IRL Preview – January 2019

IRL Preview – January 2019

To learn more about subscribing to the Insurance Research Letter email us. Every issue has topical articles written by industry experts that you won’t read anywhere else. In addition, you will stay current with major developments around the world with Global Briefs; a monthly Synopsis of insurer and broker news; and our acclaimed Back Page with all sorts of non-insurance fun and interesting subjects.

IRL January 2019 Highlights

What DARPA Technologies can offer the Insurance Industry – In the last decade, many of the giant humming brains of technology have migrated to government projects for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) because the work there has been super fun – their instructions were simply “build whatever massive tool you want to, and then turn it over to our analysts to use or not use as they choose.” Page 10

2018 – A CrisisRisk™ Year in Review – In reviewing 2018 critical incidents, critical events, disasters, and crises, it is clear that the ability to identify and control those events before escalation into a crisis is essential. Understanding each event’s CrisisRisk™ potential, the preparation required, and the responses needed, empowers leadership. Page 10

Globalization has not reached its peak – An interview with Coface CEO Xavier Durand who speaks about the impact of sanctions and trade wars on credit insurers on page 13

Read about the Consequences of Brexit Deal Rejection for U.K. Insurance Market on page 13

IRL Preview – December 2018

IRL Preview – December 2018

Subscribe to the Insurance Research Letter here. Every issue has topical articles written by industry experts that you won’t read anywhere else. In addition, you will stay current with major developments around the world with Global Briefs; a monthly Synopsis of insurer and broker news; and our acclaimed Back Page with all sorts of non-insurance fun and interesting subjects.

December Highlights

I Still Hope

It seems that hate has been with us since men first marked a few signs on clay tablets, thousands of years ago, to commemorate kings, business deals, and wars. Should we fight hate? Definitely yes, to protect our offspring, neighbors and ourselves, and also those who disagree with us. Page 12

US Tax Reforms – Impact on Bermuda Update

Bermuda has long been an attractive jurisdiction for financial services. The obvious reason for this is a beneficial tax regime, but that is not the only reason why organisations establish or do business on the island. Page 13

Making an M&A Match

Learn Why Company Culture is Key to Success – Mergers and acquisitions offer a strategic opportunity for a business to thrive. The right deal can enhance an already strong brand, open new markets, and bring together leaders who can multiply each other’s growth. It can give talented individuals the chance to succeed in a larger environment and maximize their expertise in innovative ways. Page 14

Crisis Stress: Part 4 – Concentration, Memory and Focus

In the first three parts of this short four-part essay series, I briefly summarized some of the ways in which a crisis affects people in terms of physiological reactions including the Acute Stress Response (ASR) and some (but not all) of the various psychological and cognitive effects of such stress on crisis mangers and their performance. In this fourth and final essay in this series, I will cover some of the recent research on diminished memory and recall abilities rising from acute stress factors during crises. Page 14

Customer/Prospect Data Warehouses – Buy, Borrow or Build?

We are now in the rosy afterglow of InsureTech, and Insurance technology themes have surfaced. AI data warehousing to more closely understand their current clientele appears to be an industry-wide initiative. We love data warehouses and the customer insights that can be generated from querying the data. No question. Page 16

Are You Prepared For An Active Shooter Event At Your School?

We have not had a child die in America in a school fire in over 50 years. Unfortunately we cannot say the same for violence. What should schools do to increase security and safety? Every individual in any organization must be trained and know what decisions to make, and when. Page 16

The Future of Insurance, and How Insurance of the Past Has Failed Us

For most of us, our home is our largest purchase and shelters our prized possessions. But a home is more than that. It’s our safe place, where we can be ourselves; the feeling of comfort when you come home from a long trip; the sound of children’s feet running to meet us at the door when we get home. Page 17

IRL Preview – November 2018

IRL Preview – November 2018

Subscribe to the Insurance Research Letter here. Every issue has topical articles written by industry experts that you won’t read anywhere else. In addition, you will stay current with major developments around the world with Global Briefs; a monthly Synopsis of insurer and broker news; and our acclaimed Back Page with all sorts of non-insurance fun and interesting subjects.

