Tag Archives: underwriting management

SiteIQ: More Power and Control for Your Underwriters

If on-the-ground underwriters can get risk insight instantly – and can make a quick check simply by entering a location rather than waiting for a risk analyst or trying to gather public data themselves, it has the potential to radically improve underwriting performance. We are seeing this change beginning to happen with SiteIQ, a recently launched application that utilizes the RMS open platform – Risk Intelligence™.

SiteIQ uses our trusted risk model data – the same data used across a client’s organization, to deliver hazard risk scores instantly for a location, to help underwriters make better decisions on whether to reject, accept or refer a risk for further analysis. Using the same risk data throughout means that new risks reflect a business’s acceptance criteria, bringing harmony to the book of business.

By making SiteIQ quick and simple to use, underwriters see it as a useful tool in their armory, knowing they can get valuable, modeled risk insight whenever they need it. The breadth of the instant insight adds to its usefulness, covering many available perils, with outputs including risk scores, loss costs – all presented in a highly visual, intuitive app.

We keep going back to users to find out how they are using SiteIQ and what they would like to see in terms of developments. And, in its first few months since launch, thanks to client feedback, RMS has now released the third iteration since launch – SiteIQ version 1.3.   

Continue reading

EXPOSURE: Data Flow in a Digital Ecosystem

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.

There has been much industry focus on the value of digitization at the customer interface, but EXPOSURE magazine asks industry thought-leaders, what is its role in risk management and portfolio optimization? How can we help teams on the underwriting frontline?

For Louise Day, director of operations at the International Underwriting Association (IUA), a major issue is that much of the data generated across the industry is held remotely from the underwriter.

Continue reading

Learning More About Catastrophe Risk From History

In my invited presentation on October 22, 2015 at the UK Institute and Faculty of Actuaries GIRO conference in Liverpool, I discussed how modeling of extreme events can be smarter, from a counterfactual perspective.

A counterfactual perspective enables you to consider what has not yet happened, but could, would, or might have under differing circumstances. By adopting this approach, the risk community can reassess historical catastrophe events to glean insights into previously unanticipated future catastrophes, and so reduce catastrophe “surprises.”

The statistical foundation of typical disaster risk analysis is actual loss experience. The past cannot be changed and is therefore traditionally treated by insurers as fixed. The general consensus is why consider varying what happened in the past? From a scientific perspective, however, actual history is just one realization of what might have happened, given the randomness and chaotic dynamics of nature. The stochastic analysis of the past, used by catastrophe models, is an exploratory exercise in counterfactual history, considering alternative possible scenarios.

Using a stochastic approach to modeling can reveal major surprises that may be lurking in alternative realizations of historical experience. To quote Philip Roth, the eminent American writer: “History, harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides.”  All manner of unforeseen surprising catastrophes have been close to occurring, but ultimately did not materialize, and hence are completely absent from the historical record.

Examples can be drawn from all natural and man-made hazards, covering insurance risks on land, sea, and air. A new domain of application is cyber risk: new surprise cyber attack scenarios can be envisaged with previous accidental causes of instrumentation failure being substituted by control system hacking.

The past cannot be changed—but I firmly believe that counterfactual disaster analysis can change the future and be a very useful analytical tool for underwriting management. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.