Email
Newsletters
R&I ONE®
(weekly)
The best articles from around the web and R&I, handpicked by R&I editors.
WORKERSCOMP FORUM
(weekly)
Workers' Comp news and insights as well as columns and features from R&I.
RISK SCENARIOS
(monthly)
Update on new scenarios as well as upcoming Risk Scenarios Live! events.

Risk Insider: Jonathan Hall

Building Resilience From Top to Bottom  

By: | November 25, 2014 • 3 min read
Jonathan W. Hall is chief operating officer at FM Global. He oversees FM Global’s insurance operations and insurance staff functions, as well as the FM Global Resilience Index, a data driven resource that ranks the business resilience of 130 countries and regions. He can be reached at riskletters@lrp.com.

Access to accurate and timely information is essential to crafting a world-class supply chain risk management program, where tightly integrated networks are dependent on a myriad of factors for their smooth operation. And while a supplier’s ability to withstand natural hazards and fire is vital, it is equally important to understand the economic climate in each supplier’s country of origin.

Many supply chains are far-flung enterprises often involving dozens of countries and sometimes hundreds of organizations, each producing different components that come together in a finished product.

If a second-tier supplier is responsible for a significant proportion of a particular manufactured item and is exposed to a country’s looming political upheaval, the risk cannot be ignored. Likewise, when a company’s supply chain is scattered across the world, it may confront other perils including currency fluctuations, inconvertibility and credit availability — to name a few. Vital capital investment and resource allocation decisions may need to be made, including shifting production to a supplier somewhere else in the world.

And while many companies understand the risk factors that can cause disruptions at their top tier suppliers, they may be less cognizant of economic factors within a country that can affect suppliers’ suppliers. As the first tier outsources production to organizations in China, Thailand, India, Hungary, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and other developing economies, they may unknowingly create risk for themselves and their own customers, unaware of brewing economic threats.

It’s not surprising that many supply chains unravel in the aftermath of economic and political upheaval — somehow a third-tier supplier’s vulnerability was overlooked, causing production to decrease if not come to a halt. Bottom line: True supply chain resilience depends on the risk quality of each supplier in the network, each of them potentially exposed to a hornet’s nest of risk inherent to the countries where they are based.

Unfortunately, many organizations fail to scrutinize through an economic lens how resilient countries are to supply chain disruption. Without the ability to make more informed decisions, these organizations are flying somewhat blindly, their supply chains a network of weak links.

As the first tier outsources production to organizations in China, Thailand, India, Hungary, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and other developing economies, they may unknowingly create risk for themselves and their own customers, unaware of brewing economic threats.

Smart supply chain risk management considers more than just the possibility of threats like floods and earthquakes or a factory fire. Taking the pulse of risk such as vulnerability to government instability, a whipsawing economy, unexpected regulatory impediments, energy supplies, or the availability of credit requires the monitoring and mapping of such conditions in each supplier’s country of origin. This is not a one and done affair, as the world of business is fast-paced and in constant flux.

How can organizations ferret out key economic information and apply it to their supply chains? The answers lie in microeconomic and macroeconomic data sets which, when properly leveraged, can be considered from the top to the bottom tiers of a supply chain. The result when thoughtfully applied? Resilience. A supply chain strengthened by statistical insights and informed risk management decisions is a dynamic one that is able to adapt and take advantage of a changing world.

Share this article:

Financial Institutions

Assessing Third Party Risk

Companies must assess the risks of vendors that provide critical operations or have access to customer information.
By: | October 21, 2014 • 4 min read
RMA Survey

The financial services industry is in “high gear” to reassess third-party risk management practices in response to regulatory guidance.

Institutions are investing in technology to improve reporting and analytics, so that third-party risks are appropriately assessed and that controls are effective, according to the Third Party/Vendor Risk Management Survey, recently released by the Risk Management Association and sponsored by MetricStream.

Advertisement




It’s not just about assessing the risks from vendors and their subcontractors, but also affiliates, debt buyers, agents, channel partners, and correspondent banks, to name just a few third parties that banks and credit unions work with, said Edward DeMarco, RMA’s general counsel and director of operational risk/regulatory relations/communications.

Best practices are in “an evolutionary state,” DeMarco said.

