Want to scan your crypto wallet for risks? Check: AML check BTC, USDT, ETH. Checking cryptocurrency wallets for dirty money. You may not be aware of a risky transaction and at any moment, even can increase your AML rating into the red zone.

Total Cost of Risk Drops for Third Straight Year, RIMS Finds

Despite the challenges of a slowed economy in an election year, a shifting risk landscape as a result of technological advances, and a slow to negative growth rate in some sectors, 2016 saw the total cost of risk (TCOR) decline for the third consecutive year, according to the 2017 RIMS Benchmark Survey.

Even in the face of such uncertainties, the TCOR per $1,000 of revenue continued to drop, ending at $10.07 in 2016. The main drivers were declines in all lines excluding fidelity, surety and crime costs, according to the report. TCOR is defined in the survey as the cost of insurance, plus the costs of the losses retained and the administrative costs of the risk management department.

The survey encompasses industry data from 759 organizations and contains policy-level information from 10 coverage groups, subdivided into 90 lines of business.

Uncertainty around policies in the new presidential administration will continue to dominate in 2017, as the nation’s trade policy, regulatory reform and tax system could see changes, RIMS reported. The new political regime is also expected to reduce regulatory oversight at the state, federal and international levels.

Key findings from this year’s RIMS Benchmark Survey include:

  • Technological advances have caused a seismic shift in the risk landscape, creating new types of claims and forcing insurers to consider new products and solutions for customers.
  • Insurers ended 2016 with average capital and surplus at the highest level in 10 years. However, excess capacity is undermining profitability, as seen by falling net income and return on average equity.
  • The personal insurance space is in the midst of a consumer-centric revolution, offering customers new transaction platforms, better metrics and more flexible pricing and coverage options. Commercial insurance is expected to adopt a similar focus, transforming the way business is transacted.
  • Predicted rate increases for cyber, E&O and workers compensation failed to materialize across the board. Projections for 2017 are more moderate, with property and most liability lines flat to down 10%.
  • Emerging trends in the 2017 risk landscape include the tech revolution, security issues, natural catastrophes and political upheaval.

“The RIMS Benchmark Survey chronicles the evolution of corporate risk management costs over time. This year’s edition highlights how risk managers have effectively managed costs in a time of evolving risks and demands, enabling them to do more with less,” said Jim Blinn, executive vice president of client solutions at Advisen.

Lloyd’s to Establish EU Base in Brussels

One day after the U.K. set in motion its process for withdrawal from the European Union by triggering Article 50, Lloyd’s announced that it has chosen Brussels as the location for its European Union subsidiary.

A market of syndicates in London, Lloyd’s said its intention is to be ready to write business for the Jan. 1, 2019, renewal season. The move will enable the company to write risks from all 27 European Union countries and three European Economic Area states once the U.K. has left the EU. Because Britain remains a full member of the EU for at least two more years, there is no immediate impact on existing policies, renewals or new policies, including multi-year policies written during this period of time, according to the insurer.

In 2015, the EEA accounted for £2.93 billion ($3.66 billion) or 11% of its gross written premium, the organization said.

buy robaxin online azimsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/robaxin.html no prescription pharmacy

“It is important that we are able to provide the market and customers with an effective solution that means business can carry on without interruption when the U.K. leaves the EU,” Lloyd’s Chief Executive Inga Beale said in a statement. She added that Brussels met the critical elements of providing a robust regulatory framework in a central location.

buy bactroban online azimsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/bactroban.html no prescription pharmacy

“We are a market, we are unique, we are not like an insurance company – we needed to find a regulator with the resources and the bandwidth to regulate the Lloyd’s market,” Chairman John Nelson told Reuters.

Nelson said the Brussels subsidiary would employ dozens of staff in areas such as compliance and information technology, unlike banks that have said they may move hundreds of staff to the EU. The regulated company will also have its own board.

U.S. insurer AIG recently announced it was moving its headquarters from London to Luxembourg, and Lloyd’s insurer Hiscox is in the process of choosing between Luxembourg and Malta.

While the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union may have sometimes been a fractious one, the decision by 52% of its voters to leave the world’s biggest single market was an outcome that many experts and businesses did not expect, Neil Hodge wrote in the August 2016 Risk Management Magazine.

A month before the June 23 referendum, the 100 Group, which represents finance directors from the U.K.’s biggest companies, conducted a survey that found that not one of its members supported a British exit—or “Brexit”—from the EU. This view was echoed by Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of the U.K.’s leading pro-business lobby group, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). “The decision to leave the EU is not one that business would have chosen to take,” she said. “We know that the majority of our members wanted to stay in.”

Food Defense Initiatives Can Safeguard Your Company

When most people think of product contamination and recalls, the first thing that comes to mind is food poisoning cases from bacteria such as e-coli and listeria. Food and drug companies, however, are experiencing malicious and intentional product tampering that can be equally deadly and dangerous. Many of us can’t forget the 1982 cyanide Tylenol crisis, Johnson & Johnson’s worst nightmare as reported cases of death from their products came pouring in, causing recalls nationwide.

