Tag Archives: regulations

What Should Future of Regulation Be?

It is of course much easier to look back and second-guess regulatory actions. It is far more difficult to propose a way forward and to do so in light of the emerging hot-button issues, including data and the digitization of the industry, insurtech (and regtech), emerging and growing risks, cyber, the Internet of Things (IoT), natural catastrophes, longevity and growing protectionism. The way forward requires consideration of the primary goals of insurance regulation and raises critical questions regarding how regulators prioritize their work and how they interact with one another, with the global industry and with consumers.

We offer below some thoughts and suggestions on these important questions and on how regulation might best move forward over the next 10 years.

Establish a reasonable construct for regulatory relationships.

Relationships matter, and it is imperative for there to be careful consideration of how regulators organize their interactions and reliance on each other. We have some examples in the form of the Solvency II equivalence assessment process, the NAIC’s Qualified Jurisdiction assessment process (under the U.S. credit for reinsurance laws), the NAIC’s accreditation process for the states of the U.S., the U.S.-E.U. Covered Agreement, ComFrame, the IAIS and NAIC’s memorandum of ynderstanding and the IMF financial sector assessment program (FSAP). Each of these provide varying degrees of assessment and regulatory cooperation/reliance.

These processes and protocols, however, have largely emerged on an ad hoc, unilateral basis and in some cases have had a whiff of imperial judgment about them that may not be justified – and certainly is off-putting to counterparties. We would urge regulators to give careful consideration to the goals, guiding principles and the process for achieving greater levels of cooperation and reliance among global regulators.

We hope these efforts would include an appreciation that different approaches/systems can achieve similar results that no jurisdiction has a monopoly on good solvency regulation. There must also be respect for and recognition of local laws and a recognition that regulatory cooperation and accommodation will benefit regulators, the industry and consumers. Most importantly, regulators need to work together to develop confidence and trust in one another.

The IAIS first coined the phrase “supervisory recognition” in 2009. In March of that year, the IAIS released an “issues paper on group-wide solvency assessment and supervision.” That paper stated that:

“To the extent there is not convergence of supervisory standards and practices, supervisors can pursue processes of ‘supervisory recognition’ in an effort to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of supervision. Supervisory recognition refers to supervisors choosing to recognize and rely on the work of other supervisors, based on an assessment of the counterpart jurisdiction’s regulatory regime.”

See also: Global Trend Map No. 14: Regulation  

The paper noted the tremendous benefits that can flow from choosing such a path:

“An effective system of supervisory recognition could reduce duplication of effort by the supervisors involved, thereby reducing compliance costs for the insurance industry and enhancing market efficiency. It would also facilitate information sharing and cooperation among those supervisors.”

This is powerful. We urge global insurance regulators to take a step back and consider how they can enhance regulatory effectiveness and efficiency by taking reasonable and prudential steps to recognize effective regulatory regimens − even where these systems are based on different (perhaps significantly different) rules and principles, but which have a demonstrated track record of effectiveness.

As noted above, we have seen some efforts at supervisory recognition. These include Solvency II’s equivalence assessment process, the NAIC’s accreditation process for other U.S. states, the NAIC “Qualified Jurisdictions” provisions for identifying jurisdictions that U.S. regulators will rely on for purposes of lowering collateral requirements on foreign reinsurers, the E.U.-U.S. Covered Agreement and the IAIS’s Memorandum on Mutual Understanding. Some of these processes are more prescriptive than others and have the danger of demanding that regulatory standards be virtually identical to be recognized. This should be avoided.

One size for all is not the way to go.

The alternative approach to recognition of different, but equally effective systems is the pursuit of a harmonized, single set of regulatory standards for global insurers. This approach is much in vogue among some regulators, who assert the “need for a common language” or for “a level playing field” or to avoid “regulatory arbitrage.” Some regulators also argue that common standards will lead to regulatory nirvana, where one set of rules will apply to all global insurers, which will then be able to trade seamlessly throughout all markets.

