Tag Archives: terrorism insurance

Forecasting Terrorist Attacks

At the start of the RMS Exceedance conference in New Orleans in March this year, I was interviewed for A.M. Best TV on terrorism risk, and specifically asked what I was envisaging for future terrorist attacks.

I replied that terrorists have been thwarted in their ability to produce large explosives for vehicle bombs, and are likely to use vehicles for ramming groups of people. Less than a day later, on March 22, 2017, such an attack took place on Westminster Bridge, London. Over the summer, several other terrorist vehicle ramming attacks have occurred in London, and one in Barcelona.

Continue reading

Will a Clearer Picture Emerge for Terrorism Insurers?

What a difference a week makes. A week before the tragic events in Manchester, RMS was in New York, and the previous week in London as we hosted over 400 risk professionals from across the (re)insurance industry at two half day terrorism seminars. The seminars featured several of the world’s leading experts on counterterrorism, modeling, and terrorism risk management and highlighted the fluid threat environment, its insurance implications, and the impact of technology on terrorism risk. Continue reading

Recent Attacks Illustrate the Principles of Terrorism Risk Modeling

Some fifteen years after terrorism risk modeling began after 9/11, it is still suggested that the vagaries of human behavior render terrorism risk modeling an impossible challenge, but still the core principles underlying terrorism risk modeling are not widely appreciated. Terrorism risk modeling, as it has developed and evolved from an RMS perspective is unique in being based on solid principles, which are as crucial as the laws of physics are to natural hazard modeling.  The recent high-profile terrorist attacks in London, Stockholm, and Paris adhere to many of these principles.

Continue reading

Terrorism Insurance Under a Trump Presidency

It is likely that very few of the 60 million U.S. citizens who voted for Donald Trump would have done so because of his stance on terrorism insurance. Only because terrorism insurance is too arcane an issue to have come up in the presidential debates. However, many of the nation’s wavering voters may have been swayed by his pledge to make America safer from the scourge of terrorism. Under his presidency, border security will surely be tightened – even if no frontier wall is ever built and changes made to entry decisions for Syrian Muslim refugees into the United States.

Reauthorization of TRIA – Talks Start in 2018

On January 12, 2015, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 was signed into law by President Obama. This third extension of the original 2002 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) will sunset at the end of 2020, coinciding with the end of the first term of the Trump presidency. In the drafting of the 2015 reauthorization bill, detailed consideration was given by the House Financial Services Committee to alternative wordings that would have reduced the coverage provided by the U.S. government insurance backstop. One such alternative would have focused U.S. government involvement in the terrorism insurance market on covering terrorism losses from extreme attacks using weapons of mass destruction. When the future of terrorism risk insurance is raised once more on Capitol Hill in 2018, the Republican White House and Congress are likely to seek to further extend the private terrorism insurance market. Though I consider this to be contingent on President Trump keeping his pledge to keep America safe until then.

Balancing Civil Liberties in the Face of Reducing Terrorism Risk

In the democracies of the western alliance, the balance of keeping people safe from terrorism and preserving civil liberty is much debated issue. After the July 2005 London Transport bombings, the head of the British security service, MI5, warned that ‘there needs to be a debate on whether some erosion of civil liberties may be necessary to improve the chances of our citizens not being blown apart as they go about their daily lives’. On a national scale across America, a similar debate was prevalent during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It may seem that in this instance, the champion of civil liberties, minority rights, and political correctness lost to the conservative advocate of oppressive counter-terrorism action and profiling of terrorist suspects.

Regardless of who occupies the White House, however, terrorist plots against the U.S. will persist and terrorists must be stopped before they move to their attack targets. Success in interdicting these plots depends crucially on intelligence gathered from electronic surveillance. It is well-documented that more intrusive surveillance can successfully increase the chances of lone wolf plots being stopped. And President-elect Trump has already affirmed his readiness to authorize more surveillance. He can claim a public mandate for this: for America to be great again, it has to be safe again – even from lone wolf terrorist plots. After the Orlando nightclub attack on June 12, 2016, perpetrated by the radicalized son of an Afghan immigrant, Donald Trump said that ‘we cannot afford to be politically correct anymore’. And in fighting global Islamist extremism vigorously, he may be able to count on President Putin’s support. While the two world leaders differ on geopolitics, their mutual respect as a President may be maintained through abrasive counter-terrorism action.

