance company. I said, “AIG.” The KPMG senior partners in the room nodded in agreement. Less than 100 days later, AIG was functionally bankrupt, requiring a $182 billion bailout by the government. None of us saw that coming. (I’ll bet you were surprised, as well.)

As I wrap up this article, hoping I’ve stimulated a much more important discussion about the future, consider the following:

  1. Companies valued at $100 billion are “big” until measured against trillion-dollar operations in a world in transformation – especially if the giants have better technology and data!
  2. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon (AGMA) are kings of their respective jungles. Yet these companies are not even as old as the majority of readers of this column (with the possible exception of Microsoft and Apple, founded in the mid-1970s). Why would we think that our “old and stoic” industry is “safe” and “promising” for tomorrow? Are we celebrating our past when we should be planning our future?
  3. Do you think that any of your clients who have recently received a rate increase will be as enthusiastic about the profitability of our industry and the future of the world of brokers as stated in the article offered by Reagan? I’ve rarely (if ever) heard a client celebrate the profitability of our industry when it is an expense to theirs…
  4. Generational changes, social media and our societal rethinking of issues of race, gender, ethnicity, family, values, economic models (socialism / capitalism), etc. may result in our going in directions that we, 10 years ago, would have never considered possible.
  5. Has our industry let the government get its nose into our tent/economic system. NFIP has been in this industry as long as I have. The private sector didn’t want to address the flood risk. Now, these nearly 50 years later, the flood program is a government program and not sustainable. Unfortunately, the government may be ready to have the camel stand up in the tent? Medicare for everyone is no longer a crazy idea. It may not work, but….
  6. If the insurance industry was being designed today to do what it does, do you really believe it would be what we have? If you answered yes, please reread the question!

See also: What Is Really Disrupting Insurance?  

Bookstores, travel agencies, video stores, etc. were important in our communities of yesterday – UNTIL THEY WEREN’T. Should we begin redesigning our own operations and industry and future before a competitive innovator does it for us?

Harvey: First Big Test for Insurtech

As Hurricane Harvey finally relents, the insurance industry is about to experience the flip side of a famous line from Warren Buffett. Talking about how investment portfolios shouldn’t be judged in good times, Buffett said, “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” Well, with the rain and the rain and the rain that Harvey inflicted on Houston and surrounding areas, we’re going to get to see who in the insurance world can swim.

That question will take two forms, one that we’ve seen in every disaster since time immemorial, but the other a new one, about insurtech.

The normal one is about whether insurers will perform in their moment of truth, or whether we’ll find the kinds of dubious decisions by adjusters and faked engineering reports that led to improperly denied claims and gave insurance a black eye after Superstorm Sandy.

In the case of Harvey, the question for the industry is, essentially: Do insurers want to be Joel Osteen or J.J. Watt?

As you may know, given that he’s all over TV, Osteen is the senior pastor at a megachurch in Houston who was mocked on social media for being slow to open the doors of his “prosperity gospel” Christian church and provide shelter and aid for those displaced by the hurricane. He says that he has been maligned and that he was always ready to help, if the city had asked, but his many critics have noted that nobody had to ask Houston’s mosques to open their doors and made Osteen the king of memes this week. Osteen is damaged. The only question is how badly.

On the flip side is J.J. Watt, the all-everything defensive lineman for the Houston Texans. Very early in the storm, he made a personal pledge of $100,000 and asked for others to kick in, stating a goal of $200,000. Well, his sincerity and concern went viral, drawing donations from tiny to huge, from Drake to Walmart. Last I checked, total donations exceeded $20 million. With the waters receding, Watt and teammates will be personally going around the city, delivering water, clothing and everything else he’s bought to hand out. He could run for king in Texas, and nobody would get in his way.

While acknowledging that insurance is a business that has no obligation to pay more than it owes policyholders, I think the choice is clear: Be like J.J. Watt as much as you can. Don’t be Joel Osteen.

See also: Harvey: Tips to Avoid Claim Issues  

The new question is trickier. The insurtech movement has been around for a few years now, but Hurricane Harvey is the first true catastrophe that has happened during a time when the insurance industry is laying a claim to innovation. (For good measure, Typhoon Hato has been hammering Macau and Hong Kong at the same time.)

We’re about to find out how innovative we really are.

Some companies are following the traditional playbook and dispatching armies of adjusters to the afflicted region. But we’ll also see the skies filled with drones and will learn how effective they can be at documenting the damage and how much their work still has to be supplemented by humans.