There are, however, a variety of solvency and capital systems that have proven their effectiveness. These systems are not identical, and indeed they have some profoundly different regulatory structures, accounting rules and other standards such as the systems deployed in the E.U. (even pre-Solvency II), the U.S., Canada, Japan, Bermuda, Australia, Switzerland and others. Attempting to assert a signal system or standard ignores commercial, regulatory, legal, cultural and political realities.

Moreover, we question some of the rationale for pursuing uniform standards, including the need for a common language. We suggest that what is really needed is for regulators to continue to work together, to discuss their respective regulatory regimes and to develop a deep, sophisticated knowledge of how their regimes work. From this, trust will develop, and from that a more effective and efficient system of regulation is possible. The engagement and trust building can happen within supervisory colleges. We have seen it emerge in the context of the E.U.-U.S. regulatory dialogue. We saw it in the context of the E.U.-U.S. Covered Agreement. No one, however, has made a compelling case for why one regulatory language is necessary to establish a close, effective working relationship among regulators.

Similarly, the call for a level playing field sounds good, but it is an amorphous, ambiguous term that is rarely, if ever, defined. Does the “playing field” include just regulatory capital requirements? If so, how about tax, employment rules, social charges? How about 50 subnational regulators versus one national regulator? Guarantee funds? Seeking a level playing field can also be code for, “My system of regulation is heavier, more expensive than yours, so I need to put a regulatory thumb on the scales to make sure you have equally burdensome regulations.” This argument was made for decades in the debate surrounding the U.S. reinsurance collateral rules. We hear it now regarding the burdens of Solvency II. It must be asked, however, whether it is the responsibility of prudential regulators to be leveling playing fields, or should their focus be solely on prudent regulatory standards for their markets.

Finally, the dark specter of regulatory arbitrage is often asserted as a reason to pursue a single regulatory standard, such as the development of the ICS by the IAIS. But one must ask if there is really a danger of regulatory arbitrage today among global, internationally active insures? Yes, a vigilant eye needs to kept for a weak link in the regulatory system, something the IMF FSAP system has sought to do, supervisory colleges can do and the IAIS is well-equipped to do. But using regulatory arbitrage as an argument to drive the establishment of the same standards for all insurers does not seem compelling.

Proportionality is required.

Often, regulators roll out new regulatory initiatives with the phrase that the new rules will be “proportionate” to the targeted insurers. Too often, it seems there is just lip service to this principle. Rarely is it defined – but it is tossed out in an attempt to say, “Do not worry, the new rules will not be excessive.” Greater debate and greater commitment to this principle is needed. Clearly a key component of it must be a careful cost/benefit analysis of any proposed new standard, with a clear articulation of the perceived danger to be addressed – including the likelihoods and severity of impact and then a credible calculation of the attendant costs – economic and otherwise to industry and to regulators. In October 2017, the U.K. Treasury Select Committee published a report criticizing the PRA for its excessively strict interpretation of Solvency II and its negative effect on the competitiveness of U.K. insurers. The report concluded that the PRA had enhanced policyholder protection at the expense of increasing the cost of capital for U.K. insurers, which hurt their ability to provide long-term investments and annuities. Although the PRA emphasized its mandate of prudential regulation and policy holder protection, the Treasury Committee reiterated its concern with how the PRA interpreted the principle of proportionality.

Simplicity rather than complexity.

Over the past 10 years, there has been a staggering increase in proposed and enacted regulatory requirements, many of which are catalogued above. There is a danger, however, that increasingly complex regulatory tools can create their own regulatory blind spots and that overly complex regulations can create a regulatory “fog of war.”

Andrew Haldane, executive director at the Bank of England, in August 2012 delivered a paper at a Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s economic policy symposium, titled “The Dog and the Frisbee.” He graphically laid out when less is really more by talking about two ways of catching a Frisbee: One can “weigh a complex array of physical and atmospheric factors, among them wind speed and Frisbee rotation” − or one can simply catch the Frisbee, the way a dog does. Complex rules, Haldane said, may cause people to manage to the rules for fear of falling in conflict with them. The complexity of the rules may induce people to act defensively and focus on the small print at the expense of the bigger picture.