Highlights November Issue

Crisis Stress: Part 3 – How and Why A Crisis Affects People
In this four-part essay Dr. Chandler summarized some of the ways in which people, including the crisis manager, are affected by a crisis in terms of physiological reactions, touching upon the Acute Stress Response (ASR). In this part 3 essay, he will cover some (but not all) of the various psychological and cognitive effects of such stress. Page 12

Training for Bomb Threats and Suspicious Package Detection
Many organizations consider this type of threat as extreme but may not fully appreciate the danger because they believe it won’t happen. However, consider that between September and October of this year there have been 31 events which involved an IED and 87 events that were either suspicious in nature, threat call or a hoax (faux IED device). Page 14

Brown & Brown Enters Into Agreement to Acquire Hays Companies
Brown & Brown Insurance has been aggressive in its growth this year (19 deals with total annualized revenue topping $95M). Now the company is making history with its latest move. On October 22, 2018 Brown & Brown announced it had reached an agreement to acquire Hays Companies insurance operations. Page 13

5 Ways to Survive an Active Shooter Event
Read this Q&A with Former Secret Service Agent Jason Russell on page 15

Brexit …. bah!
When Theresa May said, “Brexit means Brexit” more than a year ago she did not know what she was talking about and she still doesn’t. Britain stands to lose more than it gains. Closed borders and trade barriers with 27 former friends vs. tangled financial cooperation and on-going frustration with international bureaucrats. Page 17

IRL Preview – October 2018

IRL Preview – October 2018

If you like what you read below, we invite you to subscribe to the Insurance Research Letter here. Each issue has topical articles written by industry experts that you won’t read anywhere else. In addition, you will stay current with major developments around the world with our Global Briefs; a monthly Synopsis of insurer and broker news; and our acclaimed Back Page with all sorts of non-insurance fun and interesting subjects.

Robotic Automation – How Many Humans Can We Realistically Replace?
By Marci De Vries-Todtz

I am writing this article from InsureTech in Las Vegas, where the newest and brightest technology companies launch their solutions. The top question posed this year is: “Are humans replaceable in insurance.”

To answer that question, the industry needs to examine the scope and course of most of their employees’ responsibilities. To make it easier, I’ve divided work into two categories, “Monkey work” and “Thought work” Monkey work is defined as any part of a job where, given enough training, a monkey could perform the task. (No offense to monkeys intended, of course). Thought work involves analyzation of inputs, and decision making. Thought jobs benefit from experience, education and expertise, while Monkey jobs do not.

Monkey jobs include data entry, opening software, printing and emailing reports, combining data from one database with data from another database, sending vendor assignments, and so on. These jobs have been and continue to be automated using technology with huge success, allowing the jobs to be performed faster, more consistently, and 24/7. Moreover, Monkey jobs are often cited as a major factor in employee turnover and dissatisfaction.

The biggest examples of successful Monkey work replacement include Facebook and Google, where the draconian tasks of looking up information at the library (Google) and calling/writing letters to your friends (Facebook) was replaced with technology with well-documented benefits to users.

Technologists are now trying to tackle Thought jobs with technology, wherein artificial intelligence calculates inputs, “learns” how to do jobs and then performs decision making with only minimal human input, with the goal of replacing the human input. While I don’t doubt that this is possible eventually, I do have my concerns today. The current methods by which data is recorded and processed in insurance is inconsistent and could lead to wrong conclusions when automated.

The path to full integration is first to automate all of the Monkey work, thereby guaranteeing a consistent data set. When data is consistent, a machine learning tool can be much more effective and perhaps someday achieve the goal of replacing thinking humans.

