In a recent (virtual) roundtable, GTR and Willis Towers Watson brought together several industry leaders – both bankers and underwriters – from across the political risk and trade credit insurance market to discuss the ongoing resilience of the business in light of the current crisis, the subsequent shift in credit quality and structures, the outlook for claims and recoveries, and scrutiny around policy wordings.


Roundtable participants:

  • Ed Ashton, senior underwriter, Tokio Marine HCC
  • Jean-Maurice Elkouby, managing director, syndicated finance, ING
  • Lee Hitge, executive director, Willis Towers Watson
  • Mark Houghton, regional product leader APAC – political risk, credit and bond, AXA XL
  • Nick Kilhams, political risks underwriter, Chaucer
  • Ashish Makhija, director, global credit insurance group, capital structuring and distribution group, Standard Chartered
  • Andrés Ortiz, global head of credit insurance, private debt mobilization, Santander
  • Andrew van den Born, managing director, global head of CPRI for financial institutions, Willis Towers Watson (chair)


van den Born: These are challenging times, although I wouldn’t necessarily say they are unprecedented. Most of us on this call have been through one financial crisis or other and lived to tell the tale. When we think back to the Asian crisis of 1997 and the Russian crisis in the following year, the Argentine crisis of 2001, September 11, and of course the global financial crisis in 2008, throughout each, the market has shown itself to be remarkably resilient.

It is probably worth noting that in the wake of the global financial crisis, not one insurer exited the market, and the claims payment record of insurers was first rate and demonstrated unequivocally that the product works.

Are there any lessons to be learned from the previous crises which we can apply here, and how do you underwrite through a crisis?

Kilhams: One of the big lessons that we’ve learned from previous crises is that eventually they are over and the market bounces back from them. The lesson learnt by those that were around for the global financial crisis is to not wait too long. You don’t have to have a couple of years of clear water behind you before you can start scaling the wall on the other side. People in the financial community, from banks to commodities traders and insurers, have learned that lesson. And they want to start rebuilding quite quickly.

The second wave has hit us a lot faster than we would have imagined. In the context of a rebound that is probably a good thing, rather than it happening in the first quarter of next year. But one valuable lesson from all of those crises that you listed is that you can come out the other side.

The tricky bit, of course, is underwriting now and for the last few months in this crisis. And that is why – if you are on the buy side – the number of questions that insurers are asking you, and the depth of analysis that everyone is putting into underwriting seemingly quite straightforward risks has really intensified. That will continue for some months to come.

What I’m very pleased about is the level of underwriting that has continued through this crisis and the number of markets that have remained genuinely open – not just saying they are open for business. So, when opportunities present themselves to the client base, they can then present them to us, and we can actively try to underwrite them. It’s just a more involved process at the moment and it takes a lot longer.

Ashton: The only change that we’ve made throughout the Covid crisis has been to focus on key insureds, companies that we’ve got a track record with, those who we know how they operate, that we’ve been working with since and before the financial crisis, and based on the track record there, we feel more comfortable underwriting in these more difficult times.


van den Born: Is this at the expense of new entrants to the market?

Ashton: To some degree. We are certainly not closed to new entrants. In fact, it’s the opposite. We encourage new companies to come to the market. That is how the market has thrived over the last 30 years or so. It’s just the timing to support a new client in any great volumes is obviously pretty poor, and faced between a new client, or a bank or corporate that you’ve worked with numerous times in some difficult situations, then you are always going to favour the path that you know well.

Houghton: Whether you are on the banking side or the insurance side, you end up going back to your key customers.

If you think about 2007/08, there was obviously the financial crisis, a commodities crisis, and a few specific countries where problems occurred. Now, certainly for the Asian market, it’s not so much a liquidity crisis, it’s more of a fraud issue, so banks and insurers are being stung in this region by fraud. As the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy. These different crises have different sentiments and different triggers, and I think we are responding to those triggers in different ways.

As Nick was saying before, we revert back, we underwrite a bit harder, we’ll take a deep breath, because money is on the line, and we are accountable to the money going out of the door in terms of claims. So you learn your lessons, but you tighten your belt and you move on.

There’s a good opportunity for new markets, and there is a good opportunity for existing markets. But it is a time when everybody has to take stock. So, in my personal view, watching what is happening in Asia, we are going to be wobbling through Covid for the next 12 months, I suspect, before we see the end of the problems coming out of the defaults or any shakeout of frauds. There is still a little way to go and that does create opportunity for most people in the market.


van den Born: From the banks’ perspective, Nick was talking earlier about applying strict underwriting guidelines and requests for additional information on what perhaps might be regarded as relatively plain vanilla transactions. Are banks now applying the same degree of rigour when it comes to credit assessment?

