Insurance OM

7/27/2019 Insurance OM

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-om 1/24

The right combinationRethinking business operatingmodels in insurance

A Deloitte Research Study



Foreword 1

Executive summary 2

The basis of competition has changed 4

Business operating models struggle to deliver in the new environment 8

Principles for a new business operating model 12

Practical steps towards a strategic approach 16

Conclusion 19

Notes 20

About this research

This report summarises the findings of a year-long study into the future of business

operating models (BOMs) in insurance. A business model is a blueprint of how

functions, divisions and organisations co-operate to capture shareholder value.1

The research primarily addresses the business model challenges of major global

insurance companies operating in both life or non-life sectors across multiple markets;although the findings are relevant for all insurers. The report is based on several

research methodologies including:

• Face-to-face interviews with senior insurance executives;

• An online questionnaire completed in August 2009 by approximately 20 equity

analysts in Europe and North America;

• Analysis of published year-end results (as at May 2009) of 24 international life and

non-life insurance companies from Europe, North America and Asia;

• Focus groups of in-house Deloitte insurance practitioners.

Our thanks are due to those senior insurance executives who enabled us to make an

in-depth analysis of their business operating models.

For notes on terminology see page 3.

Contents



The right combination Rethinking business operating models in insurance 1

Deloitte’s research shows that insurance-industry analysts no longer give top priority

to revenue growth as the key driver of shareholder value. Balance-sheet strength and

robust risk management are, they say, the most significant drivers of performance.

In the medium-longer term, we consider operational efficiency will become crucial to

maintaining profitability, as insurers’ prospects for revenue growth are hampered by

increasingly saturated and commoditised core markets. Although certain retirementsegments and emerging markets offer a bright hope for revenue growth, it will be

some time before they are significant enough to shift the current focus away from

balance sheets, risk management and operational efficiency.

We argue that insurers’ existing business operating models are not designed to

achieve these new priorities. The predominantly multi-divisional and decentralised

models used by insurance companies have resulted in increased organisational

complexity, duplicated infrastructure and localised, difficult-to-scale operations.

In addition, the functions that have a direct impact on controlling balance sheets and

risk have had a diminished role under the prevailing models. And, as sources of new

revenues and customers have continued to shift from west to east, and from north to

south, insurers have struggled to put in place business operating models that cantranslate synergies across both mature and emerging markets.

Insurers should address these fundamental issues now. Building models that foster

standardised, enterprise-wide (globally) integrated operations is vital to compete in a

market differentiating through operational efficiency. However, local business units in

certain markets must also be allowed to be flexible in order to respond to dynamic

market conditions. We suggest ways to achieve a balance between these apparently

conflicting goals in this highly regulated sector.

Andrew Power Mark FitzPatrick Joe Guastella

Insurance Strategy Partner UK Insurance Leader Global Insurance Leader

Foreword

Over the past two years, many financial services institutions have beenworking towards one goal – survival. Like many others, insurers havecome under great pressure during the financial crisis. Compared totheir banking counterparts, most insurers have come through in good

shape.2 But ‘business as usual’ is unlikely in the foreseeable future.



While demands on insurers have shiftedsubstantially, their business operating

models have not. Current models haveevolved to respond to opportunities forrevenue growth across multiple markets.

2

Shifting demand causes business model

challenges

While banks were, in the main, more severely affected,

the financial crisis knocked investors’ confidence in

insurance, and triggered a radical change in priorities

for the industry. Previously focused on revenue growth

and return on equity, insurance analysts have placed

balance-sheet strength, robust risk management and

operational efficiency at the top of their agendas.Such changes in investor demands are likely to remain

in place until 2012. At the same time, a changing

regulatory landscape is also expected to shift the goal

posts for insurers. For example, Solvency II is due to be

implemented in the European Union by 2012.

Additionally, insurance is in a period of global transition,

as major insurers shift strategies to straddle both

mature and emerging markets, requiring improved

global coordination.

While demands on insurers have shifted substantially,

their business operating models have not. Currentmodels have evolved to respond to opportunities for

revenue growth across multiple domestic and

international markets. These same models are now

creating barriers to more efficient operations, effective

balance-sheet and risk management and global

cooperation. In short, insurance business operating

models (BOMs) are often no longer fit for purpose.

Principles for new business operating models

We set out principles for a new business operating

model that will bring improvements to the management

of balance-sheets & risk and operational efficiency.

1. Globally integrated (or enterprise-wide)

operations: Existing models are set up for growth

opportunities in local markets, and insurers are

working towards creating regional-scale synergies to

achieve improved controls and operational efficiencies.

They must be more ambitious – driving through

fundamental change to go for integrated operations

on a global or enterprise-wide scale. The starting point

for each insurer is different. But typically insurers

should build stronger divisional and group/corporate

functions to facilitate such integration.

2. Dual operating model: Moving to a globally

integrated (enterprise-wide) solution may not beappropriate for all parts of the business as many

insurers are in a period of transition, straddling

mature and emerging markets. A dual operating

model is needed based on two speeds: accommodating

improved control and enterprise-wide scale where

possible, while allowing a localised tailored approach

for more entrepreneurial parts of the business (or

those subject to unique regulatory environments).

Being selective is key. Insurers should make a

distinction between those operations that should be

integrated (standardised and simplified to operate

from a globally integrated model) and thoseoperations which need to operate from a more

autonomous basis to retain flexibility and

responsiveness (e.g. diff icult-to-scale or highly

tailored processes).

3. The right combination: The dual model is not only

applicable for the emerging/mature markets

dichotomy. In defining the right mix of businesses to

be integrated or operated more autonomously, insurers

may choose to distinguish their core business in other

terms. Manufacturing versus distribution, commodity

versus higher-value business, back-office versus front-

office, life versus non-life, or indeed protection versus

savings and investment management can all be used

as a basis on which operations can be selected for

integration across the enterprise.

4. Strategic approach to building models:

Initiatives aimed at fixing current business models are

often thought up and implemented on a piecemeal

basis. This can result in initiatives that fail to gain

traction, leading only to incremental improvements

or ones that may do more harm than good.

Therefore a more strategic approach is required.

Executive summary




Practical steps towards a more strategic

approach

Insurers seeking to transform their business models in

order to respond to the new demands placed on them

should take a more joined up approach to change.

