Tag Archives: sun life

Insurance CEOs Spec Out a Post-COVID World

At the International Insurance Society’s annual forum last week, several CEOs of major insurers said they foresee a very different world post-pandemic — one where trust in insurers not only needs to increase but must take a different form; one where work happens in different places at different times in different organizational structures, all at far greater speeds; one where the challenges increase, but the opportunities do, too.

Amanda Blanc, group CEO at Aviva, said on the opening CEO panel that the “one overriding challenge” she sees is “trust, and the reputation of the industry. I’d say it’s fair to say the industry has had sort of a mixed record over the past six months.”

Others agreed, though Dan Glaser, president and CEO of Marsh & McLennan, added that trust has long been a problem. “It may be at a low now,” he said, “but it wasn’t coming from a high.”

Dean Connor, president and CEO of Sun Life, said he thinks the industry needs to generate a new sort of trust. “100 years ago,” he said, “the question was, If I give you my money, will you be around in 50 years to give it back? So, we expressed our brands as beautiful, big buildings. But now, the question is, What are you doing with my data? We really need to pay attention to client data.”

Glaser said he thought that, broadly speaking, while cybersecurity was something that people “weren’t really talking about a decade ago, it’s the No. 1 risk right now. Imagine what a firm would be like if you couldn’t talk to your employees or your clients…. The idea of a cyber hurricane looms for the entire industry, where you might have multiple events in multiple countries at the same time.”

Gabriele Galateri, chairman of Generali, agreed that cyber has become a huge issue but noted the opportunities that come along with the increased digitalization of the industry. “On the other side,” he said, “the impact of the technology on all our processes and products is just extraordinary — the way we can be more flexibility and creative and make our products much more personalized.”

Connor said he’s seen a “step change in productivity that’s not going to go away,” as well as an acceleration in decision making. He said that, back in the spring, Sun Life went right to market with a product that in the past would have first involved extensive back-and-forth with brokers. “Instead, we just put it out there, and, boom, 500,000 Canadians signed up for health care.” He said he wants that sort of speed to continue.

At Generali, Galateri said, he couldn’t believe how fast the company could go digital. He said he’s seen in weeks or months the kind of progress that could have taken five to 10 years, though he said that “reskilling” and “upskilling” remain big challenges and that structural changes to the business will be needed to take full advantage of digitalization.

At Aviva, Blanc said she’s spending a lot of time thinking about how to design the workplace of the future, how to design a collaborative work space that fosters the right culture. “The workplace of the future will be very different than the workplace of the past,” she said. For the moment, she added, “while people used to talk about working from home, now they may say they’re living at work.”

Whatever results, Connor said, will involve a flatter organization structure, because of what businesses have learned during work-from-home during the pandemic. “COVID has flattened organizations,” he said. “CEOs don’t just talk to their leadership team. They can talk to everyone.” The question, he said, is: “How do we use this time as an accelerant?”

The panelists singled out low interest rates, now cemented in place by the economic crisis that the pandemic has caused, as a hurdle for the industry. Any company that depends heavily on returns on investments will find those hard to come by, perhaps for years, and will have to be much more accurate in its underwriting.

But Connor said, “You could also flip that around and say there’s an opportunity. How do you construct a retirement plan” when interest rates are so low? Companies that can help clients do that will win, he said. He added that COVID has heightened awareness of health and mortality. “Our clients need what we do,” he said.

He’s broadly optimistic, too, about how 2020, as crazy as it’s been, could help produce needed social change, such as on racial inequality, and sees a role for the insurance industry.

“Look at all the change that can happen in just a generation or two,” he said. “Think of smoking cessation, drinking and driving, all the millions in Asia who’ve been pulled out of poverty and into the middle class. The Me Too movement has had a profound effect.

Glaser said that “maybe a silver lining of COVID is that while we are all at home watching our screens, some things that happened in the world were unavoidable.” He cited the killing of George Floyd by a police officer who knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes as an event that made him rethink assumptions about “inequality in general, about health outcomes, about access to education. People, me included, are used to the idea of unequal outcomes in a capitalist world. What’s clearer now is the extent of the unequal opportunities.”

The panelists committed to doing their part through hiring and training to reduce inequities, as they prepare for a post-pandemic world where they have to forge new types of trust relationships with clients, where the work environment will be different and where the challenges and opportunities will change.

