To date, we have heard confirmation of the following new entrants into the Marine Hull sector :

1)    Barbican
2)    Canopius
3)     Liberty
4)     Skuld
5)     WTK/ Munich
6)     WR Berkeley

Scor may be about to enter the Lloyd’s  Market, although we are not aware as to their areas of interest as yet. Furthermore Aspen are reviewing their existing marine hull book and may start to write Asian Hull business.

We anticipate that such a significant influx of new capacity in to the market will only benefit Assureds as it further increases the excess of capacity in the hull market.

We await with interest the effect that this increase of capacity will have on rates, but it’s fair to assume that the new incumbents will want to gain market share either through targeting previously written accounts or the acquisition of new business or, more likely, a combination of both.

In addition, we are already seeing a number of existing markets extend their core business either geographically or by tonnage in a bid to gain market share and premium income.

Asia, Asian owners and Asian based managers look set to continue benefitting from the opportunities that this represents as the burgeoning capacity is likely to put further downward pressure on rates.

On the face of it, the global economic slump created conditions that should have left marine insurance clients bearing the brunt of a hardening market and spiralling premiums.  But according to Mr Philip Bilney, Group Executive Director, FP Marine Risks, not only did that not transpire, but it is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future either.

At the recent IUMI conference in Hong Kong, Ms Deidre Littlefield cautioned that whilst the global economy may be through the worst of it, there were still signs that insurers in Asia would need to focus on “underwriting, underwriting, underwriting”.

This would suggest that underwriters should be seeking universal rate rises, higher deductibles and self-insured retentions, tighter conditions and the imposition of further risk management requirements for their Assureds.

However, from an Asian marine insurance perspective, it is apparent that this has not happened and nor will it.

There are three key reasons for this – Asia’s quick economic recovery as demonstrated by the rebounding trade figures, investment in Asia and the subsequent capacity it has brought with it, and finally the ever-maturing environments in which the assureds are operating and thereby lowering their associated risks.

Recovery

There is no doubt that Asia is recovering quicker than Europe or North America.  The IMF has forecast GDP growth of 4% worldwide, but 10% in China and 5.3% in Asia overall for 2010.

The world seems to be recovering from the recession but whether it is a sustainable recovery is yet to be seen.  Recent figures from the World Trade Organisation show that the downward trend in trade experienced worldwide during 2009 has come to an end, with world merchandise trade up 25% in the first quarter of 2010 when compared with the same quarter in 2009.

Importantly, intra-Asian trade has played a key role in sustaining growth within the region.  The WTO has recently reported that the trade flows within Asia have rebounded more strongly than those of developed economies and believes this is due to trade within the region.

China – An engine of growth

Furthermore, China’s imports grew at 16%, twice as fast as its exports (8%), suggesting that the country’s fiscal stimulus package has benefited trade within Asia as a whole.

China is now the world’s largest exporting country and probably stronger than ever relative to the West as we emerge from the financial crisis.  Unless something catastrophic happens, we expect to see the continuing, phenomenal growth of that economy.

The benefits of Asia’s growth in GDP and trade will of course filter down to the shipping, trading and maritime industries as a whole.  There is no doubt that because of this, Asia is certainly the most exciting place in which to be writing insurance business at the moment.

Investment and capacity

Accelerating a trend going back at least two decades, the last two to three years have seen an uninterrupted, headlong influx of new insurance capacity into the Asian market.

I am therefore not surprised that we are seeing continued investment into Asia.  There are now 15 Lloyd’s syndicates operating in Singapore and another five in Hong Kong plus 11 independent coverholders, most of which write Marine.

International insurers have either entered the market or dramatically increased their underwriting capacity.  With the new Asian-domiciled start-ups and increases in existing capacity, according to our own estimates, total Hull and Cargo capacity in Asia is today around three times that of just five years ago with no signs of abating. We expect to see more international insurers active in Asia before the year is out.

Whilst the capacity available is considerable, Asian marine underwriters now have unprecedented levels of authority at their disposal. US$100 million Project Cargo lines and US$25 million Hull lines are no longer unusual (without reference to treaty underwriters or to an overseas head office).

This trend has given Asia a self-contained marine market capable of supporting the great majority of insurance exposures arising in the region.  No longer is there an automatic need to seek capacity or expertise in London or Europe because it can all be found here. Insurers are realising this and repositioning themselves accordingly.  If they want to be part of the Asia Pacific Century, what choice do they have?