Focusing on the complexity of the banking world, Haldane compared the 20 pages of the Glass-Steagall Act to the 848 pages of Dodd-Frank together with its 30,000 pages of rulemaking, and compared the 18 pages of Basel 1 to the more than 1,000 pages of Basel III. The fundamental question is whether that additional detail and complexity really adds greater safety to the financial system or has just the opposite effect and significantly increases the cost. Haldane’s analysis provides compelling evidence that increasing the complexity of financial regulation is a recipe for continuing crisis. Accordingly, Haldane calls for a different direction for supervisors with “…fewer (perhaps far fewer), and more (ideally much more) experienced supervisors, operating to a smaller, less detailed rule book.”

Although Haldane’s analysis and discussion focuses on the banking system, his assessment and recommendations should be considered carefully by global insurance regulators. The sheer volume and complexity of rules, models and reports that flood into regulatory bodies raise the real question of who reviews this information, who really understands it and, worst of all, does a mountain of detailed information create a false confidence that regulators have good visibility into the risks – particular the emerging risks – that insurers are facing? A real danger exists of not seeing the forest for the trees.

See also: To Predict the Future, Try Creating It  

Regulation should promote competitiveness rather than protectionism.

At a time when competition has been growing not only from within the established companies but also more importantly from outside the traditional companies, protectionism will only inhibit growth and stifle better understanding of risk in a rapidly changing business environment. The goal must be to make the industry more competitive and to encourage transfer of innovation and create better ways to address risk, distribution of products and climate changes. Protectionism will only limit the potential of growth of the industry and is both short-sighted and self-defeating.

Recognition of the importance of positive disruption through insurtech, fintech and innovation.

The consensus is that the insurance industry is ripe for disruption because it has been slow (but is now working hard) to modernize in view of an array of innovative and technological advancements. Equally, regulators are trying to catch up with the rapid changes and are trying to understand the impacts through sandbox experiments and running separate regulatory models. The pace is fast and presents challenges for the regulators. Solvency and policyholder protection remain paramount, but cybersecurity, data protection, artificial intelligence and the digital revolution make advancements every day. Where this will lead is not clear. But changes are happening and regulators must work to understand the impact and need to calibrate regulatory rules to keep up with the industry and encourage innovation.

Regulation must be transparent.

Too often, regulation is drafted in times of crisis or behind closed doors by regulators believing they know better how to protect policy holders and how to prevent abuse of the system. As we have said, getting it right matters. A strong and healthy industry is the best way to protect consumers and policy holders. Industry engagement is essential and acknowledging and actually incorporating industry’s views is critical. This is particularly true given the dramatic changes in the insurance sector and the need to adopt regulation to new economics, business practices and consumer needs and expectations

This is an excerpt from a report, the full text of which is available here.

New Regulations for Disability Claims

In December 2016, the Department of Labor issued final regulations under ERISA governing claims procedures for group disability plans, which became effective Jan. 1, 2018. The new regulations govern employee benefit plans subject to ERISA that offer disability benefits, not just disability plans. ERISA plans must strictly comply with the new regulations for all claims filed on or after Jan. 1, 2018, including any necessary amendments to plan documents and internal claims-handling procedures. However, some parts of the regulation took effect Jan. 18, 2017.

Although the DOL announced on July 20, 2017, that the new regulations might be amended or delayed, they were scheduled to take effect for all claims for disability benefits filed on or after
Jan. 1, 2018. These new disability claims regulations would not apply if a plan does not make the determination of disability, but instead relies on a third party’s determination of disability, such as a determination of disability made by the Social Security Administration or the employer’s long-term disability plan. Further, the new regulations do not apply when parties to a collective bargaining agreement have agreed to use a grievance and arbitration process to adjudicate disability claims.

For claims filed between Jan. 18 and Dec. 31, 2017, the DOL is imposing the following additional standards (as applicable) on denial notices to ensure a full and fair review has occurred.