“There’s more to be optimistic about than to worry about,” Glaser said.

Or, as Blanc put it: “I think the insurance industry is incredibly adaptable, and I look forward to seeing what we can do.”

Stay safe.

Paul

P.S. To watch the video of the CEO panel or to learn more about the forum, you can check out the IIS site here.

P.P.S. Here are the six articles I’d like to highlight from the past week:

Future of Insurance: Hyper-Personal

Protection products will increasingly have to be dynamic, meeting the needs of each individual as preferences and life circumstances change.

How COVID Alters Claims Patterns

Claims in some lines, such as entertainment insurance, have surged, while traditional property and liability claims have been subdued.

3 Silver Linings From COVID-19

Insurance is positioned to thrive in the virtual world as the need for large processing claims centers and customer service hubs vanishes.

How to Unlock a ‘Customer 360’ View

Why do so many insurance companies fail to deliver on their customer-centric objectives? It almost always boils down to inaccurate data.

How to Engage Better on Auto Insurance

Believe it or not, your policyholders would like to hear from you more often―and communication can affect policyholder loyalty.

Keys to Limiting Litigation Liability

Risks associated with GL and AU claims can be managed, even with “social inflation,” “nuclear verdicts” and tough jurisdictions.

The Industry Needs an Intervention

Leaders in the insurance industry, like many other industry executives, are seeking routes to profitable growth amid unprecedented economic, financial and regulatory change. No longer can companies pursue top-line growth for its own sake without adverse consequences or rely on cost cuts alone to boost margins. Today, companies must strike a strategic balance that will sustain profit growth and shareholder returns over the long term.

This is no easy trick, as tectonic forces unsettle the insurance industry — which is accustomed to measuring the pace of change in decades, not years or quarters. A business-as-usual approach falters in the face of quickly shifting customer needs, rising capital requirements, new regulatory burdens, low interest rates, disruptive technology, and new competitors.

Many companies aren’t getting the results they need from textbook moves such as fine-tuning marketing programs, updating products, enhancing customer-service systems or beefing up information technology. That’s because traditional operating levers for executing strategy simply weren’t designed for the challenges confronting insurers today. Strategic success now requires something more: a structural response. A company can’t adapt to 21st-century conditions without modernizing its 20th-century structures.

The key is for companies to realize that strategy equals structure. Strategy — the big and important ways that a company chooses to compete — must naturally and intrinsically weave in key operating model dimensions, including legal entity, tax positioning, capital deployment, organization and governance.

Finally, once strategy and structure are wed, companies must recognize the role of culture in making new structures work, and use their cultural strengths to promote the changes and ensure that they have staying power. Here’s how:

Responding to the Pressures

Rapid evolutionary change has rendered time-honored organizational structures ineffectual or obsolete in many cases. Before attempting to execute new strategies, insurance companies need to reevaluate every dimension of their operating model.

Structural inadequacies take many forms. Some companies lack the scale needed to generate profitable growth under new capital requirements. Others with siloed, hierarchical organizations lack the flexibility to respond quickly to market shifts. Poor technological capabilities often hamstring old-line insurers facing new digitally oriented rivals. And tax reform and regulation looms as a potential threat to profitability in certain business lines.

See also: Why Is Insurance Industry So Small?

In our work with insurers, we at Strategy&, PwC’s strategy consulting business, have seen certain common responses to these pressures. Their responses divide these companies into three groups:

  • The first group of companies have anticipated the effects of marketplace trends and made appropriate structural adjustments, clearing the way to profitable growth. For example, life insurer MetLife avoided costly regulatory mandates by selling registered broker distribution to MassMutual and spinning off its Brighthouse retail operations. Others, including Manulife and Sun Life, have made substantial acquisitions to consolidate scale positions.
  • The second group of companies have recognized the need for structural change, but have yet to carry it out. With plans made, or under discussion, these companies are waiting opportunistically for the right deal to come along.
  • A third group of companies, however, have hunkered down behind existing structures, making only minor tweaks and hoping to emerge from the storm without too much damage. For some, this is a rational choice because of constraints that leave them with little or no maneuvering room. In other cases, action is impeded by a company culture that reflexively rejects certain options.

Companies in the first two groups are giving themselves a chance to win. But the response of companies in the third group smacks of self-delusion in an age when strategy equals structure.