The developing world is highly developed

Many of the major cities in Asia enjoy world-leading infrastructure – ports, airports, roads and railways – which operate with modern technologies and are expanding daily.

Asian-focused logistics companies are highly efficient and move cargo through the system seamlessly and – in their own highly competitive environment – with ever greater regard to the safety of their customer’s goods.

Losses are being minimised throughout the supply chain as newer technologies and a continual push for international competitiveness have helped improve safety records.

Meanwhile, the shipping industry is ever-more regulated for the benefit of seafarers and the public alike.

Benign and sophisticated claims environment

The combined benefit of this is a relatively benign claims environment.  There have been some increased cargo losses in particular areas and circumstances, but on the whole we believe this downward trend will continue.

According to IUMI, total losses have, on the whole, followed a downward trend over the last 30 years.  Whilst the costs of some claims have increased, repair costs for damaged vessels have largely fallen, and with fewer ships in service losses have been muted.

Claims are an inevitable part of insurance, but when losses do occur, the Asian claims infrastructure is ever-improving.  Every major adjuster, or international law firm, is heavily represented in the region and local expertise is growing.

Market with credibility and strength

Not only are the risks getting better, they are more plentiful too. The new capacity in Asia is addressing a growing pie, as the economic data demonstrates, but what it does not reveal, and what we are witnessing, is that more marine insurance business is being attracted to the region’s markets.

Asian buyers now have better insurance options here than overseas, and foreign companies trading in Asia are more easily convinced by the international insurance brand names which are now on offer locally.

A number of international insurers have brought their existing Asian books with them and further still many Asian underwriters are increasingly writing non-Asian business.  This has created a market with credibility and strength.

Good news for Assureds

The world recovery, which is proving to be strongest in Asia, combined with plentiful capacity and better risks means it is unlikely the Asian marine insurance market will harden.  Whilst no one believes we are truly out of the woods just yet, there is no reason to assume that insurers in the region will do anything other than carry on being competitive.

As more underwriters continue to build up their regional presence in Asia, the need to increase rates and narrow conditions is suppressed.

An abundance of options for Asia’s Assureds combined with a determination on the part of underwriters to increase their market share has naturally created a competitive environment.  But, with continued investments in infrastructure and an increase in trade volumes combined with a reduction in claims, insurers in Asia understand that underwriting, underwriting and more underwriting does not need to translate into rate increases and a tightening of conditions.

Instead, underwriters in the region can utilise their local knowledge to write more business and a greater premium volume through a broader spread rather than increasing premium through increases in rating.

The global downturn’s effect on trade has meant shipowners are facing further pressures to reduce costs, including reducing their premium spend whilst maintaining good quality security.

However, London and other European markets are pressing for rises on all business of between 5% and 10% on Hull and Machinery before any adjustment for adverse records.

Fortunately for shipowners, however, Asia continues to present an abundance of capacity and strong security whilst offering competitive ratings.

The difficulty for many shipowners is in reconciling the high value they place on maintaining long term relationships with their insurers, with the economic imperative of driving down costs.

The result is that we are seeing shipowners willing to move to new markets for relatively minimal price reductions as the necessity to reduce expenses wins the day.

Consequently London and European underwriters have in some instances lost shares.

Moreover, many markets outside of London are now seeking tonnage that falls outside of their traditional appetite in order to maintain premium income levels. This change of approach has created additional options for shipowners that were not necessarily available this time last year.

The continued effects of the downturn continue to keep the need to reduce costs in sharp focus for shipowners. However, the drive for premium increases by the more established hull markets such as London, has given rise to opportunities for other capacity, particularly from Asia, to step in.

Release calls remain at 10% for 2008, 50% for 2009 and 50% for 2010.

The underlying loss totals USD964m, which is almost exactly the USD953m loss that clubs incurred on their investment portfolios.

Since renewal, there has of course been some recovery in the markets, so any losses that were market write-downs may now be seeing a reversal. It is estimated that general increases may have contributed another USD500m to club incomes for the current year.

Whilst the underwriting results are comparable to the previous year, the key difference is the lack of investment profit, which last year meant the group was able break even but this year has resulted in substantial losses.

However, the consequent reduction in premium varies widely among insurers and it is important that shipowners are aware of the basis of that variation in premium if they are to get the best deal when they come to negotiate any renewals or changes in value.

In each case, underwriters generate a specific value adjustment rate, which is applied to the difference in value to calculate the return premium due.