We’ll learn a lot about the “gig economy” and whether part-time workers, such as the “Lookers” provided by WeGoLook, can efficiently supplement the full-time insurance workforce, speed the process of claims and slash away at the costs of sorting out a full-on disaster.

Supposedly, insurtech is letting everything happen faster. Startups such as ViewSpection and MondCloud provide for self-service on claims, letting individuals send photos and videos and allowing insurers to do triage and pay easy claims quickly. But reality may intrude.

Every time I see a photo of some aid facility and spot a sign saying “Free legal services,” I want to applaud those who are helping the injured pro bono, but the cynic in me sees lawyers fishing for clients. I suspect that the hurricane is a full-employment act for every recent law school graduate in Texas. The lawyers, of course, have a vested interest in avoiding quick settlements, so they can work the insurers, take thousands of cases to court and perhaps find some lucrative class actions.

Insurtechs, meet lawyers. We’ll have to see how that goes. I don’t often bet against the lawyers.

Insurers have begun using chatbots, such as Pypestream’s, in their call centers, which should help handle the deluge of calls that will come in from customers and allow insurers to contact customers more often and more effectively to keep them up to date on the progress of claims. We’ll have to see how insurers do about handling customers’ concerns in these hours and days and weeks of need, as well as what role technology plays.

Better data and analytics, sometimes powered by AI, are supposedly making us all smarter about mitigating risks, underwriting and everything else, but it’s easy to congratulate yourself on being smart when you don’t face a test.

In the real test — accuracy — I’d say insurtech startup HazardHub wins early points for putting out an analysis right before the storm saying that $77 billion of property was at risk in Houston, quite a bit higher than other estimates I saw – though lower than some estimates now circulating, and damage estimates always seem to grow, never diminish.

We’ll see whether the powerful new analytics let any company in particular get away from the risks in Houston – keeping in mind that ProPublica identified the particular risks in Houston, because of lack of restrictions on real estate development, in a story published last year. If the journalists could spot the risks, how did the insurers do?

The verdicts will take weeks and months to come in, because the damage has been so extensive and because problems are still developing in what continues to be a stew of mold, fetid water and chemicals. But we’ll get a sharp sense of where innovation has, in fact, happened and where it needs to go – if we keep our eyes open, evaluate the results honestly and take the lessons seriously.

There’s one other question that needs to be answered, too, this one on the government policy level. Flood insurance isn’t working in the U.S., so what do we do about it? 

Perhaps lulled by a lack of major storms hitting the U.S., homeowners have increasingly declined to purchase policies, so estimates are that 80% to 85% of homes in Houston were not covered. Meanwhile, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides so much of the coverage, is already heavily in debt because it underprices risk and hasn’t recovered from Superstorm Sandy. By law, the NFIP needs to be renewed this month, but we’ve all seen how dysfunctional Congress is these days, and Congress has even more pressing priorities this month, such as dealing with the budget and raising the national debt ceiling.

The best proposal I’ve seen so far is to require that homeowners and renters insurance, commercial property policies, auto policies and so on all have a flood piece to them, so that citizens carry the responsibility and so that risk is priced in the market, rather than being dumped on the federal government.

See also: Time to Mandate Flood Insurance?

One person attached a compelling comment to this article on how the federal government, not insurers (and, ultimately, the insured public) will pay for the recovery from Hurricane Harvey:

“Homeowners have three options: 1) buy flood insurance through the NFIP, 2) live in a non-flood plain or 3) accept the risk of living in a flood plain. Option 4 of Harvey victims expecting insurers/taxpayers to compensate them for their increased risk is not an option.”

A century ago, in the earliest days of IBM, founding CEO Tom Watson Sr. placed signs in offices that said, “Think.” When the company sparked fears of bankruptcy 25 years ago, wags penciled in two words underneath some of those signs, so they read, “Think – or Thwim.” Flood insurance in the U.S. is in “Think or Thwim” mode. I hope we think.

Q&A With Iowa’s New Commissioner

Q: Congratulations on becoming the new Iowa insurance commissioner. You’re a Missouri native with 30 years of experience in the industry. What brought you to Iowa?

A: Thank you very much. About four years ago, I met Nick Gerhart, who was beginning his tenure as Iowa’s insurance commissioner. We had really good discussions at NAIC meetings, and he needed another member for his senior leadership team. Things really just fell into place. I’ve spent my entire career in consumer protection, and I shared Nick’s values of making government work for the people we serve — in our case, the consumers of insurance products.

