Annual Report • Aug 18, 2016
Annual Report
Open in ViewerOpens in native device viewer
Capital Markets Day August 18th 2016
Vision The Challenger
Business Idea This will happen through unique relationships, best in class decision-making and cost effective solutions
Main targets Cost and quality leadership Profitable growth Top 3
Values Credible Open Bold Committed
«Culture eats strategy for breakfast»
«We are different»
20% historical return on Solvency capital
What others are saying
Facts
Methods
• Fondfinans: 100 • Handelsbanken: 94 • Pareto: 90 • Nordea : 90 Vegard Toverud, [email protected] Kimmo Rämä, [email protected] Thomas Svendsen, [email protected] Ulrik Ardal Zurcher, [email protected]
Are nordic peers relevant?
"Current Share Price: 72,50 NOK"
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRF | 11,2 % | 12,1 % | 11,9 % | 10,0 % | 7,7 % | 8,8 % | 7,6 % | 7,5 % |
| Tryg | 17,1 % | 17,2 % | 17,0 % | 16,6 % | 16,4 % | 15,6 % | 14,6 % | 15,3 % |
| Gjensidige | 17,0 % | 17,7 % | 16,5 % | 16,4 % | 15,5 % | 15,3 % | 15,0 % | 15,1 % |
| Codan/Trygg -Hansa2 |
20,2 % | 20,4 % | 16,7 % | 17,6 % | 18,6 % | 19,5 % | 21,2 % | 16,4 % |
| If | 17,4 % | 17,6 % | 17,2 % | 17,3 % | 16,9 % | 16,8 % | 16,7 % | 13,0 % |
| Topdanmark | 14,7 % | 14,9 % | 15,4 % | 15,7 % | 15,8 % | 16,2 % | 15,7 % | 15,9 % |
| LF | 21,0 % | 22,0 % | 22,0 % | 21,0 % | 21,0 % | 19,0 % | 19,0 % | 19,0 % |
| KLP | 26,7 % | 29,1 % | 30,4 % | 26,5 % | 26,4 % | 26,2 % | 23,1 % | 21,1 % |
| Avg. ex. PRF | 19,2 % | 19,8 % | 19,3 % | 18,7 % | 18,7 % | 18,4 % | 17,9 % | 16,5 % |
1Cost ratio adjusted for the removal of an annual minimum regulation clause for pension payments in the defined benefit plan contributed with a non-recurring income of NOK 477m, reducing the operating expenses and hence affecting the cost ratio with 8.6 percentage points 2Numbers for Codan only before merger with Trygg-Hansa in 2015 and RSA Group Scandinavian segment in 2015. Numbers updated through 2015
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | Avg. 08-15 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRF | 9,6 % | 19,5 % | 16,1 % | 19,0 % | 26,1 % | 22,7 % | 27,6 % | 19,7 % | 21,5 % |
| KLP | 3,4 % | 4,7 % | 5,0 % | 3,0 % | 15,4 % | 10,9 % | 10,7 % | 20,8 % | 10,5 % |
| Gjensidige | -1,8 % | 0,2 % | 24,0 % | 5,7 % | 2,1 % | 7,7 % | 7,9 % | 7,4 % | 7,0 % |
| LF1 | 4,2 % | 2,3 % | 2,2 % | 3,3 % | 3,2 % | 3,5 % | 7,4 % | 5,3 % | 4,1 % |
| Codan/Trygg Hansa2 |
12,8 % | 1,7 % | 0,3 % | -0,3 % | 7,2 % | -1,0 % | -0,8 % | 3,5 % | 2,3 % |
| Tryg | 4,4 % | 5,2 % | 9,1 % | 2,4 % | 1,8 % | -4,0 % | -4,4 % | -2,7 % | 1,4 % |
| If | -0,7 % | -4,2 % | 7,7 % | 5,4 % | 6,4 % | 1,5 % | -2,8 % | -1,6 % | 1,3 % |
| Topdanmark | 0,8 % | -3,1 % | -1,4 % | 1,4 % | 1,0 % | 1,5 % | 2,6 % | -2,7 % | 0,0 % |
| Avg. ex. PRF | 3,3 % | 1,0 % | 6,7 % | 3,0 % | 5,3 % | 2,9 % | 2,9 % | 4,3 % | 3,8 % |
1LF volume growth based on premiums earned after ceded reinsurance
2Numbers for Codan only before merger with Trygg-Hansa in 2015 and RSA Group Scandinavian segment in 2015. and assumed to be the same growth rate for Q1 and Q2 '16
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | Avg. 08-15 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRF | 95,8 % | 97,8 % | 94,2 % | 85,3 % | 86,2 % | 86,7 % | 84,5 % | 88,7 % | 88,5 % |
| Topdanmark | 82,4 % | 91,1 % | 93,3 % | 90,3 % | 88,0 % | 91,5 % | 86,0 % | 87,3 % | 88,7 % |
| Gjensidige | 94,4 % | 94,8 % | 95,3 % | 91,9 % | 85,3 % | 89,2 % | 86,0 % | 83,7 % | 89,4 % |
| If | 91,8 % | 92,1 % | 92,8 % | 92,0 % | 89,3 % | 88,1 % | 87,7 % | 85,4 % | 89,7 % |
| Tryg | 88,2 % | 92,2 % | 98,8 % | 93,2 % | 88,2 % | 87,7 % | 84,2 % | 86,8 % | 89,9 % |
| Codan/Trygg-Hansa1 | 98,5 % | 100,4 % | 101,8 % | 102,4 % | 94,3 % | 95,3 % | 90,4 % | 94,0 % | 96,0 % |
| LF | 93,0 % | 96,0 % | 102,0 % | 100,0 % | 98,0 % | 97,0 % | 93,0 % | 91,0 % | 96,3 % |
| KLP | 97,3 % | 95,5 % | 121,9 % | 118,1 % | 107,8 % | 103,7 % | 91,9 % | 98,8 % | 103,5 % |
| Avg. ex. PRF | 92,2 % | 94,6 % | 100,8 % | 98,3 % | 92,8 % | 93,4 % | 88,5 % | 89,6 % | 93,4 % |
1Numbers for Codan only before merger with Trygg-Hansa in 2015 and RSA Group Scandinavian segment in 2015. Numbers updated through 2015
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | Avg. 08-15 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRF | -2,1 % | 16,1 % | 9,7 % | -2,3 % | 8,9 % | 7,0 % | 5,3 % | 5,2 % | 6,0 % |
| KLP | 0,4 % | 8,3 % | 7,2 % | 4,5 % | 6,5 % | 6,5 % | 6,5 % | 4,4 % | 5,4 % |
| If | -3,1 % | 12,4 % | 7,4 % | 1,8 % | 6,1 % | 5,0 % | 4,1 % | 1,5 % | 4,4 % |
| Tryg | 3,5 % | 6,6 % | 4,3 % | 4,8 % | 5,1 % | 2,5 % | 4,3 % | 0,7 % | 4,0 % |
| Gjensidige | -0,6 % | 5,5 % | 5,2 % | 4,4 % | 5,4 % | 4,3 % | 4,3 % | 2,6 % | 3,9 % |
| Codan/Trygg-Hansa1 | 5,6 % | 5,9 % | 3,5 % | 3,0 % | 3,9 % | -0,4 % | 3,9 % | 3,0 % | 3,6 % |
| Topdanmark | -6,9 % | 7,3 % | 4,8 % | 3,1 % | 6,9 % | 4,1 % | 3,4 % | 1,0 % | 3,0 % |
| LF | -14,0 % | 10,0 % | 6,0 % | -2,0 % | 5,0 % | 6,1 % | 6,5 % | 4,6 % | 2,8 % |
| Avg. ex. PRF | -2,2 % | 8,0 % | 5,5 % | 2,8 % | 5,6 % | 4,0 % | 4,7 % | 2,5 % | 3,9 % |
1Numbers for Codan only before merger with Trygg-Hansa in 2015 and RSA Group Scandinavian segment from 2015
Strong capital position:
Composition of SCR:
Solvency II sensitivities
Figures pr. 30.06 including assumed dividend pay-out of 40 % on H1 result. Interest rate floor of 0 in calculating interest rate sensitivity.