So how close are we to automating enough for machine learning? Based on my observations, it looks like there is too much “Monkey Business” (Get it? It’s funny) still happening, where lower level employees are still entering and manipulating data the same way over and over, like a typing pool but with computer terminals. In order to reach the goal, more intentional automation efforts need to be explored. The good news is that tools exist today to fully automate ALL of these repetitive processes without creating novel technology. It’s just a matter of who putting all of these technologies together in the right way.

Data is power, and the ability to provide insights across millions of files is a direct path to greater profitability for the Insurance industry. To reach this goal, we need to take steps today to make sure the insights are based on correct, consistent data today.

IRL Preview – September 2018

IRL Preview – September 2018

If you like what you read below, we invite you to subscribe to the Insurance Research Letter here. Each issue has topical articles written by industry experts that you won’t read anywhere else. In addition, you will stay current with major developments around the world with our Global Briefs; a monthly Synopsis of insurer and broker news; and our acclaimed Back Page with all sorts of non-insurance fun and interesting subjects.

Crisis Stress: Part 1 – How and Why A Crisis Affects People
By Dr. Robert C. Chandler, Visiting Professor of Communication Lipscomb University

During disasters and emergencies people are affected by the stresses and challenges of these events. These stresses can sometimes be quite traumatic. We should be attentive to the ways in which such events affect and change those who are working, living, enduring, and surviving during a high-stress crisis. In addition to recognizing and adapting to the dynamics of those with whom we work or manage who are under tremendous pressures during crises, we ourselves as crisis managers are likewise affected by the stresses of these events.

Even emergency responders and crisis managers who (usually) are well-trained professionals (with specialized technical and professional knowledge appropriate to deal with a wide range of emergencies, dangers and disasters) can be significantly impacted by crisis events and high-pressure situations. Research and after-action reviews show that crisis mangers are, in general, a physically and psychologically resilient group of professionals, especially when compared with the general population. These professionals typically understand the challenges of their work and effectively manage the demands and stresses they face. However, even among such generally resilient individuals the demands of crises do affect managers in several significant ways.

Crises are stressful events for everyone who is touched by them, sometimes even when the connection is indirect or at great distances. There are performance challenges, time pressures, high stakes risks, dangers to health, safety and well-being, and exposure to horrific circumstances – all of which result in dramatic responses in the body, brain and mind of those of us who are experiencing them. Further, while we all are affected by such stresses, we are each individually different in how such stress affects us including to the nature, persistence and degree to which we are affected. Thus, a general tendency is inherently manifest in idiosyncratic ways.

Categories of Stress
In broad terms, such stresses can be classified into several practical categories. First off, there is chronic lower order stress. Lower order stress is stressful but falls into a category that most of us would classify as the “normal” background stresses of daily life and the work day. This includes meeting deadlines, traffic problems, dealing with difficult people, spilt milk, flat tires and the routine “headaches” of home life and work life. We all carry differing degrees of chronic lower order background stress. This can range from the relatively minor stresses of daily living (e.g., a lost set of car keys) to more significant personal life events such as financial or relationship issues. Most of us (but not everyone) tolerate such stresses and manage to perform within normative ranges despite such stress. In cases where such stress is not managed well, there may be a need for intervention. The are many useful guidelines to help individuals more effectively manage chronic lower order stress (these typically include nutrition, rest, exercise, or mental relaxation solutions). However, in most cases, the major implication of such chronic lower order stress comes from the fact that the effects of stress are cumulative. Which may be an important variable for some people when it comes to the impacts of acute stress.