Another draw for me was that Iowa is a huge insurance hub. From the outside looking in, I knew that Iowa’s regulatory culture was open communication with the regulated industry. We protect consumers and have high standards for the industry we regulate, but we communicate openly. We may not always agree with insurers, but we are willing to talk about it. I feel many states don’t have that mindset. It makes a big difference to have a focus on consumers while also working with industry in a fair, flexible and positive way. Industry ultimately wants stability and to be treated fairly, and I think that is why Iowa is home to so many insurance companies.

See also: A Commissioner’s View of Innovation  

Q: How does it feel to have the title of insurance commissioner once again? Not many can say that.

A: I am confident that those insurance commissioner statistics are not kept, but in the 150 years of state insurance regulation, I may be the sixth or seventh to serve as insurance commissioner in two separate states. Perhaps I’ll be the answer to a Jeopardy question someday. I’m very pleased to have been appointed by Gov. Branstad and Lt. Gov. Reynolds so that I can continue working to help protect consumers. We have a really, really good staff here at the Iowa Insurance Division, and I consider it an honor to lead them.

Q: What’s your vision for the Iowa Insurance Division moving forward?

A: Consumer protection will be the main focus. Our multi-faceted team is in place to make sure that Iowans are protected.

We have a market regulation team that works with consumers on complaints, enforcement attorneys that ensure companies and producers who are doing what they are supposed to be doing, a fraud bureau that consists of law enforcement officers that investigate insurance fraud and a Senior Health Insurance Information Program (SHIIP) that helps Iowans on Medicare get the information they need to make informed decisions.

Another huge part of consumer protection is ensuring that the insurance companies are solvent to be able to pay claims when needed. Our financial team works hard every day so consumers are protected that way.

We also just recently launched a new website, which really puts consumers first so they can quickly and easily get the information they need.

Q: There’s always talk during a new president’s term about the first 100 days and discussions about the cabinet picks. Is it the same for a new commissioner taking over?

A: Well, in my case, I’ve been appointed by the same administration that my predecessor was. On one level, much stays the same. Early on in Commissioner Gerhart’s tenure, he knew there was a crisis coming as much of our staff was retirement-eligible in the coming years. We put in a lot of work in terms of strategic hires, putting our younger staff in positions to both learn and lead and reorganizing as necessary. We’ve been able to add necessary staff to those regulating company solvency to keep up with the growing and increasingly complex nature of our domestic industry. Still, we may look to continue adding to our senior leadership, whether that be from inside Iowa or outside given the strategic plans put in place under Commissioner Gerhart. I will work with industry, our universities, Lt. Gov. Reynolds and Gov. Branstad to help make Iowa an attractive place to do business and a home for talented insurance professionals.

As for the first 100 days, I think a lot depends on what happens at the federal level in a few areas. What happens with the ACA is yet to be seen but will have a huge impact on what we do here in Iowa. The DOL fiduciary rule is also out there as something we are waiting to see how the new administration deals with. There’s also FIO, and I suppose the list could go on. We’ll continue to be active at the NAIC level to bring ideas forward and work for the best interest of Iowans.

See also: What Is the Right Innovation Process?  

Q: Iowa has generally been very forward-thinking in terms of innovation in the industry. ITL has even joined as a partner to the Global Insurance Symposium that the Iowa Insurance Division helped create. What should we expect at this year’s event?

A: The Iowa Insurance Division has been a founding partner of the Global Insurance Symposium, which is held each spring in Des Moines. This year will be the fourth year, and I think it will be the best one yet. There really is something for everyone. Many of the topics such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, corporate strategy, risk mitigation and innovation in the industry truly transcend all types of insurance. This event brings together top thought leaders in industry from around the world, industry executives, regulators and insurtech startups. I think this event is in a caliber of its own, and I’m really proud to be in a position to help the event grow and showcase all we are doing in Iowa to the rest of the insurance world.

This will be an event that folks won’t want to miss.

What Trump Means for Business

Donald Trump’s stunning win in the U.S. presidential election, together with the election of Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate, has generated a wave of coverage about the deep changes that will surely occur with Obamacare but not nearly as much about what the voting will likely mean for businesses in general and the insurance ecosystem in particular. While there are far more questions than answers, I’ll venture a few observations.

The biggest concern is that Trump brings with him enormous uncertainty that could cause a pause in planning for investments, especially given that we are in the year-end budgeting season. Yes, a transition of power at the presidential level always brings uncertainty, especially when the new president is from the other party, but the uncertainty surrounding Trump will likely last longer than usual — possibly far longer — for three reasons and could cause significant problems for the economy.