Time for Real Change

Without a doubt, many insurers work diligently and continually to improve their businesses across dimensions. They gather insights into consumer needs and behaviors, nurture unique capabilities to differentiate themselves from competitors, modernize products, update distribution strategies and embrace digitization in all its forms. These are all sound approaches, but they’re inadequate in addressing the unknown facing insurers today. Their belief that they will persist assumes a certain stability in underlying economic and market conditions that hasn’t been seen since the financial collapse nearly a decade ago.

Forces unleashed by that crash and its aftermath undermined the pillars of many insurance business models. We’ve seen years of only modest growth, with property/casualty insurers expanding at a 3% pace, and life insurers barely exceeding 1%.

The long stretch of sluggish global growth has put pressure on revenues and forced insurers to compete harder on price. Near-0% interest rates that have prevailed since the Great Recession are squeezing profit margins, especially in life insurance. On the regulatory front, tougher accounting rules are driving up costs while heavier capital requirements weigh down balance sheets and dilute returns.

Compounding these challenges are the potentially destabilizing effects of tax reform on earnings and growth. Taxes may actually rise for some insurers, an outcome that could force them to raise prices or find other ways to protect shareholder returns. In many cases, the benefits of falling tax rates may be diminished by the loss of deductions for affiliate premiums, limits on deductibility of life reserves, accelerated earnings recognition and a slowdown of deferred acquisition cost deductions.

Competitive dynamics are shifting, too, as expanding “pure play” asset managers such as Vanguard and Fidelity block growth avenues for insurers. Established companies and some new entrants are innovating and experimenting with disruptive distribution models. Others, including private equity firms, are looking to bend the cost curve through aggressive acquisition and sourcing strategies.

To be sure, some long-term trends could benefit certain insurers, or at least improve their risk profile. Longer life spans and the shift of responsibility for retirement funding to individuals may drive demand for annuities and other retirement products.

However, many companies are as unprepared to capitalize on these opportunities as they are to meet long-term challenges. Often the problem comes down to scale. Some insurers lack the resources to build new distribution platforms and customer service capabilities in growing markets such as asset management, group insurance, ancillary benefits and retirement plans. Although offering an individual product may be relatively easy for new market entrants, the difficulty and cost of establishing such platforms creates a desire for scale and increases pressure on smaller competitors.

Sometimes, the issue isn’t scale but a failure to respond quickly enough as conditions change. Buying habits are changing as consumers — particularly the younger cohorts — make more purchases online. Yet our research indicates that people still want some personal assistance with larger and more-complex transactions.

It takes investment and experimentation to find and refine the right business model for new marketplace realities. But some companies haven’t built the necessary assets and capabilities or adjusted to evolving distribution patterns and consumer behaviors.

The proper response to each challenge and opportunity will be different for every company, depending on its unique characteristics and circumstances. In virtually every case, the right solution will involve structural change.

Joining Strategy and Structure

As companies recognize that traditional approaches to annual planning, project funding and technology architecture may be hindering innovation and real-time responses to changing market conditions, many are rethinking and redesigning their core processes to facilitate change. Recent transactions in the sector show the range of structural options for companies that want to advance strategic goals in a changing marketplace. Below are some examples.

Exiting businesses. Sometimes, the best choice is to move out of harm’s way; companies can preserve margins by exiting businesses targeted for higher capital requirements or costly new accounting standards. MetLife’s Brighthouse spin-off bolstered its case for relief from designation as a “systemically important financial institution,” and the associated capital requirements. Exiting U.S. retail life insurance markets also enabled MetLife to focus on faster-growing businesses that are less vulnerable to rock-bottom interest rates. The Hartford recently announced the sale of Talcott Resolution to a group of investors, completing its exit from the life and annuity business.

Partnerships and acquisitions. When scale is an issue, the solution may lie outside the company or in new structural approaches. Some insurers form partnerships to expand distribution, diversify product portfolios or bolster capabilities. Companies also adjust their scale and capital structures through mergers, acquisitions and divestitures. Sun Life paid $975 million in 2016 for Assurant’s employee benefits business, filling gaps in its product portfolio and gaining scale to compete with larger rivals. MassMutual’s purchase of MetLife’s broker-dealer network in 2016 enlarged the MassMutual brokerage force by 70% and freed MetLife to pursue new distribution channels.

