2017 Most Dangerous Emerging Risks

U.S. Economic Nationalism

Nationalistic policies aim to boost American wealth and prosperity, but they may do long-term economic damage.
By: | April 7, 2017 • 9 min read

“From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first — America first.”

Advertisement




This key phrase from President Trump’s inaugural address sums up the various anti-globalization policies he intends to implement as the nation’s 45th president, which include reducing international trade, rolling back regulation enforcement and restricting immigration — all in the hopes of making America more economically independent.

But it remains indisputable that globalization has already become entrenched in the way companies do business. As one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world, the United States’ economy is inextricably linked to the rest of the world.

What will economic nationalism look like within U.S. borders if these policies come to fruition, and what does that mean for risk managers of multinational companies?

Tariffs, Trade and Supply Chains

The strategy to bring jobs back to the U.S. is two-pronged: Reduce international trade through import tariffs and revitalize American manufacturing.

“Import tariffs would be enormously disruptive to supply chains,” said Bill Reinsch, a distinguished fellow with the Stimson Center, which conducts nonpartisan policy research.

“The rhetoric we’ve been hearing today shows no understanding of the complexity of international trade or the complexity of manufacturing,” said Jack Hampton, professor of business at St. Peter’s University.

“Look at Boeing Corp., with something like 50,000 suppliers. Look at the automobile industry, and all of the parts that go into making a car.

Jack Hampton, professor of business, St. Peter’s University

“Even if you walk into your local barber shop, you’ll look around and notice how many products in there come from overseas. It’s not just big companies that will be impacted by trade restrictions. Smaller, local businesses will suffer most. They’ll have to change their whole model of how they work.”

Imposing high import tariffs and pulling out of international trade agreements like NAFTA would raise costs and could force companies with global supply chains to find new vendors. In the short term, extra expenses will be passed on to the consumer, making everything from computers to cardigans more expensive.

For companies, the search for new suppliers always introduces some risk. Shortening supply chains and relying primarily on domestic suppliers can reduce some of that risk, said Louis Gritzo, vice president and manager of research, FM Global.

But, there’s a trade-off in how much capacity a domestic partner can provide and how fast. Shortening the supply chain must happen at a very well-managed pace or there will be a capacity issue, Gritzo said.

“A risk manager would be wise to not look at that first or second link, but also go back to where the chain is anchored to the ground and make sure they are good all the way back,” he said.
In instances when relying on a foreign supplier is unavoidable, “it’s critical to make sure you’re working with good business partners,” said Dan Riordan, president of political risk, credit and bond insurance at XL Catlin.

“Given the changing relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world, you have to make sure you can trust your partner to help you navigate changes. Are there legal protections built into your agreement? Is there a dispute resolution mechanism, like arbitration? Because otherwise you could end up in a local court where you may not be treated fairly.”
Trade restrictions could also spark retaliatory measures, limiting potential markets for U.S. exporters.

“If you have restrictions on trade, it could lead to conflicts, and companies need to take that into account as they assess the risks of entering different markets,” Riordan said.

A New American Manufacturing

Reduced reliance on international trade calls for a boost in domestic manufacturing.

Advertisement




The promise looks good on paper: more self-reliance and more jobs for American workers. But the reality holds serious dangers for the U.S. economic growth.

Sparking a manufacturing renaissance isn’t as simple as following the mantra, “If you build it, they will come.” Given the high level of automation in factories, a return of manufacturing processes doesn’t necessarily translate into an influx of jobs.

“Probably one-third of workers were in manufacturing in the 1950s,” Hampton said. “Today, maybe 10 percent of workers are in factories, but they’re not doing the manufacturing. They’re fixing the machines that are doing the manufacturing.

Joe Cellura, President, North American Casualty Division, Allied World

“We went from having a few robots in the 1980s to having about 300,000 today. And one robot can sometimes do the work of 50 people.”

All of that machinery doesn’t come cheap. Manufacturers will likely need to secure financing to get all of the pieces in place. They’ll also take on more property and cyber risk as reliance on robotics progresses.