This value adjustment rate will be significantly lower than the Hull & Machinery rate, reflecting the fact that the risk of loss is no different, even though the value of the ship is.  The return premium will therefore not be in direct proportion to the reduction in value.

Typical of a competitive market, insurers’ value adjustment rates vary widely – by up to 500% – which significantly affects how much of a reduction in premuim the Assured will receive.

It is important that owners understand the importance of obtaining competitive value adjustment rates when they reduce their insured values.

And equally the same approach is recommended when the S&P market rebounds and premiums need to be re-calculated in response to the higher ship values.

For any shipowner who would like to discuss their current situation please contact any of our Shipping brokers who can help you further.

The maritime news continues to be filled with articles about pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden, while piracy also continues less reported in several other key areas such as Nigeria, the Philippines and Brazil. There has been some discussion, and perhaps confusion, about what support is available to shipowners in the event of a pirate attack.

To mitigate the risk, some shipowners are avoiding the area but at substantial additional expense, and others are using organised convoys or employing security staff for the vessel.

Marine Kidnap and Ransom insurance can play a key part in any shipowner’s risk management strategy because it covers the specific costs associated with piracy attacks, however there has been some misunderstanding regarding the detail of the cover.

Andrew Brooker, director at marine insurance brokers FP Marine Risks, says: “We are often asked what insurance protection is available to shipowners in light of the increased risk of piracy. Marine Kidnap and Ransom needs to be seen as a service that shipowners can draw upon that isn’t catered for by traditional hull insurance.”

Traditional hull insurance only protects the shipowner from loss or damage to the vessel as a result of piracy and is only designed to work in a reactive manner once the claim is made after the event.

In the absence of physical loss or damage, the ransom and associated costs would be considered a General Average expense and settled by all parties against their respective values. However, the legitimacy of these costs being claimed in GA has never been tested and could be disputed by the cargo parties’ insurers.

Given the amount of shipping traffic that transits areas such as the Gulf of Aden, statistically the risk of a pirate attack is quite low. However, when it does happen, shipowners are faced with a challenging range of issues they are unlikely to have encountered before.

Brooker explains: “Shipowners suddenly find themselves with a host of questions about how to move forward – how do they find the necessary help from specialist negotiators; how do they enter into effective communications with hijackers; how do they deal with threats to their crew, vessel and cargo; how do they raise and deliver the ransom?”

Marine Kidnap and Ransom insurance is designed to specifically meet the needs of shipowners in dealing with these issues. It also provides the security of having an insurance in place that ensures the shipowner receives priority treatment from kidnap negotiators and other personnel involved. It covers all the necessary related costs that are needed to secure the safe and quick release of the vessel, crew and cargo, including the ransom and its delivery.

Furthermore, if a shipowner were to declare General Average in an attempt to raise the ransom, it could jeopardise their commercial relationships.

Brooker says: “There is generally no deductible with Kidnap and Ransom insurance, so owners are not exposed to additional costs after the premium and our cover ensures the Kidnap and Ransom insurers do not seek to recover any aspect of the costs from cargo or charterer interests, thereby preserving those commercial relationships. It also has the effect of protecting the owner’s existing Hull & Machinery or War cover from a loss which exposes them to an increase in rating for the following year – in effect, Kidnap and Ransom insurance has no memory and will not seek to recover claims through increases in premium.”

The report was bleak, with slower demand and falling freight rates forcing shipowners to find efficiencies across the board, and insurers likely to feel the effects through increasing claims and pressure on pricing and conditions. Insurers at the time were predicting a hardening of the marine insurance market, however we saw no evidence of this.

Three months on, and we can report that we have still seen no widespread, significant hardening of the core marine insurance markets. Whilst Hull rates are generally flat, or perhaps rising slightly, Cargo premiums remain negotiable and it is not unknown to see some reductions being offered.

Inevitably, underwriters are seeing a decrease in commodity values, turnovers and ship values. But fortunately for shippers and shipowners, whilst many other classes of general insurance are witnessing premium increases, marine rates are staying low as capacity continues to be allocated to this market by insurers.

The International Herald Tribune published an article in May referring to the congestion in Singapore, citing data from AIS that showed 735 vessels had congretated in and around the port due to the nosedive in international trade in and out of Asia (particularly China).

The UK P&I Club also recently commented on the increased risk of collisions due to lay ups, particularly as the average vessel size has increased.