When Michael Chertoff was appointed Secretary of Homeland Security, President George W. Bush told him not to let 9/11 happen again – and he didn’t. President-elect Trump will expect a similarly impressive clean sheet. On a more personal level he also has a special interest in increased security against terrorist attacks. His own real estate empire includes some notable potential terrorist targets, including high-profile landmark buildings bearing his name. While the New York Stock Exchange has too tight security to be attacked, in contrast, the Trump Building on Wall Street has easy public access. There are numerous opportunities for terrorist target substitution.

Launching a New Journal for Terrorism and Cyber Insurance

Natural hazard science is commonly studied at college, and to some level in the insurance industry’s further education and training courses. But this is not the case with terrorism risk. Even if insurance professionals learn about terrorism in the course of their daily business, as they move into other positions, their successors may begin with hardly any technical familiarity with terrorism risk. It is not surprising therefore that, even fifteen years after 9/11, knowledge and understanding of terrorism insurance risk modeling across the industry is still relatively low.

There is no shortage of literature on terrorism, but much has a qualitative geopolitical and international relations focus, and little is directly relevant to terrorism insurance underwriting or risk management.

As a step towards redressing the imbalance in available terrorism literature, a new online journal, The Journal of Terrorism and Cyber Insurance, has been established; its launch is to coincide with the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11. The journal has been welcomed and supported by global terrorism insurance pools, and its launch will be publicized at the annual terrorism pools congress in Canberra, Australia, on October 7, 2016.

Originally conceived as a journal of terrorism insurance, coverage has been extended to include cyber risk, recognizing the increasing insurance industry concerns over cyber terrorism and the burgeoning insurance market in cyber risk. The aim of the open access journal is to raise the industry’s level of knowledge and understanding of terrorism risk. By increasing information transparency for this subject the editorial board hopes to facilitate the growth of the terrorism insurance market, which serves the risk management requirements of the wider international community. The first issue is a solid step in this direction, and will include articles on the ISIS attacks in Paris in November 2015; terrorism insurance in France and Australia; parametric terrorism insurance triggers; non-conventional threats; the clean-up costs of anthrax, and the terrorist use of drones.

The four founding editors of the journal have extensive knowledge of the field. The managing editor is Rachel Anne Carter, who has terrorism insurance administrative experience with both OECD and U.K. Pool Re. Dr. Raveem Ismail, specialty terrorism underwriter at Ariel Re, brings to the editorial board detailed direct terrorism and political risk underwriting knowledge. Padraig Belton is a writer with extensive political risk expertise, having served as a correspondent in the Middle East and Pakistan. As chief architect of the RMS terrorism model, I will bring terrorism risk modeling expertise to the team and have the responsibility and pleasure to review all article submissions. I look forward to sharing insights from the journal with subscribers to this blog.

The Bombings in Belgium

If you were allowing yourself to feel a little optimism that the world might be becoming a more peaceful place, with the ceasefire in Syria seeming to hold longer than most analysts ever expected, this week’s harrowing events in Belgium may have dimmed those hopeful glimmers.

The bombings in Brussels underlined once again that the jihadist violence that emanates from this war-torn region is as menacing as ever.

Three bombs went off in the Belgian capital on Tuesday. Two were set off by suicide bombers at the international airport and one explosion ripped through a subway train downtown, close to the heart of the European Union’s headquarters. At the time of writing more than 30 people are dead and more than 300 are injured.

The extremist group which calls itself Islamic State (IS) claims that its followers were behind the attacks. It is waging war in Iraq and Syria and holds significant amounts of territory. It has attracted some Muslims born in the West to join the fight there. It’s when they return home to the West, battle-hardened and with military know-how, that counter-terrorist agencies start to worry. And as events in Brussels this week and Paris in November have shown—with good reason.

The attacks were extremely simple but highly effective. The bombs were detonated in small confined areas, a perfect place for a mass-casualty event when leveraging a small improvised explosive device (IED). The bombs were also reinforced with pellets and nails to further inflict human injury.

