Category Archives: Uncategorized

Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

Should Your Company Install an Office Surveillance System?

Posted on by

There are plenty of compelling reasons to install a surveillance system in your office, but there are also a number of reasons not to. Cameras are becoming more and more common in our daily lives, and choosing whether or not to embrace them in your own workplace can be a challenging decision.

online pharmacy elavil with best prices today in the USA

There are advantages and disadvantages to consider before installing cameras and phone/Internet monitoring. Here are a few of them:

Pro: Cameras prevent theft

There is no denying that a camera monitoring system is going to drastically reduce incidents of employee theft. Studies have shown time and time again that areas that are clearly monitored by camera systems have significantly less crime than places that suggest anonymity. If you have a problem with items going missing around the office, installing cameras can be a way of showing that you are aware of the problem without directly confronting a potentially innocent employee. Cameras are a highly effective deterrent that can quickly nip a theft problem in the bud.

Con: Cameras may offer a false sense of security

If you have a particularly devious employee, cameras may actually work against you. If an employee really wants to steal from the office, he or she will probably find a way to do so regardless of the cameras. You may feel like you do not need to do anything else once cameras are installed, which can cause you to let your guard down. For this reason, cameras should be used as an addition to your current loss prevention plan, rather than being used as the primary deterrent.

online pharmacy cipro with best prices today in the USA

Pro: Cameras provide evidence

If an unforeseen incident occurs on your company’s property, you may have to deal with a lawsuit. Having cameras installed ensures that you have indisputable evidence to back up your story. If you suspect an employee of misconduct, you can simply check the camera to make sure your worries are not misguided. You never want to have to depend on your cameras, but it is certainly nice to know that they are there when you do.

Con: Employees may feel stifled

Any office manager knows that keeping morale up is essential to keep productivity high. Although you may mean well, installing cameras can sometimes be viewed as an invasion of privacy. It is important to form a bond of trust with your employees, and cameras or phone/Internet monitoring can undo the work you have done to establish meaningful relationships. However, explaining your stance on the issue and approaching it head-on may help to alleviate any concerns your staff may have.

Pro: Monitoring employees provides valuable training materials

Sometimes explaining how to handle a situation just isn’t as effective as being able to show a trainee a video or recording of a similar situation. Or, if an accident occurs, having video or audio recordings allows you to see what went wrong and prevent problems next time. Often words do not carry nearly as much impact as a recording of a real-life situation, so in-office surveillance can make your employees better at their jobs and more equipped to handle tough situations.

Con: The cost

Although today’s surveillance cameras are surprisingly budget-friendly, you still have to consider the cost of hiring employees to monitor them. You may also need to have them repaired if something goes wrong. Depending on the size of your office, buying multiple cameras and monitors can get quite pricy. The cameras often pay for themselves in the long run, however, by reducing theft and increasing productivity.

Choose based on your situation

Every office is different, and what works for one may not be ideal for another. Cameras can be absolutely essential in some situations, or you may be able to operate just fine without them. You may want to start with just a camera or two to see how your employees react, and then add more if necessary. Making the right choice for your office can be challenging, but in-office surveillance can be a valuable way to protect your livelihood and improve employee conduct.

After 3 Years of Increases, Total Cost of Risk Down 1%

Posted on by

Buyers of commercial insurance, who have seen relatively stable to slightly increasing rates over the past three years, reported paying 1% less to cover their total cost of risk than in 2013, according to the 2015 RIMS Benchmark Survey.

“The 2014 survey results reflect the overall stability of the U.

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

S. property/casualty market. One notable driver is the increasing role of alternative capital in assisting reinsurers to deal with economic uncertainties. A related factor is the rising importance of predictive models among insurers, not only in the area of property, but also for cyber and casualty,” Jim Blinn, executive vice president and global product manager at Advisen, said in a statement.

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

Looking ahead to the second half of 2015, Blinn said commercial property/casualty insurers are beginning to see a softening market. “We are looking at a period of rate decreases in insurance premiums owing to rising competition in the market and more than enough available capacity.”

The survey, which encompasses industry data for more than 52,000 insurance programs from over 1,400 organizations, found that risk managers and underwriters have identified climate change as one of this decade’s defining issues. “It continues to be a cause of concern among companies and organizations as evidence linking it to flood and other natural disasters continue to mount. Already, regulators such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are sounding the alarm for the high economic cost of climate change,” according to the study.

Key findings in 2015 include:

  • Slight decrease in TCOR following three years of increases.
  • Average TCOR fell 1% from $10.90 per $1,000 of revenue in 2013 to $10.80 in 2014.
  • Management liability, workers compensation, liability, and property costs declined.
    buy nolvadex online dentalhacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/nolvadex.html no prescription pharmacy

  • Risk management administration costs dropped 5% as costs for both outside services and risk management departments declined.

Should You Track Down Your Cyberattacker?

Posted on by

By and large, organizations tend to invest in preventative cybersecurity measures and they also concentrate their resources on detecting and stopping cyberattacks, rather than on painstaking “who did it?” investigations. They want to close the gap, manage the public opinion fallout, learn from the episode and move on.

From an enterprise perspective, this makes sense, as resources dealing with cybersecurity are usually overstretched and the organization does not stand to gain much from determining, with a certain degree of certainty, who was behind a cyberattack. The incentive equation, of course, is different if the target of the attack is a government or a large organization that is part of a country’s critical national infrastructure.