Second, there is acute stress. We recognize that there are varying degrees of acute stress. To simplify an inherently complicated range of stress levels, we can divide them into three (broadly defined) levels of acute stress: High, Hyper, and Traumatic. It is not the purpose of this short essay to categorically and mutually exclusively define these three levels of acute stress. These acute stressors are tied to specific events, situations or contexts (compared with chronic lower order stress). An emergency, critical incident, disaster, or any situation that would be regarded as a crisis would create the necessary conditions for acute stress. The exposure to the aspects of the event, the responsibilities for managing or ensuring the safety and well-being of others along with the accountability and scrutiny of their performance. High stress would be situationally or psychologically induced responses to non-routine contexts that has measurable effects on normal physiological and psychological processes and functions. This might be delayed reaction times, longer information processing temporal brackets, or changes in heart rate or respiratory patterns). High stress certainly affects us but usually not pushing us outside of our normal “range” of measurable performance. Sustained or long periods of high stress can be detrimental to our physical and psychological well-being. Highly stress resilient individuals may be able to continue to perform within their normative range even when experiencing high stress events. However, when they reach their threshold point and the stress triggers detrimental breakdowns that stress is regarded as hyper stress.

Hyper stress is more stressful than high stress in that it reaches peak points of measurable effects that dysfunctional diminishment on individuals (e. g. dysfunctional behavioral changes, cognitive diminishment sufficient to disrupt decision making, short and long-term memory omissions or distortions, etc.). The difference between high stress and hyper stress is defined by its effect on the person (not an inherent aspect of the stressor). Hyper stress is experienced when a there is a statistically significant dysfunctional diminishment in my ability to think, perform or behave. An example might be a change in measured reaction time that is greater than a statistically significant (standard deviation) from my normal reaction time range. What is “high stress” for one person may be “hyper stress” for another.

Once stress has induced a psychological adjustment disorder (which includes subtypes of anxiety, depression and disturbance of conduct and/or combinations of these symptoms) is classified as traumatic stress. Traumatic stress is stress that has a significant and lingering longer-term effect on psychological processes with changes in sleep patterns, feelings of dread, overwhelming emotional reactions, depression, etc. In fact, these effects can continue to manifest long after an acute stress situation has ended – which is the disorder classified as post-traumatic stress syndrome. Traumatic stress arising from events that are similar or less threatening and persistently distressing than the significant events that can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Acute Stress Resilience
Acute stress (high, hyper and even traumatic) experienced during crises is natural and normal. One cannot avoid acute crisis stress, nor do you necessarily want to do so. In fact, acute crisis stress is not always (at least initially at the lower end of the severity spectrum) a bad thing to experience. Research suggests that the acute stress, for many, stimulates boosts in performance This alerting and orienting stress response, physiological and psychological changes (the ancient “fight or flight” or Acute Stress Response [ASR] at work). Initially and in the short run, the Acute Stress Response enables us to focus, concentrate on the core task and physically excel (that is the fighting or running aspect of the ancient response). The heightened focus and perceptual narrowing can be advantageous for some circumstances. However, beyond certain optimal threshold levels too much or too prolonged stress of emergency contexts can create dysfunctional physical and mental impacts.

However, stress resilience is a developed characteristic which can enhance one’s stress tolerance and stress management capacity. It can also extend the range within which one can successfully cope with high stress without shifting to hyper stress. Stress resilience is the ability to successfully cope with a crisis and to return to pre-crisis status quickly. Resilience exist when a person uses physical and mental techniques, processes and behaviors to protect them from the potential negative effects of acute crisis stressors. In simpler terms, stress resilience exists in people who develop psychological and behavioral capabilities that allow them to remain calm. These capabilities allow the person to function within a normal performance range during crises/chaos without significant dysfunctional diminishment. They can then subsequently move on from the incident without long-term negative psychological or physiological stress related consequences.

Although not everyone reacts to specific stressors in the same way, nor to the same degree, and not at the precise same trigger levels, the most common progression of effects of stress are usually similar in most people. In the next essay (part 2 of this essay series) I will cover some of the physiological reactions to crises including more about the Acute Stress Response (ASR) pattern.

IRL Preview – August 2018

IRL Preview – August 2018

If you like what you read below, we invite you to subscribe to the Insurance Research Letter here. Each issue has topical articles written by industry experts that you won’t read anywhere else. In addition, you will stay current with major developments around the world with our Global Briefs; a monthly Synopsis of insurer and broker news; and our acclaimed Back Page with all sorts of non-insurance fun and interesting subjects.

