Specialty Insurance

Rewarding Resilience

A new bond framework can provide dividends for completing infrastructure projects that boost resilience.
By: | May 2, 2017 • 5 min read

Healthy cities, like healthy people, are less risky to insure. So if insurers offer people tools and incentives to meet their health goals, why not do the same for cities and regions?

That’s a simple but clear way of explaining the purpose of resilience bonds, a unique variation of catastrophe bonds being developed through the Re:Bound initiative, the brainchild of Re:Focus Partners, a design and finance firm focused on developing and brokering public-private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure around the world.

Shalini Vajjhala, founder and CEO, Re:Focus Partners

Resilience advocacy is still a relatively nascent trend. In fact, the formal role of chief resilience officer didn’t even exist before 2014. But resilience projects like seawalls and other coastal protections are now finding their way onto the agendas of cities and regions with catastrophe exposures.

In the process of designing some of those projects, the team at Re:Focus Partners noticed a marked disconnect. Founder and CEO Shalini Vajjhala said: “We were creating insurance benefits that weren’t really capturable at the retail level. If you rebuild 63 miles of seawall along Miami Beach you should be reducing risk — that’s the point of the whole project. But it occurred to us that no one was really thinking about this problem this way.”

Vajjhala and her team launched Re:Bound to establish a direct method for tying infrastructure investment to risk transfer vehicles, using catastrophe bonds as a jump-off point.

“Our goal with the program was to test and validate whether we could rework a CAT bond into a new structure so that we could capture the benefits of resilient infrastructure projects in an insurance linked finance mechanism,” Vajjhala said.

Re:Focus teamed up with RMS, Swiss Re, The Rockefeller Foundation and Goldman Sachs to study, develop and validate the framework for the bonds.

Alex Kaplan, senior vice president at Swiss Re, took part in the initiative. “The challenges our cities and communities face globally are changing,” said Kaplan. “This means the solutions our industry can provide must also evolve.”

Advertisement




Resilience bonds, like CAT bonds, serve an insurance purpose, providing a payout if a catastrophic event occurs and meets the bond’s predetermined triggering criteria, whether that be a certain threshold of losses, a specific storm surge height or a certain wind speed, for example. That financial assurance enables entities or communities to reduce their dependence on federal relief and disaster aid.

But unlike CAT bonds, resilience bonds also benefit their holders when disaster doesn’t strike. Reduced premiums based on lowered risk are tied to the completion of the resilience project during the bond term, creating “resilience rebates” that can applied in a variety of ways depending upon the needs and goals of the entity.

“If you rebuild 63 miles of seawall along Miami Beach you should be reducing risk — that’s the point of the whole project. But it occurred to us that no one was really thinking about this problem this way.” —Shalini Vajjhala, founder and CEO, Re:Focus Partners

At the completion of a resilience project, the bond holder has achieved reduced physical disaster risk while maintaining the financial protection of the bond and earning a return on its premiums, which would continue through subsequent bond issuances — creating a long-term resource for funding continued resilience efforts.

“Resilience bonds could not only support a faster recovery,” said Kaplan, “but would also help to improve national and city preparedness in a very substantial way, and fast-track resilience from idea to reality.”

Modeling for Impact

The framework for resilience bonds, like CAT bonds, relies on sophisticated models, which are broadly understood and deliver a high level of confidence for investors. The difference for resilience bonds is the use of project-based measurements to frame the risk.

Alex Kaplan, senior vice president, Swiss Re

For a flood barrier project, for instance, the same CAT events are modeled both with and without the barrier in place, illustrating how the project will reduce the cost of the risk.

“The key to the resilience bond concept is the ability to … determine in a robust, probabilistic manner, the reduction in risk that results from actions taken to improve resilience,” said Ben Brookes, VP, capital markets, RMS.

Brookes noted that modeling for resilience brought a new dimension to exposure data.

Resilience, he said, “might mean reducing loss of life in the wake of disaster. It might mean protecting complex interconnected lifelines such as health care services, transportation, energy and water supplies. It might mean improving the ability to recover quickly. It might mean reducing the economic impact in terms of city revenues or private business.

“Or it might mean all of these things and more.

“The interplays between these elements can also be critical,” Brookes said.

Shared Exposures

The catastrophe exposures being addressed by any given public sector resilience project typically impact numerous public and private stakeholders in a region, such as utilities, hospitals, universities and mass transportation systems as well as private corporations.

Advertisement




As such, resilience bonds present partnership opportunities to share the cost of infrastructure improvements as well as the benefits of resilience rebates, while improving the risk profile for all.

Shared risk in the Embarcadero Historic District in San Francisco is a notable example.

“There is $75 billion in assets behind the seawall and all of the major utility lines actually run physically through the concrete wall,” said Vajjhala.

“The wall is not seismically sound anymore.”