  1. The notice either needs to provide (i) the specific rule, guideline, etc., that was relied upon in making the adverse determination relied; or (ii) a statement that that such a rule was relied upon and notice that a copy will be provided for free upon request.
  2. If the claim is denied based upon medical necessity, experimental treatment or a similar exclusion or limit, the notice must provide (i) an explanation of the scientific or clinical judgment for the determination, applying the terms of the plan to the claimant’s medical situation; or (ii) a statement that the explanation will be provided for free upon request. (Note: this standard will continue to apply in 2018.)

See also: How to Win at Work Comp Claims  

For claims filed on or after Jan, 1, 2018, these are the new requirements:

  1. Loss of discretionary authority. If a plan violates any of the rules for disability claims, the claim is deemed denied without the
    exercise of discretionary authority. This gives the claimant the right to file a lawsuit without further delay and will allow a court to decide the merits of the claim de novo, without any deference to the fiduciary who violated the rules. The only exception to this rule is if the plan’s violation was: (i) minor; (ii) non-prejudicial; (iii) attributable to good cause or matters beyond the plan’s control; (iv) in the context of a continuing good-faith exchange of information; and (v) not reflective of a pattern or practice of non-compliance. In addition, a claimant may request that the plan explain in writing any violation. The plan must respond within 10 days by specifically explaining the violation and why it believes the claimant should not be permitted to file a lawsuit at that time.
  2. Impartiality. A plan’s claims procedure must be designed to ensure impartiality. This means that a plan cannot
    make hiring, compensation, promotion or termination decisions based on the likelihood that a claim adjudicator or supporting expert will support the denial of disability benefits. This rule also applies to vocational experts, medical consultants and in-house medical reviewers.
  3. Disclosure Requirements. Denial notices must include the following:
    1. Disagreement with Experts. A discussion of the basis for disagreeing with any healthcare professionals treating the claimant or any medical/vocational experts who evaluated the claimant. The discussion must include an explanation of why the plan disagrees with any medical/vocational experts whose advice was obtained in connection with the determination process, regardless of whether the advice was relied on when making the determination (This is designed to prevent “expert shopping”).
    2. Disagreement with SSA. If the Social Security Administration (SSA) has determined the claimant is disabled for Social Security purposes, the plan must discuss why it disagrees with the SSA’s determination. If the plan’s definition of “disabled” is similar to the SSA’s definition, the plan must provide a more detailed justification.
    3. Medical Necessity/Experiment Treatment. If a denial is based on medical necessity or experimental treatment, the notice must include an explanation of the scientific or clinical judgment used for the denial, or a statement that such explanation will be provided free of charge upon request.
    4. Internal Guidelines or Standards. If internal rules, guidelines or standards were relied on in making the plan decision, the plan must provide such rules, guidelines and standards. This disclosure requirement is more onerous than the requirements applicable to group health plans. The claims decision maker must affirmatively provide the rule, guideline or standard (or state that none was relied on). It is not sufficient to simply state that it will be provided upon request.
    5. Relevant Documents. For claim denials, the notice must provide that all documents relevant to the claim denial will be provided upon request. This requirement already exists for appeal denials.
    6. Contractual Limitations for Bringing Suit. All appeal denial notices must describe any time limit for filing suit in court set forth in the plan documents (any contractual limitations), and must include the specific date by which a lawsuit must be filed to be considered timely.
  4. Right to Respond to New Evidence or Rationales. A claimant must be given the right to respond to new evidence or rationales relied on or generated during the pendency of an appeal (even if supportive of the claimant). The plan must provide such evidence and rationales to the claimant as soon as possible and sufficiently in advance of the date on which the plan will reach its determination, so that the claimant has the opportunity to respond prior to the plan’s appeal decision.
  5. Rescissions of Coverage. Rescissions of coverage (the termination of coverage with a retroactive effect) must be treated as a denial of a claim. As such, a participant is entitled to use the plan’s claims procedure to appeal a rescission of coverage. This does not apply to retroactive termination of coverage for failure to pay premiums.
  6. Translation Requirements. If a denial notice is being mailed to a county where 10% or more of the population is literate only in the same non-English language, the denial notice must include a prominent statement in the relevant non-English language about the availability of language services. The plan would also be required to provide an oral customer assistance process (i.e., telephone hotline) in the non-English language and provide written notices in the non-English language upon request.