First, while companies plan investments based partly on an incoming administration’s policies, it’s not at all clear what Trump’s policies are in many instances. Often, he said something startling during one portion of the campaign, such as that he planned a 45% levy on goods from China that would start a trade war, but then backed off and let the furor die. Will he try to impose that levy; build a wall that would damage relations with Mexico, one of our biggest trading partners; cut taxes so much that he adds $500 billion a year to the federal deficit? Who knows? He likely doesn’t even know at the moment on many issues.

He has expressed some plans consistently. For instance, he expects to lower nominal tax rates on businesses and simplify the tax structure, which businesses will welcome and which congressional Republicans will likely support. Trump plans to invest heavily in infrastructure, which draws mixed reviews among Republicans. He plans to reduce regulation, including defanging a major consumer watchdog group, which businesses generally welcome, though his thinking on regulation could cause consternation on health insurance. (He says he thinks health insurance costs can be driven way down by allowing any policy approved in one state to be sold in other states — an approach that state regulators would surely resist and that would leave many companies in limbo while the fight played out.)

But even when Trump has been thematically consistent, he has been shy on details or even contradictory — his campaign simultaneously cited two different versions of his tax plans that were $1.2 trillion apart in terms of how much revenue they would generate over 10 years.

Even under the best of circumstances, it will take many weeks for Trump’s team to build out the details of the many policies that an incoming administration needs to have — and that most have on Election Day. It could be months before the team even gets to the point of starting to turn the policies into legislation.

Which brings me to the second point about the unusual uncertainty surrounding a Trump administration: He doesn’t have a team.

He needs to build a team numbering in the thousands to take leadership roles in the vast federal bureaucracy, but he just has the core of a team at this point, which is very late in the game as it’s usually played. That core is mostly his family, four politicians and two political operatives. Two of those politicians — former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich — have experience but have been out of office at least 15 years and don’t bring sizable organizations with them. The two sitting governors on the team — Indiana’s Mike Pence, the vice president-elect, and New Jersey’s Chris Christie — have access to organizations, though Christie may be hampered by the Bridgegate scandal. The two political operatives — campaign Chairwoman Kellyanne Conway and campaign Chief Executive Stephen Bannon — have only modest resources to contribute to a team, and Bannon’s organization, Breitbart News, is toxic to many.

Traditionally, the Republican Party would provide the core of the incoming president’s team, but Trump has been at war with most of the leaders of his party — notably not Chairman Reince Priebus — almost as much as he has with the Democrats. In addition, many politicians will avoid Trump, at least initially, because of the racist, xenophobic and misogynistic things he said during his campaign.

He will surely build a team. The lure of high office will overcome the scruples for many. But the mechanics will likely take longer than normal, and there could be more than the usual sorts of problems getting the people Trump wants in the jobs where he wants them.

My third and final point: Even once Trump builds a team, it’s not clear that he really wants one. He has said that he runs his business pretty much as a solo operator, reserving all key decisions to himself, and he certainly ran his campaign that way. He publicly contradicted his vice presidential nominee on a policy matter related to Russia. Trump and Gingrich reasonably often ventured contradictory opinions in public. Conway has said that she sometimes said things on TV to get Trump’s attention, because she knew he was watching her on TV and couldn’t always get his attention in private.

What will Trump delegate, and which decisions will he keep for himself? Will he be consistent in the division of responsibility? He has said that he trusts his instincts and doesn’t read, so how will he manage a bureaucracy traditionally built on careful analysis, detailed briefings and internal debate? Does he have something entirely different in mind?

Those answers aren’t yet clear, and they need to be as Trump figures out how to delineate policy and work with an enormously large team for the first time in his life.

This list of three reasons for additional uncertainty actually assumes otherwise benign conditions. It assumes that he controls his worst impulses, even though he surely wants to wreak revenge on or at least belittle so very many people at the moment. It assumes that he doesn’t get bogged down in the lawsuits that are either already proceeding (the Trump University fraud trial begins later this month) or that may be filed against him, including by the women who allege he sexually assaulted them. It assumes that no crisis erupts in, say, Syria or in the economy, which could well pose some problems.

For me, the first big test will be whether he can make peace with the congressional leaders of the Republican Party. If he can, then he has the chance of building a team quickly enough to eliminate much of the uncertainty. But that will be tricky. His personal relationships with many of the leaders are awful, and allying with them would mean turning his back on the many supporters who urged him to “drain the swamp” in Washington, by which they meant getting rid of the entire elite, perhaps mainly Democrats but with many Republicans included.

The uncertainty will be with us for a while – and could well cause a pause in investment during a still fragile time for the economy.