However, in response to the American P&I Club’s alert, the Singapore MPA denied that there has been an accumulation of vessels and that utilisation rates of their anchorages have remained stable. MPA Port Master Lee Cheng Wee is quoted as saying the anchorages have not become crowded due to the economic downturn and that concerns over increasing congestion are unfounded.

On the other hand, they are witnessing a large number of owners anchoring vessels outside of the port’s boundaries where they do not have pay port fees. Last week, the Singapore MPA issued another statement saying that whilst the port’s anchorages were busy, they were not overcrowded, and instead turned their attention to owners anchoring outside of the port’s limits.

There are certainly inherent risks for vessels at anchorage however, we are not seeing anything in the markets to suggest that the American Club’s sentiment is being shared, certainly not in terms of increased premiums for those navigating Singapore’s waters, and nor do we expect there to be.

The global economic gloom is casting its shadow over insurance like everything else, with sharp rises in premiums likely across the board in the near future. We asked logistics-industry insurance expert Philip Bilney* why reducing cover is not a good idea.

Can project forwarders avoid paying more for insurance?
The temptation is always there to skimp on insurance cover. Reducing the level of cover or seeking less comprehensive policies may save money short-term but the risk is that it would be a “false economy”. It does look as though the insurance market in general will harden over the next several months – in other words premiums will rise – for a number of reasons. This applies to most sectors including Marine Cargo insurance, E&O, projects and project-related cover such as Delayed Start-Up (DSU) or Advanced Loss of Profits (ALOP) insurance. But the answer at a time like this is to look to an organisation such as the WCA Family that has the buying power to reduce the impact of any market price hikes.

So insurers are seeking to restore their profits?
Essentially, yes, because insurance companies have to make a profit like anyone else. Here are some of the reasons why – reasons you may care to pass on to project owners tempted to cut back at this difficult time.

First, supply and demand: insurance capital is derived primarily from equity markets and when that capital dries up, the amount of risk any one insurer can accept is reduced. Less equity market capital means a reduced supply of insurance capital, which in turn leads to a higher price to buy that small part of it which you need to cover your risk. In this regard it behaves in much the same way as any other commodity, but in the opposite direction.

Similarly, there is not an abundance of capital sloshing around looking to take advantage of a perceived increase in rates. After Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, which hit the Energy and Offshore market so hard, there was a rush of new capital into the industry to take advantage of the anticipated hardening, with the result that it never actually happened. That sort of capital ingress often tends to manifest itself in the form of new start-up reinsurance companies which are effectively the wholesalers of insurance capital.

But surely premiums are already expensive?
Actually, premiums will be rising from a relatively low level. The market has been at historically soft levels for the last year or so and thus is due an upturn anyway (in my experience upturns only really happen when the market is already genuinely soft). We had the same situation immediately before 9/11, which prompted the last serious hardening of the market.

Also, major losses were unusually high in 2008. For example, claims from
Hurricane Ike alone are expected to reach USD16 billion.

Insurance companies are famously known as “investors with a bad habit” (underwriting), so many have been hit hard by a collapse in their asset values. The thing is, very few are admitting to it yet.

What other factors contribute?
Generally speaking, recessions on a scale now being encountered worldwide produce more crime, including fraudulent claims and associated losses, and that of course drives up premiums.

Insurance buyers will often ask why the cost of their particular insurance has gone up in a hard market although the risk remains the same. The answer is that all classes of insurance are connected because the source of capital is much the same, and reinsurance costs (the mechanism by which insurance companies offset their risks) tend to rise across the whole industry. So the tide of the whole market rises and falls as one, although of course individual anomalies do occur here and there.

When will the premium increases start to hit home?
Curiously enough given the depressing economic news, there is some debate over whether this hardening is actually happening as yet. The ‘rescue’ of AIG has actually had the effect of reducing some prices because AIG has to compete harder to retain market share, and in other areas some insurers are maintaining prices in order to avoid losing good business.

But in general, insurance companies are refusing to reduce premiums now and there are some areas (Marine Hull for example) where increases of 5-10 percent are already being applied. The jury is still out, but the general view in the industry is that prices will move sharply upward from early 2009.

Trade Credit premiums, on the other hand, have already doubled. If you can buy cover at all. Default & bankruptcy claims are escalating dramatically and most insurers in that sector (there are only a handful) are hunkering down and declining to accept much new business while they wait for the storm to pass. But business is still being done.

So what can project forwarders do to economise?
Despite some rising prices, now would be the worst possible time to run uninsured. Claim frequencies will rise, not only for the reasons I mentioned above, but also because more goods will be rejected by customers than would normally be the case, and if they are genuinely damaged, then cargo insurance will cover this.

