Vijay Padmanabhan

Does it make more sense for (re)insurers to build their own proprietary system to solve a problem or purchase a third- party solution? The "build" approach has hidden risks and costs.

The Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report is one of my favorite reads. I always find a mountain of wisdom coupled with humility from one my mentors, Warren Buffett. But, Mr. Buffett, I have some questions for you on your view of the annual probability of incurring USD 400 billion in insured losses from a "U.S. mega-catastrophe."

For several years, AIR has written about, presented about, and created infographics around the problem of the protection gap. For the most part our discussions have focused on the "macro" level issues of global (re)insurers and governments, catastrophe models, and data. However, to learn more about the "micro" level issues that drive the protection gap, I recently attempted to buy flood insurance on my townhouse condo in a suburb of Boston.

If you are like most (re)insurers, you likely write an equivalent amount—or perhaps even more—casualty insurance premiums than property insurance premiums. Logically you need to ask yourself, why are you investing so unevenly in analytics across both sides of your business?

Who doesn’t want to go fast...at least in theory? In conversations with a broad cross section of our (re)insurer clients, we've found that many still operate at a slower pace, particularly as compared to the rest of the financial services industry.

U.S. insurance companies are scrambling to explain higher quarterly losses than they've seen in years. But should the losses from severe weather in the first quarter of 2017 really come as a surprise?