Upload
vutuong
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Independent Reviewers Conference6th December 2016
Agenda
Market Presentation Brian Secrett
Data Quality Binder & Lineslip PMDR Thematic Review Jane Adams
The Road to Contract Quality Mark Williams
Managing Agent Panel Various
Delegated Underwriting Code of Practice – Line Slip & Consortia Lindsey Davies
Questions & Close Leslie Edmonds
Data Quality Binder & Lineslip
PMDR Thematic ReviewJane Adams, Executive, PMD Standards Review – Lloyd’s
Binding Authority Business
38%
62%
GNWP 2015
Binders & LS
Other
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2011 2015
Binding Authority business
Reasons for Review
The ability to effectively monitor rate change and price adequacy is essential for Managing Agents to deliver against their business plan.
The accuracy of figures is becoming more important as market conditions continue to soften.
Participants
Findings
Granularity ofMI differs
Rates often only reviewed at renewal and only mid-term if advised of a material change
Majority of MAs have robust EPI
review processes
Little consideration given to change in business mix or
DA portfolio
Minimal tracking/monitoring ofRARC and EPI for majority of
limited & full binders
Bordereaux received ad hoc and do not capture rate change fields – no
appetite to require this
PMDr documentation already in place
Of the 12 Managing Agents reviewed, how many . . . . ?
1. Review binder and line slip EPI at least quarterly?
2. Use “Not Completed” instead of zero in RARC fields?
3. Use a dedicated bordereaux management system?
1. Review binder and line slip EPI at least quarterly?
Of the 12 Managing Agents reviewed, how many . . . . ?
Of the 12 Managing Agents reviewed, how many . . . . ?
2. Use “Not Completed” instead of zero in RARC fields?
Of the 12 Managing Agents reviewed, how many. . . . ?
3. Use a dedicated bordereaux management system?
Proposal for Future Changes to Minimum Standards
Board/Committee MI to include rate change and
price adequacy KPIs.
Split by binder & non-binder business at a
minimum.
Pricing and Rate Monitoring policy to
require regular review of RARC & price adequacy. (For limited & full binding
authorities, risk-based approach.)
Controls to identify and escalate where
bordereaux not being received at the frequency
agreed in the slip.
Controls to ensure EPI reviewed for accuracy at least on a quarterly basis.
Committees reviewing EPI to receive regularly:
- estimated value of outstanding bordereaux;
- average time between inception & processing.
Underwriting systems to allow “Not Completed“
rather than “0” (e.g. if not able to calculate rate change due to lack of
reliable data).
The Road to Contract Quality…Mark Williams, Senior Executive, PMD Standards Review – Lloyd’s
Tools Training
ReviewClaims
• Market wide training programme• LMA/wordings Forum• CII certificate/exam?• LMG• Wordings seminar
• Review disputes/complaints • Challenge agents re Contract Quality • Agents amend contract
• QA• Crystal• Adsensa tools• LWR repository/MWL• Clause library/skeleton policy per LOB• MRC
• Enhanced Min standards on CC and rate change
• PMD review contracts• Regular update of preferred
clauses/clause library• Re-introduce stage 2 Xchanging checks
Contract Quality - December 2016
Tools Training
ReviewClaims
• Market wide training programme LMA foundation
• LMA/wordings Forum profile? • CII certificate/exam? LM3• LMG Talent & Diversity• Wordings seminar Feb 2017• Lloyd’s Grad scheme• CII Uni presentations• Nottingham Trent Uni
• Review disputes/complaints 4 MAs/ lessons learned/internal report
• Challenge agents re Contract Quality Fact Finding/thematic review
• Agents amend contract lessons learned
• QA planned update • Crystal v.2.0 to be developed• Adsensa tools still available• LWR repository/MWL• Clause library/skeleton policy per LOB
CQTT• MRC updated
• Enhanced Min standards on CC and rate change done
• PMD review contracts Fact Finding/thematic review?
• Regular update of preferred clauses/clause library CQTT/LMA
• Re-introduce stage 2 Xchanging checks ?
Contract Quality - December 2016
Part I - Fact Find Questions to all MAs
1. What % PBQA checks are conducted on the business you lead?
2. What is your approach on follow business?
3. How many staff are employed in your organisation whose sole/primary role is preparation/review/agreement of wordings? What percentage of wordings is reviewed by them?