Brexit Update2
By John Small

At the time of writing, July 31st 2018, there stands approximately 11 weeks between the deadline by which the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) must reach some agreement as to what their post-brexit relationship will be. While the date of Britain’s departure from the EU is 29th March 2019 (with a proposed transition period lasting until 31st December 2020), a deal must be agreed by this October because it will require ratification in the individual parliaments of the 27 other EU member states, a process which will at its very least take 6 months.

It had been hoped that the EU would, because of the value of London’s status as a financial centre and because of the substantial outgoing trade the EU has with the UK, facilitate Britain’s exit by allowing it to maintain some of the benefits of EU membership without having to bare some of the associated responsibilities. Indeed, the mainstream pro-Brexit factions made this their rallying call. This however, has not happened. Instead, the EU has stood resolute in its position that its primary concern is the integrity of its internal single market and that the UK cannot “cherry pick” those aspects of market access which benefit it and discard those that do not.

Withdrawing itself from a cornerstone of the global economic system of which it was a prime architect was never going to be an easy proposition but there had been an overarching feeling in the City of London that the dreaded no deal scenario (where the UK has to revert to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, impose tariffs on its closest markets and lose its status as a preferred supplier of financial services as its regulatory system diverges from that of those markets) would never happen and that even though key aspects of the Brexit pitch were unrealistically optimistic, the worst that would happen would be a bad deal on everything else with a carve out for financial services, an industry which represents one fifth of the British Economy. This too, has not happened and the UK is closer to a no deal than anyone ever imagined it would be at the time of the referendum in June 2016.

How did we get here?
To give readers some context, for the better part of 40 years, Britain’s Conservative party has been at war with itself over the UK’s relationship with the EU. Like most Western conservative parties it is a coalition of global free market capitalists at one end and nationalist social conservatives at the other. The tension between these two strands over Britain’s place in the EU and in the world led to the June 2016 referendum which was itself was an attempt by the conservative party leadership to silence the anti-EU faction of the party because, while vocal, they are a minority. Needless to say that attempt did not go as planned.

The current British Prime Minster, Theresa May, attempted to unite the fighting factions of her party, efforts which have culminated in a formal statement of Government Brexit policy on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union a White Paper) which was released 4 weeks ago The White Paper was supposed to unite the Government around compromise positions allowing the country to present a united negotiating front to the EU. Instead, there was a flurry of Government resignations when it was released and it is widely agreed that the proposed negotiating terms represent the worst of all worlds, making the UK a taker of EU rules while limiting its access to European markets.

No deal or a bad deal
There is an overarching sense that the British Government’s demands on certain aspects of the post Brexit relationship with the EU will be untenable from the EU’s perspective and that as a result negotiations will break down and Britain will leave the EU without a deal. Even if that were not to happen, Britain’s financial services industry is braced for a bad deal.

The reason for this is that passporting, the coveted system which allows British insurance businesses to establish or provide services in other EU member states free from new regulatory hurdles in the host state, is not on the list of UK Government wants. This has come about largely from the realisation that there was not much point suggesting to the EU that it be retained as it would require adherence to the regulatory standards of the EU which the British Government was not prepared to accept.

Subject to successful negotiations, the UK will instead seek an enhanced equivalence regime which it is hoped will allow mutual recognition of financial services products, instruments and processes. The concern though is that all existing equivalence regimes are staunchly in favour of the EU and – considering the current tone and trajectory of the negotiations ­– there is no evidence to suggest that the EU will be much more facilitating of British aspirations in this regard.

More broadly, there will be no regulatory alignment between the EU and UK. As indicated in a previous article in this publication, financial stability is of too great importance to a country to have its terms dictated by a third party, which is what the EU will be once the UK leaves it.