“Prudent third-party risk management requires that the third party be risk-assessed in connection with the enterprise and not simply any one individual business line.” — Edward DeMarco, general counsel, Risk Management Association

“Multiple business lines and functional units within an institution might have their own special relationship with the same third party,” he said. “Prudent third-party risk management requires that the third party be risk-assessed in connection with the enterprise and not simply any one individual business line.”

Institutions are also increasingly putting pressure on to make sure third parties assess the risks of their own contractors, DeMarco said.

“For example, a bank might hire XYZ appraisal company, and that company might sub out to appraisal companies 1, 2, 3 and 4,” he said. “While the bank won’t require a report because they are not in control of those relationships, the banking company does expect its third party to assess their risks.”

Other survey findings include:

• Nearly 50 percent of the respondents said their institution’s risk management functions were responsible for oversight of vendor risk.

• More than 50 percent said their institutions send questionnaires to vendors for risk management purposes.

• Roughly one-third said they have more than 25 “enterprise critical” suppliers that have the potential to affect their entire organization in the event of a failure.

• More than 75 percent have in place a supplier code of conduct that suppliers must acknowledge.

Negotiations with third parties and vendors can be time consuming — and cyber insurance coverage is “an integral part” of those conversations. –Michael O’Connell, managing director and financial Institutions practice leader, Aon Risk Solutions.

Peter Foster, executive vice president and one of the leaders of the cyber risk group at Willis, said that many of his financial institution clients require their vendors to complete a Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 16, which is a guidance from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

“But this is the minimal of what a vendor should be doing to demonstrate how they are protecting their systems,” Foster said.

“That report really doesn’t get deep into the weeds whether or not the security around the data or around operational applications is really secure.

“Financial institutions should take a step further with a set of questions or a physical audit of a vendor, particularly if the application is more critical to operations or contains customers’ personally identifiable information.”

Institutions should also require third parties to have a technology errors and omissions policy with cyber insurance built into the one policy, he said.

An institution should require third parties to name it as an “additional insured” and provide it with certificates of insurance to cover any disruptions, including liability to cover unauthorized access or unauthorized use of data.

An institution should also have coverage for vicarious liability and direct liability under its own cyber policy, which would cover a data breach resulting from outsourcing, Foster said. That way, the institution will be covered if its third party doesn’t have a policy or its policy doesn’t provide such coverage.

Such is often the case with cloud computing firms, he said.

“We recommend [third parties provide coverage] because it should be the first line of dense — the vendor who causes the breach should be paying for the breach,” Foster said. “But we’re also cognizant of the fact that many vendors will not provide that coverage and that the bank needs to use that vendor.”

Negotiations with third parties and vendors can be time consuming — and cyber insurance coverage is “an integral part” of those conversations, said Michael O’Connell, managing director and financial Institutions practice leader at Aon Risk Solutions.

“Also, a critical part of these discussions centers around who is liable for what part and how much of the loss, especially when there is a breach of confidential data,” he said.

Advertisement




From a risk management perspective, he recommended that vendor risk assessments include answers to these questions:

• Does the insurance fully cover the liability of the insured due to an incident caused by third-party providers?

• Are regulatory investigations, fines and penalties addressed?

• Are first-party business interruption and crisis management included within the cyber policies and are there full limits or sublimits?

“Additionally, the contingent business interruption component must include increased attention to the number and complexity of third-party relationships,” O’Connell said.

Firms must have a complete plan for loss mitigation, restitution, and a response to the potential reputational damage that may be caused, he said.

Katie Kuehner-Hebert is a freelance writer based in California. She has more than two decades of journalism experience and expertise in financial writing. She can be reached at riskletters@lrp.com.
Share this article:

Sponsored Content by Riskonnect

3 + 3: Theory of Risk

A risk management professional constructed a versatile system that he can really believe in.
By: | November 3, 2014 • 5 min read
SponsoredContent_Riskonnect

Anthony Valsamakis doesn’t just practice risk management, he wrote a book about it. And he doesn’t just consult with quants, he is one.

“Risk management has been in my blood for so long that I have to stop myself, otherwise I could go into a two-hour monologue,” said Valsamakis, whose career in the discipline goes back almost 35 years, to his first job with the Standard General Insurance Company.

In 1990, the London-based chairman of the Eikos Group received a doctorate in Business Economics. In 1992, “The Theory & Principles of Risk Management” was published, with Valsamakis the principal author, and is now in its 4th edition.