Each organisation has its own unique business operating

model and starting point to the transformation agenda.

However there are common tools and steps to a solution:

• Often initiatives to change business strategy or

organisational structure are not strategically analysed

or driven in tandem. Insurers should assess the

current business operating model strategy and

structure so that the two are better aligned.

• Some insurers have struggled to convince

shareholders that their balance sheets are sound and

that new business is not being written at the expense

of disciplined underwriting. Balance-sheet efficiency

and risk management should be established as a top

priority, and relevant functional specialist teamsstrengthened.

• Business operating models have become more

complex and opaque as the boundaries between

insurance companies, intermediaries and distributors

become increasingly blurred. Open architecture is also

forcing strategic decisions around manufacturing or

distribution as a core capability. Defining core activities

(and non-core) is key to focussing resources on

achieving operational excellence in the essential parts

of the business. Non core activities may be outsourced,

offshored or delivered through strategic partnership.

• Many business units are accustomed to autonomy,

building their own solutions and product-sets tailored to

their local markets or jurisdictions. Consequently

insurance BOMs have typically become highly complex.

For improved operational efficiency and more consistent

governance and controls, insurers should simplify and

standardise processes, laying the foundations for

improved co-operation and scalable operations.

• Complex business operating models, led by

autonomous divisions, have caused duplication and

inefficiency. Simplified and standardised processes(see above) should be scaled up on an enterprise-

wide basis where appropriate. Insurance companies

can aim for enterprise-wide (globally) integrated

operations on a selective basis.

• Operational efficiency is crucial to competitive

advantage in commoditised markets. However

entrepreneurial units in either high growth products

or niche and emerging markets can be crushed by a

stifling business operating model. Within limits,

insurers’ models should allow specialised,

autonomous operations in certain parts of the

business.

• Some insurers were challenged by the financial crisis

partly because they failed to convince shareholders of

their financial viability. This was in part caused by a

lack of enterprise-wide transparency and difficulty in

communicating business models, reporting and

accounting. Insurers should clearly articulate the

business operating model and strategy to external

stakeholders.

Terminology

Balance-sheet efficiency and risk management: strategies and structures concerned with

capital, liquidity, and the governance and control of risk.

Business models: a blueprint of how functions, divisions and organisations co-operate to

capture shareholder value. Throughout this report, the terms ‘business model’, ‘business

operating model’ (BOM), ‘operating model’ and ‘global operating model’ are used

interchangeably. However there are small d ifferences in usage. ‘Business models’ (the most

all-encompassing term) typically refers to high level strategy. BOMs are applied versions

encompassing strategy and operations. Operating models have a more operational focus.

The crisis: the financial crisis that began in August 2007.

Long term: a medium-to long-term view for investment analysts is defined as between one

and three years.

Operational efficiency: variables that have an effect on operating margins, such as cost

efficiency, customer acquisition and management costs, tax, claims management.

Revenue growth: includes growth in premium income from new business and customer

retention (persistency), policy volume, price realisation, and investment and trading returns.

Divisions: business units organised by customers, products or geographies.

Functions: in contrast to divisions, functions are typically categorised by the competencies

of the activities carried out. For example, sales and marketing, tax, risk, finance, IT or

underwriting.



4

The financial crisis knocked investors’ confidence in

insurance, triggering a radical change in priorities

for the industry. Previously focused on revenue

growth and return on equity, insurance analysts

have placed balance-sheet strength, robust risk

management and operational efficiency at the top

of their priorities. These revised priorities will

remain in place until at least 2012. We argue that

these changes to the basis of competition willrequire insurers to adjust their business models.

Balance-sheet strength and risk management

are top priorities

The financial crisis, beginning in August 2007, triggered

a worsening in the performance of insurers. Based on a

sample of 24 global firms, insurers’ total revenues

(including investment and trading net income) slumped

by 32 per cent in FY08. The severity of the decline was

particularly felt by insurers exposed to investment

losses. At the same time, operational efficiency

decreased, with the average combined ratio for thesample increasing by two percentage points to 91.8 per

cent.3 In addition, some 78 per cent of insurers saw a

drop in their capital and solvency levels during FY08,

driven primarily by losses on the asset side.

This broad-based deterioration in performance,

together with high-profile shocks (such as that

experienced by AIG), led to a widespread loss of

investor confidence. The industry struggled to convince

stakeholders that their businesses were viable, but value

was very quickly destroyed. In FY08, the total market

capitalisation of our sample of firms plunged 30 per

cent (from £630.6 billion to £443.8 billion).4 Embedded

value (EV) has also been adversely affected.5

With investor confidence severely knocked,

shareholders radically shifted their priorities. Our survey

of European and North American insurance analysts

shows that shareholder priorities moved markedly

between 2006 and 2009 (see Figure 1). Analysts were

asked to rank the medium-to long-term (1-3 years)

performance criteria they use to judge insurance firms.

In 2009, balance-sheet & risk management scored

97 per cent, compared with just 43 per cent for

revenue growth (see Figure 1).6

Is this new priority simply a knee-jerk response to a

credit crisis that may already be over?

Some senior executives that we interviewed think so.

However, analysts remain sceptical, and balance-sheet

efficiency and risk management will remain their central

focus until 2011/12. Some 50 per cent of insurance

analysts indicated that their concerns over balance-

sheet and risk management will remain at a high leveluntil at least 2011.

Longer-term trends seem to support the analysts’ views.

Regulations and accounting rules covering capital,

liquidity and risk are currently being revised and will

keep the balance-sheet agenda in place, for some time:

• In Europe, the EU’s Solvency II legislation, which aims

to establish more efficient economic capital models,

is due to be implemented by 2012. The spirit of the

Solvency II Framework Directive may be liberating,

allowing businesses to benefit from harmonisedregimes on a supranational basis. The principles of

Solvency II are also expected to have an impact on

insurance players operating in the US and Asian

markets as many European firms are active there.

• The capital required to write new business is likely to

remain scarce and expensive. This is leading some

insurers to more efficiently source capital from

internal sources. As many corporate structures are

sub-optimal in terms of their capital efficiency,

fungibility and diversification, leading insurers have

been restructuring their legal frameworks and

balance sheets, reducing risk and improving their

dynamic capital modelling. For example, several

groups over recent years have moved to a single EU

carrier (one for life and non-life) operating across

Europe through a branch structure.