4. What tools/software/systems do you use for review of wordings? Pre or post bind? What % of wordings is subject to this review?
5. Aside from review by the underwriter, specific wordings personnel and system checks, do you have any other controls to identify if a wording is outside your risk appetite?
6. What quantitative and qualitative reporting do senior committees and/or board receive on wordings?
Lead BusinessPost bind checks and/or
no oversight of UW checks
Risk based pre-bind 100% checked pre-bind
Follow BusinessNo checks or only post
bind checksRisk based pre-bind 100% checked pre-bind
Wordings Experts
None 1 or 2 >2
Tools None Risk based 100%
Other ControlsNo Peer or
Independent ReviewPeer and/or
Independent ReviewOther (additional)
controls
Committee Reporting
No specific reporting Included as requiredIncluded in regular
reporting
Strength of Controls - applicable to all peer groups
9 20 29
27 18 13
23 19 16
10 25 23
14 30 14
16 19 23
17
“…extend the CC process to include a risk based review of a sample of
‘non-lead’ contracts based upon the following criteria…”
“We will develop a set of risk-based criteria to determine the level of
due diligence.”
“We will also consider performing checks on a thematic basis in accordance with the major
class renewal seasons.”
MA Responses to Fact Find - Follow Business
18
“We have formed a working party . . . looking at
broadening Peer and Independent Reviews to
incorporate T&C within the peer review process.”
“Formalising a review/ feedback process between
Wordings and Claims to improve our wordings in
respect of ‘lessons learnt’ from disputed claims.”
“Our Executive & Risk Committee will begin to receive Independent Review Reports, which include wording provisions specifically to ensure that all
relevant issues are addressed within the reports.”
MA Responses to Fact Find – Additional Controls
19
“We will be enhancing reporting on wordings and contract certainty
themes to the Underwriting Committee.”
“Reporting metrics will be developed and reported to appropriate internal forums
with wordings expert present. Significant issues will be
escalated to the Underwriting Committee…”
“The syndicate will develop a Wordings report that will be presented
to the Underwriting Committee.”
MA Responses to Fact Find - Committee Reporting
Lead BusinessPost bind checks and/or
no oversight of UW checks
Post bind checks and/or no oversight of UW
checks
Follow BusinessNo checks or only post
bind checksNo checks or only post
bind checks
Wordings Experts
None None
Tools None None
Other ControlsNo Peer or
Independent ReviewNo Peer or
Independent Review
Committee Reporting
No specific reporting No specific reporting
Strength of Controls - applicable to all peer groups
9 0
27 4
23 9
10 3
14 4
16 3
Part II Thematic Wordings Review - to date
2017 review work
Part II Report – Thematic & fact find conclusions
Fieldwork complete - themes and conclusions
Evidence reviewed
10 MAs interviewed P
P
P
CQTT - why now?
o Lloyd’s estimates the market is wasting £500m+ p.a. on disputed claimso The market has lost some of its focus on contract certaintyo Wordings talent shortage:
o 450k+ wordings agreed in Lloyd’s market however <100 wordings specialistso talent pipeline is severely lacking
o >50% of follow MAs do not carry out pre bind checks, even risk based, therefore only 35% of follow GWP being checked by MAs
oA significant number of MAs do not report on wordings to senior management.
Carrier Business Process
Bulk upload of expiring wordings into CQT
Tool
Receive draft
contract from broker
Scan/upload new and/or
expiring contract into CQT Tool
Run relevant CQT Tool
checks and review results
Refer to underwriter/
senior underwriter/
wordings specialist via
CQT tool
Make underwriting
decisions and carry
out negotiations with broker
Agree final contract
Download CQT Tool
results
Internal Audit of
CQT Tool output
Carrier’s DMSPPLIMR
Carrier’s DMS
Pre-bindPre-renewal Post-bind
Key step
Optional step
Peer review
Re-run of documents through CQT Tool checks throughout negotiation
PPL
CQTT - The Benefits
o Assisting UWs in factoring changes to T&Cs into risk selection & pricing o Provides a clear evidential trail for wordings decisionso Opportunity for syndicates to develop bespoke ruleso Potential for reduced endorsements/addenda to slips and contractso Assist MAs to comply with minimum standards on PBQA, CC and CQo Potential to reduce claims disputes (£500m)o Can lead to a tenfold increase in contracts reviewedo Reduced Operational Risk Capital allocation.
