Casualty (re)insurers do not cover standalone emerging risks. A product defect (with recall) or a latent bodily injury resulting from new technological nano-products or Unmanned Aerial Systems risks, could lead to class action lawsuits and ultimately large liability claims including products liability as well as professional liability. This emergent reality, however, is difficult to address. A carrier would need to identify and model several possible epicenters of a liability chain reaction and follow their rapidly spreading implications throughout a portfolio. Without new powerful casualty modeling capabilities as well as highly granular data on the products and subcomponents that each of their insureds manufacture and sell globally, this process would be time-consuming, impossible to complete and likely to miss key threats and underlying exposures.
Posts Tagged ‘Models’
The impacts to society from changes in longevity and life expectancy will be wide-ranging and incredibly difficult issues to grapple with. A 2012 International Monetary Fund (IMF) study revealed that if individuals lived three years longer than expected the cost of aging could increase by 50 percent. This translates to 50 percent of 2010 gross domestic product (GDP) in advanced economies and 25 percent of 2010 GDP in emerging economies. Globally that amounts to tens of trillions of US dollars. The United Nations expects the aggregate expenses of the elderly will double over the period between 2010 and 2050. The figure below shows the projected trend of rising life expectancy to continue in all regions of the globe regardless of economic advancement.
Cyber risk is already an embedded feature of the global risk landscape, not only as a privacy/network liability, but also as a peril affecting traditional insurance lines. As such, insurance has the potential to greatly enhance cyber risk management and resilience for a wide range of organizations and individuals who are exposed to its impacts. Nevertheless, the likelihood and impact of severe events remain subject to much uncertainty and the pace of insurance innovation should be linked to the rate at which this uncertainty can be reduced (1).
As businesses, both large and small, throughout all sectors of industry, become more and more reliant on technology to improve service efficiencies and functionalities, cyber risk has become one of the most pressing public topics addressed in corporate boardrooms and by governments across the globe. The corresponding awareness of a business’s susceptibility to a cyber-attack has grown along with a spate of high-profile attacks. Consequently, cyber risk is now an embedded feature of the global risk landscape, not only as a privacy/network liability, which is where much of the publicity has arisen, but also as a peril affecting traditional insurance lines. Therefore, preventative and post-event remediation are gaining importance as shareholders, regulators and rating agencies are increasingly focused on enterprise risk management activities for cyber risks.
Mark Murray, Senior Vice President
Technology and innovation continue to change the world around us, creating both opportunities and new challenges for the (re)insurance industry. Advances in risk quantification such as predictive analytics and capital modeling, to name a few, are changing the way we underwrite, price and manage risk. Similarly, technology is allowing A.M. Best (Best’s) to advance the analytics of risk supporting its assessment of balance sheet strength. Taking advantage of stochastic modeling technology, the evaluation of risk within Best’s capital model is undergoing a fairly substantial overhaul to broaden the lens used to analyze risk relative to capital. The technology allows efficient production of multiple capital metrics adjusted for a range of risk levels rather than risk represented by just one data point, providing deeper insights into balance sheet strength, risk profile and risk appetite. The benefit of this overhaul will be a rating that provides greater differentiation among companies, a more informed dialogue around capital versus risk and a more concise measure of “excess” or “deficient” capital. This new lens on capital will significantly influence the way (re)insurers view, measure, communicate and possibly even manage risk.
Sherry Thomas, Head of Catastrophe Management - Americas and James Burnett-Herkes, Senior Vice President
Could you afford to find that the portfolio you just acquired in North Carolina is more exposed to hurricane than previously assumed? What if next year’s Category 2 hurricane caused a loss in excess of 15 percent of your policyholders’ surplus? How will the changes in the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps impact your exposure to earthquake risk in the central and eastern United States?
Crystalizing risks, as defined in Guy Carpenter’s 2014’s emerging risk report, are highly interrelated with the technology risks discussed in this year’s report. When we refer to crystalizing risk, the term refers to the timescale over which underwriters realize that the technology risk is manifesting itself — and how this view changes and intensifies until ultimate understanding of quantum is reached and liabilities are discharged. The risks associated with new technologies, implemented rapidly on such a global scale, by their nature operate to a large extent somewhat outside the bounds of our current knowledge. A viable response is therefore to establish business practices that aim to detect “weak signals” and monitor them in case they become “clear tendencies with a high potential for danger” (1). Most (re)insurers have groups of experts assigned to the task of building early warning systems that attempt to identify such lead indicators. Once such indicators are identified it is important that their financial and reserving implications are recognized promptly and accounted for correctly. In this respect a key task of regulators is to enforce prudent risk management and reserving methodologies that preserve a sustainable and level playing-field for responsible competition.
Technological progress is accelerating at a rapid pace and with it are the risks and opportunities that accompany those changes in many different segments of our economy:
Frank Achtert, Managing Director, and Markus Mueller, Senior Vice President, GC Strategic Advisory℠
After a long period of discussion and many delays, the new European insurance regulatory regime, Solvency II, will commence in January 2016. The rules will be compulsory for all insurance and reinsurance companies and groups in the European Economic Area. The Solvency II rules were developed over a period of more than 15 years, and there are many reasons for the long delay. Two notable reasons are differing business models from country to country and pressure on long-term guarantee products in the private pension system created by the low interest rate environment.