Since declaring a Caliphate in June 2014 (a religious term which harks back to the era of the Prophet Mohammed and expresses a desire to unify the global Muslim community under a central leadership), IS has already conducted or inspired nearly 70 terrorist attacks in 20 countries other than Iraq and Syria. This is a harrowing trend that is unlikely to reverse in the short term. Belgium, with the largest number of foreign jihadi fighters in Iraq and Syria in absolute and relative terms, is therefore at considerable risk when these fighters return home.

The bombs blasts in Brussels are a sombre reminder of the difficulty of preventing attacks against transportation infrastructure such as airports and metro or bus stations. As security at military bases, embassies, and other government facilities increases there has been a trend among terrorists to attack softer targets. These locations are vulnerable as by their very nature they must remain open—and with so many such transport hubs it is not easy to detect and exclude those with hostile intentions.

Terrorism inspired by a narrow, extremist interpretation of Islam (particularly the Salafi-jihadi type) continues to pose a major security threat to Western European countries. IS and other such groups view these nations as attractive targets: in particular Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. This may be because of their foreign policies, especially those involved in Muslim countries, or because specific events that have caused a strong visceral response among more hard-line elements of the Muslim community.

While it is still early to speculate about the motives behind these attacks, the bombings were likely in response to the capture of Salah Abdeslam in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, who’s being held on suspicion of involvement in the November 2015 Paris attacks. There have been several news reports that Abdeslam was plotting additional terrorism attacks in Europe and Belgian authorities were seeking two of his associates. It’s unclear whether those associates were involved in these attacks or if the bombings in Brussels were committed by other extremists. So further attacks in Belgium or regional European countries cannot be ruled out.

The 2015 U.K. Budget and Terrorism Insurance

On 18 March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, delivered his pre-election budget. Billions of further public spending cuts are needed. Several weeks earlier, Pool Re, the U.K. terrorism insurance pool, announced its first ever purchase of reinsurance in the commercial market.

These two announcements are not unconnected.

Pool Re was set up in 1993, after the IRA bombing of the Baltic Exchange in 1992. Since the pool was established, it has built up quite a substantial surplus; claims have been low thanks to the vigilance of the security and intelligence services. Almost all the major plots since the September 11, 2001 attack have been foiled.

Terrorism insurance is effectively insurance against counter-terrorism failure, and the huge sums spent on blanket indiscriminate surveillance have helped to minimize terrorism insurance losses. The low level of losses is not coincidental, or due to some unpredictable whim of terrorist behavior but readily explainable; too many terrorists spoil the plot. The type of plots capable of causing terrorism insurance losses of a billion pounds or more would involve a sizeable number of operatives.

As the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed, the level of surveillance of electronic communications is so intensive that sizeable terrorist social networks end up being tracked by NSA and GCHQ. Lesser plots involving lone wolves or several operatives are most likely to be successful. A string of these have struck the western alliance over the past months in Ottawa, Sydney, Paris, and Copenhagen. Besides causing terror, these have attracted global media publicity, inspiring Jihadi recruitment. But terrorism insurance covers property loss, not the spread of fear or growth in the ranks of Islamic State.

Having developed a tough security environment, it is unsurprising that the U.K. Government should be questioning its continuing exposure to terrorism insurance risk. This is an age of austerity. Pool Re’s three year program provides £1.8bn of reinsurance cover, so diminishing this exposure. More cover might have been purchased, but this was the market limit, given that Chemical-Biological-Radiological-Nuclear (CBRN) risks were included.

The idea of separating out extreme CBRN terrorism risks was considered in Washington by the House Financial Services Committee in the discussions last year over the renewal of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. The objective was to provide a federal safety net for such extreme risks, whilst encouraging further private sector solutions for conventional terrorist attacks. This idea was considered at some length, but was a step too far for this TRIA renewal. It might be a step for Pool Re.

The modus operandi of the IRA was to avoid killing civilians. This would alienate their Catholic community support. Bomb warnings, genuine and hoax, were often given. Thus the metric of IRA attacks was typically physical destruction and economic loss. Islamist militants of all persuasions have no such qualms about killing civilians. Indeed, gruesome killings are celebrated. Terrorists follow the path of least resistance in their actions. For Islamic State, this is the path of brutal murder rather than property damage.