Expanding into new lines and geographies. New product lines offer another path to faster growth or fatter profit margins. Several insurers have moved into expanding markets with lower capital requirements, such as asset management. Voya, Sun Life and MassMutual have acquired or established third-party asset management units to capitalize on investment expertise they developed managing internal portfolios. The Hartford recently agreed to acquire Aetna’s U.S. group life and disability business, deepening and enhancing its group benefits distribution capabilities and accelerating digital technology plans. We also see companies establishing technology-focused subsidiaries such as Reinsurance Group of America’s (RGA’s) RGAx and AIG’s Blackboard.

Cutting costs. Some companies have moved aggressively to improve their cost structure. Insurers seeking greater financial flexibility have divested assets that require significant capital reserves. Aegon unleashed $700 million in capital by selling blocks of run-off annuity business to Wilton Re in 2017. An insurer that offloads its defined-benefit plan to another via pension-risk transfer frees up capital and eliminates continuing pension funding requirements. Other cost-saving moves focus on workforce expenses. In addition to rightsizing staff, such measures include relocating workers to low-cost areas or jurisdictions offering significant tax incentives. Prudential and Manulife slashed expenses by establishing overseas operating centers that take advantage of labor cost arbitrage, create global economies of scale and reduce taxes.

See also: Key Findings on the Insurance Industry

Transformation and Culture

Once companies have launched ambitious structural initiatives, they don’t always recognize the role of culture in making the new structures work. But this is a mistake.

Culture is a pattern of behaviors, norms and mind-sets that have grown up around existing organizational structures; the two (culture and structure) are tightly linked, and you can’t change one without affecting the other. No culture is all good or all bad. But certain cultural traits are more relevant to structural change than others.

Cultural attributes affect a company’s ability to make necessary changes. A company that is consensus-driven and focused on preventing problems before they arise may be indecisive and slow to act. These traits may cause it to wait too long and miss the optimal moment for a structural transformation. Other companies, by contrast, have a tradition of quickly seizing opportunities. When this trait is supported by other important characteristics — more single points of accountability, strong leadership and an aligned senior management team — it can foster the rapid decision making essential to structural change.

Culture also comes into play after executives decide to initiate structural change. Most employees have strong emotional connections to the culture — this source of pride, along with a clear and inspiring vision of the future, can motivate them to line up behind the change and can inspire collaboration across organizational boundaries to drive the transformation. Leaders at all levels can generate momentum by signaling the desired cultural shifts and embodying the new behaviors needed to execute structural change.

A new structure without a corresponding evolution of culture amounts to little more than a redesigned organization chart. Culture makes or breaks the new structure, influencing factors as diverse as resource allocation, governance and the ability to follow through on a vow to “change how work gets done.” It’s not uncommon for a company to expend tremendous effort and resources on a complete structural overhaul, only to see incompatible cultural norms thwart its strategic execution. For example, a new, streamlined operating model intended to accelerate decision making and foster cross-functional collaboration won’t take root in a culture that exalts hierarchy and encourages employees to focus on narrow functional priorities.

Culture also influences a company’s willingness to make the deep structural changes in time to avert a crisis. Those who wait until market conditions have undermined their operating model put themselves at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, few companies attempt structural change in “peacetime.”

Absent a crisis, cultural expectations often limit directors to a narrow role monitoring indicators such as growth and profitability, while management concentrates on achieving specific strategic objectives. Under this traditional allocation of responsibilities, emerging structural issues may not get enough attention. Successful companies, by contrast, continually reassess their structure in light of evolving market conditions. They understand that organizational structures aren’t permanent fixtures, but strategic choices to be reconsidered as circumstances and objectives change.

Capitalizing on Changes

Amid the confusion of today’s insurance industry, one thing is clear: Business as usual won’t deliver sustained, profitable growth. As powerful forces reshape markets, conventional tools for executing strategy are losing their effectiveness. Today’s challenges are not operational, but structural. Many insurers lack the scale, capabilities or efficiency to compete effectively as competition intensifies, regulatory burdens increase and financial pressures rise.

Winning companies are meeting structural challenges with structural solutions. Approaches vary from company to company. Some add scale or enhance capabilities, whereas others streamline cost structures or exit lagging business lines. With the right cultural support, these structural responses position a company to capitalize on industry changes that are confounding competitors.