FSL (freight services liability cover) also becomes more vital as people get more litigious and the nmber of disputes rises. Forwarding businesses are highly exposed at the best of times, but the risks can only worsen as the world’s economies slide into recession and trading becomes more difficult.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that insurance companies tend to give a much better deal to long-standing clients than they do to companies who are perceived to dip in and out of the market. So while there is every reason to ‘shop around’, there is also value in building and maintaining a good relationship with an insurer over time – try to work only with reputable, secure insurers and where possible leverage off the influence of those organisations who have genuine buying power.

*Philip Bilney is group executive director of FP Marine Risks, a specialist provider of insurance products and services across the entire spectrum of Marine and related sectors. Based in Hong Kong, in 2006 the company was the first Asian-based insurance broker to become a fully accredited Lloyd’s of London broker following three years of mandatory provisional accreditation. FP Marine Risks, the sole broker for WCA Family of Logistic Networks, developed Project Cargo Insurance, one of a suite of products available exclusively to members of WCA Family that includes Marine (cargo) insurance and Freight Services (E&O and legal liability) cover.

With growing trade volumes, vessel sizes and government legislation, supply chain managers face increasing risks and liabilities in their industry. Insurance is an important risk management tool, but one that has yet to be fully utilised in Asia. For an effective insurance purchasing strategy, supply chain managers should be aware of the changing risk exposures, the breadth of cover available and the long-term benefits that insurance provides by protecting profitability.

Supply chain management, by the diverse nature of the business, is exposed to constantly changing and, in most cases, increasing risks and liabilities. Depending upon the geographical spread of the business, those risks are likely to range from political risks to business interruption and the more specific threats of piracy or theft.

The insurance market has always been keen to respond to these varying and changing risks, not only with more sophisticated products, but also greater expertise and knowledge. In the increasingly competitive environment that the trade insurance market has become, differentiation is a key driver for insurance solutions that can dovetail with existing covers and/or risk management devices already in place.

What remains constant and critical is for supply chain managers to be able to identify the risks and react to them positively. That requires a high degree of both understanding of the exposures as well as the resources required to implement the required risk management procedures. As part of that process, the involvement of the insurance market and its knowledge base can be invaluable not only to determine the possible solutions available, but as a cost-efficient external resource.

Changing Exposures

Supply chain managers have become more risk averse in recent times due in part to the falling cost of insurance, but also due to an increase in the understanding of risk and the constantly evolving legislative environment.

A gradual, but steady, improvement in the understanding of the liabilities of service providers and the courts’ willingness to find new areas of liability or affirm previously held views has focused more attention on the involvement of insurance as a risk management tool. But, is there sufficient focus or understanding on this area?

There can be no doubt that it is difficult to maintain adequate knowledge of new risks and the evolution of existing risks. As the size and demands of the industry continue to develop, both in Asia and globally, so too does the list of potential losses that might arise.

One such example is the risk of accumulation brought about by the increased volume of trade. Accumulation arises where a series of shipments are in the same place at the same time, whether that be a warehouse, vessel or other conveyance.

For supply chain managers, this is a difficult exposure to monitor on an ongoing basis, yet can give rise to a significant underlying exposure in the event of just one single incident. Whereas this used to be predominantly the preserve of static risk insurers, due to the progress of, specifically, the shipping sector of the industry, it now has a broader effect across the supply chain.

As the size of vessels increase to meet the cost efficiency demands of global trade, so does the possibility of an accumulation of risk on those very vessels. The capacity of the ‘Emma Maersk’ and her 11,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) is a forebearer of things to come. It is perhaps noteworthy to compare her with the recent losses incurred by cargo interests alone on the ‘Hyundai Fortune’ of potentially USD75m and the ‘MSC Napoli’ in the region of USD66m, both of which were unavoidable losses from the point of view of the supply chain managers unlucky enough to be involved.

But the issues of accumulation do not stop once the cargo is discharged from the overseas vessel. As trade volumes continue to rise, specifically to and from China, so consolidation and deconsolidation points become more congested and/or capacity increases.

If we add to the equation the risks of port congestion either through natural or man-made causes such as the recent strike in the US Pacific Northwest, those exposures can result from a number of causes making them difficult to predict.