See also: Claims Litigation: a Better Outcome?  

PLEASE NOTE – On Oct. 6, 2017, the Department of Labor signed a proposed rule “to delay for ninety (90) days – through April 1, 2018 – the applicability of the final rule amending the claims procedure requirements applicable to ERISA-covered employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits.”

There is a 60-day period to submit comments providing data and other relevant information regarding the merits of rescinding, modifying or retaining the final rule. The DOL has received many complaints about the added costs to benefit plans (estimated at 6% to 10% increase in premiums, according to several insurance carriers). In light of these complaints, the DOL believes it is appropriate to seek additional public input and additional reliable data.

I believe there will be some changes to the final rule and do not believe they will just scrap it.

Why Insurance WILL Be Disrupted

As it’s Pantomime season, can I start this with “Oh, Yes It Will”? (For those not familiar with Pantomime, check out some of the history here.)

I write in response to a great post from Nick Lamparelli on why insurance will not be disrupted (here). He takes a really interesting position. But I sit on the other side of the fence and believe insurance will, is and can be disrupted.

In answer to Nick’s six points as to why insurance will NOT be disrupted, here’s my perspective:

1. He writes: “At the core, insurance customers are leasing the potential to access capital…. How do you make a big pile of money irrelevant?” But this will vary from line of business to line of business. Where there are person-to-person (P2P) and other self-insurance approaches, why do I need capital? I will self-insure.

2. He writes: “Peer-to-peer providers just won’t be able to get sufficient scale to efficiently use capital to cover risk.” But isn’t this more about how they enable distribution and connections and pools of risk?

3. He writes: “IoT [Internet of Things] devices [and other new technologies] will slowly be adopted by most insurers as they look to get competitive edges, but the follow-the-leader paradigm of the industry will mean that any edge will disappear quickly, and we will all be running hard just to stay in place. These technologies are impressive. I would classify them as a solid innovations to the industry, but not disruptive.” I agree on this – it’s more evolution, not revolution. The revolution comes if the carriers actually do something with the technologies and create better products that are truly personalized. Note that we are still thinking in a product mindset, and I suspect this will change.

4. He writes: “I think State Farm and large auto insurers like them will be just fine, and technologies such as autonomous vehicles will be more of an annoyance than an existential threat.” Like Nick, I think there will be evolution. But I think the change with autonomous vehicles is not only to move from personal insurance to product liability (or a mix with a flex of product and personal liability, e.g. the manufacturer will provide the base layer of cover, but after that you have the flex options to add extras). To me, the issue is more about distribution of the product. I envisage that next you will buy insurance to cover a journey, instead of buying insurance once a year through a price comparison/aggregator site. Equally, the big auto insurance carriers Nick mentions will need to look for new sources of income and value-added services, be it breakdown or otherwise to drive revenue and profit. I suspect these will be more often from outside our standard world. The car will be the most connected thing we engage with, and that alone brings a whole host of exciting opportunity. If we do go for autonomous cars in scale and get them right, then the disruption could be that product liability (PL) dramatically reduces to being a capacity provider only to a new distribution channel (auto providers?). Or the CL carriers and reinsurance providers actually take prominence (higher likelihood in my view).

5. He writes that regulators could stomp on innovation. This is a tough one, but I think the consumer will always win. Regulators’ views will be driven by what’s best for the customer. Equally, smaller, nimbler insurers that can turn on a dime will be better-equipped to manage through regulation changes, as opposed to large, legacy-laden carriers that will be too slow to react and catch any positive outcome.

6. He writes that there is very little that technology can do to disrupt insurance for natural catastrophes, which is his area of expertise. I reply: OK, you win. Not many seem to be tackling this, if any at all. However, how we manage in advance, or the ensuing events, how we handle the supply chain and how we treat return to pre-loss will improve, again as natural evolution rather than as disruption. You could argue that crop insurance has changed dramatically over the years with better weather data. Some pay out proactively based on weather data, without ever the need for a claim. This to me is revolutionary and goes back to the point that customers come first.