A retrofit would generate insurance benefits for the Port, which is the seawall’s managing entity, as well as all of the private properties that could be impacted if that seawall fails, she said.

“Almost every major port city has some variation on that problem.”

The Re:Bound project is exploring infrastructure interventions that work across different perils, including wildfires.

“It’s all about what’s modellable, what creates a meaningful risk reduction, and then how do you translate those risk reductions into a resilience bond structure so that they can be redirected to support the project,” said Vajjhala.

Jamie Rhodes, program co-lead, Re:Bound

She and Re:Bound program co-lead Jamie Rhodes are working with potential sponsors and co-sponsors from around the country to explain the new bond framework and help them determine whether a resilience bond might be an effective complement to a resilience project under consideration.

Vajjhala and Rhodes expect that the first issuance of this type of resilience bond will happen within the next year and a half. They’re excited to be able to bring the concept to reality.

“A large part of what makes our little firm tick is solving problems that are at the intersection of public and private interest — those things that have a lot of people’s attention but there’s no single individual or organization that has the get-up-and-go to tackle on its own,” said Vajjhala.

“We take a great deal of satisfaction in being able to solve these kinds of problems and incubate lines of business that create public value.” &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Reputational Risk

Under Siege

Driven by social media, political wars spill over into the corporate arena, threatening reputations.
By: | May 2, 2017 • 12 min read

On Jan. 28, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance called a strike at John F. Kennedy International Airport, one day after President Trump signed an executive order banning entry of foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority nations, including a blanket ban on refugees. The strike was an act of solidarity with immigrants, and a public display of the Alliance’s opposition to the executive order.

Advertisement




Uber, however, continued to service the airport, tweeting that it would halt surge pricing during the protests. Some saw it as an opportunistic ploy to get more riders to use Uber. A #deleteUber Twitter campaign was quickly born, with users tweeting screen shots of themselves removing the app from their smartphones.

More than 200,000 were estimated to have uninstalled the ride-sharing service over the course of the weekend.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick reacted, creating a $3 million legal defense fund to provide lawyers and immigration experts for any of its drivers that were barred from the U.S., and promising that drivers would be compensated for lost wages.

Over the same weekend, in response to the travel ban, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced that the company would hire 10,000 refugees worldwide over the next five years. Then it was Starbucks turn to get punished in the public arena. A #boycottStarbucks campaign was launched by people who felt the company should focus more on hiring American veterans.

Athletic shoemaker New Balance suffered blowback in November of 2016 when its vice president of communications, Matt LeBretton, told the “Wall Street Journal” in an interview that he believed “things are going to move in the right direction” under the new administration. Angry customers began posting pictures of themselves trashing or even burning their New Balance sneakers.

These social media-fueled public relations crises demonstrate how fickle public opinion can be. They also serve as warning signs of growing reputational risk for corporations.

Uber, for example, typically stops its surge pricing in the event of emergency so as not to exploit a crisis for its own benefit. To do so during the protests and taxi strike at JFK was perhaps meant to show its respect for the event.

Helen Chue, global risk manager, Facebook

Starbucks’ 10,000 refugee hires would be spread out across its locations around the globe, not just in the U.S., where the coffee conglomerate already promised to hire 25,000 veterans and military spouses by 2025.

New Balance’s LeBretton was speaking specifically about the Trans-Pacific Partnership during his interview, and how the deal could hurt sneaker production in the U.S. while favoring foreign producers — he wasn’t talking about Trump’s other proposed plans.

These companies, in reality, did nothing as abhorrent and scandalous as the Twitterverse may have led some to believe, but context isn’t always provided in 140 characters.

Public Pressure

Complaints and boycotts have been launched at companies via social media for perhaps as long as social media has existed. But the current contentious environment created by one of the most divisive leaders in American history now colors every public statement made by prominent business leaders with a political tint. Executives are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They’re exposed to reputational damage whether they oppose or endorse a Trump action, or even if they do nothing at all.

Take Elon Musk, for example, founder of Tesla and SpaceX and a well-known advocate for climate research and environmental protection. He came under fire for not publicly denouncing the travel ban and for keeping his seat on Trump’s business advisory council.

Musk has largely avoided the limelight on political issues, couching statements when he makes them at all — as most executives are wont to do. But he was prodded to defend himself on Twitter after some users suggested he was a hypocrite.

“Be proactive in your plans to mitigate the aftermath and how to communicate. Own up to error. Be transparent. Salvage your crown jewel.” —Helen Chue, global risk manager, Facebook

A strategy of avoidance may no longer work as consumers, employees and the public at large pressure companies to make a statement or take action in response to political events.

“A large segment of the population expects the people they do business with and the companies they buy from to support their point of view or respond to political or social issues in a certain way,” said Chrystina M. Howard, senior vice president, strategic risk consulting, Willis Towers Watson.

In a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t environment, reputation risk is expanding, and risk managers need to re-evaluate how they assess their exposure and build mitigation strategies.

A True Crisis?

The challenge begins with determining whether a negative public relations event is really a crisis. Is it a temporary blow to a brand, or does it have the potential to do long-term reputation damage? Misreading the signs could lead companies to overreact and further tarnish their image.

“These sudden public relations crises are a source of panic for companies, but sometimes it sounds much worse than it actually is. The financial ramifications may not be anywhere near what was feared,” Howard said.

“Uber is probably a good example of what not to do,” said Jeff Cartwright, director of communications at Morning Consult, a brand and political intelligence firm.

“They maybe went over the top in trying to reverse the way they handled the protests at JFK.”

Tracking brand value in real time can give risk managers insight into the true impact of a negative social media campaign or bad press.  Michael Ramlet, CEO and co-founder of Morning Consult, said most events don’t damage brands as much as trending hashtags make it appear.

Morning Consult’s proprietary brand tracking tool allows companies to measure their brand perception against influencing events like a spike of Twitter mentions and news stories. More often than not, overall brand loyalty remains on par with industry averages.

In Uber’s case, Twitter mentions spiked to roughly 8,800 on Jan. 29, up from about 1,000 the day before. By Jan. 31, though, the number was back down to around 1,250 and quickly settled back down to its average numbers. From the beginning of the #deleteUber campaign through the end of February, Uber’s favorability shrunk from 50 percent to roughly 40 percent, based on a series of polls taken by 18,908 respondents.

Advertisement




It’s a significant dip, but likely not a permanent stain on the company’s reputation, especially after Kalanick’s public show of support for immigrants and rejection of the travel ban. Uber’s favorability rating remained higher than competitor Lyft’s throughout the ordeal.

“The #deleteUber campaign turned out to be a very local thing that didn’t have a widespread impact,” Ramlet said.

“Twitter at best is an imputed analysis of what people are saying. The vocal minority might be very active, but there might be a silent majority who still think fondly of a brand, or at least have no negative opinions of it.”

He said risk managers can also benefit by breaking down their brand perception into geographic and demographic subsets. It can, for example, show whether a brand is favored more heavily by Democrats or Republicans.

“If you have that data on day one, it can help you determine how to respond if, say, Trump tweets at you,” Ramlet said.

Of course, some spikes in news media and social media attention are indicative of much deeper problems and true reputational risk.

After the Wells Fargo dummy-account scandal broke, for example, unfavorability ratings as measured by Morning Consult jumped from roughly 20 percent to nearly 55 percent, while favorability dropped from 50 percent to 30 percent. Net favorability, which stood at 33 percent pre-scandal, fell to -4 percent post-scandal.

“They went from being the most popular bank to the least popular in less than four months, according to our data,” Ramlet said.

The contrast between Uber’s and Wells Fargo’s stories demonstrates the difference between a more surface-level public-relations event that temporarily hurts brand image, and a true reputation event.

“Failures that produce real and lasting damage to reputation include failures of ethics, innovation, safety, security, quality and sustainability,” said Nir Kossovksy, CEO of Steel City Re.

“Activists make a lot of noise that can be channeled through various media, but for the most part in the business world, stakeholders are interested in the goods and services a company offers, not in their political or social views. As long as you can meet stakeholder expectations, you avoid long-term reputational damage.”

Wells Fargo’s scandal involved a violation of ethics, sparked an SEC investigation and forced the resignation of its CEO, John Stumpf. It’s safe to say stakeholders were severely disappointed.

That’s not to say, however, that a tarnished brand name doesn’t also impact the bottom line.

“Even if a bad event is short-lived, the equity markets react quickly, so there may be sharp equity dips. There may be some economic impact even over the short term,” Kossovsky said, “because sharp dips are dog whistles for activists, litigators and corporate raiders.”

Social Media Machine

The root of reputation risk’s tightening grip lies in the politicizing of business, and consumers’ increased desire to buy from companies that share their values. Social media may not be driving that trend, but it acts as a vehicle for it.

“Social media has really changed the game in terms of brand equity, and has given people another way to choose who they give their money to,” Howard of Willis Towers Watson said.

Platforms like Twitter make it easier for consumers to directly reach out to big companies and allow news to travel at warp speed.

“Social media are communication channels that can take a story and make it widely available. In that regard, the media risk is no different than that posed by a newspaper or radio channel,” Kossovsky said.

“The difference today that changes the strategy for risk managers and boards is that social media has been weaponized: Stories shared on social media don’t necessarily have to contain truthful content, and there’s not always an obvious difference between what’s true and what’s not.”

Helen Chue, Facebook’s global risk manager, agreed.