“Risk profiles will also change due to shifting claims trends,” said James Burns, head of Americas at Clyde & Co. and a member of the company’s Global Management Board. “With more business activity focused in the U.S., there will be a rise in U.S.-based claims. We have a litigious environment and high awards compared to other countries, so claims are going to get more expensive.”

Role of Regulations

To ease the burden, the Trump administration has proposed reducing regulations for American businesses: For every new rule proposed, two should be repealed. Though rolling back regulations could introduce some uncertainty for underwriters, it does open the door for more opportunity for American businesses.

“There’s a school of thought that many EPA, OSHA and DOL regulations are administrative in nature, and they tie up a lot of resources. Reducing regulations and enforcement frees up companies to develop their own processes internally and direct resources as they see fit,” said Joe Cellura, president, North American casualty division at Allied World Insurance Co.

But regulations often are created to reduce risk for businesses. If the regulation goes away, some risk comes back, Gritzo said. Maybe not right away, but with a lack of oversight in some key areas of safety and loss prevention, those risks may start to creep up again and result in unintended losses.

“The onus is also on risk managers to understand how the rules are changing and make sure they’re still following best practices in the absence of regulation.” – Joe Cellura, president, North American casualty division, Allied World Insurance Co.

Underwriters also rely on federal regulations to provide a consistent risk management framework.

“The current regulatory environment can be a friend to underwriters in the areas of workplace safety and workers’ compensation, product quality and safety, and environmental liability by creating a consistent compliance framework for all companies to follow. If that goes away, the onus is on us as underwriters to be even more aware of who we’re insuring and how they’re operating,” Cellura said.

“The onus is also on risk managers to understand how the rules are changing and make sure they’re still following best practices in the absence of regulation.”

Luckily, the best risk managers understand that adhering to high standards is as much about good business as it is about compliance.

“Our best customers are those who treat federal regulations as the minimum operating standard. And that’s not likely to change even if enforcement changes,” he said.

Immigration Restriction

U.S. protectionism doesn’t just apply to economic policy. Cracking down on immigration, both legal and illegal, is a major agenda item for the current administration.
Immigration actions to keep illegal immigrants out and deport those already here have interrupted legitimate visa processes and threaten to restrict travel altogether from a handful of countries.

Implementation of these policies in turn engenders an exclusionary, anti-foreigner attitude.

Bill Reinsch, distinguished fellow, Stimson Center

Supporters of immigration restrictions believe more resources will be targeted to current, taxpaying citizens. But keeping people out could have significant long-term effects on the American economy.

Tech industry giants have already expressed concern that limiting immigration will shrink the talent pool and lead to less diversity, though there’s debate around that claim.

“Some say there’s plenty of talent within our borders already, and that immigrant workers gain favor simply because they’ll work for less,” said Reinsch of the Stimson Center.

It’s not just the current talent pool that could be imperiled. Ripple effects may be felt from fewer international students attending American universities.

“I’ve heard several university presidents express concern. International students typically pay full freight, which frees up more financial aid and effectively subsidizes education for American students. So universities could face financial problems if they lose that base,” Reinsch said.

According to data collected by World Education Services, 40 percent of Chinese international students major in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. For Indian students, it’s a whopping 74 percent.

Advertisement




Data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows that more than half of all advanced STEM degrees are earned by international students. Meanwhile, the number of U.S. citizens and permanent residents earning graduate degrees in science and engineering fell 5 percent in 2014 from its peak in 2008, according to survey data collected by the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health.

What will be the long-term impact to our science and technology industries if these international students stop coming here, especially if engineers are more critical to the success of manufacturing than factory line workers?

“We could see more students going to Australia, the UK or Canada for English-language education. So many of our best engineers come here on visas to study. It’s not just from India, but from a lot of countries that the administration may want to block,” Hampton said.

“That could have effects later on if the U.S. starts to lag in technology.”
Even when international students don’t stay, the U.S. benefits when they return home with an American education and a sense of American values.