Elkouby: Money is at stake for the banks as well, so we are very careful as to what we do. That said, we were under a lot of pressure, especially in Europe, from our governments and regulators to keep money flowing during this time.

There was a little disconnect back in the Spring where insurers were a lot more closed than they are now. They were spending a lot of time assessing what they could and couldn’t do, looking at potential losses in other classes of business, and they were very risk-off at a time when we were supposed to be issuing and writing Covid facilities for big corporates, etcetera. That disconnect has gone away because I guess they have done as Nick has suggested and started again, as soon as they can, to ride that curve. Now it is a lot better and we are more aligned – but for a while, we were not.

We have learned to live with Covid updates and the usual batch of questions. We typically have those paragraphs in our credit applications now, so it is easy enough to meet the extra due diligence from our friends on the underwriting side.

Makhija: The financial services industry, be that banks or insurers, has not done everything right during this crisis. There are important things that we’ve got wrong. For instance, you talked about due diligence and additional credit checks, and that is definitely something which is a lesson from this crisis. Financial entities need to step up due diligence, credit checks and deal structuring and monitoring processes to ensure that frauds do not take place.

The industry also needs to step up digitisation efforts and to bring more technology into structures like invoice financing to ensure that frauds and double financings do not happen.

Banks and insurance companies have important lessons to learn from this crisis and digitisation and additional credit checks are two of the main things that I think we should do going forward.


van den Born: Whilst it’s probably fair to say there has been a contraction in credit appetite and a flight to quality across the board, as a market, we are also arguably seeing well-rated, well-structured transactions that ordinarily wouldn’t come to market. Is that a fair comment?

Kilhams: For a few months now the credit quality has gone up and up, and this is very much welcomed by the underwriters. If you look at the credit results for the last few years, we do need some flag to wave at the moment, and that’s a very good one for us, to say that both the credit quality and the pricing are improving, to justify why we are continuing underwriting.

Makhija: From a bank’s perspective, and this is generally true across the market, there is a strong flight to quality, but the issue with that is that the entire market is crowding at the top end which means that there is only one way the pricing goes – and that is down. That is how the mechanics have worked over the last few months. It is unlikely to change, in the short term at least. Looking at commodities, for instance, there are a number of banks which have said that they are not going to do any further commodity lending across the board. Some of them have said that they will still do commodities, but they will not do the mid-tier traders or the producers. That strains the financial system and it is not sustainable in the long term because, obviously, you need the mid-tier traders. You need to finance the producers. Therefore, somebody needs to fill the gap and it gets into dangerous territory where mid-tier banks, with lesser expertise, fill in the void with looser structures.

For the sector to thrive, or even sustain, it is important to avoid knee-jerk reactions. Banks and other financiers and insurance companies should focus on better structures for these players. And that is important for the medium to long term sustainability of the sector.

Houghton: The structures are changing. The banks are working hard to try to develop the way they structure deals to be a bit more risk-averse or take more security than perhaps they did in the past. We are seeing a change in structuring from the banks which is making us think a bit harder about underwriting. One thing I am noticing on my side in Asia is we’ve got a few brokers trying to be a bit more creative with how they use our product. So, narrower or more specific cover on certain parts of the transaction to cover only country risk or certain elements of the transaction. There is a bit more thought going into the policy terms and coverage to accommodate these innovative solutions, which is good to see.

Ashton: We have been encouraged by the improving credit quality of the risks that we have been seeing. It has actually been quite refreshing to see some great risks for a change, names that you don’t often see that you can take a fresh underwriting approach on. The problem that we have had on the pricing side is making that work for us. So, on the one hand you have a fantastic risk, but on the other hand you have a price which clearly reflects that, so it is about trying to find the right balance of the two. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.


van den Born: On the issue of pricing, from the insurers’ side, you are experiencing diminishing returns on the asset side of the balance sheet, so there is more pressure on the liability side to try and push up rates. I guess there may be some pressure from other lines and maybe the cost of reinsurance has a part to play as well. However, I am not entirely sure that we have seen a significant price correction in the bank market, at least for the well-rated assets or well-structured transactions, just because of the amount of liquidity out there. Given that we as a market largely follow the fortunes of the banks, is there indeed scope to increase the rates? Is there perhaps a disconnect between the pricing that the banks need and what the insurers are asking for? And if indeed there is that disconnect, are we perhaps in danger of biting the very hand that feeds us?

Elkouby: It is a thorny issue because it touches on what makes it work on both sides. There are long-term trends and short-term reactions at work at the same time. During the first wave there was a knee-jerk reaction and a hike in liquidity costs for banks, and I’m sure that we will see again in the second wave that there will be another spike in liquidity costs, which is a component of the margin. So that bit translates into higher pricing for banks, but in net terms not so much. Therefore, we need to manage insurers’ expectations as to how much we can pass that on.