Valsamakis worked first with a carrier, then as a commodities broker, before taking up an academic post. The company he started in 1999, the Eikos Group, has a risk consulting arm, with clients in most industrial sectors, including the food, mining, forestry, industrial paper and packaging and banking industries. The group also includes a transportation risk brokerage and a Bermuda-based carrier.

SponsoredContent_Riskonnect“I think the idea of having a secure data base that everyone can access and can update at any moment is by far the best innovation that I can see happening in the information game.”
– Anthony Valsamakis, Chairman, Risk Financing Strategy, Eikos Group

For as long as he can remember, Valsamakis sought ways to get better information on the risks he underwrites, brokers or consults on.

“Over many years we’ve tried hard to increase the quality and timeliness of the information that enables us to do just that,” Valsamakis said.

Finally, it looks like Valsamakis has found a risk management information systems platform that enables him to do just that.

For the past year and a half, Valsamakis has been using a system developed by Riskonnect.

SponsoredContent_RiskonnectValsamakis likes the Riskonnect approach for a number of reasons – one of the key reasons that the platform can be readily adapted for each of his clients, regardless of industry.

“What’s useful for me is that the platform basically resides within the client’s systems,” he said.

The information he needs to prioritize, depends on which client he is working with.

“By definition, depending on where I am working and what I am doing, risk management priorities are very different,” Valsamakis said.

The Riskonnect platform provides the necessary flexibility.

SponsoredContent_RiskonnectA mine, for example, could be in a location in Africa or South America with a high degree of political risk. A key risk for a furniture maker might be around trade secrets, the possibility that a disgruntled employee would leak a pricing catalogue to competitors. For a packaging manufacturer, their material supply chain is of the utmost importance, and so on.

For each client, Valsamakis can use Riskonnect platform and work with the client to compile the information that is most relevant to that client and its industry and enter that into a secure system.

“All of these are template facts that you can easily put into the Riskonnect system,” Valsamakis said.

The Riskonnect platform is housed within the client’s information technology system, and it is transparent enough, to give Valsamakis and his client access to the same sets of data.

“I think the idea of having a secure data base that everyone can access and can update at any moment is by far the best innovation that I can see happening in the information game,” he said.

Whose System Is It?

Valsamakis has been around long enough to know a few things about data and risk transfer. He’s seen a number of risk information management systems put out by brokers, for example, that he thinks are set up more for the broker’s business model than for the sharing of information.

Generally speaking, information about an insured’s risks come from the broker and the insured. The Riskonnect system works, according to Valsamakis, because it is designed to be adapted to the client, not the broker.

“I have seen efforts by brokers, for example, over the years to produce a type of risk information platform that becomes theirs,” Valsamakis said.

“It’s been a perennial problem in the industry, where depending on which broker you end up with, you’ll end up with system A, B or C,” he said.

The Underwriter Needs to Know

SponsoredContent_RiskonnectUsing Riskonnect, Valsamakis encourages clients to be as transparent as possible, in order to give the most complete information to underwriters.

“For me the question is, ‘What is the volatility around the asset and can there be an impact on the balance sheet of our clients?’” he said.

“We need to describe this exposure in various contexts so that the underwriters know what they are covering,” he said.

It’s basic human psychology. If an underwriter doesn’t feel they are getting enough information about a particular risk, they will take a negative view of that risk.

The more accurate the information Valsamakis has about a client’s exposures, the better the pricing he gets from underwriters.

“If you were an underwriter putting your capital and risk and I gave you little information, you would actually be less inclined to look at the risk in favorable terms. There will be a natural inclination to downgrade it,” he said.

Where Valsamakis sees enormous value is in the Riskonnect system ability to tag which can be revisited at a later stage.

“It’s amazing how clients forget, in the passage of time, that there are profiles that have changed for better or worse.”

A Long-Term Investment

The Eikos Group invested significantly in the Riskonnect product and are taking it to a number of clients. The transparency of the system and the advantage it gives the Eikos Group and its clients with underwriters is in itself a business advantage over the competition.

“We made a decision as a small company, relatively speaking, to invest a lot of money in Riskonnect and be very proactive about it,” Valsamakis said.

“When I talk to executives I say we invested in it because it’s going to save our clients money. Better information will lead to a lower cost of risk,” he said.

“If I’m talking to someone at a high level, that’s fairly easily understood.”

SponsoredContent

BrandStudioLogo

This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Riskonnect. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.


Riskonnect is the provider of a premier, enterprise-class technology platform for the risk management industry.
Share this article: