In the first of two articles, I examine the current state of electronic
trading in the insurance industry: where we are and what's driving adoption. In the second
article I will analyze the current players in this area and the different components of
electronic trading. 1
There have been numerous efforts over the years to improve the
efficiency of the commercial insurance industry through electronic trading. Advocates point
to a cost structure where as much as 40 percent of premium dollars is absorbed in expense
costs, and a supply chain that requires re-keying of data throughout. Despite the potential
benefits and seeming necessity of electronic trading in today's increasingly digital age,
the insurance industry has managed to be largely unaffected by each successive wave of
electronic trading initiatives. Or has it?
Certainly the Internet bubble of the late 1990s did not yield the
revolutionary changes in the industry that were once promised. Virtually all exchanges and
electronic trading initiatives failed. The most recent and perhaps most heavily financed
initiative to close was Kinnect, the trading platform backed by Lloyd's of London to the
tune of $120 million but which ceased trading in January 2006.
With all these failed attempts, surely electronic trading is one idea
that simply will not have its day—an idea that will forever be bogged down in the
industry's entrenched business processes and the relationship nature of its business. Think
again. Electronic trading is more prevalent now than at any time in the insurance
industry's history, and we may be standing on the verge of major advances in the use of
electronic trading throughout the industry.
What's Happening in Electronic Trading
Since the bursting of the Internet bubble and the hardening of
insurance premiums post-September 11, there has been less hype about progress in
electronic trading, but there has been steady progress nonetheless in both trading
systems and electronic exchange of data between counterparties. Progress varies by
sector of the market with the most significant developments being seen in small
commercial lines insurance and facultative and treaty reinsurance. Developments
include:
Increasing connectivity of agency management systems to carrier
systems. AMS, a leading agency management system, reported that more than 2 million
transactions were processed by its TransactNow data connectivity platform in the year
from April 2005-2006.
The embracing of electronic trading by the London market.
In April 2006, a group of six London underwriters—Amlin,
Beazley, Catlin, Hiscox, Kiln, and Wellington (collectively known as the
G6)—successfully exchanged risk data electronically on a peer-to-peer basis with
brokers. Subsequently, Aon, Willis, Marsh, and Benfield have formed a group of
brokers (the G4) to facilitate electronic communication between the brokers and
the G6.
In June 2006, Aon announced that it will transact all
insurance and reinsurance business in the United Kingdom electronically by the end
of the year, via a combination of direct integration with its broking systems and
the use of the RI3K trading service.
In January 2007, the London Market Reform Group set a target
to automate all risk and claims submissions in the Lloyd's and London markets
within 3 years. This followed the market's progress to meeting requirements for
contract certainty at the end 2006.
The use of electronic trading systems to process the high volume
of transactions seen in facultative reinsurance. In March 2007, eReinsure announced
it had processed over 120,000 reinsurance submissions over its electronic trading
platform.
The proposed launch of a new insurance exchange backed by the
Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers. Plans for the exchange were unveiled in
December 2006, with the exchange due to be operational by the end of this year.
Factors Driving the Growth of Electronic Trading
The latest trend toward electronic trading is being fueled by
different forces in the various markets affected, although interesting similarities are
emerging.
Regulatory Compliance
The strongest regulatory pressures are being seen in London with the
Lloyd's and London market becoming subject to oversight by the Financial Services
Authority (FSA). The first initiative was the imposition of contract certainty by the
end of 2006. Electronic trading is now being embraced as the next step, with support
from the Market Reform Group. Elsewhere, the regulatory pressures are less strong, but
have been aided by the Eliot Spitzer investigation. The increased focus on transparency
and auditing of placement negotiations post-Spitzer has created an industry more
receptive to electronic trading.
Market Competition
The strongest driver behind London's reforms is competition from
Bermuda, a market not encumbered by centuries-old business practices. With most
transactions in Bermuda occurring via email, London realizes it needs electronic trading
to exchange data and supplement its traditional in-person trading floor structure. If it
can achieve that, London believes it may actually gain a competitive advantage over
other markets in being able to feed data directly into back-office systems rather than
re-keying data from emails.