Dueling Agendas on TRIA

On Thursday, July 17, the Senate passed a reauthorization of TRIA, the Terrorism Risk and Insurance Act, extending the bill for seven years after its expiration at the end of 2014. The bill was passed with a 93-4 vote and made minor modifications to the expiring legislation. This is a promising sign for the insurance industry, which has been lobbying vigorously for a renewal since last year. But before the bill becomes law, there is certain to be opposition from influential members of Congress who favor more significant reductions to the federal government’s participation.

The Senate bill reduces TRIA’s coverage in two key ways: by increasing the industry co-pay from 15% to 20% over a five year period, and by pushing the Federal Government’s “mandatory recoupment” responsibility from $27.5 billion to $37.5 billion. By contrast, a competing bill proposed by Congress calls for even more substantial modifications, most notably raising the program trigger from $100 million to $500 million for all acts of terrorism except those arising from CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) events.

How the two bills are reconciled will have significant implications for the insurance industry, as any reduction in federal participation will amount to additional risk assumed by insurance carriers. However, property insurers today are more willing to take on terrorism risk that they would have previously excluded, as evidenced by the dramatic drop in terrorism insurance prices over the past decade. A recent study by the Wharton Center for Risk Management downplayed the impact of TRIA changes, noting that while the changes could increase the price of coverage, “firms’ demand for terrorism insurance is not very sensitive to gradual price changes under current market conditions.”

Whatever the case, the ultimate outcome of the TRIA will have a measurable impact on the price and availability of terrorism insurance, primary carriers’ risk appetites in urban areas, and the securitization of terrorism risk, which my colleague Gordon Woo recently wrote about. The U.S. has made great strides in the capability of its counterterrorism operations over the past decade, but even with these gains, insurers and reinsurers must continue managing their pricing, underwriting, and capital deployment strategies to address the risk of future catastrophic acts of terror.

RMS and the FIFA World Cup: Insuring Against Terrorism

As we reflect back on this year’s World Cup, which wrapped up without interruption after Germany’s victory on Sunday, it is clear that FIFA’s financial position is much stronger now than in 2006, due in part to the availability of terrorism insurance.

Eleven years ago, the global elite of the soccer world learned about innovative RMS risk analysis to help FIFA to prepare for the 2006 World Cup in Germany. Sponsorship money was essential for FIFA’s cash flow and sponsors insisted on having insurance coverage against event cancellation. After 9/11, terrorism insurance became a necessity, but was available only through Warren Buffet, the astute insurer of last resort, and was extremely expensive. So, FIFA pursued alternative risk transfer to the capital markets through a catastrophe bond.

FIFA’s bankers at Credit Suisse turned to RMS to do what had been thought impossible – to get a terrorism risk securitization rated. It took multiple RMS meetings with Moody’s in London and New York over the course of a year to present and discuss the unique terrorism risk analysis and eventually secure an investment grade rating for Golden Goal Finance Ltd. This $260 million deal remains to this day the only stand-alone securitization of terrorism risk. Prospects for further terrorism risk securitizations depend on the scope of the U.S. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which will be renewed at the end of 2014 with some further incremental reduction in the role of the federal government, but RMS was instrumental in instituting the precursors to these prospects.

Securitization of the cancellation risk of the 2006 World Cup was feasible in part due to the national importance of the event, which received extensive counter-terrorism protection.

While cancellation was still the biggest risk this year, the predominant local threat to the World Cup was disruption by public protest and riot. Following the start of the Arab Spring in 2011, there has been a surge of demand for international riot insurance, with a commensurate interest in riot analysis. As with terrorism, security is particularly crucial for the control of riot risk. With 170,000 Brazilian security personnel on duty for the month of the soccer tournament, insurers were able to enjoy the matches without concern that the July 13 final in Rio would be delayed.

While terrorism insurance is more widely available than in the past, it is still in short supply. Expanding modeling capabilities and increased demand for products such as terrorism and riot insurance will result in more insurance-linked securities (ILS) transactions such as the 2006 catastrophe bond, and ultimately promote a more resilient society.