Tag Archives: Fred Vosvenieks

Enhancing ERM frameworks based on learned lessons from COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 has illuminated the wide-ranging impact that emerging risks can have on insurers across the globe. It has focussed attention on a grey area that exists in recognising when an emerging risk has fully “emerged” and how it should be treated. It would seem logical that once an emerging risk is realised, its subsequent monitoring and management should fall under a pre-existing risk management framework.

In this briefing note, Milliman professionals discuss how traditional enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworks may not fully capture the complexity of an emerging risk event, and reflect on some lessons that can be learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Solvency II unit matching considerations for UK insurers

Solvency II unit matching is no longer just a theoretical concept, but rather a common strategy used by UK insurers with material blocks of unit-linked business to help improve liquidity and balance sheet stability, and better manage market risks. This paper by Milliman’s Emma HutchinsonFred Vosvenieks, and Paul Fulcher highlights lessons learned from implementations in the UK market and the practical challenges to implementation in other countries.

Coronavirus: Staying ahead of the risk (part 2)


The scope and breadth of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented shock to the world’s economies, communities and societal norms. The rapidly evolving nature of the crisis very potently demonstrates the continuing importance of considering future pathways, potential consequences and how best to respond.

The previous post began by stating: “the global coronavirus pandemic is very clearly a rapidly evolving, complex, multi-factor event with significant downside potential over both the immediate short and medium-longer terms.” This post further explores the virus under the lens of a set of key principles we believe are fundamental to effective emerging risk analysis:

  • Focus on multi-factor scenarios ahead of single factor stresses: A couple of moderate adverse events occurring at the same time are more likely to be the cause of business failure than a single extreme tail event.
  • Consider a wider set of measures than just the balance sheet impact: Many seemingly severe stresses can look quite benign (or at least manageable) from a capital perspective, but could well have more concerning implications for a firm’s liquidity, its operational integrity or considering the potential response by key stakeholders.
  • Develop novel scenarios that involve aspects or dynamics that the business has not previously encountered: These scenarios tend to be more challenging to manage, as situations that have happened before are generally well understood and firms should have plans in place to deal with them appropriately should they arise again.
  • Recognise the highly complex, highly interconnected nature of today’s business environment (and the wider world): This creates emergent outcomes that are highly nonlinear and can unfold unexpectedly and at high velocity.

A multi-factor event

Firstly, the present situation would not be in any way accurately described as an event for which the only impact is a direct near-term shock to mortality and morbidity rates. Beyond the infections and deaths, in past weeks, markets have responded turbulently with dramatic falls in equity prices, credit spreads widening significantly and sovereign yields falling to new lows. Most firms have already had to respond to the increasingly strict social distancing measures, which present challenges in terms of both staff and customers. As an unfolding risk event, the crisis can today be characterised by demographic, market and operational risks that have already crystallised.

Looking forward, the only aspect that can be reliably predicted is that the multifaceted nature of the crisis will continue. From a demographic perspective, in the UK it is widely acknowledged we are perhaps a few weeks behind other European countries in terms of infections. It is an unknown whether the newly announced measures will be effective or are, in fact, being introduced too late. Furthermore, assuming current or increased social distancing measures prove impractical or undesirable to enforce beyond a few months, there are expectations of a second significant spike in infections towards the end of the year. And over the longer term, even with a vaccine (which estimates suggest will take 18 months to develop), the virus could establish itself as an ever-present threat in much the same way as seasonal flu. On a more positive note, researchers are already making good progress with advances in testing, which would potentially allow those who have already had the virus to be identified and returned to work quickly and safely.

Further market falls and sustained volatility should also be anticipated, and initial hopes of ultimately seeing a “v-shaped” recovery in markets appear to be fading fast. It is far from certain that the economy will be able to pick back up where it left off once the virus infection rate subsides and mitigating measures are phased out. There is also the question of whether the coronavirus was the sole cause of the severe market falls or instead triggered a crash that was already primed and waiting to happen, with the risk being obscured and delayed by macroeconomic measures such as depressed interest rates and quantitative easing. In the latter case, fundamental economic weaknesses will need to be addressed in addition to stopping the virus before we can return to economic growth. In the intervening period, we can anticipate a dramatic drop in corporate investment spending as well as increased default rates and company bankruptcies. The effects of the virus might have a lasting impact on factors such as the size of the workforce and consumer demand.

Operationally, the option of working from home will not be practical for certain industries, and with recommended or mandatory social distancing measures in place, many firms will find it extremely challenging (in some cases impossible) to maintain their business-as-usual capacity and capability. Others firms that transition to remote working will nevertheless face their own challenges, not least of which is the need to be mindful of the potential for reduced staff productivity, engagement and morale.