“They take our value system and culture with them, and perhaps become a voice in their country for human rights and rule of law,” Reinsch said.

“You can’t quantify the effect of that. But I think it’s to our advantage to have thousands of Chinese students go back to China every year and take our Western culture with them. Without that, it drives our countries further apart and makes dialogue more difficult.”

Reinsch pointed to intellectual property protection as an example. One of our biggest challenges with China, he said, is IP theft and lack of respect for trademarks and patent laws. Chinese students may return home with a stronger appreciation for IP protection, because they worked with U.S. universities who benefit very much from strong IP laws. If those students go on to create or invent something, they’re more likely to demand stronger protections from their government.

“The Chinese government has … made some progress in IP protection. That benefits China more than anyone else, but it helps American companies too because it at least creates a judicial process if there’s a dispute,” Reinsch said.

Similar to retaliatory trade tariffs, restricting immigration could lead other governments to tighten their own laws to make travel more difficult for Americans. Iran has already promised to block U.S. citizens from entering the country in response to President Trump’s proposed travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.

Advertisement




What if more nations follow suit? What if further conflict threatens the visa waiver program among the 30-plus countries that currently allows ease of travel for business, education and leisure? Travel restrictions make it harder to do business, limit research opportunities and make it difficult for countries to work together.

Nonetheless, Hampton of St. Peter’s University trusts that risk managers have grown adept at preparing for business disruption.

“Disruption mitigation has become highly developed. I suspect risk managers have been preparing for disruption since the November election.” &

________________________________________________________________

2017 Most Dangerous Emerging Risks

Artificial Intelligence Ties Liability in Knots

The same technologies that drive business forward are upending the nature of loss exposures and presenting new coverage challenges.

 

 

Cyber Business Interruption

Attacks on internet infrastructure begin, leaving unknown risks for insureds and insurers alike.

 

 

Foreign Economic Nationalism

Economic nationalism is upsetting the risk management landscape by presenting challenges in once stable environments.

 

 

Coastal Mortgage Value Collapse

As climate change drives rising seas, so arises the risk that buyers will become leery of taking on mortgages along our coasts.  Trillions in mortgage values are at stake unless the public and the private sector move quickly.

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

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Cyber Liability

Fresh Worries for Boards of Directors

New cyber security regulations increase exposure for directors and officers at financial institutions.
By: | June 1, 2017 • 6 min read

Boards of directors could face a fresh wave of directors and officers (D&O) claims following the introduction of tough new cybersecurity rules for financial institutions by The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS).

Advertisement




Prompted by recent high profile cyber attacks on JPMorgan Chase, Sony, Target, and others, the state regulations are the first of their kind and went into effect on March 1.

The new rules require banks, insurers and other financial institutions to establish an enterprise-wide cybersecurity program and adopt a written policy that must be reviewed by the board and approved by a senior officer annually.

The regulation also requires the more than 3,000 financial services firms operating in the state to appoint a chief information security officer to oversee the program, to report possible breaches within 72 hours, and to ensure that third-party vendors meet the new standards.

Companies will have until September 1 to comply with most of the new requirements, and beginning February 15, 2018, they will have to submit an annual certification of compliance.

The responsibility for cybersecurity will now fall squarely on the board and senior management actively overseeing the entity’s overall program. Some experts fear that the D&O insurance market is far from prepared to absorb this risk.

“The new rules could raise compliance risks for financial institutions and, in turn, premiums and loss potential for D&O insurance underwriters,” warned Fitch Ratings in a statement. “If management and directors of financial institutions that experience future cyber incidents are subsequently found to be noncompliant with the New York regulations, then they will be more exposed to litigation that would be covered under professional liability policies.”

D&O Challenge

Judy Selby, managing director in BDO Consulting’s technology advisory services practice, said that while many directors and officers rely on a CISO to deal with cybersecurity, under the new rules the buck stops with the board.

“The common refrain I hear from directors and officers is ‘we have a great IT guy or CIO,’ and while it’s important to have them in place, as the board, they are ultimately responsible for cybersecurity oversight,” she said.