• Modifications to accounting rules, and frameworks

that seek to improve comparability and transparency

(such as International Financial Reporting Standards

(IFRS) and Market Consistent Embedded Value

(MCEV)) are also being implemented over a similar

time frame.7

The basis of competition has changed




Operational efficiency will be the top priority in

the longer term

While capital, liquidity and risk issues have become vital

factors, business strategies must also take into account

another fundamental shift towards operational

efficiency. Among our sample of global insurers, total

revenues in 2008 dropped by more than 30 per cent

from the preceding year.8 Figure 1 also illustrates

insurance analysts’ priorities for 2012 and beyond.Revenues will become important once more, but

operational efficiency will be king.9

The convergence of several regulatory events is likely to

constrain revenue growth going forward:

• Tighter regulation of the distribution of insurance

products (such as MIFiD in Europe and the Retail

Distribution Review in the United Kingdom) may act

as a brake on new business development in these

markets, potentially curtailing profitability.10

• Legislation on capital requirements may also hold

back growth. Solvency II was heralded as offering

opportunities to make capital models more efficient

across jurisdictions. However, recent proposals to

implement the framework directive may be

interpreted in such a way that regulations may

inhibit writing new business in certain markets.

One way around this potential problem of regulatory

capital may be to restructure the group to become

a ‘mega insurer’ with branches in each market.11

• Additionally, as Solvency II and other risk- and

capital-based initiatives are being implemented,

insurers are achieving greater understanding of

the real costs of underwriting risks. Products that

are less capital-efficient may be withdrawn as more

emphasis is given to disciplined underwriting and

sustainability.

Such events suggest capital planning will remain

important but also add to the likelihood that the long-

term focus on operational efficiency will be the principal

source of profitability.

Figure 1. Change in insurance analysts’ priorities pre- and post- credit crisis (2006, 2009, 2012)

Insurance analysts’ priorities 2006


Priority Score (out of 100)


0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Manage external

expectations

Balance-sheet &

risk management

Improveoperational

efficiency

Grow revenue/ income

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other


Manage externalexpectations

Improveoperational

efficiency

Balance-sheet &risk management 97%

81%

79%

76%

56%

66%

43%

52%

26%

23%



Source: Deloitte Research, 2009

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Manage externalexpectations

Balance-sheet &risk management


Improveoperational

efficiency84%

74%

64%

52%

23%



6

Revenue growth will remain important, but the

focus may change

Management in insurers will, of course, focus on both

revenue growth and operational efficiency in their

medium-term plans, with the balance varying by firm.

Figure 1 shows that by 2012 insurance analysts will

consider revenue growth as an important driver of

shareholder value once more. However, we expect that

the focus of revenue-related activities may need tochange in the light of developments in mature markets.

Our analysis of revenues suggests that, up until the

financial crisis, total revenue growth has been sluggish

due to dependence on saturated mature markets, and

revenues have been supported by investment returns.

We think the focus for revenue-generating activity may

shift to improving customer retention (‘persistency’ in

life companies) as new customer acquisition becomes

more difficult for the following reasons:

• Long-term total revenue trends indicate sluggishgrowth. Total revenue growth has been unimpressive

over the past five years. Total revenues are calculated

from net premiums, reinsurance premiums, and

trading & investment income. Over the period

between 2005 and 2009, (projecting forward from

2009’s first-half results), global insurers achieved total

revenue CAGR of just 1.31 per cent (see Figure 2).

Separating out net premium growth, insurers

achieved a CAGR of just 4.56 per cent over the same

period. Both rates are indicative of saturated markets.

• Revenue growth has been supported by

investment returns. Net premiums contributed

approximately 55 per cent of total revenues in

2005-2007. This indicates that investment and

trading income have played significant roles in

holding up headline revenue growth. However,

heavy investment losses in 2008 ate into total

revenue growth even when net premiums remained

stable. Many industry commentators do not expectinvestment income to deliver sufficient returns to

maintain total revenue growth and profitability in the

coming years.12 In a more risk-averse environment,

we think that insurers may revert to average

investment returns.

• Insurers are often reliant on core markets that

are saturated. An analysis of income generation

(see Figure 2) and the location and value of assets

indicates that insurers have reached saturation in

many core markets. Among our sample of 24 global

insurance companies, an average 88 per cent ofgroup assets was based in mature markets in 2008.

At the same time, macro-economic expectations are

downbeat about growth potential in mature

economies. This means that net premium income is

unlikely to grow at a rapid rate in the coming years. 13

Figure 2. Global insurance firms’ revenues, 2005-2009

Total revenues

GBP(£) (000s)

GBP(£) (000s)

Net premiums

Note:Total revenues, sometimes known as ‘total income’, includenet premiums, investment and trading net income and otherincome streams. Based on a selected sample of 24 global insurers.

Note:Net premiums are a subset total revenues.Based on a selected sample of 24 global insurers.


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2009 E2008200720062005

605,060 617,917 617,785 629,213

422,852

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

2009 E2008200720062005

291,730309,881 318,836

348,684369,429




• Emerging markets are expected to grow at twice

the pace of developed markets.14 Emerging markets

offer a bright hope as a source of revenue. However,

with a few notable exceptions, emerging-market

operations make a much less significant contribution

to overall group performance compared with mature

markets. For instance, among our sample of

24 insurers, the emerging markets’ share of total

revenues stood at 19.1 per cent in FY 2008.Their share of total assets was just 12.1 per cent in

the same year. Emerging markets are likely to remain

a minor contributor to revenues, compared to

mature markets, for some time to come.

Insurers’ scope for revenue generation in mature highly

saturated markets may be limited. In their life business,

they may rely on achieving growth in the value of their

current assets under management (AUM) as growth

through new business becomes difficult. The need to

refocus efforts on retaining customers may take

precedence over new business acquisition and revenuegrowth. For these reasons, our sample of insurance

analysts identified ‘minimising lapses/surrender rates’

and ‘growing the value of AUM’ as the main areas of

insurers’ customer focus over the next few years.

Insurance analysts have refocused onbalance-sheet strength, robust riskmanagement and operational efficiency.We believe these concerns run deeperthan a short-term reaction to the dentedbalance sheets and revenues of 2008.They also reflect longer-term trends thatshow insurers’ markets are maturing andthat regulation is changing thelandscape. Insurance companies mayneed to update their business operating

models to reflect the fact that theirmarket is in transition.