PPL Firm Order High Level Design
PPLBroker System
Word MRC
12 fields of data
1
Contract Quality Tool SDC
2
4e-Bind
Attributes1. Auto Data Creation2. Basic Data Validation3. Error Highlighting (no query loop)
ACORD Post-placement Message
3
Broker
Underwriter(s)
5
Attributes1. Doc Comparison2. Contract Certainty Checks3. Cause Library Checks4. Risk Appetite Checks
Contract Builder
(optional)
Key:Current / Enhanced Live ServiceIn-flight or delivered outside TOMNew TOM serviceOutside of TOM scope
U/wr Ref(s)
Underwriting System
6
Signed Line Advice 7
8
Progress so far
oSoftware developer selected Dec 2015o 250 hours of workshops early 2016oRequirements agreed & prototype
developedoPresentations & Demos to MAs/LMA
panelsoOffer to market to be an “Early Adopter”oAgreeing “Early Adopter” T&Cs oSystem build due to start Dec 2016o First release April 2017o Full release of all modules early 2018
Independent Reviewers Considerations:
oReview contract T&Cs as part of IPR
oReview Contract/PBQA/Contract Certainty processes
o Look at RARC
oReview tools & reporting on contract wordings issues
Managing Agent Panel
Paul Restarick - Chaucer Syndicates LimitedKevin Iles - Chaucer Syndicates LimitedDavid Cooney - QBE Underwriting LimitedMervyn Sugden - Ark Syndicate Management Limited
Delegated Underwriting Code of Practice -
Line Slips & Consortia
Lindsey Davies, Delegated Authorities Manager, PMD – Lloyd’s
303030© Lloyd’s 30
“It feels like the wild west out there!”
313131
Current Oversight of Line Slips & Consortia
o Minimum Standards - line slips mentioned once
o MRC is out of date
o Code of Practice concentrates on bulking/non-bulking differences
o Intermediaries Byelaw
o Definitions Byelaw
o Fragment and not easy to follow or implement
323232
What does this mean? Why change?
Managing Agents can not meet the Minimum Underwriting Standards = prudential risk.
Frameworks and rules in place to safeguard Lloyd’s licences are ignored, putting licences at risk.
333333
The Line Slip MRC - the contract is the key
o Transparency of contract
o Complex v non complex
o Understanding of terms - execution of process
o Document issuance
o Reporting
o Lead/follow relationship
343434© Lloyd’s 34
Minimum Standards
Bulletin
Code of Practice
LMG – MRC
Review and test regularly
Thematic reviews
Six monthly reviews
Strengthen Lloyd’s requirements under Minimum Standards
Update existing market guidance
Improve monitoring of Standards
353535
Thank you for your feedback!
363636
Recommendation: The PBQA tool in its current form sets unreasonable expectations around minimum requirements. These should be clarified and the QA tool should be reduced in scale to a document that is more usable.
Recommendation: Remove the mandating of the specific KPIs within this section as they may not be appropriate to all managing agents……
Recommendation: Postpone the implementation of Line Slip / Consortia reporting standards until further consideration has been given to the purpose of the reporting standards, the data needed to meet that purpose and to align with proposed market modernisation initiatives.
Response: Lloyd’s will remove the PBQA tool for the moment until some further work in conjunction with the LMA has been carried out.
Response: Lloyd’s will remove the specific text around KPI’s for the moment – we will ask what measures you measure and monitor your book with. We will then assess if it’s adequate.
Response: Lloyd’s will postpone the Standards for 2017 and look to work with the new technology and the market for a further solution. We will test however that followers are receiving information to meet Minimum Standards.
Recommendations and Response
373737
Consortia
o Main issues with Consortia
o No model contract
o No reporting
o Little understanding of setting up or processing
o No central register
o 9000 numbers
383838© Lloyd’s 38
Minimum Standards
Bulletin
Code of Practice
Lloyds.com
LMA wording
Review and test regularly
Thematic reviews
Six monthly reviews
Strengthen Lloyd’s requirements under Minimum Standards
Update existing market guidance
Improve monitoring of Standards
393939
Consortia
o What have we achieved?
o LMA model contract due out by December
o Code and Minimum Standards changed to ensure information sharing
o Code and Lloyds.com - guide to set up
o Central register created at Lloyd’s
o 9000 number - project