| Full year 2015 | PRF | Rank | Gjensidige | Rank | Tryg | Rank | Topdanmark | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost ratio | 7,5 % | # 1 | 15,1 % | # 2 | 15,3 % | # 3 | 15,9 % | # 4 |
| Combined ratio (2008-2015) | 88,5 % | # 1 | 89,4 % | # 3 | 89,9 % | # 4 | 88,7 % | # 2 |
| share of business outside country of main office2 Geographic diversification - |
43,7 % | # 2 | 27,9 % | # 3 | 48,2 % | # 1 | 0,0 % | # 4 |
| Adj. solvency capital to GPE ratio3 | 71,7 % | # 2 | 85,0 % | # 1 | 54,7 % | # 3 | 52,2 % | # 4 |
| Percentage subordinate loan of adj. solvency capital3 | 7,4 % | # 2 | 6,6 % | # 1 | 17,3 % | # 3 | 46,1 % | # 4 |
| Gross leverage4 | 3,84 | # 2 | 3,54 | # 1 | 5,04 | # 3 | 5,38 | # 4 |
| Return on adj. solvency capital3 | 28,6 % | # 1 | 21,0 % | # 3 | 18,9 % | # 4 | 22,9 % | # 2 |
| ratio (SCR)5 Solvency Capital Requirement |
146 %6 | # 1 |
145 % | # 2 | 122 % | # 3 | 117 % | # 4 |
| Most solid company in the Nordic insurance market | Nr. 1 | 1,5 | Nr. 2 | 2 | Nr. 3 | 3 | Nr. 4 | 3,5 |
| 1Calculations done by Protector with available information from reported financial statements and credit analyses | ||||||||
| 2Calculations for PRF based on 01.01.2016 GWP |
3Adj. solvency capital defined as (shareholder's equity + security provisions - tax on security provision)
4Gross leverage is used to determine how exposed an insurer is to pricing and estimation errors, as well as its exposure to reinsurance companies ((gross premiums + gross reserves - security provision) / adj. solvency cap)
5"Day 1" Solvency II calculations and interpretations in accordance with Solvency II regulation based on standard model. "Day 1" SCR including subordinated loan is 176 %
6Calculations and interpretations are based on Protector's current understanding of the Solvency II regulation and how it will be implemented in Norway
CMD 2016-08-18
CMD 2016-08-18
Good People Great Insurance Attitude Core No Risk Manage Average Target Champion Follow Financial theory Background Losing Market down Buy Traditional Model Financial UW Peers Protector
Float – Illustrative development - Source Fondfinans analysis pg. 12
Vision The Challenger
Business Idea This will happen through unique relationships, best in class decision-making and cost effective solutions
Main targets Cost and quality leadership Profitable growth Top 3
Values Credible Open Bold Committed
| • | Investment Return – Protector vs Peers |
|
|---|---|---|
| Peer outperformance in period before in-house asset management of 1,7 percentage points. Partly explained by higher Norwegian interest rates |
7.0 % 5.8 % 6.0 % 5.2 % 5.0 % 4.1 % |
|
| Historical Performance |
• Peer outperformance in period after in-house asset management of 2,7 percentage points |
4.0 % 2.5 % 3.0 % 2.0 % 1.0 % |
| • Period after insourcing is short and not yet statistically significant |
0.0 % Before insourcing After insourcing Protector Average peers |
Experience and youth – all invested in Protector Shares
Dag Marius Nereng Chief Investment Officer Equities More than 20 years of fund manager experience.
Cathrine Foyn Chief Investment Officer Fixed Income More than 25 years of fund manager experience.
Christoffer Callesen Analyst
Andreas Høye Analyst and IR
Jonas W. Backman Analyst
Investment Strategy Equities
| Philosophy | • Long term oriented (5 years to forever) • Patience – willing to wait for great opportunities • Concentrated portfolio (10-20 holdings) • Focus on continuous improvement of process |
|---|---|
| Type of investments |
• Great companies • Strong management • Price with an implied margin of safety • Profitable growth |
| Main Risks | • No indexing – returns can diverge from index • Key people considerations |
Financial underwriting enables continous improvement of decision making process
| Financial factors | Organisational factors | Industry spesific factors |
Risk factors | OVERALL ASSESSMENT | Top line growth Margin change | Expected dividend |
Price change | Expected return | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Expected | Expected | Expected | Expected | Expected | |||||
| Company 1 | 20% | 0.7 % | 8,3% | 0.0 % | 29.0 % | |||||
| Company 2 | 20% | 1.2 % | 3.2 % | 24.5 % | ||||||
| Company 3 | 22% | 2.0 % | 24.3 % | |||||||
| Company 4 | 10% | 4.0 % | 14.0 % | |||||||
| Company 5 | 10% | 3.9 % | 13.9 % | |||||||
| Company 6 | 8% | 4.0 % | 1.1 % | 13.1 % | ||||||
| Company 7 | 10% | 2.5 % | 12.5 % | |||||||
| Company 8 | 8% | -2.0 % | 3.2 % | 8.9 % | ||||||
| Company 9 | 3% | -3.3 % | 4.6 % | 4.3 % | ||||||
| Company 10 | 4% | -3.3 % | 3.5 % | 4.2 % | ||||||
| Company 11 | 3% | -3.3 % | 3.9 % | 3.6 % | ||||||
| Company 12 | 3% | -3.3 % | 1.6 % | 1.3 % | ||||||
| Company 13 | 3% | -3.3 % | 0.0 % | -0.3 % |
| Financial factors Organisational factors Industry spesific factors Risk factors OVERALL ASSESSMENT Top line growth Margin change Expected dividend | Price change Expected return | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected | |||||||
| Company 1 | 20% 0.7 % 8,3% 0.0 % 29.0 % | |||||||
| Company 2 | 20% 1.2 % 3.2 % | 24.5 % | ||||||
| Company 3 | 22% | 2.0 % | 24.3 % | |||||
| Company 4 | 10% | 4.0 % | 14.0 % | |||||
| Company 5 | 10% | 3.9 % | 13.9 % | |||||
| Company 6 | 8% 4.0 % 1.1 % | 13.1 % | ||||||
| Company 7 | 10% | 2.5 % | 12.5 % | |||||
| Company 8 | 8% -2.0 % 3.2 % | 8.9 % | ||||||
| Company 9 | 3% -3.3 % 4.6 % | 4.3 % | ||||||
| Company 10 | 4% -3.3 % 3.5 % | 4.2 % | ||||||
| Company 11 | 3% -3.3 % 3.9 % | 3.6 % | ||||||
| Company 12 | 3% -3.3 % 1.6 % | 1.3 % | ||||||
| Company 13 | 3% -3.3 % 0.0 % | -0.3 % |
| • Evaluation critera examples: |
|
|---|---|
| Financial | Historical financials (e.g. Growth, Margins, ROE, CF conversion) |
| Factors | Capital structure and debt level |
| • What drove historical performance? Are those drivers intact? |
| • Identify, rank and score risk factors |
|
|---|---|
| Probability | |
| Risk Factors | Consequence |
| Our understanding of risk factors |
| Financial factors Organisational factors Industry spesific factors Risk factors OVERALL ASSESSMENT Top line growth Margin change Expected dividend | Price change Expected return | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected | |||||||
| Company 1 | 20% 0.7 % 8,3% 0.0 % 29.0 % | |||||||
| Company 2 | 20% 1.2 % 3.2 % | 24.5 % | ||||||
| Company 3 | 22% | 2.0 % | 24.3 % | |||||
| Company 4 | 10% | 4.0 % | 14.0 % | |||||
| Company 5 | 10% | 3.9 % | 13.9 % | |||||
| Company 6 | 8% 4.0 % 1.1 % | 13.1 % | ||||||
| Company 7 | 10% | 2.5 % | 12.5 % | |||||
| Company 8 | 8% -2.0 % 3.2 % | 8.9 % | ||||||
| Company 9 | 3% -3.3 % 4.6 % | 4.3 % | ||||||
| Company 10 | 4% -3.3 % 3.5 % | 4.2 % | ||||||
| Company 11 | 3% -3.3 % 3.9 % | 3.6 % | ||||||
| Company 12 | 3% -3.3 % 1.6 % | 1.3 % | ||||||
| Company 13 | 3% -3.3 % 0.0 % | -0.3 % |
| Financial factors Organisational factors Industry spesific factors Risk factors OVERALL ASSESSMENT Top line growth Margin change Expected dividend | Price change Expected return | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected | ||||||
| Company 1 | 20% 0.7 % 8,3% 0.0 % 29.0 % | ||||||
| Company 2 | 20% 1.2 % 3.2 % | 24.5 % | |||||
| Company 3 | 22% | 2.0 % | 24.3 % | ||||
| Company 4 | 10% | 4.0 % | 14.0 % | ||||
| Company 5 | 10% | 3.9 % | 13.9 % | ||||
| Company 6 | 8% 4.0 % 1.1 % | 13.1 % | |||||
| Company 7 | 10% | 2.5 % | 12.5 % | ||||
| Company 8 | 8% -2.0 % 3.2 % | 8.9 % | |||||
| Company 9 | 3% -3.3 % 4.6 % | 4.3 % | |||||
| Company 10 | 4% -3.3 % 3.5 % | 4.2 % | |||||
| Company 11 | 3% -3.3 % 3.9 % | 3.6 % | |||||
| Company 12 | 3% -3.3 % 1.6 % | 1.3 % | |||||
| Company 13 | 3% -3.3 % 0.0 % | -0.3 % |
Example – Salmon Industry
| Factor | Relative Price - Chicken |
Relative Price - Pork |
Relativ pris | Lice per fish | Fish health | Tilbudsvekst bransjen |
Cost per kg | EBIT per kg | Profitability per kg laks |
Fiskemel pris | Fiskeolje pris | Input cost | Selskaps og bransjevurdering |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verdipapir | Trend | Score | Trend | Score | Score | Trend | Score | Trend | Score | Trend Score Trend Score | |||||||
| Company 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Company 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Company 3 | |||||||||||||||||
| Company 4 | |||||||||||||||||
| Company 5 | |||||||||||||||||
| Company 6 |
Objective to identify, measure and monitor:
| Financial factors | Organisational factors | Industry spesific factors |
Risk factors | OVERALL ASSESSMENT | Top line growth Margin change | Expected dividend |
Price change | Expected return | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Expected | Expected | Expected | Expected | Expected | |||||
| Company 1 | 20% | 0.7 % | 8,3% | 0.0 % | 29.0 % | |||||
| Company 2 | 20% | 1.2 % | 3.2 % | 24.5 % | ||||||
