What does Brexit mean… ?

This is the question on everyone's lips. I had delayed writing this in the event that some clarity emerged but in day 5 of Brexit that clarity and certainty is proving elusive – indeed uncertainty seems to characterise the whole affair. This has been a discussion within the European team (thanks to Jamie and Nicolas) for some time and this post will briefly concentrate on the impact of the events so far on insurers with operations and interests in Europe. This will not discuss the UK governments response thus far.

The only certain thing about Brexit as it stands is uncertainty. Will Brexit really happen? When will the process start? Who is negotiating? What is the opening position? What we can say with some confidence there will be little regulatory and legal change in the short term and some unknown quantity of regulatory and legal change in the medium term.

The key unknown is the continuing participation in the single market and the other institutions in Europe, particularly the passporting. This more than Brexit itself, will define how strongly businesses with operations in the UK will respond.  Those with headquarters and staff in the UK to be present in the EU will need to reconsider this position if Britain leaves the single market as well as the EU – or indeed if any of the agreements reached put this position in jeopardy.

Uncertainty breeds volatility in the markets, a depressed investment environment and bond rates will hit the market further, particularly life insurers. This could well impact sales of investment products across the EU and UK until some certainty is restored. Existing products would not be safe either, with some investors looking to cash out.

The outlook for technology investment is trickier. If anything the pressures for reducing costs, agility and flexibility will be exacerbated. In the short term it is reasonable to assume reduced investment with alternate investments and clarity increases. It is plausible that this will affect the InsureTech market as well – particularly in London.

For UK insurers, It is likely that the FCA will engage with insurers and the ABI as the UK seeks to set out how it differentiate itself from the EU which will require agility and flexibility from the insurers to adapt to the new opportunities. A similar process may occur within the EU.

As is probably clear above, the one thing needed is clarity.

Do follow our Brexit posts from the wealth management team as well

The Future May Be Closer Than You Think: Cat Bonds Traded on Blockchain

In June @JamieMacgregorC and I published a Celent report, Blockchain in Insurance: Use Cases which included a scenario we labeled “Alternative Marketplaces”. We described it as a blockchain that provided a:

shared environment for placing insurance risk, where brokers or the insured and the insurer capture the status of the risk, including exposure, risk share, and policy conditions. Smart contracts are then used to ensure collection and disbursement of premium amounts and the checking of coverage in the event of an incident. The distributed ledger acts as the record of risk placement, including layers and participants.

We didn’t expect that, in July, we would see an announcement that @Allianz and their partner, Nephila Capital, had completed a proof of concept around trading catastrophe bonds on a blockchain. http://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2016/06/15/155462.htm

In general, there are challenges with blockchain technology regarding handling large transaction volumes, managing complex rules, and delivering acceptable response time performance, but this announcement is an indication that the platform is moving forward.

How can Insurers provide better service to their female clients?

Despite women’s rising workforce participation and escalating income, it appears that American women still have major gaps and unmet needs when it comes to achieving comfort and confidence with money. Whether by circumstance or by choice, women are finding themselves in roles where they must be responsible for long-term financial needs and security.

Female financial services clients are a substantial and overlooked segment of the market despite controlling a significant portion of the world’s wealth. A shift in demographics of women clients, including the significant wave of next-gen millennial clients, and the exponential growth in technological innovations across society and within the financial services industry present challenges and opportunities for insurers and the financial services industry. Surveys of affluent women show that they are dissatisfied with the services they receive from an advisor or the financial services industry as a whole.

In my report, Women, Money and  Realizing  Financial  Goals, I examine women’s attitudes  and aspirations for making  financial decisions.    Given the size and diversity of female clients across the generations in terms of behavioral characteristics, financial goals, technological aptitude, and product and service needs, insurers should increase their understanding of and investment in this particular section of the market, including thoughtful client segmentation, marketing efforts, and application of technology.

According to LIMRA, the number of women who are the sole or primary earner for their family with a child under the age of 18 continues to increase. However, their amount of life insurance coverage averages only 69% of men’s. Additionally, women with high personal incomes (more than $100,000) are less likely to have individual life insurance or group life insurance than men with similar personal incomes.

As insurance professionals, we should endeavor to better understand and better respond to the financial needs of women. The relationship between insurers and their female clients has improved, but there is more progress to be made in meeting women’s financial goals and needs. What plans do you have in place to better reach women insurance buyers?

In Insurtech, Partnership Will Override Disruption

There is much discussion in the press and at conferences about insurance incumbents and the disruption that is coming their way. A close examination of what is actually going on reveals that what is being labelled disruption is actually partnership.