I’m 100% with you and Paul VanderMarck, chief strategy officer at Risk Management Solutions – customers and better outcomes will ultimately win. However, on the race to this end, there will be many who change and challenge our thinking. To me, this is why there are so many new entrants and existing carriers investing heavily to understand what, why and how we can disrupt. Have a look at some of the work from CB Insights, which gives a fascinating view on the state of the market. See here for some of the great work Matthew Wong and team are doing.

Separately, I think we have jumped on the “disruptor,” label, as, like any industry, we need to be able to offer up the opportunity for the next unicorn (Zenefits, Oscar etc.) and to attract the right attention, from both inside and outside the industry, along with the appropriate talent and thinking!.

Either way, for me it’s an exciting time out there in insurance, and we must continue to evolve, revolve, pivot, disrupt – whatever we call it. Sitting still is not an option!

The Hemingway Model of Disruption

In Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises, a character is asked how he went bankrupt. “Two ways,” he says. “Gradually, then suddenly.”

In my experience covering innovation for nearly three decades, that’s how disruption has come to a host of industries: IT, newspapers, books, retail, music, etc. What I think of as the Hemingway model for disruption — gradually, then suddenly — is thus how I expect transformation to come to the four main areas that have yet to see huge changes driven by IT: healthcare, higher education, government and our favorite, insurance.

If history is any guide — and it usually is — many insurance executives will miss the warning signs and be caught unawares, just as executives in other industries have been. In 1997, my frequent co-author, Chunka Mui, and I sat in the office of the CEO of Sears and tried to convince him that the gradual change he was then seeing in retail would become sudden once the Internet matured. We argued that he should search for a new business model, using Sears’ brand name and experience with tools and appliances to become the nation’s handyman. He demurred, convinced that the “sudden” part of disruption wasn’t coming. That same year, we sat down with the president of a very large distributor of music and told him that “sudden” was just around the corner because of MP3 players. We argued that he should sell the business and run for the hills. He, too, was unconvinced.

Even though insurance executives now have two decades of disruption in other industries as evidence, I’m seeing many focus on the “gradual” part of Hemingway’s formulation and hoping that “suddenly” either isn’t coming or doesn’t hit until after they’ve safely eased into retirement.

I came across an article the other day by an old friend and colleague of Chunka’s and mine that takes a different tack and offers some concrete ways to monitor for disruption — or, rather, for what the article, How Old Industries Become Young Again, calls the “dematuring” of an industry. The author, John Sviokla, was a partner of ours at Diamond Management & Technology Consultants, now part of PwC. Before that, he was a professor at Harvard Business School, where he co-wrote a thoroughly prescient piece in Harvard Business Review in the early 1990s (years before most of us even discovered the Internet) that described the contours of what the authors then referred to as the “marketspace” and that we now think of as e-commerce.

In describing how to watch for coming problems and opportunities, Sviokla writes, “What most industries experience as disruption is typically not a sudden change from one source, but the accumulated impact of a range of interacting factors. If you want to be prepared for disruption, it’s critical to understand the more gradual, prevalent and multifaceted dynamic that underlies it: a phenomenon called dematurity….You can think of dematurity as a crescendo of mini-disruptions that add up to great effect.”

He says to look for changes in five areas, to understand how rapidly the industry will change and to see how to prepare:

  • New customer habits
  • New production technologies
  • New lateral competitors
  • New regulations
  • New means of distribution

Because Sviokla only touches on insurance, I’ll channel my inner John and offer some thoughts on the five areas, three of which are clearly dematuring the industry and a fourth of which seems to be well on its way.

New customer habits

This is clearly an area of change. The discussion among insurers mostly concerns Millennials, and that’s fair enough as far as it goes, but the issue is much broader. All sorts of customers have come to expect more transparent pricing and convenient service because of the examples that Amazon and other e-commerce giants have set. Mobile technology drives even more changes in customer behavior, increasing demands for immediacy, among other things. Other technologies, such as health-related wearables, are catching on, with consequences that are unclear at this point but that could be profound. Demographics are changing, and not just because of Millennials. And so on.