Being able to calculate these exposures, with a degree of accuracy, requires a high level of risk management capability, which may not be viable within certain areas of the supply chain. It is, of course, difficult enough to manage risk successfully where all the information is available; where that information is not available, it becomes a considerable challenge.

The result of this is that there is only a limited level of protection for even the most sophisticated risk manager. Offsetting risk in the form of insurance should, therefore, play a pivotal role in the overall risk management strategy.

Insurance in Asia

To this end, the insurance market in Asia continues to grow as more and more insurers enter the arena, either as additional offices to bases in London or the US, or Asian headquartered and capitalised. The London and Lloyd’s market is and will remain the epicentre for the complex risks that the supply chain management industry requires, but there is significant shift in knowledge as insurers place expertise on the doorstep of the risks they write.

Indeed, Lloyd’s itself now has hubs in Singapore and Shanghai, allowing Lloyd’s markets to utilise their capital based in London to set up at minimal additional cost in Asia. While the spread of insurance placements is often global, insurers are seeing a real benefit to a presence geographically alongside the risks they are writing.

This provides insurance buyers in the supply chain sector with the services and knowledge base that, all too often, remains under-utilised. While the insurance market is keen to provide this support, generally speaking it has not been considered a traditional option for the supply chain industry. This, though, needs to change if the supply chain sector is to benefit from all the available tools, including insurance, and meet the risk management challenges that Asia will continue to present.

Regulatory and Legislative Environments

The concern, however, has to be that Asia’s trade volume is increasing at a pace considerably in excess of other markets, while regulation and legislation in many of the region’s countries remain in their  infancy. However, this has not dampened the expectation of clients of the supply chain industry in the region, who demand the highest levels of service.

Given the current pace of growth in countries such as China and India and the relative lack of focus on ensuring that the regulatory environment keeps pace with that growth, the protection of that exposure becomes ever more difficult. The changes in regulatory practice will take some time to gain traction and is, perhaps in part, contrary to the desire of those who wish to reap the benefits of the regional growth in trade.

This is likely to continue to have a negative effect on the ability of the supply chain industry to manage their exposures in the developing economies for some time to come.

However, the news is not all bad as insurers have an equal desire to be involved in trade to those regions and, to do that, they want and need to understand the risks involved. This is, in part, the reason for the increase in focused expertise being brought in or propagated in the region by insurers.

To properly understand the environment, they want to be accessible to their assureds and to the risks they face. Whether this proximity will give rise to a consequent increase of insurers’ involvement in the risk management strategies of the supply chain industry remains to be seen.

At present, there remains a relatively low penetration of insurance purchasing in Asia but a change is unlikely to be driven by the regulatory bodies, even with the full support of the supply chain management sector.

Ultimately, an effective risk management strategy needs to be seen as an asset to any company before the costs involved will be accepted. That will require a fundamental change in thinking in some sectors regardless of the regulatory environment.

Premium versus Risk Management

An effective risk management strategy that is able to react to new risks and control existing ones can expect to have a long-term beneficial effect on the insurance costs.

When this is compared to the falling cost of insurance even as trade levels continue to climb to some of the highest levels ever achieved, the actual costs of risk management can be eroded, in some cases, to a large degree.

This also gives rise to more specific options within the insurance programmes to create greater premium efficiencies as the risk management strategy provides more predictable results. Increases in self-retention of risk, for example, can mean a beneficial reduction in premium.

Other, significantly more sophisticated, products start to be made available as the risk management strategy becomes a key aspect of the profile of the insurance buyer. The equation between a reduction in claims experience and a reduction in premium becomes weighted in favour of the insurance buyer with a history of successful risk management.

The Impact of Unused Risk Management Tools on the Balance Sheet

Experience shows that, even where a strong risk management structure is in place the understanding and knowledge may not be filtering across to operational levels. This will reduce the ability of companies to extract the most from their risk management strategy and, ultimately, will have a negative effect on profitability. Put in insurance terms, opportunities to recover losses from insurers are simply not identified on an all too often basis. This can be either due to a lack of knowledge of the breadth of cover available or, perhaps, a perception that making insurance claims will increase premiums in the future.

With an otherwise effective risk management strategy in place, it becomes even more important. The reimbursements not only provide financial recompense, but provide the insurer with valuable knowledge of the operational or commercial risks that are occurring. More importantly, it tests the insurance to ensure that it responds as it should do when it is required. The cost benefit to the assured is clear, but the long-term risk management benefits of stressing the insurance purchasing strategy are perhaps not as obvious, until a significant loss arises.