| Company 3 | 22% | 2.0 % | 24.3 % | |||||||
| Company 4 | 10% | 4.0 % | 14.0 % | |||||||
| Company 5 | 10% | 3.9 % | 13.9 % | |||||||
| Company 6 | 8% | 4.0 % | 1.1 % | 13.1 % | ||||||
| Company 7 | 10% | 2.5 % | 12.5 % | |||||||
| Company 8 | 8% | -2.0 % | 3.2 % | 8.9 % | ||||||
| Company 9 | 3% | -3.3 % | 4.6 % | 4.3 % | ||||||
| Company 10 | 4% | -3.3 % | 3.5 % | 4.2 % | ||||||
| Company 11 | 3% | -3.3 % | 3.9 % | 3.6 % | ||||||
| Company 12 | 3% | -3.3 % | 1.6 % | 1.3 % | ||||||
| Company 13 | 3% | -3.3 % | 0.0 % | -0.3 % |
In-house managed equity portfolio
In-house managed equity portfolio
In-house managed portfolio vs OSEBX
| Key Figures | In-house Managed Portfolio |
OSEBX |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 95 % | 6 % |
| Std dev |
15 % | 17 % |
| EPS Delta | 70 % | -20 % |
| Dividend yield | 1,8 % | 3,8% |
| P/E NTM | 15,1 | 15,3 |
| 3 yr sales CAGR |
22 % | 3 % |
| 3 yr EPS CAGR |
30 % | -5 % |
Investment performance evaluated over the long term
Investment Strategy Fixed Income
• Well diversified investment grade portfolio
Philosophy
Changes in fixed income portfolio
| Financial factors |
Organisational factors |
Industry spesific factors |
Risk factors | OVERALL ASSESSMENT |
Rating | Protector rating |
Credit duration |
Spread E(loss) | b p |
E(return) ex reference rate |
E(return)/Capital employed |
PRF Investment % |
Investment PRF/Amount issued (Nominal value) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security | Annet | |||||||||||||
| Company 1 | BB | BBB+ | 1,49 | 210 | 6 | 204 | 18,1 | 1,2 % | 6,00 % | |||||
| Company 2 | AA- | A A |
0,53 | 20 | 1 | 19 | 14,3 | 0,6 % | 4,00 % | |||||
| Company 3 | AA+ | AA+ | 3,35 | 47 | 1 | 45 | 5,4 | 0,7 % | 0,45 % | |||||
| Company 4 | BBB- | BBB | 1,54 | 154 | 16 | 138 | 19,8 | 1,8 % | 9,00 % | |||||
| Company 5 | BBB | BBB | 1,72 | 119 | 17 | 103 | 23,1 | 0,6 % | 5,00 % | |||||
| Company 6 | A - |
A - |
3,48 | 88 | 8 | 80 | 5,1 | 0,7 % | 1,14 % | |||||
| Company 7 | BB | BB+ | 2,21 | 279 | 48 | 231 | 116,1 | 1,2 % | 8,00 % | |||||
| Company 8 | BB | BB+ | 0,53 | 208 | 33 | 175 | 368,7 | 0,6 % | 5,00 % | |||||
| Company 9 | BBB+ | BBB+ | 3,11 | 91 | 16 | 75 | 17,3 | 0,4 % | 3,00 % | |||||
| Company 10 | AA+ | AA+ | 1,86 | 31 | 2 | 29 | 6,3 | 0,6 % | 9,00 % | |||||
| Company 11 | BB | BB- | 1,87 | 274 | 115 | 159 | 94,2 | 1,3 % | 6,43 % | |||||
| Company 12 | B+ | B- | 4,05 | 613 | 404 | 209 | 20,7 | 0,8 % | 0,54 % | |||||
| Company 13 | AA- | BBB+ | 2,53 | 63 | 15 | 48 | 4,2 | 0,1 % | 0,29 % | |||||
| Financial Financial Financial factors factors factors |
Organisational Organisational Organisational factors factors factors |
Industry Industry Industry spesific spesific spesific factors factors |
Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors |
OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT |
Rating Rating Rating |
Protector Protector Protector rating rating rating |
Credit Credit Credit duration duration duration |
Spread E(loss) Spread Spread E(loss) b b p |
E(loss) b p p |
E(return) ex E(return) ex E(return) ex reference reference reference rate rate rate |
E(return)/Capital PRF E(return)/Capital E(return)/Capital Investment Investment employed employed employed % % |
PRF PRF Investment % |
Investment Investment Investment PRF/Amount issued PRF/Amount issued PRF/Amount issued (Nominal value) (Nominal value) (Nominal value) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security Security Security |
factors | Annet Annet Annet |
||||||||||||
| Company 7 Company 7 Company 1 |
BB BB BB |
BB+ BB+ BBB+ |
2,21 2,21 1,49 |
279 279 48 210 6 |
48 | 231 231 204 |
116,1 116,1 1,8 % 18,1 1,2 % |
1,8 % | 8,00 % 8,00 % 6,00 % |
|||||
| Company 11 Company 12 Company 2 |
BB AA- B+ |
BB- A B- A |
1,87 0,53 4,05 |
274 613 20 404 1 |
115 | 159 209 19 |
94,2 14,3 20,7 0,6 % 0,8 % |
1,3 % | 6,43 % 4,00 % 0,54 % |
|||||
| Company 5 Company 1 Company 4 |
BBB BBB- BB |
BBB BBB+ BBB |
1,72 1,54 1,49 |
119 154 210 16 6 |
17 | 103 138 204 |
23,1 19,8 18,1 0,7 % 1,2 % |
1,2 % | 5,00 % 9,00 % 6,00 % |
|||||
| Company 1 Company 7 Company 8 |
BB BB BB |
BBB+ BB+ BB+ |
1,49 2,21 0,53 |
210 279 48 208 33 |
6 | 204 231 175 |
18,1 116,1 1,8 % 368,7 0,6 % |
1,2 % | 6,00 % 8,00 % 5,00 % |
|||||
| Company 12 Company 8 Company 11 |
BB B+ BB |
BB+ B- BB- |
0,53 4,05 1,87 |
208 613 33 274 115 |
404 | 175 209 159 |
368,7 20,7 0,6 % 94,2 1,3 % |
0,8 % | 5,00 % 0,54 % 6,43 % |
|||||
| Company 3 Company 4 Company 4 |
AA+ BBB- BBB- |
AA+ BBB BBB |
3,35 1,54 1,54 |
47 1 154 154 16 |
16 | 45 138 138 |
5,4 0,7 % 19,8 19,8 0,7 % |
0,7 % | 0,45 % 9,00 % 9,00 % |
|||||
| Company 5 Company 3 Company 5 |
BBB AA+ BBB |
BBB AA+ BBB |
1,72 3,35 1,72 |
119 17 47 119 17 |
1 | 103 45 103 |
23,1 1,2 % 5,4 23,1 1,2 % |
0,7 % | 5,00 % 0,45 % 5,00 % |
|||||
| Company 6 Company 6 Company 6 |
A - A - A - |
A - A - A - |
3,48 3,48 3,48 |
88 8 88 88 8 |
8 | 80 80 80 |
5,1 0,6 % 5,1 5,1 0,6 % |
0,6 % | 1,14 % 1,14 % 1,14 % |
|||||
| Company 9 Company 10 Company 9 |
BBB+ AA+ BBB+ |
BBB+ AA+ BBB+ |
3,11 1,86 3,11 |
91 16 31 91 16 |
2 | 75 29 75 |
17,3 0,4 % 6,3 17,3 0,4 % |
0,6 % | 3,00 % 9,00 % 3,00 % |
|||||
| Company 10 Company 2 Company 13 |
AA+ AA- AA- |
AA+ A A BBB+ |
1,86 0,53 2,53 |
31 2 20 63 15 |
1 | 29 19 48 |
6,3 0,6 % 14,3 4,2 0,1 % |
0,6 % | 9,00 % 4,00 % 0,29 % |
|||||
| Company 11 Company 8 Company 3 |
BB BB AA+ |
BB- BB+ AA+ |
1,87 0,53 3,35 |
274 115 208 47 1 |
33 | 159 175 45 |
94,2 1,3 % 368,7 5,4 0,7 % |
0,6 % | 6,43 % 5,00 % 0,45 % |
|||||
| Company 12 Company 9 Company 10 |
B+ BBB+ AA+ |
B- BBB+ AA+ |
4,05 3,11 1,86 |
613 404 91 31 2 |
16 | 209 75 29 |
20,7 0,8 % 17,3 6,3 0,6 % |
0,4 % | 0,54 % 3,00 % 9,00 % |
|||||
| Company 13 Company 13 Company 2 |
AA- AA- AA- |
BBB+ A A BBB+ |
2,53 0,53 2,53 |
63 15 20 63 1 |
15 | 48 19 48 |
4,2 0,1 % 14,3 4,2 0,6 % |
0,1 % | 0,29 % 4,00 % 0,29 % |
Average rating: BBB
In-house managed portfolio
Period: 31.03.2015 – 30.06.2016
In-house managed Portfolio vs Peers
In-house managed portfolio
| Portfolio data 30.06.2016 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size MNOK | 3414 | ||||||||
| Yield | 3,5 % | ||||||||
| Duration | 0,40 | ||||||||
| Credit duration | 3,26 | ||||||||
| Average rating | BBB | ||||||||
| Official ratings | 37,4 % |
Performance – In house managed portfolio vs. Index (31.03.2015 – 30.06.2016)
Investment performance evaluated over the long term
Good People Great Insurance Attitude Core No Risk Manage Average Target Champion Follow Financial Theory Background Losing Market down Buy Traditional Model Financial UW
Peers Protector
CMD 2016-08-18
Hans Didring (36) - Country Manager Sweden
M.Sc. in Business Administration and Economics B.Sc. in Computer Engineering Bachelor thesis completed inGermany
7 years of experience; If and Länsforsäkringar
Vision The Challenger
Business Idea This will happen through unique relationships, best in class decision-making and cost effective solutions
Main targets Cost and quality leadership Profitable growth Top 3
Values Credible Open Bold Committed
Protector receives the highest score when brokers are asked to rank insurance companies according tohow satisfied they are with their service and offerings
| Program | Broker | Net Annual Premium PQ1 |
Net Growth PQ1 |
Hit rate PQ1 |
Earned Premiu m HTD |
Clams- % HTD |
Claims- % Q1 |
5 1- y nc e effici ost C |
5 n 1- k-i oc L |
5 g 1- n pi e e k e at G |
5 g 1- n Prici |
Totalt score 1-5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A | 46 | 3 | N/A | 112* | 80% | 80% | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 2 | B | 27 | 0 | 70% | 44 | 72% | 46% | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| 3 | C | 27 | 0 | 8% | 19 | 87% | 89% | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| 4 | D | 23 | 0 | Ny | 7 | 45% | 45% | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| 5 | E | 10 | 1 | 100% | 4 | 70% | 85% | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 6 | F | 11 | 0 | N/A | 8 | 94% | 59% | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 7 | G | 12 | 3 | 67% | 20 | 75% | 129% | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| 8 | H | 7 | 0 | 86% | 12 | 73% | 54% | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Total >5 mSek | 163 | 8 | 55% | 226 | 74% | 72% | 3,5 | 3 | 4 | 3,5 | 3,5 | |
| Grand Total | 181 | 9 | 53% | 247 | 74% | 69% | 3,5 | 3,4 | 3 | 3 | 3,5 | |
| Motor | 78 | 4 | 32% | 91 | 80% | 64% | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | |
| Property | 50 | 2 | 65% | 37 | 65% | 53% | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
| Liability | 49 | 3 | N/A | 114 | 78% | 79% | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