8

While demands on insurers have shifted

substantially, their business operating models have

not. Current models have evolved to respond to

opportunities for revenue growth in a variety of

markets. These same models are now creating

barriers to more efficient operations and effective

balance-sheet & risk management.

Based on in-depth interviews with senior insuranceexecutives and in-house focus groups of Deloitte

practitioners, many insurance BOMs are struggling to

be fit for their purpose.

‘Adaptive’ multi-divisional models dominate

No two BOMs are the same, and distilling complex

business strategies into summaries can be misleading.

However, our research suggests that insurers’ business

strategies are typically ‘adaptive’.16 This means that they

seek competitive advantage through the slick entry into,

and exit from, markets. They rely on speed, timing and

the flexibility of the model to respond to growthopportunities at the local level. Within parameters set at

group/corporate level, each business unit typically sets

its own strategy and tactics to respond to local market

conditions.

To execute adaptive strategies, insurers’ organisational

structures are typically based on highly autonomous

revenue-generating units that are operated discretely

within a decentralised decision-making framework.

Their characteristics include:

• Divisional decision-making. Divisions typically take

responsibility for their own profit-and-loss account

and set their own agendas. As they are operateddiscretely, each division has a significant support

infrastructure of its own. Divisional heads (of product

lines, countries, or customer segments) hold key

decision-making rights rather than the heads of

functions (such as claims, actuarial, marketing,

underwriting or loss adjusting). There are, typically,

many layers of geographic, product and customer-

based divisions within one reporting structure.

• Divisions operate discretely from each other.

Unintegrated divisions facilitate the bolting on or

unbolting of individual business units, acquisitions ordisposals. This allows insurers to grow or shrink

according to revenue opportunities.

• Decentralised operating structures. Insurers

typically favour lean group or corporate functions.

Such functions manage business units on a portfolio

basis. They set financial performance metrics but do

not become strategically, tactically or operationally

involved with the running of the business units.

There are differences in different regions. In the

United States, corporate (group) functions may be

sub-divided into domestic and international divisions.

In Europe, this layer is rarely present.

Business operating models struggle to deliverin the new environment

“We have literally thousands of ITsystems that are not linked together.”

Global life insurer

“This industry is littered withunconsummated M&A.”

Global general insurer





10

“Marketing was a case in point. It was the least mature of our functions,lacking the basic tools and programs and was organised on a country-by-country (local) basis. It was on an individual and basic level.No segmentation and proposition strategies had been developed.

This was banking 15 years ago – with no functional expertise. But itwas tackled by banks back then. It is still a big issue in insurance.”

Global composite insurer

Disadvantages of ‘adaptive’ multi-divisional models

Five specific issues can be created by these models:

1. Limited governance and controls: The consistent

management of risk and capital can be weakened within

divisional decentralised models. Without a strong group

function (or strong functional specialist teams), the

influence of subordinated control functions – such as risk,

compliance, underwriting and finance – can be diluted.

Specialist knowledge in these areas can be lost.

2. Duplication of infrastructure: Autonomous divisions

with their own independent infrastructures can produce

significant duplication of IT, processes and functions in a

decentralised, adaptive multi-divisional organisation.

Few incentives exist for divisions to work together to

create common processes. Large acquisitions can create

significant issues if not properly integrated.

3. Limited co-operation due to ‘divisional bargaining’:

Strong divisions combined with weak functional teams can

lead to poor co-operation. Divisions that must ‘bargain’

with each other can create barriers to co-operation leading

to inconsistent (non-standardised) processes. This can lead

to IT systems that struggle to be integrated and that have

no common language, which can negatively impact

operational efficiency.18 It can also lead to a lack of

cooperation in serving shared customers.

Without centralised functions to facilitate such

co-operation, insurance companies can fail to utilise

shared services (across divisions or functions) in order

to achieve economies of scale or other synergies.

Insurers have significantly greater IT and M&A legacy

issues than other industries.19

4. Lack of mobility of staff, skills and innovation:

Divisions acting autonomously can stifle the global

movement of skills, ideas and leading practices. Specialists

in one part of the business may struggle to share their

functional specialist skills if there are barriers to mobility.

5. Added complexity: In the face of weak centralised

governance, insurance companies have put in place various

forms of matrix management to forge greater co-operation

between divisions. This has improved co- operation

across divisions. But it has also led to confusion over

roles and responsibilities, competing strategies, furthercosts and issues falling between the gaps.




Figure 4. Business operating models. The maturity lifecycle in insurance.

Strategy

Environment/

development

stage

Mature or

stable

Complex, fluid

established

Centralised control

Regional integration/ strong controls forregional synergiesLow integration of divisions

for adaptability

High integration of local functions

for responsiveness

Decentralised control

Local control

Structure

Emerging

or fluid

2 – Adaptive business strategy1 – Entrepreneurial/integrated

business strategy

1 – Functional operating structure 2 – Multi-divisional operating structure 3 – Multi-divisional with regional

functions

3 – Planned business strategy


1. Entrepreneurial and functionallyintegrated models: The first phase isbased on an entrepreneurial strategy,

growing in either a single country orproduct market and built aroundfunctions reporting to a centralisedpower (the CEO).

2. Adaptive multi-divisional: Then themodel expands outside the domesticmarket to become multi-divisional(often creating a replica of the existingbusiness unit) with decentralisedoperations (at the group level) basedon product lines or countries.

3. Planned multi-divisional: the multi-divisional structure is complemented bystrengthened and regionalisedfunctions, and by stronger group/ corporate functions seeking to moveto regional scaled operations inorder to deliver wider synergies.

Maturation (phases) of an organisation

‘Regional ‘planned’ models have emerged

Our research suggests that some insurers have evolved

beyond the adaptive, multi-divisional model. These

companies remain multi-divisional, but they adopt a

‘planned’ business strategy. To execute planned strategies,

insurers need more centralised control and strengthened

functions that are scaled to national or regional size.

In addition to the business-based imperatives to regionallyintegrate (i.e. to gain scale and efficiency); regulatory,

financial and tax-based initiatives are also facilitating a

drive to regionalise business operating models.