New Production Technologies

Another area of clear change. The inputs that can go into the writing of an insurance policy are exploding — cameras, sensors, previously unscrutinized notes from salesmen, from customer service reps, from social media, you name it. Silos within companies mean that insurers can’t yet take full advantage of the new inputs, but change is coming. Agile production technologies will soon mean that it won’t take six to eight months to get a new product to market. It will take six to eight weeks or even six to eight days.

New Lateral Competitors

There has been lots of speculation. Is Google coming? Facebook? Amazon? Will there be an Uber of insurance? Some other start-up that revolutionizes the industry? The answers are still a bit unclear, but it seems to me that new competitors are emerging and that the pace will pick up. You can already see effects in reinsurance, where some risks can be so fully quantified that they are being covered in the capital markets rather than through traditional insurers.

New Regulations

Obamacare has certainly shaken up parts of the health insurance market, but, in general, regulations will slow the dematuring of insurance, not accelerate it.

New Means of Distribution

This will take a while to sort out, but at least parts of the sales process will go direct — the agent may still advise on the content of the policy but won’t handle as many logistical details. The increasing reliance on mobile devices will accelerate the move to direct interactions with insurers.

However, you see Sviokla’s checklist of five areas to watch, I’d encourage you to read his article. A lot of the discussion about the potential for disruption can get emotional — The British are coming! The British are coming! No, they’re not! No, they’re not! — but John, as usual, has managed to take a dispassionate, scholarly look at the issues.

4 Reasons for Millennials to Choose Careers in Insurance

It’s the beginning of May. That means over the next month a huge group of college students hit graduation day and begin a new journey in their lives.

I have many friends who are graduating, and I can already start to sense some panic about what lies ahead for them after graduation. For many of my friends who do not have a clue what field they want to pursue, I often suggest careers in insurance. Aside from working in the industry and selfishly wanting to recruit some friends to join me in the field, I give my friends four other big reasons why they should join the insurance industry:

1. Opportunities

Simply said, the talent in the insurance industry is graying. It is estimated that nearly 60% of the insurance industry’s current employees are older than the age of 45 and that by the year 2020 there will be more than 400,000 job opportunities. Those are some substantial numbers, and these numbers are on many insurance employers’ mind. The industry is hungry for young, driven talent to fill the pipelines before current staff disappears. As a young professional, I see the endless opportunities in terms of future leadership roles in the industry. I suggest getting in early and soaking up as much knowledge as you can from many of these soon retiring professionals.

2. Job Security

The insurance industry provides a considerable amount of job security, in my eyes. I don’t see insurance going away any time soon. I would argue quite the opposite. No doubt the industry will have to evolve as risk changes (e.g. self-driving cars), but risk assessors and risk advisers are here to stay.

3. Job Variety and Flexibility

Insurance is everywhere. You won’t be limited to a particular list of major cities when looking for a career in insurance, and the industry offers an array of professions to pursue, from actuaries analyzing the numbers to the creatives who are fighting today’s marketing wars. (Side note: I’m a big fan of Flo from Progressive and Mayhem from Allstate). Whatever your passion is, you can pursue it in the insurance field. Many sales and underwriting professionals in the industry pursue their interest specializing in advising for not-for-profit organizations, tech companies, medical professionals, breweries, etc. Being able to relate and understand how a business works is the essential feature of what makes an insurance professional great.

If you aren’t up for an intellectual challenge, I highly advise not pursuing a career in insurance. There is a vast amount of information to learn just to get started, and laws and regulations are changing every day. I learn something every day.

But if learning motivates you, come join the fun.

4. Altruism

I don’t believe there is anything more satisfying in the industry than the stories I hear about how insurance saved people’s livelihoods. Some accidents are just unpredictable, and whenever insurance companies step up and provide the financial support to rebuild someone’s home or business it really reenergizes my dedication to the industry. The insurance companies that have stuck around for many years are those that are out to make a difference in their customer’s lives whenever those customers call needing help.