Attack attribution has traditionally been approached from the perspective of enabling the target or victim entity to pursue the attacker either for damages in a court of law; or from a national, military or intelligence “strike back” perspective.

While dishing out some form of retribution has always been instinctual, however, only governments and very large corporations have historically had the technical toolbox, the economical means and the long-term view to pursue a cyber retribution strategy.

online pharmacy albenza with best prices today in the USA

But should commercial and non-commercial organizations also care about cyberattack attribution?

online pharmacy amoxil with best prices today in the USA

Yes, within measure.

The first question ought to be: why? What does the target organization stand to gain from investing in cyber-attack attribution? The answer is that, the better it understands the attackers tools and techniques, the more likely the organization is to direct its limited resources to the right areas of defense.

As we know, each attacker or attacker group has certain preferred tooling and attacking methods. Also, they have their own motivation, speed, operational capability and discipline.

Assuming that an organization can safely concentrate only on patching, employee awareness programs, scanning, pen testing, log monitoring and other traditional defensive security measures, would be a mistake. These measures are, of course, necessary but they can no longer be the entire apparatus of cyber defense. Organizations need to invest a certain proportion of their resources in understanding their cyber adversaries, and their motivations, modus-operandi, credibility and capabilities, in order to better tailor their defensive resources.

What would be the “adequate” amount of time and effort for an organization to spend on seeking to attribute a cyberattack, successful or not, to a malicious actor or group? The effort should be proportionate with what is at risk and what resources the company has, either in house or via its suppliers and industry. Knowing at least how some of their enemies attack, however, can help companies to better leverage their resources when defending.

online pharmacy abilify with best prices today in the USA

Is Bigger Really Better? Pros and Cons of the Reinsurance Industry’s Recent M&A Wave

Posted on by

The reinsurance industry has recently seen a rise in mergers and acquisitions among some of its biggest players, such as Axis Capital Holdings Ltd. and PartnerRe Ltd. Faced with challenges like soft market conditions and impending regulation around the globe, many companies have turned to consolidation. Case in point: In 2014, acquirers spent $17 billion on property and casualty, multi-line insurance and reinsurance deals – the most since 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Claude Lefebrvre, chief underwriting officer at Hamilton RE, described M&A as part of a cycle that tends to take place during the soft market. Last year, about 390 insurance transactions were announced for a combined value of almost $50 billion, making it the busiest year for deals since 2008. This begs the question: Is bigger actually better?

At a recent roundtable in Bermuda, a group of executives talked about the pros and cons surrounding the current spate of mergers and acquisitions in the reinsurance and insurance markets. The discussion noted that M&A may not be as beneficial to the reinsurance market as previously conceived, and looked specifically at the long-term benefits (or lack thereof), the potential for culture clashes among merged organizations and the impact of investors.

Here is what some of the conversation entailed:

Long-term benefits of M&A

With a rise in the number of consolidations, many smaller reinsurance companies are under pressure to make a deal sooner rather than later. But does this ultimately increase shareholder value, especially in cases of like-for-like companies?

Brenton Slade, chief operating officer at Horseshoe Group, believes there would be far less M&A activity if management teams took the time to look at the rationale behind the proposed deal and how it would benefit shareholder value over the long term. With this strategy, he believes we would see more money being returned to investors or being deployed into new product lines as opposed to just expanding equity bases.

As stated by Robert Johnson, president at Aon Benfield Bermuda, being a company with $10 billion of capital does not necessarily provide access to much more business than being a $5 billion size company. Potential challenges, such as ensuring companies have the right synergies and the loss of good employees, may outweigh the benefits of a merger.

Culture Clashes

A major issue seen with the rise of mergers is combining two company cultures and their legacy systems into one cohesive unit. A recent study from Xuber showed that cultural integration and incorporation of multiple systems was the biggest challenge faced by companies following M&A.

Issues such as determining what team members stay on, what the company will be called and where the company will be based are huge decisions and can cause a great deal of tension. The integration of existing data systems, legacy systems, contracts and processes is just as challenging.

Companies need to take culture into consideration when acquiring another organization and determining how they will mitigate issues that arise. This can also be used as an opportunity to refresh old legacy systems and integrate new data storage systems to replace outdated technologies.

Additionally, it poses an opportunity for smaller companies to have an advantage when it comes to the M&A process, as they have fewer systems in place and can adjust easier. Smaller companies are also at an advantage when larger companies merge, as they can capitalize on dislocated teams and bring in new lines of business.

Investor Impact

Some believe that investors, and their desire to increase their capital base, are driving much of the current M&A activity. Previously, investors wanted to manage performance; this has changed dramatically as investors have become less focused on performance or meeting certain return or risk policies. Now investors are less involved and often do not understand the reinsurance industry. They are simply looking to increase the size of companies and in turn their capital base, without looking at the long-term impact of consolidation or the benefits of having two smaller companies.

Will Things Keep Getting Bigger?

Bloomberg predicts that we will continue to see a rise in M&A activity as the demand for bigger and more diversified portfolios increases and companies see it as the only option to remain competitive. Smaller companies will likely feel the pressure to become involved and see it as the only way of securing any kind of substantial future.

On the other hand, this may present an opportunity for smaller companies to shine. As their larger competitors struggle with the challenges brought on by the M&A process and are not able to focus on day to day activities, smaller companies can produce higher quality work and scoop up some of the larger company’s lost talent.

The debate will likely continue as to whether the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa, in the recent spate of M&A activity in reinsurance and insurance. It is yet to be seen that we can truly prove bigger is better. What do you think?