Insurers Lag In Risk Management, Study Finds

Insurers and financial services companies should reevaluate their risk management structures and strive for a more practical and holistic approach, a report published jointly by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Economist Intelligence Unit advises.

The report, "Taming Uncertainty: Risk Management for the Entire Enterprise," highlights the range of risks facing financial institutions, from high to low probability and from the quantifiable to the intangible.

The report, PwC said, was also designed to help industry leaders understand the risks they face and align risk management strategies with corporate objectives.

Those connected with the study said that insurers were lagging in some respects when it came to risk management.

"Its ironic," Shyam Venkat, a partner in the financial risk management practice of PwC in New York. "Insurance companies were among the original risk managers given the sort of business they happen to be in," he said.

PwC said its findings were based on research that included a series of in-depth interviews with leading experts in risk management in June and July of this year. Interviews were conducted with more than 20 senior risk executives worldwide at leading banks and insurers.

"There can be a tendency for risk to be concentrated into stand-alone silos," said Juan Pujadas, leader of the global financial risk management practice, PricewaterhouseCoopers in New York.

He added that many banks split risk into three "deceptively neat" areascredit, market and operational risk, and set up departments to deal with each, "rather than accepting that may of these risks are interlinked."

Referring to insurance companies, Mr. Venkat said that in many respects, "the discipline of risk management as a management function hasn't quite grown at the same pace in the insurance sector as it did in the banking industry over the last 10-15 years." In particular, he referred to a lag in the emergence of risk management as a discipline that encompasses "both financial and non-financial risks and quantifiable and non-quantifiable risks."

Reasons for this, Mr. Venkat said, include the fact that insurance companies are slightly different from banks "in that they have much longer time horizons." Also, he said, the nature of insurance company risks tends to be different, most particularly on the actuarial side.

However, he noted, "There are definitely a lot of similarities in terms of market risks and credit risks." Insurance companies now realize "they are behind the banks and they need to try to bring about some of the same framework and apply it and customize it to their own risk profiles."

This can be accomplished, he said, by integrating management of all risks, including liability risks, in a unified framework.

Insurers "should take a broader, more holistic view" that allows for the "identification, quantification and management of risks in an enterprise-wide framework," he said.

Mr. Venkat added that insurance regulators typically have not addressed the area of risk management in the same way that banking regulators have. This, he said, is beginning to change, "particularly with cross-industry regulatory convergence."

The study found that in order to create the right framework for holistic risk management, corporate board management must make risk management a strategic priority. Management processes need to be set up to ensure that an awareness of risk informs decision-making, as well as corporate governance, external reporting and compensation.

In addition to regularly and objectively assessing their own internal risk management frameworks, Mr. Pujadas said that increased attention to the risks created through dealings with other institutions, whose risk management structures may not be as robust, is "crucial."

PricewaterhouseCoopers listed a variety of attributes it said are needed for a "world-class risk management culture.

The firm said an awareness of risk and the need to manage should pervade the enterprise, and risks should be identified, reported and quantified to the greatest possible extent.

It advised that equal attention should be paid to both quantifiable and unquantifiable risks, and that their management should not be fragmented into compartments and silos, but rather made everyones responsibility.

Those involved in monitoring risk, even non-financial risk, should have power of veto over new projects they consider too risky, the report also advised.


Reproduced from National Underwriter Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, July 22, 2002. Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.


NOT FOR REPRINT

© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.