| Person | 5 | 0 | N/A | 5 | 53% | 58% | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| [1.000.000 NOK] | H1 2016 | FY 2015 | FY 2014 | FY 2013 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross premiums written | 632.4 | 520.7 | 325.4 | 147.4 | Strong growth | |
| Gross premiums earned | 360.2 | 493.9 | 298.9 | 137.3 | ||
| Gross claims incurred | (223.4) | (386.5) | (233.8) | (129.7) | ||
| Earned premiums, net of reinsurance | 276.6 | 394.5 | 229.7 | 96.6 | ||
| Claims incurred, net of reinsurance | (201.6) | (298.7) | (188.7) | (99.6) | ||
| Net commission income | 9.7 | (6.6) | (3.8) | 5.0 | ||
| Operating expenses | (23.9) | (37.8) | (33.7) | (22.0) | ||
| Other income/costs | (0.1) | (0.2) | (0.6) | 0.1 | ||
| Net financial income | 6.3 | 12.9 | 11.6 | 4.5 | ||
| Operating profit before tax | 66.9 | 64.1 | 14.5 | (15.4) | ||
| Claims ratio, net of ceded business | (1) | 72.9 % | 75.7 % | 82.1 % | 103.2 % | |
| Expense ratio, net of ceded business | (2) | 5.1 % | 11.2 % | 16.3 % | 17.6 % | |
| Combined ratio, net of ceded business | (3) | 78.0 % | 87.0 % | 98.5 % | 120.7 % | Improved profitability |
| Gross claims ratio | (4) | 62.0 % | 78.3 % | 78.2 % | 94.5 % | |
| Gross expense ratio | (5) | 14.3 % | 13.0 % | 16.5 % | 19.0 % | |
| Gross expense ratio excl. commissions | 6.6 % | 7.7 % | 11.3 % | 16.0 % | Improved expense ratio |
|
| Gross combined ratio | (6) | 76.3 % | 91.3 % | 94.7 % | 113.5 % |
1) Claims incurred, net of reinsurance in % of earned premiums, net of reinsurance
2) Operating expenses in % of earned premiums, net of reinsurance
3) Net claims ratio + net expense ratio
4) Gross claims incurred in % of gross premiums earned
5) Sales and administration costs in % of gross premiums earned
6) Gross claims ratio + gross expense ratio
Critical mass in 2015 (NOK 520m)
Continued profitable growth
Use "center of excellence competence" within Affinity- and Motor segment outside Sweden
Education: BSc in Finance, Leeds School of Business (University of Colorado), BSc in Economics, College of Arts and Sciences (University of Colorado)
Relevant experience: 9 years of experience from insurance and projects in Protector
By gradually transferring to «all business is local business»
Commercial sector; biggest potential, Public sector; entry point
GWP – Public Sector (MNOK)
| P2014 | Risk appetite (volume) | Hit-ratio% (volume) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Norway | Volume | Green | Yellow | Red | Green | Yellow | Red |
| Person | 118,3 | 63% | 34 % | 3% | 44 % | 20 % | 0 % |
| Skade | 93,1 | 33 % | 42% | 25 % | 71% | 36 % | 2 % |
| Total | 211,5 | 50 % | 37 % | 13 % | 52% | 28 % | 1% |
| Sweden | Volume | Green | Yellow | Red | Green | Yellow | Red |
| Kommun | 64,9 | 25 % | 38 % | 37 % | 86 % | 50 % | 0% |
| Motor | 52,8 | 40% | 39 % | 20 % | 64% | 73 % | 69 % |
| Olycksfall | 31,7 | 65 % | 35 % | 0% | 73 % | 64 % | 0% |
| Fastighet | 44,9 | 13 % | 42% | 45 % | 30 % | 29 % | 0% |
| Total | 194,2 | 35 % | 39 % | 27 % | 64 % | 42 % | 0% |
| Denmark | Volume | Green | Yellow | Red | Green | Yellow | Red |
| Kommun | 28,3 | 43 % | 39 % | 18 % | 67% | 52 % | 2% |
| Motor | 5,5 | 60% | 35 % | 5% | 59% | 17 % | 100 % |
| Boligselskap | 20,0 | 23 % | 52 % | 25 % | 13 % | 0% | 0% |
| Total | 53,7 | 52% | 28 % | 1% | 53% | 26 % | 3% |
| Scandinavia | Volume | Green | Yellow | Red | Green | Yellow | Red |
| Person | 152,4 | 63 % | 34 % | 3 % | 50 % | 30 % | 3 % |
| Skade | 242,1 | 34 % | 40 % | 26 % | 72 % | 49 % | 13 % |
| Boligselskap | 64,9 | 16 % | 45 % | 39 % | 23 % | 19 % | 0% |
| Total | 459,4 | 41 % | 39 % | 20 % | 58% | 38 % | 9% |
Green: Highly attractive customers
Yellow: Attractive customers – at sustainable premiums
Red: Will be tendered for at higher premium levels. Tailored solutions do exist
Public sector
CMD 2016-08-18
1000 pages of analysis
November 2015 – First employees on board in Manchester
Public
| Ranking | Total score | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | UK | 4,45 |
| $\overline{2}$ | Netherlands | 4,18 |
| $\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\overline{\over$ | Norway | 4,00 |
| 4 | Belgium | 3,78 |
| 5 | Denmark | 3,63 |
| 6 | Sweden | 3,60 |
| 7 | Finland | 3,35 |
| 8 | Germany | 3,13 |
| 9 | Switzerland | 3,08 |
| 10 | Poland | 3,05 |
| Austria | 1.85 |
| Ranking | Total score | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Netherlands | 3,90 |
| $\overline{2}$ | Belgium | 3,88 |
| 3 | Germany | 3,79 |
| 4 | UK | 3,60 |
| 5 | Denmark | 3,58 |
| 6 | Norway | 3,48 |
| 7 | Sweden | 3,38 |
| 8 | Poland | 3,15 |
| 9 | Finland | 3,12 |
| 10 | Switzerland | 2,99 |
| Austria | 2,10 |
| Austria | Belgium | Germany | Netherlands | Poland | Switzerland | United Kingdom | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score | ||||||||||||||
| 1 Product Mix | 2 | 0.40 | 3 | 0.67 | 3 | 0.67 | 4 | 0.80 | 4 | 0.73 | 3 | 0.60 | 5 | 0.93 | |
| 2 Cost ratios | 3 | 1.07 | 4 | 1.47 | 3 | 1.20 | 4 | 1.60 | 4 | 1.60 | 3 | 1.20 | 4 | 1.60 | |
| 3.0 Market combined ratios | 2 | 0.20 | 4 | 0.35 | 2 | 0.23 | 3 | 0.28 | 3 | 0.30 | 3 | 0.30 | 4 | 0.35 | |
| 4.0 Brokers' position | 1 | 0.25 | 4 | 0.92 | 2 | 0.58 | 4 | 1.00 | 2 | 0.42 | 3 | 0.67 | 4 | 1.08 | |
| 5.0 Cultural challenges | 1 | 0.05 | 3 | 0.13 | 4 | 0.18 | 5 | 0.23 | 2 | 0.10 | 3 | 0.13 | 4 | 0.20 | |
| Total | 1.97 | 3.53 | 2.85 | 3.90 | 3.15 | 2.89 | 4.17 |
CMD 2016-08-18
Source: Statista.com
Affinity business, notably through retailers or utilities, account for approx. 6% of the market. Insurance products do not always carry the name of the insurer, but of the seller ("white label products"). Those are mainly limited to personal business
* MS = Market Share
Source: UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) / Other information from Aon. Figures are rough estimates only
* The 6 Metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council are no longer official administrative divisions, but some local services controlled by the metropolitan / London boroughs remain provided on a county-wide basis and are administered by statutory joint boards composed of boroughs' members
** 56 English, 32 Scottish & 22 Welsh Unitary Authorities
UK public sector
| Zurich Municipal | RMP | QBE (via RMP) | AIG (via RMP) | Aspen | Maven Public Sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELong-standing reputation . Wide range of product, Property as a strength . Direct writing and close customer relationships . Diversified customer base . Cost-efficient in-house claims handling with customer online tool |
• Large capabilities in claims handling and risk management services · Long-standing reputation . Wide range of product, Liability as a strength . Diversified customer base · Online resource database |
* Access to large volume of business via RMP Good reputation for Liability Track record of good technical performance • Willingness to cover risks that other insurers Yoow |
* Access to large volumes of business via RMP · Improving underwriting performance · Writes mainly Property and Personal Accident |
· Good reputation in Property · Cost efficient · Good value added with noline risk management tool · Well diversified. well capitalised. strongly rated |
* Key personnel bring market experience and expertise · Competitive pricing through simple offering with focus on main LoB · Collaboration with A-rated insurers |
| . Authorities do not always prefer exclusive direct distribution model Considered difficult for large claims pay-out . High cost ratio (25% - 2013) Decline in premium income over the past years |
. High dependency on partners' risk appetite . Considered difficult for large claims pay-out • Considered to be lacking flexibility · Outsourcing of key services can drive cost |
. High cost ratio driven by a 18.3% commission ratio · Vulnerable to adverse claims experience |
· High cost ratio at 28.6% in 2014. driven by acquisition costs of 15.7% • Wording and pricing are not considered among the most competitive * Reputational image due to past financial problems |
· Considered as inconsistent and selective due to focus on high quality. risks and irreqular quoting · Extremely poor cost efficiency · Rather weak underwriting performance · Weak image in Liability |
. Not included in the current insurance framework · Very new to the market · High dependency on partners' risk appetite · Outsourced claims handling |
| • Can influence market underwriting standards Customer loyalty promotion |
• Can influence market underwriting standards . Increasing role of brokers could help to win business |
· Good reputation among · Good reputation brokers |
among brokers · Can improve policy wording or expand to other lines to grow in the market |
· Recently increased capacity in Liability to meet market standards (GBP) 15m to 25m) · Good reputation among brokers |