For instance, legal frameworks in Europe are working to

facilitate corporates in their move to a region-wide business

model through harmonising legislation. Such legal and tax-

based developments impacting corporate legal structures

can facilitate simplified and standardised processes.20

We have found that global insurers based in Europe are

typically more internationally diversified and further down

the road in using planned strategies than Anglo-Americaninsurers. However, regardless of location, most insurers

we interviewed are moving slowly towards more planned

business operating models.21

Figure 4 illustrates how some insurance business models

have moved into this development phase, with

regionally integrated operations, stronger centralisation

and a planned strategy.

Although insurers may suffer increased short-term

management costs and bureaucracy, moving to a

regional model has several advantages. It allows for

cooperation among divisions at the continental levelenabling standardised approaches and regional-sized

economies of scale. Many insurers are de-duplicating

localised infrastructure moving towards regional hubs of

shared services. Regional models can also give region-

wide representation of functions and controls.

Are insurers being radical enough in re-designing

their BOMs? Simply regionalising their existing

operations is not enough. To respond to the new

shareholder demands for balance-sheet strength,

global enterprise-wide controls are required,

functions should have greater influence overdivisions, and group control should be stronger.



12

Insurers seeking a strong early position coming out of the crisis will need to meet the

challenges posed by their business operating models. This section sets out principles

for a new business operating model that will bring improvements to the management

of balance-sheets & risk and operational efficiency.

1 Globally integrated (or enterprise-wide) operations: Existing models are set up for

growth opportunities in local markets, and insurers are working towards creating regional-

scale synergies to achieve improved controls and operational efficiencies. They must be

more ambitious – driving through fundamental change to go for integrated operations on a

global or enterprise-wide scale. The starting point for each insurer is different. But typically

insurers should build stronger divisional and group/corporate functions to facilitate suchintegration.

2 Dual operating model: Moving to a global integrated (enterprise-wide) solution may not be

appropriate for all parts of the business as many insurers are in a period of transition,

straddling mature and emerging markets. A dual operating model is needed based on two

speeds: accommodating improved control and global scale where possible, while allowing a

localised focus for more entrepreneurial parts of the business (or those subject to unique

regulatory environments). Being selective is key. Insurers should make distinctions between

those operations that should be integrated (standardised and simplified to operate from a

globally integrated model) and those operations which need to operate from a more

autonomous basis to retain flexibility and responsiveness (e.g. difficult-to-scale or highly

tailored processes).

3 The right combination: The dual model is not only applicable for the emerging/mature

markets dichotomy. In defining the right mix of businesses to be integrated or operated

more autonomously, insurers may choose to distinguish their core business in other terms.Manufacturing versus distribution, commodity versus higher-value business, back-office

versus front-office, life versus non-life, or indeed protection versus savings and investment

management can all be used as a basis on which operations can be selected for

integration across the enterprise.

4 Strategic approach to building models: Initiatives aimed at fixing current business

models are often thought up and implemented on a piecemeal basis. This can result in

initiatives that fail to gain traction, leading only to incremental improvements or ones that

may do more harm than good. Therefore a more strategic approach is required.

Principles for a new business operating model

1. Globally integrated (or enterprise-wide)

operations: choose your markets and globalise

Progressing towards global integration (rather than national

or regional integration) makes sense for a host of reasons.

For instance, improved balance-sheet and risk management

requires centralised and globally integrated functions to

create a consistent global view of risk and capital. Regional

views are helpful – especially as legislation is beginning to

converge at the regional level, as with Solvency II. But onlyglobal integration will suffice if multinational insurers are to

achieve enterprise-wide control. Capital and risk models

should be congruent with operations.

Leading insurers, seizing their chances while the

landscape settles, are aggressively scaling up their

operations. They are picking their markets, and seeking

to win with the advantage of global scale. For instance,

some leading manufacturers are seeking to develop a

single manufacturing platform on a continent-wide

basis.

To overcome business-model barriers and move to a

more globally integrated operating principle, three steps

need to be taken:

• Create a stronger group/corporate centre to

counterbalance divisional power. Strengthened global

financial control and risk governance require group-led

functional communities with the power to influence

practices in divisions. A more centralised approach

should also facilitate co-operation between

traditionally autonomous divisions.

• Led by the group/corporate-level functions, insurers

should seek to further ‘industrialise’ (that is, to simplify

and standardise) processes within divisions and

functions, leading to potential shared services.

• Then they must integrate divisions and functions at

both the regional and global level in order to achieve

scale.




2. Dual operating model: allow flexibility for a

tailored response

The guiding principle of global (enterprise-wide)

integration must not be implemented at the expense of

flexibility. Insurers require gains in efficiency and

customer retention in mature markets while they need

revenue growth in emerging markets. As global

operating models mature, insurers should seek to move

from their adaptive multi-divisional models to anacceptance of a new structure based on a dual model.

It is not practical for some business units to be subject

to prescriptive organisational structures or to initiatives

designed to create scale efficiencies at regional or global

levels. For instance, business units competing in

emerging markets, where the customer/client base may

be unfamiliar, often need to spend time and resources in

building relationships with new customer segments and

developing appropriate underwriting and pricing

policies. In new markets, sales, claims, actuarial and

underwriting teams need to work together to establishcustomer segments, risks and pricing. Only once they

have matured should they be separated out to join

regional or global shared-service platforms.

Other operations may also need to be treated

differently. Business units in mature markets seeking to

place new products, for example, or those subject to

highly nuanced local regulation may also suffer under a

globally integrated regime.

Insurers spanning markets that require these different

kinds of approach need a BOM that fosters global

operations where possible but that also helps

entrepreneurial units to reach maturity.

Such a dual operating model should be based on three

principles:

• Selectivity: Insurers should be selective as to which

operations go into regionally and globally industrialised

models. These decisions should be based on objectives,

legislative requirements (including tax) and the

maturity of each business unit.

• No compromise on enterprise-wide control:

Categorising specific units as entrepreneurial is not a

‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card for the local business unit.

The need for global capital allocation remains.

Localised divisions and functions should be set minimum

standards, but be free to organise according to specific

market conditions. As they mature, these units should

be brought into the global operating model.

• Global (group or corporate level) support for local

units: Entrepreneurial units may still tap into global

manufacturing capabilities. Providing platform supportfor local units will work if the platform allows such

units to be responsive to local conditions and

customers. It is necessary to understand which

processes should be common across business units

and which need to be tailored. As insurers regionalise,

these business units should be increasingly supported

and managed by regional hubs.

