The Management of Operational Risk Through Appropriate Insurance Schemes

Setting up own Insurance Companies When a banks actually establishes its own insurance company it is also called "single parent captive". Such insurance companies actually act as a re-insurers, using the services of a licensed insurance company to issue policies and handle claims. This licensed insurance company is often referred to as the "fronting" insurer. Under this arrangement, the fronting insurer does the insurer's claims handling and loss control services, satisfies various legal and regulatory requirements concerning policy issuance, and may also satisfy creditors shareholders, regulators, and other interested parties The "fronting" insurance company actually assumes the primary legal obligation for the payment of claims. Thus, if professional indemnity is insured in the captive but the bank becomes insolvent, the "fronting" insurer issuing the professional Indemnity Policy is ultimately responsible for the payment of all incurred claims, regardless of whether it is able to collect from the captive or the bank. Therefore, while the use of single parent captives may provide a potentially viable vehicle for managing operational risk within a single bank, its use must be carefully evaluated in relation to legal implications within the Kingdom. 3.2 Regular Insurance The most common method of risk transfer is through the purchase of insurance whereby the insured exchanges the possibility of incurring an unknown large loss for a comparatively smaller premium payment. 3.2.1 Relations with the Market Unfortunately, some banks treat the purchase of insurance essentially as "commodity', transaction being driven entirely by price. Consequently, it is routine for banks to place their insurance programs out on an annual tender offer basis, and place little emphasis on developing stable and long-term relationships with both brokers and underwriters. All financial markets reward stability and consistency and the bank insurance market is no exception. The effect of this instability and fragmentation in the some of the insurance market has been two-fold. Quality of underlying re-insurance - When account relationship is perceived by the both underwriters and brokers to be totally price driven, it is often impossible to re-insure the risk with the most reputable and stable re-insurers. This means that brokers must often place the risk with .re-insurers of lesser quality and stability. This, in turn, frequently leads to difficulties in claims settlement and other coverage issues, as weaker re-insurers are often reluctant to settle even the most valid of-claims. In addition, brokers also tend to charge a premium for these types of placements - meaning that brokerage commissions are higher as a percentage of overall cost and it is often difficult (if not possible) to find out the exact extent of these charges or to get full visibility into who the re-insurers are on the cover. Lack of Enhanced Coverages and "Value Added" Services - Brokers and underwriters reward stable long-term relationships with the provision of "value added" services and enhanced coverage. Both brokers and underwriters add value to relationships through such vehicles as underwriter/broker financed risk management, audits and consulting services, assistance in structuring risk financing programs (such as captives, pooling arrangements, and finite programs), and other forms of expert operational risk management support. Long-term and stable relationships also invariably bring with them an increased willingness by underwriters to enhance coverage within existing premiums and deductible levels, to provide more favourable policy wording, and to continue to renew coverage even in the face of loss. Banks should consider the possibility of multiple year insurance contracts and also negotiating broker services based on fees as opposed to commissions.