· Joining the new framework likely to increase market presence and premium · Potential to grow quickly · Can benefit from building relationships with brokers |
| . Increasing role of brokers for local authorities . New competitors' aggressive rates and as customers' focus on price increases |
. Main partners AIG and QBE could decide to reduce appetite " Rising exposure to Liability and Motor risks poses challenges . New competitors' aggressive rates and customers' focus on price |
· Rising exposure to Liability and Motor risks poses challenges · Influence of RMP on policy wording and pricing can limit ability to adapt to market changes |
· Influence of RMP on policy wording and pricing can limit ability to adapt to market changes Strong competition from other players (Zurich as well as smaller players) on Property and Personal Accident |
· Toughening competition against small players more frequently quoting |
· Might suffer from competition from RMP · Partners could decide to reduce appetite · Worsening Liability and Motor claims experience can put pressure on competitive pricing |
| ΔΔ. | Δ+ | Aa3 | · Miscellaneo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | stable | stable | |
| ΔΔ. | Δ+ | $-11'000$ en | |
| positive | stable | ٠ | ---------- |
UK more than twice the size of the Nordic Market
| UK | Norway | Sweden | Denmark | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of municipalities | 406 (12 regions) |
430 (19 regions) | 290 (21 regions) | 98 (5 regions) |
| Population | 62 000 000 | 5 000 000 | 10 000 000 | 5 600 000 |
| Number of employees | 5 700 000 | 570 000 | 930 000 |
510 000 |
| Number of cars | 200 000 | 30 000 | 60 000 | 39 0000 |
| MNOK TSI (buildings) |
6 500 000 | 500 000 | 900 000 | 650 000 |
| MNOK market size (est) | 6 000 | 1 000 | 650 | 600 |
| UK | Norway | Sweden | Denmark | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product lines |
All lines ex GL | All lines |
All lines ex personal | All lines ex personal |
| Broker share | Medium (~55 %*) |
------------------------------------High (~80 %)---------------------------------- | ||
| Competitors | Zurich, RMP, (Travelers) |
KLP, PRF, (Gjensidige) |
PRF, LF, (TH) | Gjensidige, PRF |
| Tender process | EU regulation |
EU regulation |
EU regulation |
EU regulation |
* Zurich, market leader is direct only, broker involvement significantly higher (~80 %)
Initiated through Market Leader Aon
| Meetings 2015 |
Agenda | Key take out |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| • | March London | • Introductions with market leader Aon Management |
• • |
Warmly welcomed by professionals Partnership in growth |
| • | June Manchester | • Introductions Aon Manchester team • Test tender, example |
• • |
Data and market information Tender feedback |
| • | July Manchester | • Market analysis and surveys • Verification of business assumptions |
• • |
Business assumptions OK Business model transferrable |
| • | September Manchester | • Update project C4 • Tender pipeline |
• | Continued support |
| • | November Manchester | • Claims handling • Protector UK team, recruitment |
• | Protector UK on board Manchester ready for business |
Quickly Increasing Protector's Knowledge
| Produkt - delbarhet* | Navn på produkt i UK | Beskrivelse av produktet | Norsk produkt | Andel $\ddotsc$ |
Aktuelt for Protector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PD-exleisure PD - leisure/andre spesielle byee** |
Skade på ejendom, brann, vann, flom med mer Tidvis er elementer av ting-porteføljen skilt ut for å få separat premie, men er ikke delbart |
||||
| Tine | RI-exleisure BI-leisure/andre spesielle byzg** All risks - general |
Avbrudd, tap av inntekter Avbrudd, tap av inntekter All risk for skade/tap av ting. Utvalgte objekter |
Tine | 25% | Ia |
| Ting (delbart) | Glass Money Leasehold Flats** |
Glass Ran, tweri av penger/verdisaker fra ansatte Elementer av tingportefølje delbart (her leieboliger) |
|||
| Ting (delbart) | Heritage Buildings** | Elementer av tingportefølje delbart (her bygg av historisk betydning) |
|||
| Ansvar | Employers' liability Public products liability Officials Indemnity Libel & slander Proffesional indemnity |
Yrkesskade (men ikke helt det samme produktet) Ansvar offentlie og for produkter solet/levert Økonomisk tap påført andre i kraft av utført arbeid Ærekrenkelse og bakvaskelse Økonomisk tap som følge av uaktsomhet hos kommunen |
Ansvar | 43% | In |
| Public Health act Land Charges |
Tap som følge av etterlevelse av stans i arbeid etter beordring Byggetillatelser og offentlig feliaktig informasion |
N/A Ansvar |
|||
| Skadeoppgjør ansvar | Liability Claims handling Services | Skadeoppgiør | Ansvar | 5% | Ja. |
| Motor | Floot motor | Ansvar og kasko kjøretøy | Motor | 16% | Ja. |
| Byggherreansvar | Contract works all risks | Byggherreansvar | Ansvar | < 1% | Ja. |
| EDB/verdisaker | Computer | EDB, inkl gjenoppretting og avbrudd | Ting | < 1% | Ja. |
| Kollektiv ulvkke og reiseforsikringer |
Group Personal Accident Rusiness travel School Journey |
Utbetaling ved ulvkke og død Reiseforsikrine Reiseforsikring for skoleturer |
Ulvkke Reiseforsikring Ansvar |
1% | Delvis |
| Kriminalitet | Crime/Fidelity Garantee | Tap som følge av svindel eller underslag utført av ansatte | Ansvar | 2% | In |
| Engienør-inspeksjon og ansvarsforsikring |
Engineering and inspection | Inspeksion og sertifisering av maskiner, inkl ansvarsforsikring | N/A | 3% | Senere |
| Verdigjenstander | Fine art | Orførerkiede, kunst o.l. | Ting | 1% | Ja. |
| Terrorisme | Terrorism | Skader som følge av terror. Omfatning ofte som for ting | Nei | 3% | Senere |
| Medisinsk ansvar | Medical Malpractice** | Begrenset ansvar. For eksempel medisin fra helsesøster | Nei | < 196 | Senere |
| Styreansvar | D&O liability** | Styreansyar / ansyar for ledende personell | Ansvar | < 196 | Ja |
| Cyber Liability | Oyber Liability** | Cyber Liability | N/A | 1% | Senere |
| Rettshjelp | Lecal Expenses** | Rettshielp | Ansvar | 436 | Senere |
| Båter | Marine (commercial craft) AWACS** | Småbåter, bøyer, installasioner på hav | Motor | <1% | Senere |
Scale 1-5, only brokered customers
| Region | General information |
Description of requirements |
Claims history |
Exposure information |
Efficient tender process |
Evaluation | Total (weighted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom |
3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Norway | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Sweden | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Denmark | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
Based on discussions with leading public sector brokers, we found that:
CMD 2016-08-18
| Sub-Project | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| Market Analysis |
||
| Business planning |
||
| Go to Market | ||
| Formal Establishment |
||
| Recruitment | ||
| Reinsurance | ||
| Great Lakes | ||
| Practical & office space |
||
| IT & Systems | ||
| Service & Claims handling |
||
| Capital requirements |
||
| = Completed | = on schedule |
| Sub-Project | Status |
|---|---|
| Pub Attack | |
| Tools 4 Trade | |
| Claims Surprise |
|
| 5x20 | |
| Operational Excellence |
|
| Formal Establishment |
| Timeline | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competence | Profile | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | Capacity UW Cla Re Br Mgmt Edu Exp Age? Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UW manager casualty | 1 x x x x 2+ Deg/CII 10+ 35-50 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UW casualty | 1 x | x | Deg/CII 3+ 30 - 40 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| UW manager property | 1 x x x x 2+ Deg/CII 10+ 35-50 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development UW | 1 | x | Deg 5+ 35 - 40 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Commercial combined UW 2 x | x | Deg 2+ 25 - 35 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| UW motor / bus / truck | 0 x | x | Deg 5+ 30 - 40 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analyst / UW | 3 | Deg/M 0+ <30 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Claims manager | 1 | x x x | Deg/CII 10+ 35-40 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Claims handler casualty | 4 | x | x | Deg/CII? 5+ 25-40 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Claims handler motor | 3 | x | x | ? 5+ 25-40 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Motor technician | 1 | ? | ? 10+ 25-35 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Claims handler property | 1 | x | x | Deg/CII? 5+ 25-40 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Risk-engineer property | 2 x | x | Deg/M 10+ | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| UW assistant | 2 | x | ? 3+ <35 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Regional Manager | 1 x x x x | Deg/CII 10+ 40-45 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Actuary / UW | 1 x | x x | M 5+ | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| "Secretary" / Office assistant 1 | 4+ 22 - 30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 | 3 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Search | Signing | Start date |