You can find the article originally published on Strategy & Business.

This article was written by Bruce Brodie, Rutger von Post and Michael Mariani.

InsurTech Can Help Fix Drop in Life Insurance

No one disputes that life insurance ownership in the U.S. has been on the decline for decades.

The question up for debate is what to do about it.

The emergence of an insurtech sector is an indicator of entrepreneur and investor confidence in upside potential. The hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into technology by carriers is another.

See Also: Key to Understanding InsurTech

But before piles of capital are poured into attempts to capture the opportunity, investors and legacy insurers should reflect on the root causes of this seemingly unstoppable trend and prioritize innovations that aim at solving the biggest issues:

  • Carriers have evolved, through their own cumulative behavior over decades, away from serving the needs of the majority of Americans to meeting the needs of a shrinking, high-net-worth population
  • A declining pool of independent agents are chasing bigger policies within this segment
  • The industry has, effectively, painted itself into a corner and is trapped in a business model that, given its own complexity, is difficult to change from within

How have carriers painted themselves into a corner? 

Carriers face what Clayton Christensen termed, in his 1997 classic, “the innovator’s dilemma.” While continuing to do what they do brings carriers closer to mass-market irrelevance, today’s practices, products, processes and policies don’t change. They deliver near-term financials and maintain alignment with regulatory requirements.

It’s worth acknowledging how the carriers have ended up in this spiral, particularly the top 20, which collectively control more than 65% market share, according to A.M Best via Nerdwallet.

  • Disbanding of captive agent networks for cost reasons has also meant the loss of a (more) loyal distribution channel. The carriers that used to maintain captive agent networks enjoyed the benefits of a branded channel whose agents were motivated to promote the respective carrier’s products. They chose instead to …
  • Shift to third-party distribution, increasing dependency on a channel with less control, and where they face greater risk of commoditization. Placing life insurance products in a broad array of third-party channels, including everything from wealth management firms to brokerages and property/casualty networks, has added complexity and increased emphasis on managing mediated, non-digital channels. This focus comes at a time when other sectors are accelerating the move to direct, digital selling, aligning with changing demographics, technology trends and consumer preferences for digital-first, multi-channel relationships.
  • Product cost and complexity has raised the bar to close sales and has increased the focus on a smaller base of the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. With the exception of basic term life, life insurance products can be complex. They can be expensive. And, as a decent level of insurance at a fair premium requires a medical exam including blood and urine sampling, it takes hand holding to get potential policyholders through the purchase process. For the high and ultra-high net worth segments, the benefit of life insurance is often as a tax shelter, not simply to protect loved ones from the catastrophic consequences of unexpected earnings loss. More complexity equals more diversion from the mass market.
  • Intense focus on distribution has come at the expense of connecting with the client. Insurance company executives have long insisted – and behaved as though — the agent is the client, if not in word then effectively in deed. The model perpetuated by the industry delegates the client relationship to the agent. This has its plusses and minuses for the client, and certainly has come back to bite the carriers as they contemplate a digital approach to the marketplace where client data and a branded relationship matter. Carriers certainly do not win fans with clients – overall Net Promoter Score ratings for the insurance sector broadly are even lower than Congress’ approval ratings, and for at least one major carrier are reportedly negative.
  • The number of licensed agents is on the decline. The average age of an insurance agent or broker has increased from 37 years in 1983 and is now 59, based on McKinsey research. Agents have a poor survival rate: only 15% of agents who start on the independent agent career path are still in the game four years later. Base salary is negligible, and it’s an eat-what-you-kill business. This is a tough, impractical career path for most and has become less attractive over time.
  • The industry is legendarily slow and risk-averse. Think about actuaries – the function that anchors the business model makes a living by looking backward and surfacing what can go wrong. That is a valid role, but the antithesis of what it takes to build a culture where innovation can thrive.

What is the path to opportunity?