As global operating models mature,insurers should seek to move from theiradaptive multi-divisional models to anacceptance of a new structure based on adual model.



14

Another way to categorise activities is based on the

back, middle and front offices within business units.24

Insurers’ back-office, support and control functions

have often been structured around the front office.

This has led to a lack of control and a lack of

standardised processes within middle and back offices.

At the same time, a wholesale move to standardised

controls in every office, and in all functions and

divisions, may be costly and impractical.

Commodity areas such as protection and motor may

benefit from a focus on achieving scale. By contrast, in

higher-value areas (such as global commercial lines)

the key is to have appropriate client-related data-

sharing, risk management and control. The gain or loss

from the underwriting decision in such cases can

swamp any operational efficiencies. Globally integrated

scalable models should not be adopted by business

units where they result in diseconomies of scale

Figure 5 plots the next phase for global operating

models – progressing from a regional business

operating model to a dual model.

3. The right combination. Dual models are not

just about emerging markets

The dual model approach is not only applicable in

thinking about the emerging market/mature market

dichotomy.

The principle can be applied to manufacturing and

distribution.22 Leading insurers who have decided that

manufacturing is a core competence are seeking to

globalise their manufacturing processes. Due to the

multi-divisional approach taken by most insurers, global

manufacturing may be combined with global

distribution only for certain commoditised personal

lines. For instance, creating global direct motor

operations may be possible. Those who deem their

distribution to be ‘core’ may seek advantage in

disintermediating brokers and aggregators from theirdistribution processes as a way to preserve margins.23

Figure 5. Business operating models: Dual models

Strategy

Local model National model Regional modelNext generation

dual model

Environment/

development

stage

Transitional:

Mature &Emerging

Selectivecentralisedcontrol

Global integration/strong controls for

global synergies

Migrate as

unit matures

Global support

platform

High integrationof local functions

Regional integration/ strong controls forregional synergies

High integrationof local functionsfor responsiveness

Decentralised control

Centralised control

Local control

Structure

Matureor stable

Complex,fluidestablished

Emergingor fluid

2 – Adaptivebusiness strategy

1 – Entrepreneurial/ integratedbusiness strategy

1 – Functionaloperating structure 2 – Multi-divisionaloperating structure 3 – Multi-divisionalregional functions4 – Global divisions andfunctions. Local functions

3 – Plannedbusiness strategy

4 – Selective plannedbusiness strategy





Insurance (that is, protection) or savings and

investment management is another basis for

distinction. As some life insurers’ businesses move more

towards investment management, the control of

investment performance (providing downside

protection), grows in importance. That magnifies the

significance of controlling hedging and investment in

illiquid instruments. A variety of measures can be

adopted – from merely setting policies (around riskappetite, for example, or the level and return of

investment spend) to more active control of decisions

(as with large catastrophe risks).

4. Piecemeal change to make way for strategy

Insurers have recognised that their current BOMs are

struggling to deliver operational efficiency and effective

control. Many are working feverishly to fix some of the

problems. But change has been piecemeal and the impact

only incremental and may, in some cases have done more

harm than good. Based on our interviews with senior

insurance executives, the sidebar highlights some of theinitiatives currently underway in leading institutions.

• Adjusting their global footprint, either to exploit

emerging-market growth or to create regional or global

synergies.

• Consolidating divisional operations (by geographies,

product lines or customer segments).

• Reviewing functions in order to understand which can be

shared, consolidated, offshored, or outsourced.

• Standardising operational activities to allow for greater

use of IT and common processes across divisions andfunctions.

• Reorganising group/enterprise teams (by, for example,

redefining decision rights) to create more effective

centralised functions.

• Developing new strategies to optimise the deployment

and retention of critical talent.


There are many and various skill-setsinvolved in BOM changes. Risk andactuarial teams need to help createdynamic capital models that workefficiently; HR, IT and other functionsare required to work together for acultural change in operations bothwithin and across divisions; while legal

and tax teams have to facilitate changesto the underlying structure of BOMs.

There are many and various skill-sets involved in BOM

changes. Risk and actuarial teams need to help create

dynamic capital models that work efficiently; HR, IT and

operations are required to work together for a cultural

change in operations both within and across divisions;

while legal and tax teams have to facilitate changes to

the underlying structure of BOMs.

Few insurers have a co-ordinated strategy for theseinitiatives. And this can cause problems. For instance,

it is possible to implement an extensive and costly IT

programme that fails to put in place the people strategy

that is required to execute and embed the programme.

Such initiatives can also fail to achieve the necessary

commitment from business units due to the weak

influence of group functions.

Figure 6. Insurance firms’ business-model initiatives, 2009



16

Insurers should take a more co-ordinated approach

to change and re-appraise current BOM change

programmes. Moving away from uncoordinated

piecemeal initiatives to a more strategic approach is

required. Globalising and industrialising operations

designed to gain scale must be carried out on a

selective basis. With this selective principle in mind,

insurers should take the following steps to

transform their business operating models:

1. Assess the current business operating model

strategy and structure

Often initiatives to change the business operating

model are not strategically analysed or driven in

tandem. This can result in business strategies that

are misaligned with the organisational structure.

Articulating the strategy and then making decisions

about the BOM requires several stages:

• Assess the insurance value chain. Which parts

are most valuable? Open business modelsare becoming crucial for strategic positioning.25

For instance, decisions made about the role of

intermediaries, the use of aggregator sites and

product sourcing through open architecture all

have consequences for the business model.

• Business strategy and the operating structures

required to execute it should be aligned – for

instance, corporate strategy should reflect the growth

prospects of markets and the need to focus on

customer retention (persistency) in mature markets.26

• Assess if the current business operating model is

appropriate. Many insurers struggle to define the

BOMs they currently have, let alone in the future.

They should check their existing model for gaps in its

ability to deliver the new strategy.

2. Address balance-sheet efficiency and risk

management as a priority

Some insurance firms are struggling to convince

shareholders that their balance sheets are sound

and that writing new business is not being done at

the expense of disciplined underwriting and pricing.

Insurers should:

• Raise the priority of balance-sheet & risk

management, and efficiency in operations, on the

corporate agenda at both the group/corporate and

divisional levels.