The need for reform in the face of competition will not be lost on
the recently appointed chief executive of Lloyd's, Richard Ward, who oversaw the
development of an electronic trading system for the International Petroleum Exchange in
London under competition from Nymex and other exchanges.
Insurer Automation
Insurers are increasingly automating the underwriting process for
smaller commercial lines, encouraging or even requiring that submissions be made via
their websites. For some insurers, 80-90 percent of their submissions are received this
way. This is creating a serious problem for brokers. No longer can they prepare one
submission and send it by email or hard copy to multiple insurers. Instead, the broker
is faced with re-entering data into each insurer's website. For low premium and
commission business, this is threatening to make these lines of coverage
unprofitable.
This problem will get worse for the brokers as more sophisticated
rules engines lead to greater insurer automation. While automation has started with the
smaller commercial programs and standardized products, it is creeping into the middle
market. Already we are seeing business package programs with premiums in excess of
$500,000 being handled electronically.
The problems created by insurer automation are forcing the industry
to finally create some form of single entry multiple company interface (SEMCI). The
threat of losing business is proving a strong enough motivator for brokers to overcome
any fears of change.
Softening Market
The bursting of the Internet bubble was shortly followed by 9/11 and
a hardening of insurance premiums. Insurers' and brokers' margins increased, and the
industry became less receptive to new ways of doing business. As premium rates and
margins begin to come down, there is a renewed focus on attacking the high expense
structure in the industry. This is helping to fuel the pace of insurer automation which
is having a knock-on effect on the brokers' submission process.
Efficiency
This is the most often cited benefit of electronic trading.
Competition and the threat of losing business are driving brokers to adopt tools to
electronically interface with insurer websites. Efficiency is the main argument, as
electronic trading allows the broker service representatives to cover more insurers and
be more productive. One of the problems with the efficiency argument, though, is that
the real benefits will only be realized with integration allowing straight processing of
information. In the short term, the costs of integration, training personnel on a new
system, and potential duplication of activities pending integration are likely to
increase costs, not reduce them.
Management Information
Automating the placing process has the potential benefit of providing
better management information over both the process and the placements themselves. This
could prove to be a significant advantage for brokers and cedants managing decentralized
placement processes and for underwriters in managing their producers and own
performance. To provide effective management reports, the system needs full adoption by
that company. For most users of electronic trading systems, this is an added benefit but
not the primary driver.
Advances in Technology
Service-oriented architectures, Web services, and XML technologies
are all helping to make electronic trading more seamless and less costly. These
technologies are creating more flexible structures and easing integration between
systems, both internal and external. As a result, insurers and brokers are able to
leverage existing systems to connect directly to business partners or into trading
networks, realizing more of the efficiency benefits from the use of these systems. More
flexible architectures are allowing the trading systems themselves to better mimic each
user's existing workflows and reduce the amount of change involved.
Prior Attempts
Strangely, the number of largely failed prior attempts may be helping
the current efforts. Electronic trading is a complex undertaking, not least because of
the potential changes it involves in existing business processes. There will inevitably
be false starts. However, those false starts have served to raise awareness, address
concerns, promote industry initiatives, such as the creation of data standards, and test
different business models. There have also been survivors and profitable, sustainable
businesses which have developed. Their ability to stay the course adds credibility and
stability to the electronic trading initiative
Predictions for the Future
The question is not if, but how quickly and where? Electronic trading
is happening in the insurance industry and it will continue to grow. How quickly it
grows, particularly into the middle and large account insurance market will depend on
the market forces driving change. There are significant change management obstacles to
overcome. Without a compelling market force driving the change, adoption will be slow.