Complicating a meaningful discussion about what is happening is clarity around what is meant by the word “disruption”. The term is used so often that it now carries a range of meanings. On one hand, it refers to a specific market phenomenon defined by Clayton Christenson’s theory of Creative Disruption. On the other end of the scale it represents a recognition that technology is changing the industry.

In most articles and presentations the term is not explicitly defined. Many times disruption is used in the context that portends doom for insurers and that predicts that the revolutionary shifts will cause insurers to go the way of the photo film industry or pre-digital music firms. This is a compelling argument given the challenges incumbents face because of the burden of their legacy systems, their aversion to failure, and a habit of extended decision cycles.

However, there are several significant barriers for newcomers to address if they are to displace incumbents. Celent’s analysis of what has happened to date in Insurtech concludes that the need to overcome these challenges results in a model of cooperation rather than destruction.

First, capital considerations must be taken into account. This is not the capital required to build a technology solution. Agreed, it is no small feat to fund the activities required to build, test, pilot, launch, and sustain a technology solution. However, this pales in comparison to the amount of capital required to underwrite risk (pay claims and hold necessary reserves). To date, a few startups have overcome this challenge by securing relationships with primary insurers or reinsurers, but if this is the approach, it is cooperation, not disruption.

A second barrier is regulatory expertise. This is not only a knowledge of regulation, but the ability to account for regulatory requirements from the earliest stages of ideation, through design, to sustained maintenance.  For startups, detailed regulatory experience can be bought, but this is an additional capital expense. It also can be sourced from a partner, but obtaining this assistance is not likely if the startup is a “disruptor”.

Finally, there is the biggest barrier – customers. As examples of this challenge, startups in the P&C and Life space that have been around since 2010 to 2012 have failed to achieve significant scale. In insurance, attracting and retaining customers is much more expensive (there is that capital problem again) and more difficult than in consumer goods.

The inherent challenges faced by both “tribes” argue for a partnership, rather than a replacement, solution. Insurers can address their legacy technology, risk aversion, and decision challenges by working more closely with the new technology firms that actively seek risk and have a bias to action. Startups need risk and regulatory capital and expertise as well as a customer base to serve.

Partnerships between insurers and startups are a new business model. Unlike supplier-buyer relationships of the past, where a contract is negotiated through an extended procurement process, these partnerships must be governed by a common vision and controlled through active communication from both sides. Celent’s research into the best practice in these partnerships emphasizes the importance of adjustments on both “sides” of such relationships. (see report Accelerating Insurance Transformation: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Innovation Relationships).

It will take time to work out the best ways to accomplish this new model, but the barriers faced by both sides will force each to adjust. Economics will drive transformation to occur in a collaborative manner. Success will come to those insurers and startups which are able to make the necessary adjustments to their own preferences, cultures, and working models to create meaningful partnerships.

The predominant Insurtech approach will be one in which startups coexist with, not replace, insurers.

The UK’s First Personal Insurance Policy for ‘driverless cars’: Too early or just in time?

Yesterday, we received a press release announcing the launch of a new insurance proposition targeted at personal use for ‘driverless cars’ from Adrian Flux in the UK. This news arrives hot-on-the-heels of the Queen’s Speech last month that announced the UK Government’s intention to go beyond its current ‘driverless’ trials in selected cities and legislate for compulsory inclusion of liability coverage for cars operating in either fully or semi-autonomous mode.

As the press release suggests, this may be the world’s first policy making personal use of driverless cars explicit in its coverage (we haven’t been able to validate this yet). Certainly, up until now, I suspect that most trials have been insured either as part of a commercial scheme or, as Volvo indicated last year, by the auto manufacturer itself or trial owner. 

What I find particularly interesting about this announcement is that they have laid the foundation for coverage in their policy wording and, in doing so, been the first to set expectations paving the way for competition.

Key aspects of the coverage (straight from their site) include:

  • Loss or damage to your car caused by hacking or attempted hacking of its operating system or other software
  • Updates and patches to your car’s operating system, firewall, and mapping and navigation systems that have not been successfully installed within 24 hours of you being notified by the manufacturer
  • Satellite failure or outages that affect your car’s navigation systems
  • Failure of the manufacturer’s software or failure of any other authorised in-car software
  • Loss or damage caused by failing when able to use manual override to avoid an accident in the event of a software or mechanical failure

Reflecting on this list, it would appear that coverage is geared more towards the coming of the connected car rather than purely being a product for autonomous driving. Given recent breaches in security of connected car features (the most recent being the Mitsubishi Outlander where the vehicle alarm could be turned off remotely), loss or damage resulting from cyber-crime is increasingly of concern to the public and the industry at large – clearly an important area of coverage.