• Strengthen the functions that affect these priorities

(such as tax, finance and controls, actuarial, riskmanagement and compliance, IT and internal audit)

at both divisional and group level in order to exert

more influence over autonomous divisions.

• Build functional specialist teams in these areas at the

local, national and regional/global levels so they can

share leading practice.

• Consider a transformation programme for the finance

function, including management-information

solutions to improve the measurement and

management of capital allocation.

• Review the product base to understand its capital

efficiency.

3. Define the core business

BOMs have become more complex and opaque as

the boundaries between insurance companies,

intermediaries and distributors have become

increasingly blurred. Open architecture is also

forcing strategic decisions about whether

manufacturing and/or distribution is a core

capability. At the same time, insurers are facing

choices over the role of mature and emerging

markets in driving strategy. Without a clear

definition of core and non-core operations,

diversified insurance companies can become

unfocused. Insurers should:

• Define their core and non-core operations.27

• Simplify core operations and processes for scale and

efficiency (see Sub-section four). Seek functional

excellence in these areas.

• Offshore or outsource non-core back- and mid-officeprocesses. And/or create an affinity relationship for

front-end origination. (i.e. open architecture).

Practical steps towards a strategic approach




4. Simplify and standardise processes

Insurance BOMs have become highly complex.

Many business units are accustomed to autonomy.

And product sets vary enormously, from complex life

products tailored to individual jurisdictions to

commoditised general insurance that can span the

globe. Attempts at reducing complexity have worked

to a degree. But as insurers have streamlined

processes or adopted new technologies, furthercomplexity has often arisen.

Divisions and functions seeking to differentiate

themselves on operational efficiency should look to

industrialise their operations. They should:

• Strengthen the group role in facilitating divisional

bargaining.

• Seek greater commonality in technology and

operational infrastructure, especially around support

and back-office functions. Working towards acommon language for IT and other processes

involving management information (MI) should be

an initial goal.

• Develop a common global footprint. This should be

geared for operational efficiency in mature markets

(where, our research suggests, most of insurers’

assets are still held), and for growth in emerging

markets.

• Tailor the footprint to reflect the company’s lines of

business or customer segments. For instance, non-life

personal lines is increasingly a commodity business

with similar features in most mature markets, implying

there is capacity to further develop common

processes.

• Adopt simplicity and standardisation wherever

possible throughout the value chain.

• Communicate internally, to promote internal

understanding of current business operating models

and to foster a common vision and rationale behind

proposed changes and the future model.

5. Scale up where appropriate

Insurers do not always maximise their potential

scale advantages – for the same reasons they have

not simplified their BOMs: Organisations led by

autonomous divisions have caused duplication and

inefficiency. They need to:

• Define what is globally scalable and what is not.

Local sales/distribution is often based on prevailingbroker/distribution networks and national

jurisdictions. While distribution may be diff icult to

globalise, a global/regional manufacturing (and

product development) capability may be created.

• Enable offshoring and set up centres of excellence

for selected functions. Give these functions an

opportunity to scale up on a regional or global

basis.28

• Seek scale opportunities in negotiating with volume

distributors. For instance, in sharing data acrossmarkets, disseminating best practices around claims

and other core processes, and creating regional

programmes around risk classes. Also, scarce technical

skills (for example, in investment, underwriting or

actuarial) can become trapped in one country when

they could be serving several.



18

6. Allow functionally integrated, autonomous

operations where necessary

Operational efficiency is critical to gaining

competitive advantage in commoditised markets

where revenue growth remains difficult.

However, it is important that entrepreneurial units,

often carrying out a revenue-growth agenda, are

not crushed by a stifling business operating model

based solely on the mature-market ethos.

• Functions such as product development, underwriting

& claims, and sales & marketing will have to work

closely together to achieve specific customer and

product knowledge in unfamiliar territories.

Such territories may be emerging markets or business

units in mature markets seeking to sell innovative new

products. Reliance on regional or global scaled

operations may stifle such co-operation.

• However, opting out of balance-sheet and risk

management processes is not acceptable. Althoughoperational efficiency at the local level may be

compromised as entrepreneurial units rely on their

own infrastructure rather than shared services,

entrepreneurial units must be subject to standardised

functions relating to capital management and risk.

Dynamic economic capital modelling requires risks to

be measured on a like-for-like basis across the entire

business.

7. Communicate about the BOM to the external

world

Insurers are not banks. However, the financial crisis

has had a substantial impact on them, partly

because they failed to convince shareholders of

their financial viability. This was in part caused by a

lack of enterprise-wide transparency and suspicion

about insurers’ reporting and accounting

procedures. It was also caused by a failure tocommunicate adequately with the market.

Shareholders, insurance analysts and customers

are demanding greater transparency. Insurers

should:

• Revamp their financial and risk reporting to aid

transparency for all stakeholders. Be at the forefront

of compliance with globally trusted accounting and

risk measures, and with regulations and accounting

rules (such as IFRS, MCEV and Solvency II).

• Be in a position to explain their business goals andstrategy, and how the business model will achieve

those goals.

• Improve their investor relations, giving transparency

over capital requirements and new business growth,

attempting to foster a greater degree of trust.




Conclusion

Shifts in the shareholder agenda, regulatory change and the recentfinancial crisis have highlighted organisational issues and constraintswith current business operating models.

At the same time, a number of financial issues (ranging from optimising tax domicileto risk governance and capital allocation) have become hot topics, affecting business

operating models. Finally, changes to the competitive landscape are forcing insurers to

redefine their markets, core competencies and their own relationship to the insurance

value chain. These factors are demanding insurers rethink the principles behind

business operating models.

Most insurers are responding by moving to scaled operations at the national and

regional level. It is now time for insurers to aspire to global integration. This calls for

a rebalancing of powers. Functional heads need more influence, especially over areas

concerning risk and balance sheet management, and centralised control is required to

drive co-operation and synergies between divisions (in charge of products, customer

segments and/or countries).

Yet driving towards greater centralisation and functional control must be tempered

with the need to give local autonomy, where justified by market requirements.

Insurance is in transition requiring flexibility in the globally scaled operating model.

This is particularly true in response to most global insurers’ expansion into emerging

markets. The mantra of “globalise and industrialise” must be refined.

It should only be followed on a selective and pragmatic basis. This does not mean

that initiatives to improve the business operating model should be piecemeal.

