The pace of change continues to accelerate across the insurance industry, whether it is from technology, regulation or market developments, and EXPOSURE magazine helps risk professionals to explore some of the key drivers of these changes.
In this latest edition available for distribution at the Monte Carlo Rendezvous and online, the lead story looks at the recent market activity from Tower Insurance in New Zealand. By adopting high-definition earthquake modeling, Tower gained the confidence to launch risk-based pricing for its customers, providing savings for the majority of policyholders, but increases for others. EXPOSURE looks at the implications of Tower’s actions and how this could affect the New Zealand insurance market.
High resolution modeling has also helped Flood Re in the U.K. to better understand how it can work towards its remit of delivering a flood insurance market based on risk-reflective pricing that is affordable to policyholders. EXPOSURE shows how innovative use of modeling could guide Flood Re when recommending investment measures to protect properties at risk of flooding.
The rallying cry has sounded — to “close the protection gap”, the difference between what is paid out by insurance and the total cost of some incident or disaster. Here is an issue that can unite and promote the insurance industry, extending benefits to those in peril by expanding the insurance sector. Having ex-post access to funding after a loss, we know, can bring important benefits.
Yet in reality, there is not just one, but three distinct insurance “protection gaps”, each with separate causes and each requiring different remedies. These protection gaps are so different to one another that we should stop treating them as a single category. Lumping them together can cause confusion.
In this series of four blogs, I will explore each of these three distinct gaps, together with the role of protection gap analytics, and the actions we can plan to address these protection gaps.
This is a taster of an article published in the latest edition of EXPOSURE magazine. For the full article click here or visit the EXPOSURE website.
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria (HIM) tore through the Caribbean and U.S. in 2017, resulting in insured losses over US$80 billion. Twelve years after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma (KRW), EXPOSURE asks if the (re)insurance industry was better prepared for its next “terrible trio” and what lessons can be learned.
Christine Ziehmann, vice president – Model Product Management, RMS
On June 14, RMS Japan welcomed 119 insurance professionals to its fourth In:Site conference — a record total, high-up on the twenty-sixth floor of the Sanno Park Tower in Tokyo, with the RMS Japan headquarters also based in this building.
Yasunori Araga, managing director of RMS Japan opened the afternoon event, and introduced an agenda that was highly relevant to the core concerns of RMS clients, from domestic issues such as earthquake risk in Japan, to the flooding and related losses following Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The agenda also explored the impact of modeling on one of the oldest lines of business — marine, and right through to one of the newest with cyber. The event attracted insurance professionals from multiple departments of insurance companies, such as reinsurance, risk management, property underwriting, casualty underwriting, marine underwriting, international and more.
Erica Xue, Senior Product Manager – Model Development, RMS
In a country that according to the United Nations, between 1995 and 2015 experienced the largest number of natural disasters globally, and with these losses largely uninsured, China is at the start of a journey to close its protection gap between economic and insured losses — during a sustained period of rapid GDP growth. Examples such as the devastating Sichuan earthquake in 2008 which killed more than 80,000 people and caused US$125 billion in economic losses saw just 0.3 percent of losses covered by insurance. Floods in southern China during the summer of 2016 saw economic losses of US$20 billion, the second costliest event of the year. But again, according to Munich Re, just two per cent was insured.
There has always been a balance between cross-subsidy and property-specific, risk-based underwriting and pricing in insurance, particularly for homeowners’ policies. While an actuary can easily quantify differences in fire risk for houses constructed from wood versus concrete based on claims, this becomes much more difficult when the peril concerned is infrequent, such as for earthquake or flood. Clearly risk models help to bridge this gap, but facilitating a move from cross-subsidy to risk-based pricing is more complex than simply using risk analytics. Factors such as regulation, market conditions, distribution channels and insurer IT systems all determine whether individual insurers and markets will move towards greater differentiation of risk. This is not to mention the political dimension of insurance affordability and social equity.
Corina Sutter is Director, Government and Regulatory Affairs at RMS, and is based in London. She joined fellow employees from RMS and RMS clients on our annual Impact Trek in Nepal during March this year. This is Corina’s account of her time in Nepal.
When you think about strengthening a building to make it more resilient to seismic events, does “retrofitting” come top of mind? And if you have heard of retrofitting, do you know why it is more cost-effective, and in many instances more suitable than simply rebuilding? This awareness challenge is what Build Change faces in Nepal; with regards to retrofitting not everyone is aware or convinced — yet.
Arriving in Kathmandu for the 2018 RMS Impact Trek, I was already aware of the many years that RMS has provided support for Build Change and its work in areas worst hit by catastrophic disasters. Our first day in the Build Change office was a crash course in their local objectives and challenges. Day Two saw us on a field trip to nearby Kirtipur to survey common building practices. It was a lot of information to process and it was not immediately clear to me what “impact” we could make during our short visit.
But it was later in the week — when, admittedly, the jet lag finally wore off — that I finally caught on.
New findings into the effect of a magnitude 7.0 earthquake originating from the 74 mile-long (119 kilometer) Hayward Fault in the California Bay Area, suggests that fire following earthquake alone could see more than 52,000 single-family homes burn. Earlier this month, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released new results for their HayWired scenario, a scientifically plausible magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward fault. The hypothetical HayWired earthquake occurs at 4:18 p.m. on April 18, 2018, the anniversary of the magnitude 7.8 earthquake which struck San Francisco in 1906. The mainshock ruptures the fault along its length for about 52 miles (83 kilometers). The impact of such an event on one of the most densely populated and interconnected areas of the U.S. West Coast — with a population of about seven million people — would be disruptive.