Given the time taken to legislate, uncertainty over exactly what the new legislation will demand, and then for the general public to become comfortable with autonomous vehicles, I suspect that it may be quite a few years before a sizeable book of business grows.  Often, the insurance product innovation is the easy part – driving adoption up to a position where it becomes interesting and the economics work is much harder.

Maybe this launch is a little too early?  Or maybe it's just-in-time?  Regardless of which one it is, in my opinion, this is still a  significant step forward towards acceptance. I also suspect that some of these features will start to creep their way into our regular personal auto policies in the very near future. I wonder who will be next to move?

If you’re interested in learning more about the potential impact of autonomous vehicles on the insurance industry, why not register here for Donald Light’s webinar on the topic tomorrow.

 

Apax Partners adds Agencyport to its growing property/casualty technology investment portfolio

Today’s announcement of Apax Partners’ acquisition of Agencyport makes sense. This deal is a further commitment by Apax to the property/casualty software sector—following shortly after Apax’s announcement of its equity investment in the soon to be independent Duck Creek.

Insurers want the internal and external users of their systems to have seamless mobile access to new business and other functionality. Agencyport has developed one of the leading solutions for agents, brokers, and policyholders find information and execute transactions with insurers’ core systems.

As is true for any technology acquisition, the soon to be combined management teams of Agencyport and Duck Creek will need to focus on communicating the benefits of their new relationship to current and prospective customers—sending a “good before, better now” message. Providing “vendor neutral” support to Agencyport customers who do not use Duck Creek solutions and Duck Creek customer who do not use AgencyPort solutions will also be crucial.

How life insurers can make underwriting investments that pay off

There is much to automate in the new business process but where should automation dollars be spent to provide the best returns? The new Celent report, Making Life Insurance Underwriting Investments That Pay Off, provides a framework for answering this question. Celent’s analysis divides the new business and underwriting process into 22 logical components of work. Each component is subdivided into potential levels of automation ranging from minimal automation to highly automated. Through an online survey insurers graded themselves in each of the processes according to their level of automation.  The results were not surprising; however they highlighted how far behind the life insurance industry lags in this area.

Automation blog graphic

Automated new business and underwriting processes carry the promise of improved results, but can come at a significant cost, including the hard costs of purchasing technology as well as the softer costs of implementing it and changing processes.  Celent’s analysis showed that automation does indeed improve key measures related to productivity, accuracy and time which can help offset the costs.

One of the keys to reaping the rewards of the investment is to define the strategic goals prior to the automation. Some life insurers have a strategy to be a low cost provider and may achieve low cost through significant investment in rules automation. Others want to provide a high level of service and may focus on the customer experience by automating the customer-facing processes. 

Key questions to ask when deciding where to automate:

  • What is the strategic focus?
  • What tasks are being done, and by whom? Does that actor have to do them?
  • Where can automation create capacity to grow the book of business?
  • Where can automation create a better decision?
  • Where can automation create a better customer experience?
  • Which level of automation will result in the best key metric results?

Are your investments paying off? Insurers can use Celent’s latest report to compare their level of automation to the underwriting capabilities framework and their peers to ascertain if they are making the most of their underwriting automation investments.

Reporting from Celent’s Model Insurer Asia Summit

If 2015 was the year of FinTech, 2016 will surely be the year that InsurTech comes into its own. Celent has been presenting our views on InsurTech and emerging technologies at insurance conferences throughout Asia for some time now, so naturally we see this as a welcome—and inevitable—development.

We held our 7th Annual Model Insurer Asia Awards event in Singapore last month, with presentations focusing on InsurTech and digital financial services. Celent Research Director Karlyn Carnahan set the tone with a keynote presentation on the challenges facing insurers as customers are increasingly seeking real-time, digital interactions tailored to their personal needs and channel preferences. Karlyn outlined the steps to becoming a digital insurer and provided many insights on how insurers can embrace the digital paradigm. In the afternoon session, Karlyn also led a peer-to-peer discussion on how insurers in Asia are responding to these significant changes in the digital landscape.

We were delighted to have GoBear, one of the stars of Asia InsurTech, on the program. GoBear is an online financial services aggregator with a decidedly digital offering that is expanding at a remarkably fast pace throughout Southeast Asia. In his keynote presentation, GoBear’s CEO Andre Hesselink discussed how his firm developed their product with the goal of better serving consumers while at the same time satisfying the business needs of their suppliers, the insurance carriers. Quite the balancing act I am sure.

Celent Analyst KyongSun Kong presented the results of Celent’s annual Asia Insurance CIO survey, revealing that nearly 80% of insurers surveyed are engaged in digital transformation initiatives.