London is driven by both market competition and regulatory compliance; the small
commercial insurance sector, by insurer automation. These sectors may be reaching a
tipping point where the growth of electronic trading will accelerate. The next 2-5 years
should see significant expansion.
Adoption in these sectors will drive adoption in the middle and large
account market as insurer automation and market competition expands, but the pace of
adoption will be slower. It could be another 10 years before we see much activity in
trading large insurance placements electronically. With low volumes of transactions, the
first activity in that area is likely to be the electronic exchange of information
around the policy (accounting, policy documentation, claims and exposure data) rather
than the negotiation of the placement. A change in market forces, such as contract
certainty, increased disclosure requirements, or even deregulation could speed adoption.
Other forces such as a prolonged hardening of the market may have the opposite
effect.
Either way, the train has left the station. Just how quickly we reach
our destination and which route we take is yet to be determined.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.
Footnotes
1 See the second article in this series,
"Gateways, Hubs, and Transformers—Welcome to the World of Electronic Trading."
In the first of two articles, I examine the current state of electronic trading in the insurance industry: where we are and what's driving adoption. In the second article I will analyze the current players in this area and the different components of electronic trading. 1
There have been numerous efforts over the years to improve the efficiency of the commercial insurance industry through electronic trading. Advocates point to a cost structure where as much as 40 percent of premium dollars is absorbed in expense costs, and a supply chain that requires re-keying of data throughout. Despite the potential benefits and seeming necessity of electronic trading in today's increasingly digital age, the insurance industry has managed to be largely unaffected by each successive wave of electronic trading initiatives. Or has it?
Certainly the Internet bubble of the late 1990s did not yield the revolutionary changes in the industry that were once promised. Virtually all exchanges and electronic trading initiatives failed. The most recent and perhaps most heavily financed initiative to close was Kinnect, the trading platform backed by Lloyd's of London to the tune of $120 million but which ceased trading in January 2006.
With all these failed attempts, surely electronic trading is one idea that simply will not have its day—an idea that will forever be bogged down in the industry's entrenched business processes and the relationship nature of its business. Think again. Electronic trading is more prevalent now than at any time in the insurance industry's history, and we may be standing on the verge of major advances in the use of electronic trading throughout the industry.
What's Happening in Electronic Trading
Since the bursting of the Internet bubble and the hardening of insurance premiums post-September 11, there has been less hype about progress in electronic trading, but there has been steady progress nonetheless in both trading systems and electronic exchange of data between counterparties. Progress varies by sector of the market with the most significant developments being seen in small commercial lines insurance and facultative and treaty reinsurance. Developments include:
Factors Driving the Growth of Electronic Trading
The latest trend toward electronic trading is being fueled by different forces in the various markets affected, although interesting similarities are emerging.
Regulatory ComplianceThe strongest regulatory pressures are being seen in London with the Lloyd's and London market becoming subject to oversight by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The first initiative was the imposition of contract certainty by the end of 2006. Electronic trading is now being embraced as the next step, with support from the Market Reform Group. Elsewhere, the regulatory pressures are less strong, but have been aided by the Eliot Spitzer investigation. The increased focus on transparency and auditing of placement negotiations post-Spitzer has created an industry more receptive to electronic trading.
Market CompetitionThe strongest driver behind London's reforms is competition from Bermuda, a market not encumbered by centuries-old business practices. With most transactions in Bermuda occurring via email, London realizes it needs electronic trading to exchange data and supplement its traditional in-person trading floor structure. If it can achieve that, London believes it may actually gain a competitive advantage over other markets in being able to feed data directly into back-office systems rather than re-keying data from emails.
The need for reform in the face of competition will not be lost on the recently appointed chief executive of Lloyd's, Richard Ward, who oversaw the development of an electronic trading system for the International Petroleum Exchange in London under competition from Nymex and other exchanges.