“More influential than social media platforms is today’s culture of immediacy and headlines. Because we are inundated with information from so many sources, we scan the headlines, form our opinions and go from there,” she said.

“It’s dangerous to draw conclusions without taking a balanced approach, but who has the time and patience to sift through all the different viewpoints?”

An environment of political divisiveness, driven by speed and immediacy of social media, creates the risk that false or half-true stories are disseminated before companies have a chance to clarify. This is what happened to Uber and New Balance.

“It creates the opportunity to turn a non-problem into a problem,” Kossovksy said.

“That’s how social media changes the calculus of risk management.”

Risk Mitigation

The best way to battle both political pressure and social media’s speed is through an ironclad communication strategy; a process that risk managers can lead.

Advertisement




“Risk managers play a crucial role in mitigating reputation risk,” Howard said.

“They bring with them the discipline of managing and monitoring a risk, having a plan and responding to crisis. Now they really have to partner with communications, marketing and PR.”

They also have to get the attention of their board of directors.

“If you let a gap form between what you say and what you do, that gap is the definition of reputation risk.” — Nir Kossovksy, CEO of Steel City Re

“This is both a company-wide risk and personal leadership risk, so the board needs to drive a company-wide policy that protects the board as well,” Kossovsky said.

The art of mitigating reputation risk, he said, comes down to managing expectations. Corporate communications should clearly convey what a company believes and what it does not believe; what it can do and what it can’t do. And those stated values need to align with the operational reality. It comes down to creating credibility and legitimacy.

“If you let a gap form between what you say and what you do, that gap is the definition of reputation risk,” he said. A strong communication strategy can prevent adverse events from turning into reputational threats.

Willis Towers Watson helps clients test their strategies through a table-top exercise in which they have to respond to a social media-driven reputation event.

“We’ll say, ‘Something happened with X product, and now everyone’s on Twitter lambasting you and calling for resignations, etc.’ What do you do on day one? What do you do a week out? How long do you continue to monitor it and keep it on your radar?” Howard said.

“If you have that plan in place, you can fine-tune it going forward as circumstances change.”

Sometimes, though, the communication strategy fails, and a company falls short of meeting stakeholders’ expectations. Now it’s time for crisis management.

“Volatility creates vulnerability. If you stumble on your corporate message, it creates an opportunity for activists, litigators and corporate raiders to exploit. So you need to have authoritative third parties who can attest to your credibility and affirm the truth of the situation to open-minded stakeholders,” Kossovsky said.

Owning up to any mistakes, reaffirming the truth and being as transparent as possible will be key in any response plan.

Insuring the Risk

Recouping dollars lost from reputation damage requires a blend of mathematics with a little magic. While some traditional products are available, reputation risk is, for the most part, an intangible and uninsurable risk.

“Many companies have leveraged their captive insurance companies in the absence of traditional reputation products in the marketplace,” said Derrick Easton, managing director, alternative risk transfer solutions practice, Willis Towers Watson.

“It goes back to measuring a loss that can include lost revenue, or increased costs. Some companies build indexes in the same way we might create an index for a weather product, using rainfall or wind speed. For reputation, we might use stock price or a more refined index,” he said.

“If we can measure a potential loss, we can build a financing structure.”

While there’s no clear-cut way to measure losses from reputation damage, “stock performance and reported sales changes are some of the best tools we have,” Howard said.

Some insurers, including Allianz and Tokiomarine Kiln, and Steel City Re, an MGA, do offer reputation policies. When these fit a company’s needs, they have the ancillary benefit of affirming quality of governance and sending a signal that the insured is prepared to defend itself.

“Because reputation assurance is only available to companies that have demonstrated sound governance processes, it helps to convince people that if a bad piece of news happens, it’s idiosyncratic; it doesn’t reflect what the company really stands for,” Kossovsky of Steel City Re said.

Advertisement




“And it tells activists, broadly defined, not to look for low-hanging fruit here.”

In a volatile political environment, companies fare best when they simply tell the truth.

“The American public will accept an apology if delivered quickly and if it’s sincere,” said Stephen Greyser, Richard P. Chapman professor (marketing/communications) emeritus, of the Harvard Business School.

“Tell the truth. Don’t stonewall. A bad social media campaign can be an embarrassment, but if you stick to the facts and apologize when you need to, people forget about the bad quickly.”

“Reputation is the crown jewel,” Chue said. “Given the power of social media’s reach, one individual can have a tsunami-like influence. And it can happen when you least expect it, and it will probably be something you thought was innocuous or even positive that sets off a maelstrom.

“Plan for the worst-case scenario. Be proactive in your plans to mitigate the aftermath and how to communicate. Own up to error. Be transparent. Salvage your crown jewel.” &

Katie Siegel is a staff writer at Risk & Insurance®. She can be reached at [email protected]