There is also in the Government proposals a reference to a possible “cross border provision” for some financial services subsectors, proposals on this are vague and it is thought that the difficulty which the Government had in agreeing what it wants has lead to a lack of clear stated objectives in this area.

Needless to say, the Government’s proposals, which are supposed to be Britain’s best case Brexit scenario, have gone over like a lead balloon in the insurance industry. Lloyd’s CEO Inga Beale called them “very disappointing” and reaffirmed Lloyd’s belief that mutual regulatory recognition would have been the best approach. She also reiterated that the insurance market’s newly established Brussels hub is ready to step in and allow Lloyd’s coverholders to continue access to continental markets regardless of the outcome of Brexit.

Shortly after the release of the White Paper, Britain’s financial services regulator the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced publicly that it was now making plans for a no deal scenario, including implementing regulatory programmes for the 8500 European financial services businesses which are providing services in the UK to be granted temporary permission under a new regime to allow them to continue conducting business. It is of course hoped, though it is not at all clear, that the EU will reciprocate in this regard.

Second Referendum?
There are increasingly respected voices calling for a second referendum on the terms of any final proposed deal – when a former cabinet member recently joined those calls, the overwhelming retort was ‘what question would we ask’ as opposed to the in principle arguments that were being used 6-12 months ago.

Former Lloyd’s chairman John Nelson was the most recent to add his voice to this chorus labeling the Government’s White Paper the “worst possible scenario” for the insurance industry. By any measure, there is no majority in the British Parliament to sanction a no-deal and the government’s proposed deal is disliked not only by the financial services industry but also by Brexiteers and Remainers alike. If Parliament were to reject both options then the default position would be to remain in the EU however by so doing Parliament would be acting contrary to the expressed opinion of the 2016 referendum. It is therefore thought that to rid itself of the responsibility, parliament may put the final decision back to the electorate at another referendum on the terms of the deal. There are however a myriad of logistical and technical obstacles to this and it is not at all clear that it will happen.

The here and now
So what does all this mean for financial services and for the risk management industry in particular. As a law firm and a consultancy working actively in the regulatory space, it has come as something of a surprise to us at EC3 Legal and EC3 Consultants that we are receiving a spike in instructions, even from some fairly big insurance intermediary players, regarding both re-domicile in the EU and seeking advice on contract continuity*. This has come about largely because the wait and see approach that some of the more nimble intermediaries had been taking, in part because the idea of a no-deal scenario or the loss of passporting was so unthinkable that the risk of it coming to fruition made planning for it a waste of resources, has now come to an end.

With most major regulatory and industry bodies now advising that they are planning for a no deal scenario, these are the preparations that are finally being made as even the smallest businesses scramble to secure continued EU market access and the continued ability to write business in the EU. It should be noted that even if there is a deal, the Government White Paper sets out that they will not be seeking regulatory alignment or mutual recognition and so the insurance industry is now in full preparation for a genuine and fundamental change in it’s relationship with continental European markets and for a relationship which is both more restricted and more distant than is has been.

*insurance contract termination clauses can often be triggered by changes in the regulatory status of the parties

London Insurance Market braces itself for Brexit chaos
By David Worsfold

A painful dose of Brexit realism is surging around the London insurance market and the City of London’s financial services sector as confidence in the UK government’s ability to deliver an orderly Brexit collapses.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s attempts to break the deadlock within her own Conservative party and with the European Union in mid-July saw her abandon the all-important services sector completely. Across all service sectors this accounts for almost 80 percent of UK GDP with financial services accounting for 6.5 percent, down from its pre-financial crisis peak of 9 percent. Her plan for a customs deal to keep trade between the UK and the EU going after Brexit focused on manufacturing and agriculture only. Even that has already been sabotaged by pro-Brexit supporters in her own party and firmly rejected by the EU’s inflexible chief negotiator Michel Barnier.