Signings 2016 depending on development of market penetration We will normally get customer acceptance 2 mths prior to inception date
Norwegian Resources in the UK
| As an employee in Protector I will: |
As an employee in Protector I will: |
Day to day examples |
|---|---|---|
| Communicate respectfully and directly, with the relevant person |
Understand and live what the challenger means in my role. |
Understand company and individual objectives, and how these relate to being the Challenger Be creative, use my own ٠ initiative and challenge the status quo Believe and achieve |
| Always strive to be creative |
Have the courage of my convictions no matter what the situation |
Proactively approach ٠ difficult conversations. Tackle difficult tasks straight away. Have the confidence to stand up for what I believe in |
| Always have a positive mind-set |
Talk about mistakes to ensure everyone learns from them |
Acknowledge, learn from and share mistakes collectively Understand the cause and remedy |
| Take suggestion and constructive feedback as an opportunity to develop and improve |
Challenge myself and continuously reach for the next level. |
Actively seek more knowledge and more responsibility Strive to be great and go the extra mile |
| As an employee in Protector I will: |
As an employee in Protector I will: |
Day to day examples |
|---|---|---|
| Understand the requirements of my role and be able to deliver accordingly. |
Understand, and live what the challenger means in my role |
Understand company an individual objectives, an how these relate to bein the Challenger Be creative, use my own initiative and challenge the status quo |
| Believe and achieve | ||
| Collect, share and make use of relevant facts. |
Have the courage of my convictions no matter what the situation |
Proactively approach difficul conversations Tackle difficult tasks straight ٠ away Have the confidence to stan ٠ up for what I believe in |
| Deliver on time, every time | Talk about mistakes to ensure everyone learns from them |
Acknowledge, learn from and share mistakes: collectively Understand the cause and ۰ remedy |
| Recognise my expertise. and that of my colleagues - and ask for assistance where necessary |
Challenge myself and continuously reach for the next level |
Actively seek more ٠ knowledge and more responsibility Strive to be great and go the ٠ extra mile |
| As an employee in Protector am it | Day to day examples | As an employee in Protector I will: |
|---|---|---|
| A dedicated and enthusiastic team player |
Take ownership of my own and the team's role and ٠ responsibilities and lead by example Have a positive attitude and a willingness to help crhort. Support my colleagues and work as a team. |
Understand and live what the challenger means in my role |
| Build confidence and motivation in order to create a strong team |
Encourage and praise colleagues. Always show my colleagues respect. Offer recognition where it is deserved Be considerate of others' needs, workloads and deadlines |
Have the courage of my convictions no matter what the situation |
| Seek the little improvements | Actively seek new and better ways of doing my job Be aware of and committed to Protectors business. and poals. Challenge myself to add value |
Talk about mistakes to ensure everyone learns from them |
| Adhere to company strategy, processes and procedures |
Choose to see opportunities, not limitations ٠ Contribute towards decisions and embrace the outcomes Ensure that I understand the way we do things, and saling |
Challenge myself and continuously reach for the next level |
| As an employee in Protector I will: | Day to day examples |
|---|---|
| Understand and live what the challenger means in my role |
Understand company and individual objective and how these relate to being the Challenger Be creative, use my own initiative and challenge the status guo Believe and achieve |
| Have the courage of my convictions no matter what the situation |
Proactively approach difficult conversations Tackle difficult tasks straight away Have the confidence to stand up for what I believe in |
| Talk about mistakes to ensure everyone learns from them |
Acknowledge, learn from and share mistakes collectively. Understand the cause and remedy |
| Challenge myself and continuously reach for the next level |
Actively seek more knowledge and more responsibility Strive to be great and go the extra mile. |
At least market standards / brokers' requirement
Reports with results delivered
| 1. | Speed of response | |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Tone of Voice | |
| 3. | Technical knowledge | |
| 4. | Correct settlement | |
| 80 | 5. | Overall Assessment |
Transfering methodology and culture from Scandinavia
CMD 2016-08-18
| Property | Casualty | Fleet | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sums insured | Claim years |
# Claims / sum claims |
Sums insured |
Claim years |
# Claims / sum claims |
Sums insured | Claim years |
# Claims / sum claims |
|||||
| UK | • £600bn |
• 10 years |
• 15k claims • £120m losses |
• £50bn wages • 2m empl. |
• 10 years |
• 60k claims • £500m losses* |
• 75k vehicle years |
• 6 years |
• 21k claims • £47m losses |
||||
| Norway | • £430bn |
• 8 years |
• 5,5k claims • £150m losses |
• £190bn turnover • 3,5m empl. |
• 8 years |
• 2,5k claims • £21m losses |
• 186k vehicle years |
• 6 years |
• 22k claims • £44m losses |
||||
| Sweden | • £430bn |
• 8 years |
• 3,1k claims • £190m losses |
• £105bn turnover |
• 8 years |
• 5,5k claims • £25m losses |
• 250k vehicle years |
• 4 years |
• 40k claims • £30m losses |
||||
| Denmark | • £200bn |
• 5 years |
• 9k claims • £105m losses |
• £35bn wages |
• 5 years |
• 5k claims • £6m losses |
• 100k Vehicle years |
• 4 years |
• 2,3k claims • £3,5m losses |
Public statistics – and other go/no go indicators
• Risk mapping and conclusion presented in a easy-to-read manner
| Inc 0 | Inc 0 | > ded | > ded | Inc 0 | > ded | Inc 0 | > ded |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nr of claims total inc |
Per year | Nr of claims > dedu |
Per year |
Per FTE per year |
Per FTE per year |
Per wage |
Per wage |
| 0 | |||||||
| 190 | 1 | 4 118,6 | 8,82 | 0,85 % | 529 % | 0,26 | 0,16 |
| 641 | 61,03 | 437 41,64 | 0,51 % | 349 % | 0,15 | 0,11 | |
| 321 | 2 | 1 180,1 11,70 | 0,26 % | 148 % | 0,09 | 0,05 | |
| 112 | 1 2 |
7 6 |
8,04 | 0,27 % | 186 % | 0,11 | 0,07 |
| 195 | 35,91 138,1 25,44 | 0,27 % | 190,63 % | 0,14 | 0,10 | ||
| 6 1 |
6 | 40,6 | 3,89 | 0,13 % | 88 % | 0,06 | 0,04 |
| 82 | 9 | 30,8 | 3,23 | 0,28 % | 105 % | 0,09 | 0,03 |
| 88 | 9 | 34,2 | 3,33 | 0,23 % | 90 % | 0,12 | 0,05 |
| 172 | 2 | 7 106,0 16,71 | 0,32 % | 198 % | 0,13 | 0,08 |
Summary
| Client | Lots | Current Insurer | EML/Limit k | Aggregate | Existing Excess | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA Type | UA | PDBI | Zurich Municipal | |||
| Housing Properties General |
£5,000 each and every loss £5,000 each and every loss |
|||||
| Broker Contact |
Flats Playground Equipment |
£100,000,000 any one occurrence |
250 000 | £5,000 each and every loss £50/£2,500 £5,000 each and every loss |
||
| Required Rating | Fine Arts | Ecclesiastical | ||||
| Contract Works (All Risks) | Zurich Municipal | |||||
| Submission | Terrorism | Maven Underwriters | ||||
| Portal | Combined Liability Employers' Liability Public/Products Liability |
Travelers | 370 000 | 25 000 50 000 |
||
| Motor Fleet | AIG | £5,000 ADTFWS/ Nil TP | ||||
| Fidelity Guarantee/Crime | Zurich Municipal | |||||
| Deadline | 14th July 2016 at 12 noon | Engineering Insurance and Statutory Inspection RSA | ||||
| Inception | 1st October 2016 | Computer | RSA | |||
| QA deadline | 30th June 2016 | Cyber Liability | AIG | |||
| Total Fire | Arson | Fire (no argon) Index Index Gross $Avez =$ Free = Avg 7 0.15 $\sim$ ٠ 0.04 2.012 6.033 0.12 0.05 × ٠ 0.42 0.04 COAT CES 860 360 0.05 0.05 0.19 21936 10 124 0.09 289 213 0.12 0.01 30,443 0.00 94,643 132,500 0.06 |
||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross | Indiest | Gross | School | Gross | Index! | Gross | Feliped | Gross | ||||||||||
| Sum daim h | Fee: v | Fees + | Ave. 11 | Contract Contract Contract | L. Rate |
Feed v | Fred v | Ave - | Avg = | Sum daine | I w Rate |
Free v | ||||||
| × | 0.45 | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | 0.30 | $\sim$ | ٠ | $\sim$ | ٠ | ||||||||