Work streams must be put in place that are aligned to the strategy, coherent with

the increase focused on balance sheet management and operational efficiency and

easily, persuasively communicated both internally and externally.



20

1 Allan Afuah, Business Models, (University of Michigan,

Irwin, 2004).

2 Considerable variation in performance exists. For instance,

P&C providers have performed above trend for the sector.

3 Combined ratios among our sample of top global insurers

increased by two percentage points to 91.8 per cent in

2008. It is acknowledged that the combined ratio is not

entirely reflective of operational efficiency, taking into

account underwriting performance also. The loss ratio and

expense ratio for our sample of 24 insurers both increased

by 2.2 percentage points in 2008. However, over the

period 2005-2008, the combined ratio and loss ratio

dropped by 6.5 and 5.2 percentage points respectively

whereas the expense ratio remained flat.

4 This drop in share price was not restricted to the Deloitte

sample of 24 insurers. The Dow Jones STOXX 600 insurance

index dropped nearly 32 per cent over a similar time frame.

5 A recent study by Deloitte on European insurers’ EV

performance calculated an average fall in EV of 9 per cent

in FY08, with only a few notable exceptions showing an

increase. Deloitte LLP, Market Confused Embedded Value?

The Deloitte View on Year-End Value Results, (UK), 2009.

6 In our view, revenue growth may have been accepted byinvestors on the grounds that they could estimate EV

contribution to profit that new business could have

generated. With the realisation that profit could be

unreliable, as suspected for some time before the crisis, the

shift of focus was a way to analyse the insurance sector

more effectively.

7 Deloitte Research, The IFRS Journey in Insurance: a Look

Beyond the Accounting Changes, Deloitte LLP, 2008.

8 Total revenues include: premium income; reinsurance

income; investment and trading income.

9 From our sample of insurers, combined ratios dropped

6.5 percentage points between 2005 and 2008, indicating

slightly improved efficiency and the benefits of the

insurance cycle. However it is the belief of industry

commentators and senior insurance executives that there is

much scope for efficiency gains within insurance. In fact,

90 per cent of insurance analysts in our sample suggested

insurance was less efficient than other areas of financial

services.

10 In the United Kingdom, the Retail Distribution Review’s ban

on commissions in 2012 may result in fewer new business

sales in the UK life industry. IFAs may be less able to churn

portfolios to sell new products. However, on the upside,

less churn in back books increases persistency, resulting in

the value of back books improving and a lower

management burden. This primes the back book for

disposal to a consolidator. See: Deutsche Bank, UK Life

Assurers: Living in the Past, 28 July 2009.

11 Some global capital efficiency may also be achieved

through the use of an intragroup reinsurance vehicle.

Business operating models and capital structures should

be congruent.

12 According to JP Morgan, IAS 39 accounting changes could

have a profound effect on reported numbers, making

equities less attractive. See: JP Morgan, European

Insurance, Europe Equity Research, 8 July 2009.

13 The Economist Consensus forecasts: 2009, Deloitte Analysis.

14 OECD Composite Leading Indicators, 2009.

15 Use of this term is adapted from Allan Afuah, Business

Models, Allan Afuah, (University of Michigan, Irwin, 2004).

16 In the ‘adaptive’ insurance organisation, there are few

overarching goals for the organisation at Group/Corporate

level. Rather, the global business strategy is “pluralistic”,

comprising many objectives set at the local level.

17 Of a US (largely domestic) sample, 6.1 per cent were

country-led, 14.5 per cent were product-led, and 14.8 per

cent were customer-led. Among major global insurers we

would expect the country-led numbers to be significantly

higher. See: Deloitte DTT, New Global Operating Models in

a Shifting World, Insurance D-Brief, March 2009.

18 Many executives have been burnt by expensive integration

projects which have not worked out. However, integration

technology has dramatically improved in a very short time

making integration a more realistic prospect.

19 Insurers are behind the curve in using shared services.

Deloitte Research, Fifth Annual Survey: Offshoring in the

Financial Services Industry, 2008.

20 Specialist teams in the area should be represented at the

highest levels and be integral to BOM change initiatives.

21 Regulation in Europe is in principle fostering a region-wide

approach. Solvency II is an example of how supranational

regulation can facilitate the consolidation of balance-sheet-

related processes. However, the financial crisis has erected

some barriers to this approach. National governments have

been concerned to ensure that capital in each national

jurisdiction is adequate to underwrite risks within that

jurisdiction. This potentially restricts the flow of capital

from one part of the business to another, and makes the

case that not all processes – even within finance, actuarial

and risk functions – can be translated globally.

22 For more information on Deloitte’s perspective on

distribution see: Deloitte Research UK. Face to Face with the

Future: Sustainable solutions for the £66 billion distribution

change facing life and pensions providers, 2006.

23 Broking is attractive in today’s conditions as intermediating

is less capital-intensive than underwriting.

Notes





Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (‘DTT’), a Swiss Verein, and its network of member firms, each of

which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.co.uk/about for a detailed description of the legal

structure of DTT and its member firms.

Deloitte LLP is the United Kingdom member firm of DTT.

This publication has been written in general terms and therefore cannot be relied on to cover specific situations; application of the

principles set out will depend upon the particular circumstances involved and we recommend that you obtain professional advice

before acting or refraining from acting on any of the contents of this publication. Deloitte LLP would be pleased to advise readers

on how to apply the principles set out in this publication to their specific circumstances. Deloitte LLP accepts no duty of care or

liability for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication.

© 2009 Deloitte LLP. All rights reserved.

Deloitte LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303675 and its registered

office at 2 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BZ, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0) 20 7936 3000 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7583 1198.

Designed and produced by The Creative Studio at Deloitte, London. 1137A

Key contacts

Andrew Power

Insurance Strategy Partner

+44 (0)20 7303 0194

[email protected]

Mark FitzPatrick

Insurance Leader, UK

+44 (0)20 7303 5167

[email protected]

Joe Guastella

Global Insurance Leader

+1 212-618-4287

[email protected]

Russell Collins

Financial Services Leader, EMEA

+44 (0)20 7303 2929

[email protected]

Research contacts

Chris Gentle

Head of Deloitte Research UK

+44 (0)20 7303 0201

[email protected]

Seb Cohen

Deloitte Research, UK (report author)

+44 (0)20 7303 2478

[email protected]

Contacts

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	diegognu
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Insurance OM

Documents