The City has given up hope of any hope of any deal involving mutual recognition of regulatory regimes or a deal over equivalence that would effectively maintain the status quo for cross-border trade. This is despite the UK regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, saying it is prepared to recognise EU regulations so that EU firms can continue to trade and open branches in London.

Many senior figures have slammed the government’s failure to deliver a deal that would enable them to provide services across EU borders after Brexit, with former Lloyd’s of London chairman John Nelson being among the most critical voices. In a letter to the Financial Times he said: “Never in 50 years of working life have I seen the UK facing such an abject future, caused by the complete failure of our political establishment to govern, to communicate clearly with the public and, most importantly, to be honest with the electorate.

We have many senior politicians who are seemingly consumed with their own ambition and vanity, with little regard for the best interests of the country.” He went on to appeal to businesses to do more to make people aware of the consequences of a no-deal Brexit on 29 March next year.

Malcolm Newman, chairman of the International Underwriting Association, was more restrained in his language when he spoke at the IUA’s recent annual general meeting but left his members in doubt about the extent his fears:

“We were disappointed that our desire for a comprehensive free trade agreement based on mutual market access for our customers seems now to be impossible. Businesses need to continue to access our market’s specialist risk capacity and we continue to work closely with the market to influence positive outcomes from the Brexit negotiations.

“It is also frustrating that the negotiations are not as well advanced as we need to serve our clients. We sincerely hope that the next few months will lead to successful conclusions to satisfy our market’s needs and preserve our unique trading advantages of talent, capital and innovation.”

The big fear running through the London Market is that without any deal, policies already written in London for EU clients that go beyond 29 March next year could be invalid. Lloyd’s and London market insurers have therefore agreed a new clause to help companies manage insurance contracts across the Brexit break. It allows a risk to be placed with both a UK domiciled insurer and a ‘contingent’ EU-based insurer. In the event of any Brexit difficulties, this contingent insurer will step in and fulfill any policy obligations that the original carrier is no longer able to cover.

Individual firms are also being much clearer on their own plans with major brokers in particular beefing up European operations either by expanding existing EU-based subsidiaries or acquiring new ones, a course favoured by JLT which has recently snapped up brokers in Belgium and Germany.

Chief executive Dominic Burke said “We are executing business plans in preparation for a no deal Brexit scenario and what we have been doing in the business so far has allowed us to execute operations in Europe. We simply have a responsibly to clients to provide them with services, and those services need to be compliant in a post-Brexit world. We would rather execute our plans now than wait a further nine months to see what the outcome of Brexit is.”

Theresa May or Theresa Cannot, this is but one question
By George Worsley

“A pity you can’t say “all sorted” about Brexit and the British government. Total and utter incompetence. Theresa May needs to change her name to Theresa Cannot. She is an embarrassment as are the main players in her team. The latest example of her inability to understand what Brexit is relates to Motor Insurance. Post Brexit, UK drivers will need a Green Card-type of extension to their policies showing there is coverage when they drive in the EU – just like it was before Britain joined the EEC. Britons are moaning. The EU says, “automatic EU-wide coverage only applies to members of the club. Mrs. May, how can you tell your citizens that you wish to negotiate EU-wide coverage in ‘club countries’, when you will no longer be a member of the club.” Mind you, personally, seeing as we drive in the EU five or six times a year, this would be great; but then again I did not vote for Brexit and have to suffer the consequences of so many un-and ill-informed Brexiteers.

The same looks to be the case with financial services hardly getting a mention in her plans. If this continues, then whatever deal Britain manages to agree with EU, financial services will have been kicked to the back seat: out of view, out of mind. It looks like all those new EU-based carriers are going to be busier than they anticipated and may even have to have properly trained staff on the ground in Brussels, Luxembourg, etc (oh, how bothersome!), as opposed to envelope-fillers for packages back into London.

There have been calls for a second referendum but the big problem is: people still do not know what the options really are. Britain is blundering along like a blind bumble bee.”