Insurer AutomationInsurers are increasingly automating the underwriting process for smaller commercial lines, encouraging or even requiring that submissions be made via their websites. For some insurers, 80-90 percent of their submissions are received this way. This is creating a serious problem for brokers. No longer can they prepare one submission and send it by email or hard copy to multiple insurers. Instead, the broker is faced with re-entering data into each insurer's website. For low premium and commission business, this is threatening to make these lines of coverage unprofitable.
This problem will get worse for the brokers as more sophisticated rules engines lead to greater insurer automation. While automation has started with the smaller commercial programs and standardized products, it is creeping into the middle market. Already we are seeing business package programs with premiums in excess of $500,000 being handled electronically.
The problems created by insurer automation are forcing the industry to finally create some form of single entry multiple company interface (SEMCI). The threat of losing business is proving a strong enough motivator for brokers to overcome any fears of change.
Softening MarketThe bursting of the Internet bubble was shortly followed by 9/11 and a hardening of insurance premiums. Insurers' and brokers' margins increased, and the industry became less receptive to new ways of doing business. As premium rates and margins begin to come down, there is a renewed focus on attacking the high expense structure in the industry. This is helping to fuel the pace of insurer automation which is having a knock-on effect on the brokers' submission process.
EfficiencyThis is the most often cited benefit of electronic trading. Competition and the threat of losing business are driving brokers to adopt tools to electronically interface with insurer websites. Efficiency is the main argument, as electronic trading allows the broker service representatives to cover more insurers and be more productive. One of the problems with the efficiency argument, though, is that the real benefits will only be realized with integration allowing straight processing of information. In the short term, the costs of integration, training personnel on a new system, and potential duplication of activities pending integration are likely to increase costs, not reduce them.
Management InformationAutomating the placing process has the potential benefit of providing better management information over both the process and the placements themselves. This could prove to be a significant advantage for brokers and cedants managing decentralized placement processes and for underwriters in managing their producers and own performance. To provide effective management reports, the system needs full adoption by that company. For most users of electronic trading systems, this is an added benefit but not the primary driver.
Advances in TechnologyService-oriented architectures, Web services, and XML technologies are all helping to make electronic trading more seamless and less costly. These technologies are creating more flexible structures and easing integration between systems, both internal and external. As a result, insurers and brokers are able to leverage existing systems to connect directly to business partners or into trading networks, realizing more of the efficiency benefits from the use of these systems. More flexible architectures are allowing the trading systems themselves to better mimic each user's existing workflows and reduce the amount of change involved.
Prior AttemptsStrangely, the number of largely failed prior attempts may be helping the current efforts. Electronic trading is a complex undertaking, not least because of the potential changes it involves in existing business processes. There will inevitably be false starts. However, those false starts have served to raise awareness, address concerns, promote industry initiatives, such as the creation of data standards, and test different business models. There have also been survivors and profitable, sustainable businesses which have developed. Their ability to stay the course adds credibility and stability to the electronic trading initiative
Predictions for the Future
The question is not if, but how quickly and where? Electronic trading is happening in the insurance industry and it will continue to grow. How quickly it grows, particularly into the middle and large account insurance market will depend on the market forces driving change. There are significant change management obstacles to overcome. Without a compelling market force driving the change, adoption will be slow. London is driven by both market competition and regulatory compliance; the small commercial insurance sector, by insurer automation. These sectors may be reaching a tipping point where the growth of electronic trading will accelerate. The next 2-5 years should see significant expansion.
Adoption in these sectors will drive adoption in the middle and large account market as insurer automation and market competition expands, but the pace of adoption will be slower. It could be another 10 years before we see much activity in trading large insurance placements electronically. With low volumes of transactions, the first activity in that area is likely to be the electronic exchange of information around the policy (accounting, policy documentation, claims and exposure data) rather than the negotiation of the placement. A change in market forces, such as contract certainty, increased disclosure requirements, or even deregulation could speed adoption. Other forces such as a prolonged hardening of the market may have the opposite effect.
Either way, the train has left the station. Just how quickly we reach our destination and which route we take is yet to be determined.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.