| 4.744 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 4 2 6 6 | 10,666 | 3,401 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 7 647 | 15 294 | 1343 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 2822 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 4.856 | 18.068 | 2822 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 6584 | 13,068 | ٠ | $\sim$ | ||||||
| 22.368 | 0.32 | 0.03 | 1,518 | 12 123 | 13 395 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 3457 | 24 201 | 8973 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 149 068 | 0.0% | 0.05 | 837 680 | 137.680 | 148,988 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 675,000 | 675,000 | 29 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 25 361 | 0.28 | 0.16 | 15 528 | 26.057 | 12.554 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 52 240 | 52 240 | 12815 | 0.03 | ||||||
| 194 276 | 0.48 | 0.08 | 25.734 | 154 433 | 133,638 | 0.08 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 24.515 | 127, 478 | 60,638 | 0,04 | ||||||
| 68939 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 94,641 | 152,500 | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | ×. | × | 68 919 | 0.08 | ||||||||
| 28 165 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 7 530 | 23 117 | 411 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 2 194 | 4.388 | 37.754 | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 7593 | 24 678 | ||
| 76 805 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 26586 | 69 124 | 6.092 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 5482 | 27 412 | 70713 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 59.776 | 79552 | ||
| 9 9 0 4 | 0.28 | 0.14 | 25,770 | 47.539 | 7994 | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.07 | 25 5R2 | 76746 | 1910 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 18,333 | 18,333 | ||
| 192 821 | 0.72 | 0.16 | 35, 241 | 49.583 | 181945 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 0.04 | 94.352 | 566 118 | 10 356 | 0.01 | 0.48 | 0.12 | 2.685 | 10740 | ||
| 57.774 | 0, 13 | 0.07 | 44,996 | 129 992 | $\sim$ | ×. | 57 774 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.14 | 64 995 | 129 993 | ||||||
| × | ٠ | × | $\sim$ | ×. | ×. | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | ×. | |||||||||
| 30 509 | 0.40 | 0.18 | 14,034 | 18 084 | 4.655 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 5.949 | 26.772 | 25,853 | 0.05 | 0.25 | 0.11 | 18,582 | 42,475 | ||
| 55 589 | 0.69 | 0.14 | 4 15: | 20753 | 13 597 | 0.01 | 0.43 | 0.08 | 2719 | 15 229 | 41,992 | 0.04 | 0.72 | 0.15 | 5 003 | 23 516 | ||
| 15 079 | 0.80 | 0.22 | 5,980 | 21 676 | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | 15079 | 0.04 | 0.65 | 0.18 | 5.980 | 21 676 | ||||
| 81933 | 0.23 | 0.08 | 54,601 | IS2 887 | 12.061 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 16.076 | 56.265 | 69.872 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 93 130 | 217 802 | ||
| 85,869 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 105 150 | 275 066 | $\sim$ | 0.02 | × | × | 85,869 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 137.555 | 275,066 | ||||
| 339 402 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 326 165 | 407 706 | 30,995 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 42.552 | 59 572 | 308 407 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 987 929 | 987929 | ||
| 1.007 | 0.18 | 0.04 | 1.075 | 4.833 | $\sim$ | 0.06 | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | 1007 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 1612 | 4.833 | ||||
| 4770 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 22 OR7 | 22.087 | $\alpha$ | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | $\sim$ | 4.770 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 22.087 | 22 083 | ||||
| 72,828 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 16822 | 148,965 | ٠ | ×. | 72.838 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 16,832 | NAK 965 |
| EML k£ | Sums insured - K £ |
Claim years |
Type of Claims |
Public stat Research / |
Property occupation |
Street View |
First hand inspection |
Total | Want | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 088 | 813 433 | 9,61 Yellow White | White | Red | White | White | Yellow Yes | |||
| 34 666 1 521 089 | 9,6 Yellow Yellow White | White | White | White | Yellow Yes | |||||
| 53 456 1 598 070 | 5,70 White | White | Yellow | White | White | White | Green | Yes | ||
| 58 885 441 064 | 9,58 Yellow White | Yellow | White | White | White | White | Yes | |||
| 54 000 963 179 | 4,67 Yellow Green | White | White | White | White | White | Yes | |||
| 36 200 2 262 846 | 10,67 Green | Green | Green | White | White | White | White | Yes | ||
| 22 407 151 433 | 9,52 White | Green | Yellow | Green | White | White | Green | Yes | ||
| 14 939 | 88 241 | Black | Green | White | Green | White | Green | Green | Yes | |
| 182 834 650 635 10,30 Green Green Yellow | White | Green Not inspected White Yes |
| The Contractor | Stanful advances | CONTRACTOR | Distances | Windows | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Service State Advertising | Hey Industry and high drame of uncertainty related to | And made bed industry with machine's coultions. It may made bend industry and | ||||
| Scottings | court practice, briefly standards wis. | and set brown and adapted systems regions | STATISTICS | |||
| bring followed, financial by broth I handston, | ||||||
| ٠ | ||||||
| Live Station | had furnace used beat furnal | × | Notations | Scottished Bally School Syllect II MAY |
||
| Large San Antundat | Schedulate Inconnectal Victorian New York Net | has enoughbor of our Constructions | Largest and a basis this, which is | |||
| Services Coffidant Chief accomplation / COMMIT | writing Coast seried out blog fab. | entered in the medium subsects. | ||||
| Control of Nativ Aniting Karendal systemed dan year | andormance I a with an Expedit down | Bankerin Viewier kole ke | ||||
| Commercial Windswee r | ||||||
| Service | ||||||
| She Matery of Orange Calved | Administration Color Color Change | Schless drawing an elder superior and it makes the | Not brase heroed claim falling | |||
| SERVICE | Service | |||||
| × | ||||||
| for and a habit is publical. | Could be looked driver and ar and an European Could | Not advised the fact street | ||||
| Marine or deather? | which is cleared contact to a construct when the | MORPHANIA | ||||
| changing a stable with personal in white a human of | ||||||
| START | ٠ | |||||
| the Watercool - Applicant | Back of Municipal Streets and an adventure for a field of the Street Street | Configuration to the automatic in a source boother. | SALESVANN FOR | |||
| ANGELE M STARS FROM THEFT AT EXAMINE | Norway | |||||
| Billion Bandwich | ||||||
| × | ||||||
| Family and Tale Serie False, Incorporate to a bounded for a family for a first of | Funniture with and excellent of it is analysis. | Service Centre Comp Lines Center | ||||
| of Proches and Marshan of Freder | ROAD AND A STORAGE CONTRACTOR AND AND A | Novous | ary carry uses which has you | |||
| Builder / Advisionment | sunner of material dealer and needed initial of annoy may be | Industry franchise to Markets | ||||
| boxtomatische sid- | z | would concert told one through he | ||||
| Bally of Advise for Support recipies | CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR INTERNATIONAL PRODUCT | Los four III putters | WITCHES ALCOHOL: MALEIGN | |||
| CATAROL REGISTER | ANAHA LE ANNAH | NATIONAL | ||||
| z | ||||||
| Box 814 Expectations of | BANKADAH KWA - BANKAD MAN BERAW | NO concert them if anywhere a more than the age of a security | ||||
| September 2005 School Security | Information of equipment Commerced India | Northeast Park American Residents | ||||
| ALEANING SAM |
| Total Fire Service Incidents | Primary Fires | Secondary Fires (outdoors) | Total Fires | Total Fires; Deliberate | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16,57 16,08 | 2,80 2,45 | 3,79 3,59 | 2,60 2,30 | 1,20 0,98 | ||||||
| 16,57 16,08 | 2,80 2,45 | 3,79 3,59 | 2,60 2,30 | 1,20 0,98 | ||||||
| Trend Siste 5 år 2 006 Trend Siste 5 år 2 006 Trend Siste 5 år 2 006 Trend Siste 5 år 2 006 Trend Siste 5 år 2 006 | ||||||||||
| 13,50 12,97 | 2,68 2,36 | 4,27 4,27 | 2,37 2,33 | 0,92 1,02 | ||||||
| 12,48 10,75 | 2,70 2,50 | 1,01 1,10 | 2,23 2,12 | 0,28 0,19 | ||||||
| 12,44 11,64 | 2,12 1,67 | 1,51 1,58 | 1,80 1,52 | 0,28 0,14 | ||||||
| 30,49 29,64 | 5,37 4,83 | 13,36 12,32 | 4,65 4,04 | 2,83 2,14 | ||||||
| 12,86 11,94 | 2,43 2,21 | 3,47 2,89 | 1,94 1,62 | 0,72 0,46 | ||||||
| 11,96 12,23 | 2,37 2,41 | 1,93 1,96 | 2,01 1,86 | 0,51 0,33 | ||||||
| 21,83 22,20 | 4,41 4,43 | 7,85 7,88 | 3,77 3,56 | 1,91 1,75 | ||||||