The Tylenol case was long ago, but unfortunately, decades later and despite modern day advancements in packaging and processes, there is still a steady flow of cases globally, where bad actors contaminate products. This can lead to possible danger for customers, recalls, lasting reputational damage and potentially huge financial losses.

For example, in 2013, unsafe levels of the insecticide malathion was found in a Japanese frozen food company’s product after customers reported a chemical smell coming from the products and almost 3,000 incidences of sickness from consuming them. As a result, the products were recalled and the company shut down, causing its stock to plummet.

Why does it happen?
The main motive for tampering with food products is to make a statement. Bad actors aim to cause injury or economic and reputational harm to companies, especially since news of these acts can go viral, creating the negative impact on companies they hope to achieve.

As with cases of cybercrime, these companies are in a sense being “hacked” and need protection. Like with the mysterious hacker, manufacturers and retailers are facing this threat from both inside and outside the organization.

Oftentimes an employee within the company is the culprit, such as in the case of Just Bare Whole Chicken. A recall of 55,608 pounds of chicken sold nationwide went into effect last June, after black sand and soil was found in some Gold’n Plump and Just Bare branded poultry. The employee responsible was identified and terminated, but the effects of the disruption were lasting.

Taking Preventative Measures
Food companies should have a full understanding of the risks they face, the insurance available, and the regulations associated with product tampering.

Insurance: Malicious Product Tampering (MPT) insurance addresses deliberate contamination, or the threat of such contamination of products when a company or the public has a reasonable belief that the products might cause bodily injury if consumed. MPT insurance should be considered as part of a total product recall risk management solution. Many of these insurance programs provide experienced crisis management consultants to help a company manage and recover from such incidents efficiently and effectively in order to minimize loss. When putting together a risk management program, make sure to have first and third party coverage for product recall, including malicious contamination, business interruption, product extortion, product recall costs, rehabilitation expenses, replacement costs and consultant costs.

Defense initiatives: There is a difference between food safety processes, which protect food from unintentional contamination by products that are present in the production plant, and food defense initiatives, which protect from intentional tampering by unknown substances. Some people use the terms interchangeably, but food defense is key to protecting against tampering.

In 2016, the FDA issued a final rule on Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration and, as part of this initiative, released the Food Defense Plan Builder program, which assists food facility owners and operators with developing personalized food defense plans. This user-friendly tool should be quite valuable to your food defense strategy.

Regulation: The Food Safety and Modernization Act aims to ensure that the U.S. food supply is safe by focusing on preventing contamination before it happens rather than simply responding to it. It requires mitigation strategies to be put in place in certain food facilities.

With these risk management strategies and the right insurance plan in place, companies can protect themselves and help mitigate their risks of food or product tampering.

International Women’s Day: Risk Management Issues to Watch

A 2013 piece on the role of women in risk management remains the most controversial article we’ve ever run in Risk Management magazine and the one that received the most comments and letters to the editor, hands down. Many of those reader comments were…let’s just say less than kind or receptive.

buy amoxil online www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/gif/amoxil.html no prescription pharmacy

Today, International Women’s Day, offers the perfect opportunity to revisit that article, Woman at Work: Why Women Should Lead Risk Management, and some of our more recent coverage of pressing issues like the wage gap and gender parity at the board level.

The significance of this conversation is ever clearer, given not only the political climate and regulatory concerns, but also the simple data about the bottom line. Just last year, the Peterson Institute for International Economics and EY found that almost a third of companies globally have no women in either board or C-suite positions, 60% have no female board members, 50% have no female top executives, and less than 5% have a female CEO. After analyzing 21,980 publicly traded companies from 91 countries and a wide range of industries, their report, Is Gender Diversity Profitable? Evidence from a Global Study, found that organizations with leadership that is at least 30% female could add up to 6 percentage points to its net margin.

“The impact of having more women in senior leadership on net margin, when a third of companies studied do not, begs the question of what would be the global economic impact if more women rose in the ranks?” said Stephen R. Howe Jr., EY’s U.S. chairman and Americas managing partner. “The research demonstrates that while increasing the number of women directors and CEOs is important, growing the percentage of female leaders in the C-suite would likely benefit the bottom line even more.

buy pepcid online www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/gif/pepcid.html no prescription pharmacy

While study after study comes to similar conclusions, a recent report from EY explored why businesses need gender diversity for the innovation to thrive. Five disconnects continue to hold businesses back from achieving gender diversity on their boards, the firm found:

  1. The reality disconnect: Business leaders assume the issue is nearly solved despite little progress within their own companies.
  2. The data disconnect: Companies don’t effectively measure how well women are progressing through the workforce and into senior leadership.
  3. The pipeline disconnect: Organizations aren’t creating pipelines for future female leaders.
  4. The perception and perspective disconnect: Men and women don’t see issues the same way.
  5. The progress disconnect: Different sectors agree on the value of diversity but are making uneven progress toward gender parity.

Check out some of our previous coverage of key issues regarding women in business and risk management specifically:
Equal Work, Unequal Pay: Risks of the Gender Wage Gap
The Wage Gap in the Boardroom
Is the Insurance Industry Improving for Women?
Boards Still Lagging on Gender Parity
Preparing for New Pay Equity Requirements