William Kelly, senior vice president, underwriting, Argo Pro

William Kelly, senior vice president, underwriting at Argo Pro, said that unknown cyber threats, untested policy language and developing case laws would all make it more difficult for the D&O market to respond accurately to any such new claims.

“Insurers will need to account for the increased exposures presented by these new regulations and charge appropriately for such added exposure,” he said.

Going forward, said Larry Hamilton, partner at Mayer Brown, D&O underwriters also need to scrutinize a company’s compliance with the regulations.

“To the extent that this risk was not adequately taken into account in the first place in the underwriting of in-force D&O policies, there could be unanticipated additional exposure for the D&O insurers,” he said.

Michelle Lopilato, Hub International’s director of cyber and technology solutions, added that some carriers may offer more coverage, while others may pull back.

“How the markets react will evolve as we see how involved the department becomes in investigating and fining financial institutions for noncompliance and its result on the balance sheet and dividends,” she said.

Christopher Keegan, senior managing director at Beecher Carlson, said that by setting a benchmark, the new rules would make it easier for claimants to make a case that the company had been negligent.

“If stock prices drop, then this makes it easier for class action lawyers to make their cases in D&O situations,” he said. “As a result, D&O carriers may see an uptick in cases against their insureds and an easier path for plaintiffs to show that the company did not meet its duty of care.”

Advertisement




One area that regulators and plaintiffs might seize upon is the certification compliance requirement, according to Rob Yellen, executive vice president, D&O and fiduciary liability product leader, FINEX at Willis Towers Watson.

“A mere inaccuracy in a certification could result in criminal enforcement, in which case it would then become a boardroom issue,” he said.

A big grey area, however, said Shiraz Saeed, national practice leader for cyber risk at Starr Companies, is determining if a violation is a cyber or management liability issue in the first place.

“The complication arises when a company only has D&O coverage, but it doesn’t have a cyber policy and then they have to try and push all the claims down the D&O route, irrespective of their nature,” he said.

“Insurers, on their part, will need to account for the increased exposures presented by these new regulations and charge appropriately for such added exposure.” — William Kelly, senior vice president, underwriting, Argo Pro

Jim McCue, managing director at Aon’s financial services group, said many small and mid-size businesses may struggle to comply with the new rules in time.

“It’s going to be a steep learning curve and a lot of work in terms of preparedness and the implementation of a highly detailed cyber security program, risk assessment and response plan, all by September 2017,” he said.

The new regulation also has the potential to impact third parties including accounting, law, IT and even maintenance and repair firms who have access to a company’s information systems and personal data, said Keegan.

“That can include everyone from IT vendors to the people who maintain the building’s air conditioning,” he said.

New Models

Others have followed New York’s lead, with similar regulations being considered across federal, state and non-governmental regulators.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Cyber-security Taskforce has proposed an insurance data security model law that establishes exclusive standards for data security and investigation, and notification of a breach of data security for insurance providers.

Once enacted, each state would be free to adopt the new law, however, “our main concern is if regulators in different states start to adopt different standards from each other,” said Alex Hageli, director, personal lines policy at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

“It would only serve to make compliance harder, increase the cost of burden on companies, and at the end of the day it doesn’t really help anybody.”

Advertisement




Richard Morris, partner at law firm Herrick, Feinstein LLP, said companies need to review their current cybersecurity program with their chief technology officer or IT provider.

“Companies should assess whether their current technology budget is adequate and consider what investments will be required in 2017 to keep up with regulatory and market expectations,” he said. “They should also review and assess the adequacy of insurance policies with respect to coverages, deductibles and other limitations.”

Adam Hamm, former NAIC chair and MD of Protiviti’s risk and compliance practice, added: “With New York’s new cyber regulation, this is a sea change from where we were a couple of years ago and it’s soon going to become the new norm for regulating cyber security.” &

Alex Wright is a U.K.-based business journalist, who previously was deputy business editor at The Royal Gazette in Bermuda. You can reach him at [email protected]