| 19,96 20,43 | 3,74 3,40 | 4,10 4,39 | 3,25 2,59 | 1,14 0,90 | ||||||
| 16,31 14,19 | 3,08 2,45 | 5,27 4,09 | 2,47 1,55 | 1,03 0,56 | ||||||
| 26,57 24,36 | 4,48 3,96 | 7,35 6,07 | 3,77 3,03 | 1,55 1,23 | ||||||
| 10,68 10,80 | 2,08 2,13 | 1,50 1,69 | 1,61 1,55 | 0,20 0,21 | ||||||
| 16,63 15,32 | 3,25 2,87 | 4,55 3,94 | 2,46 1,93 | 1,06 0,83 | ||||||
| 10,50 10,37 | 2,03 2,04 | 2,58 2,48 | 1,65 1,51 | 0,50 0,48 | ||||||
| 21,55 21,95 | 3,55 3,33 | 7,30 8,00 | 2,80 2,53 | 1,24 1,08 | ||||||
| 12,45 11,15 | 2,23 1,97 | 3,28 3,10 | 1,87 1,61 | 0,51 0,42 | ||||||
| 20,88 19,15 | 4,39 3,77 | 6,72 6,60 | 4,53 3,88 | 2,09 1,63 | ||||||
| 16,21 15,71 | 3,43 3,03 | 4,44 4,70 | 3,52 3,14 | 1,34 1,20 |
5 clients on board, careful start, learning quickly
| Status | Count | Share % |
|---|---|---|
| Won | 5 | 25% |
| Lost | 15 | 75% |
| Ongoing | 4 | |
| Quoted | 11 | |
| Total | 35 |
| Status | Sum | Share % |
|---|---|---|
| Won | £1m | 11% |
| Lost | £8m* | 89% |
| Ongoing | £4m | |
| Quoted | £6m | |
| Total | £21m |
CMD 2016-08-18
Gradually transferred to UK resources
| Information in tender doc | Necessary info available (operational / technical /ownership structure etc.) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk type | Desirable exposure? Easy or difficult to assess? Antiselection? | |||||
| Losses / loss information | Reliable claims history, info about causes, preventive actions? | |||||
| Economy | Lindorf's rating, trends / cycles, research online etc. | |||||
| Quality | Type of organisation, geographical location, HMS, attitudes, safety management | |||||
| Internal competence | Knowledge about type of exposure/occupancy, previous site-visits etc. | |||||
| Work load | Complexity, estimated work load in underwriting and servicing throughout period | |||||
| Broker's quality and relation | Trusting and open dialogue versus being presented poor quality exposures | |||||
| Probability of winning | Competition, price, pros/cons | |||||
| Overall assessment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Risk is summarized on one page - underlying analyzes are easily accessible.
| Client | Responsible | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Client | Helsinki Topco | UW P&C | LG |
| Nace | 10.85 | UW EB | N/A |
| Industry | Food | Lead | LG |
| Group | Food and Drink | KAM | MO |
| Responsible | |
|---|---|
| P&C | LG |
| EΒ | N/A |
| LG | |
| Імо |
| Grade: (Broker relation, tender process and win probability) |
2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Expected tender process: |
Aviva held out of LTA looking for a market that can write both P&C as package | propose FAE only. | |
| Expected winning premium |
| Product | UW- score | Premium | Share | Margin UW | Margin UW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P&C - total | 3 | 87,900 | 100% | 26,370 | 30% |
| EB - total | - | - | 0% | - | - |
| Client total: | 3 | 87,900 | 26,370 | 0.3 |
| Market assessment | Summary of risks - UW comments | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Property: | Insured operate from 2 manufacturing sites and then supply to distrubution warehouses. Stock is not covered this is on a thruput policy. BI figure of £60m is the 24 MIP + dec linking. Bulk of revenue generated from the two manufacturing sites, main target in this respect is Clitheroe which will generate the bulk of the revenue. Still awaiting the actual split but would guess around 60% of the £60m generated from here. No heat processes undertaken, risk management looks good and acceptable spread of risks. Overseas BI extensions - |
||
| GTPL/EL | EL is main risk 8 incidents over 5 year period. Health & Safety is to a high standard and family run business ethos is less likely to claim than other companies. We have very detailed survey reports confirming British Retail Consortium Grade A accreditation, appropriate risk assessments and training is being carried out, machinery is well guarded and that slip resistant footwear / floor surfaces are in place and good standards of housekeeping exist. |
||
| Auto: | |||
| N/A | |||
Key Take-Outs per LOB
| Risk assessment | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk factor | Negative extremity | $\mathbf 1$ | $\overline{2}$ | з | $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}$ | 5. | Poitive extremity | UW - Comment | |
| Industry trends that affect the | New industry with high degree of uncertainty related to | Well established industry with regulated conditions | Long established industry and | ||||||
| business | court practice, liability standards etc. | and well known and balanced contract regimes | company | ||||||
| being followed. Regulated by (public) legislation. | |||||||||
| 3 | |||||||||
| Loss history | High frequency and large losses | No losses | Improving loss record in last 3 | ||||||
| $\overline{3}$ | years | ||||||||
| Large loss potential | Substantial large loss potential, Work at height / high risk | Low accumulation of staff / non-manual driven | Largest single loss is £56k. Work is | ||||||
| locations / offshore / high accumulation / COMAH | activities / work carried out in low risk | generally in low-medium category. | |||||||
| (Control of Major Accident Hazards) registered sites etc | environments i.e. offices / small shops | Mechanics is heavier trade but | |||||||
| represnts only 2% of overall | |||||||||
| wageroll | |||||||||
| 3 | |||||||||
| Any history of Disease Claims? | Asbestos / Noise / VWF / HAVS / Stress | Accident driven account with no known long-tail | Not known itemised claims listing | ||||||
| exposures | awaited | ||||||||
| Any work at height in confined | Could be trade driven such as roofers / scaffolders / | 3 | Not anticipated other than general | ||||||
| spaces or similar? | window cleaners / industrial tank cleaning etc where this | maintenance | |||||||
| represents a significant expsoure in relation to overall | |||||||||
| wages | $\overline{3}$ | ||||||||
| Risk Management - does Insured | Basic attitude towards H&S with no plan to achieve these | Conformance to these standards is a very positive | H&S is to a high standard | ||||||
| conform to HSG65, OHSAS 18001 or | standards | feature. | |||||||
| similar standards? | |||||||||
| 3 | |||||||||
| Compliance with Trade Sector Codes | Non compliance is a less attractive feature. For certain | Compliance with and members of is a positive | ABTA / ATOL / FTA / CPT / PSA / | ||||||
| of Practices and Members of Trade | trade sectors for example construction there are a large | feature | ACE / BEST which whilst they are | ||||||
| Bodies / Associations | number of trade bodies and membership of some may be | industry travel accreditations | |||||||
| key to quoting for risk | 4 | would expect H&S practices to be | |||||||
| Rate of Injuries for business sector | Could be indicative of poor risk management if rate | Less than UK average | RIDDOR accidents are less than | ||||||
| exceeds UK average | exceeds UK average | sector average | |||||||
| $\overline{A}$ | |||||||||
| Any HSE Prosecutions or | Recent prosecutions - check HSE online database. | No prosecutions / improvement notices and seen as | |||||||
| Improvement Notices issued? | Understand nature of prosecution / improvement notice | benchmark for industry standard | |||||||
| and action taken. | $\mathbf{r}$ |
By gradually transferring to «all business is local business»
Commercial sector; biggest potential, Public sector; entry point
CMD 2016-08-18
On Track
Operating profit of 300 MNOK
From Norwegian, to Scandinavian, to…
̵ Good is the enemy of great
̵ Culture is key
10% growth and control >> more important than 15-25% growth and …
From Norwegian, to Scandinavian, to…
Increased need of management and talent capacity
| Risk | |
|---|---|
| Increased competition in Norway | Medium |
| Significant Real Estate price correction in Norway | Some |
| New entrant Change of Ownership sector | Low |
| Significant setback Sweden and affinity programs | Low |
| Denmark WC driving claims ratio upwards | Some |
| Rate pressure (outside guiding) | Medium |
| Reserves going wild | Low |
| Financial volatility or crisis | Unknown |
| One or two other negative surprises will occur (outside guiding) | Low |
| Cost ratio going up due to UK & Finland | None |
| Key personnel considerations (capacity + competence) | Medium |
| UK causes trouble | Some |
| Finland causes trouble | Low |
Vision The Challenger
Business Idea This will happen through unique relationships, best in class decision-making and cost effective solutions
Main targets Cost and quality leadership Profitable growth Top 3
Values Credible Open Bold Committed
Q&A
Building tools?
Free accounts include 100 API calls/year for testing.
Have a question? We'll get back to you promptly.