Finally, we came to the heart of the event: the Model Insurer Asia Awards themselves. This year we celebrated best-practice technology initiatives at 14 insurers, including ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Taikang Insurance, multinationals Aegon and MetLife, and online insurance innovator DirectAsia, among many others. All winning initiatives are profiled in our report Celent Model Insurer Asia 2016: Case Studies of Effective Technology Use in Insurance.

Who has the best life insurance new business and underwriting system?

Celent has published a new report, North American LHA New Business and Underwriting Systems: 2016 ABCD Vendor View, in which Celent profiles fourteen providers of new business and underwriting systems. Each vendor responded to a request for information. Seven vendors met the criteria for inclusion as a potential Xcelent winner. The seven vendors eligible for the awards provided a demonstration and briefing of their billing solution.

Due to the ongoing economic conditions that continue to have an adverse impact on life insurance application volumes, insurers have strong interest in reducing the cost of acquisition, processing and issuing life insurance applications. Automating the new business and underwriting functions are critical components in reaching a level of straight-through processing (STP) for new business. Insurers hope that these systems will help reduce unit costs and improve margins. Celent believes that these initiatives are necessary to help the insurers address growth, service, and distribution mandates, in addition to reducing the cost per policy issued.

After years of development that started almost 30 years ago, automated underwriting systems have become highly flexible in allowing insurers to define and configure underwriting rules and workflow. Most systems include or integrate into eApplications. Data from the applications drive reflexive questioning and identify risk classes associated with application data. They offer high levels of automation when gathering third party medical requirements and flag risks when the third party data results are outside of the ranges set by the rules. They also can deliver decisions to the point of data entry or to an underwriter.

New business image

The interest in new business and underwriting systems is on the upswing. Deciding the best new business and underwriting system is unique to each insurer. The goal of the report is to provide detailed information so that an insurer will be able to make an informed decision on which systems may be the best for them.

Regulators will hug their blockchains – takeaways from Consensus 2016

"Show of hands, how many people don't know insurance at all?"

I attended the blockchain (BC) conference Consensus2016 this week and came away with some enhanced perspectives about the technology and its market. The ability to immerse myself in the subject, hear multiple points of view, and learn about different projects was extremely valuable. Here are my highest level takeaways along with some general observations.

 

Specific take-aways:

Regulators will love their blockchains
The transparency and audit trail capabilities of BC will reduce frustration, lower costs, and increase the effectiveness of regulators. Delaware’s announcement to move selected regulatory processes to the BC is an early recognition of this potential.

Benefits beyond the technology
The power of BC to eliminate counterparty risk, stop reconciliation, and increase efficiency were discussed repeatedly, but I also noted a few subtle, nuanced, and powerful benefits related to the BC development process. The most significant examples are the benefits that arise when multiple organizations partner to build a shared BC. Because the companies are building a common automation platform, their joint development results in a single set of code to automate contracts and identical data definitions. This eliminates the unintended consequences that currently result from a traditional approach — where organizations agree on legal terms but then automate them separately. I am now looking at BC with one eye on what the tech delivers and one on what the process around it yields.

Nascent, but sufficient to test with
No doubt the platforms will continue to develop, but based on reported activity in capital markets, banks and insurers, the tech is moving forward in leading corporatations, most in a testing mode. One insurer offered an intriguing insight based on their experience to date. They found as they started testing, their use cases all dealt with processes which already have existing automation solutions in place, with the goal of efficiency/cost improvements. However, they found that they were not getting traction/attention from their senior executives that they expected and needed. They have since pivoted and are now focusing their BC testing on problems that do not currently have automation solutions in place. (by the way, this insurer is another example of a firm which is using its innovation infrastructure to execute their BC tests. They are being done in their innovation lab under the governance in place for experimentation projects — see my previous blog about a similar approach taken by John Hancock.)

General observations:

Evangelism
There are strong emotions associated with this technology. The implementations that deliver financing and banking services to developing economies, or that improve health care, certainly warrant an emotional reaction. However, when I hear comments like “BC technology’s impact will be as significant as the railroad in the 1800s,” my hype alarm goes off. I suppose I haven’t been indoctrinated yet, but neither have the majority of financial services executives.

Market transition
Suppliers are changing from geeks to suits, from startups to more established tech and consulting firms. In some comments during a number of presentations and occasional tweets and audience reactions, I detected a curious, and unhelpful, undercurrent of antagonism towards this shift. The economics of BC will inevitably move it to the enterprise. In fact, its full promise cannot be realized without this change. I am confident that virtually everyone attending a conference like Consensus2016 wants to see the tech reach its potential, but, as a first time attendee, it sure seemed that not everyone was acting that way. I am looking forward to catching the vibe in next year's show.

Kudos to the organizers Coindesk for developing a solid, varied program and for executing it well.