Whatever the type of business, the direct challenges to maintaining the day-to-day functioning of business will need to be managed alongside an increased exposure to existing operational risks. Likelihoods of occurrence will, in many cases, be materially elevated. For example, malevolent cyber actors may view the spread of the coronavirus as an ideal opportunity to launch a targeted or widespread cyberattack and empty offices and facilities. Remote working and supplier restrictions over an extended period raise the prospect of operational failure.

Furthermore, every firm’s ability to respond to and recover from the occurrence of any operational risk events will also be materially impaired. Existing post-event mitigation and recovery plans will (almost without exception) be designed around incidents lasting a matter of weeks, not months or longer. And they will invariably rely on having people on the ground and readily available outside resources and expertise, replacement equipment and cash to meet a significant, short-term spike in expenditure. None of these can be taken for granted. Firms will need to reassess both their assumptions regarding the availability and efficacy of recovery measures and their own internal definitions of what constitutes “recovery.”

Continue reading

Coronavirus: Staying ahead of the risks

To start with the obvious, the global coronavirus pandemic is very clearly a rapidly evolving, complex, multi-factor event with significant downside potential over both the immediate short term and medium to longer terms. Consumer behaviours and attitudes, financial markets and the political, fiscal and regulatory response are all developing at pace with little certainty or predictability. Firms need to be thinking and acting with similar dynamism to manage the here and now and plan effectively for multiple future scenario pathways. But how to do this in an informed way?

Earlier affected countries

In the absence of meaningful past scenarios (the coronavirus disease COVID-19 is increasingly being viewed as unprecedented compared to recent previous outbreaks such as SARS and swine flu), the practical experiences of firms in regions hit earlier by the virus may be invaluable, even though the lead time may only be a matter of weeks or (at best) months. In this context, Vicky Yu, a compliance professional in China, provides just this insight in her recent paper “Risk management during the coronavirus outbreak.”

Three important themes are explored in the paper:

  • An emergency management system is essential”: For UK firms this offers a reminder (if one were needed) that business continuity management should now already be in effect or very shortly needs to be.

    Most mature firms should have plans specifically designed for epidemics and pandemics, and the senior crisis management team should be meeting regularly to discuss a growing list of live and emerging operational issues that the virus is creating. This includes, for example, how best to communicate with staff, customers and other stakeholders (such as third parties), implementing measures to limit the spread of the virus on company property and planning how to maintain the operations of the business if working arrangements need to change significantly from the norm.

    The experience from Chinese companies is that far more agile decision-making than firms are typically used to may be required in order to access mitigating measures whilst they remain available and effective and to minimise the lag in responding to changing circumstances.
  • Following up on government regulations can be challenging”: New government measures (e.g., travel restrictions, school closures, etc.) may be announced with little forewarning and the timeframe over which firms and their employees then need to react to adjust or comply could be exceedingly short. In these circumstances, Yu stresses that it may be necessary for firms to put additional resources and expertise into support functions such as compliance and human resources (HR).
  • HR compliance needs to be strong”: Like any other function, HR will need to be able to manage through sick leave, self-isolation and social distancing measures (such as significantly increased working from home). However, HR will also need to contend with an increased workload stemming from:
    • An influx of employee questions (to which giving a definitive or positive response may not be possible)
    • A greater monitoring and reporting ask from management
    • Providing direct support to affected employees
Continue reading

Liquidity risk considerations for life insurers

Life insurers focus much of their attention on managing the risks they are exposed to that might impact their available capital. This makes sense because maintaining adequate capital is important for insurers to instil confidence with all stakeholders that they have sufficient funds to continue doing business and meet policyholder obligations. However, the fact that a firm holds adequate capital does not guarantee a position of adequate liquidity.

Managing liquidity requires a different approach from managing capital and must often be considered over a different, typically much shorter, time period. This paper by Milliman consultants provides some context for a discussion of insurer liquidity risk. It explores sources of liquidity risk and provides some examples of where insurers have been challenged in the past.

Considerations for Stress and Scenario Testing frameworks

In this briefing note, Milliman consultants Emma Hutchinson and Fred Vosvenieks provide high-level recommendations for insurance companies when developing or enhancing their Stress and Scenario Testing (SST) frameworks. It includes general principles, purpose of the SST framework, risks to be covered, tests to include, methodology and calibration decisions, weaknesses and limitations, and frequency, ownership and reporting.