Here are innovation thought-starters to create value for an industry undergoing transformation:

  • Clients must be at the center of strategy. Twentieth-century carrier strategy may have been grounded in creating distribution advantage and pushing product, but 21st century success will come to those who put the client at the center of all aspects of execution. “Client centricity” is a way of operating a business, not a slogan.
  • Innovation starts with a new answer to the question, “who is the customer.” The agent is a valuable partner, but she is not the client. There is white space in the mass market – the middle class – not being served by the current system beyond a limited offering. Life insurance ownership has been linked to the stability of the middle class. We should all be concerned with the decline in life insurance ownership and lack of attention paid to this segment.
  • The orthodoxy, “insurance is sold not bought,” sets a self-inflicted set of limitations that can and should be disrupted. The existing product set may have to be pushed to clients because of its complexity, pricing, target audience, channels and near-term performance dependencies.
  • Getting the economics right and meeting the needs of today’s clients will demand a digital-first offering – from being discoverable via SEO and social on mobile screens, to supporting application processing, self-service, premium payments, document storage and downloads and connection to licensed reps whenever clients feel that is necessary. It will require full digital enablement of agents to create the right client experience, and improve revenues and expenses. Ask anyone who has purchased life insurance about his or her decision journey, and invariably you will find out that shopping for insurance is a social, multi-channel experience. People ask people whom they like and trust when it comes to making important life event-based decisions. Aligning to how people behave already is a winning approach, and is what customer-centricity is about.
  • In a world of big data, it’s ironic that the insurance sector is one of the most sophisticated in its historical use of data. Winners will realize the potential of new data sources, unstructured data, artificial intelligence and the many other manifestations of big data to personalize underwriting, anticipate client needs and create positive experiences including multi-channel distribution and servicing. Amazon, Apple and Google have set the standard on what is possible in customer experience, and no one will be exempt from that standard.
  • Life insurance products may be an infrequent purchase, but the need to protect one’s loved ones can be daily. In today’s product-push model, a continuing relationship beyond the annual policy renewal is the exception. Consider the potential of prevention services as a means of boosting lifetime value and client loyalty. In a world full of insecurity, there is a role for a continuing conversation about prevention and protection. But the conversation must be reimagined beyond pushing the next product to one that places a priority on serving the client.

Six Key Insurance Business Impacts From Analytics

Recently, I had the privilege of serving as chairman of the inaugural Insurance for Analytics USA conference in Chicago, which was very well organized by Data Driven Business, part of FC Business Intelligence. I am convinced that analytics is not only one of the most valuable and promising technology disciplines to ever find its way into the insurance industry ecosystem, but that its very adoption clearly identifies those carriers – and their information technology partners – that will be the most innovative.

Analytics has exceptionally broad enterprise potential, with the ability to permanently change the way carriers think and conduct their business. The future of analytics is even more promising than most can imagine.

The conference — where the excitement was palpable — showed the sheer diversity of carrier types and sizes as well as the many different operational areas in which analytics is being used to drive insight, business outcomes and innovation and create real competitive differentiation. From large carriers such as Chubb, Sun Life, Nationwide, American Family, CNA and CSAA, to smaller insurers including Fireman's Fund, Pacific Specialty, Great American, Westfield, National General and Houston Casualty, presentations demonstrated how broadly analytics should be applied through every function and every level of the organization. Presentations from information technology provider types including Dun & Bradstreet, L&T InfoTech, Fractal Analytics, Megaputer, EagleEye Analytics, Clarity Solutions Group, Dataguise, Quadrant, Actionable Analytics, Earley & Associates and DataDNA laid out the future potential.

Recent research shows that one major application of analytics — predictive modeling — is getting attention in pricing and rating, where more than 80% of carriers use it regularly. However, only about 50% use it today in underwriting, and fewer than 30% do so in reserving, claims and marketing.

Based on information shared during the conference, there are six major thrusts to the analytics trend:

• Analytics liberates and democratizes data, which in turn ignites innovation and change within carriers.

• Analytics is uniting insurance organizations, breaking down information silos and creating collaboration between operating units, even as enterprise data governance policies and practices emerge.

• Investment and M&A activity in information technology companies in data and analytics is surging and will create even greater disruption and innovation as more entrepreneurial thinkers continue blending art with science.

• New “as-a-service” pay-per-use models for delivery and pricing are emerging for software (SaaS) and data (DaaS), which will be appealing and cost-effective, especially for mid-tier and smaller carriers.

• Analytics is driving innovation in products, business processes, markets, competition and business models.

• Carriers will have to innovate or surrender market share and should watch for competition from new players, such as Google and Amazon, which understand data, the cloud, innovation and consumer engagement.

This article first appeared on Insurance & Technology