That said, these are short-term wobbles. Structurally, there can be some bigger trends. If many banks are exiting trade and commodity finance but it remains a decent sector for some banks that are committed to it, then there will be long-term better pricing out there. This should be a good opportunity for insurers to balance their portfolio and take that, but they are at rock bottom prices. So how do we make it work? I’m intrigued by Ed’s [Ashton] comments. How do we make it work for you to do those deals?

Ashton: We normally try and be as transparent as possible from the start on the pricing that we require to make the transaction work from our point of view. If there needs to be a little bit of fine tuning down the line then we can address that, but at least you know what we need.

Kilhams: Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. But nonetheless I do feel that it’s nice to be given the opportunity with these higher credit quality risks that we are seeing to actually have the opportunity to analyse them. Just because some of the pricing is reasonably low it doesn’t mean that they are all unattractive. As Jean-Maurice says, it gives us the chance to balance our credit book out in the way that we haven’t been able to do before. Obviously, it has to work for our internal models, but nonetheless I don’t see it as being a very difficult situation. I think it’s a nice problem to have that we are being sent a raft of different risks now, and we can divide the fees that are coming in to make a sensible margin for all the insurers.


van den Born: A question for the banks: is the fact that we are now seeing risks that we otherwise wouldn’t have seen because there is an absence of a secondary bank market? Why the choice then to come to the insurance market?

Ortiz: I believe it might be based more on the demand than on the supply side in our case, meaning that there have been so many requests and opportunities from clients, partly because of the liquidity offered by central banks. There continue to be growing opportunities for our clients. They are bringing transactions that we had not seen before the crisis, taking the opportunity of the continuing low rates. We are seeing assets that we didn’t see before, and where we are now better positioned to get into.

I do think there is a secondary market. There was a dislocation obviously in the very short term, but most markets have come back. Not with the full price resetting, but there is a lot of appetite and opportunity for the right quality ratings. Coming to the insurance market might be more related to us trying to take advantage of distributing assets through the different channels that we have available.

Makhija: The secondary demand in the bank market for some of these names is not as strong, and one of the reasons for that is the secondary bank market isn’t averse to knee-jerk reactions and to taking very quick decisions which may not necessarily be right.

This gives an opportunity for us to insure them and use other means of distribution instead of selling them in the secondary market, which is great. And that is where we think we benefit from the insurance market’s stability and strength.

The other reason, as I said, is because of the flight to quality our exposure to some of the top names has increased quite significantly, and this is because we aren’t doing much business with the mid-tier and the low-tier clients, and we have liquidity to deploy.

To add to the earlier point regarding pricing, it’s a very interesting discussion as to how we can find a compromise between the pricing that banks need and the pricing that insurers need, especially on these top-quality names. One of the answers to that is diversification. Where do banks earn high revenues? We earn high revenues on maybe 20% of deals. The reason why we can demand those high revenues is because they are highly structured deals, perhaps ones that have not been very popular in the insurance market thus far. Because of the perceived high risk in these kinds of transactions, we earn high margins.

I know those are not in the sweet spot for insurers, but I do think that both banks and insurers could benefit from some diversification on that front as long as they are strong obligors and they can afford to pay higher margins; it could help us subsidise the premiums that we require on the plain vanilla structures with high quality obligors.


van den Born: For the insurers, is now perhaps the time to be looking at portfolios or even other asset classes such as CLOs or swaps? Or is it actually a time to hunker down and ride out the storm? As the market has a massive exposure to the oil and gas sector, is there a move to perhaps reduce overdependence on that source of income?

Kilhams: Diversification is key. The portfolios that we are presented with are very time-consuming to analyse, and so even though they may be offering insurers diversity, you are taking up many, many hours because you are looking at the entirety of the portfolio. You don’t want the insurers to just be stripping key parts of the portfolio out. That doesn’t hold true for the swaps and the other derivatives transactions because they can be much more straightforward to analyse, and I think there is instant diversification there in some of the products that we can look at.

Something we are looking at doing is moving away from the oil and gas sector which, for some of us, has been 30 or 40% of our book.

Houghton: The diversification of the business is quite interesting because, whether it is CSR or ESG guidelines, we are being compelled to take a more sustainability focused approach. Certainly AXA Group has very a strong ESG culture, so for us it is something that we are pushing.

Our in-house technical expertise has also been very useful in helping us diversify our underwriting expertise away from certain areas and to enable us to write emerging risks in the renewable energy sector.


van den Born: Moving on to claims, it’s probably fair to say that we haven’t witnessed a massive spike in claims activity yet, at least not here at Willis Towers Watson.

As we saw in the wake of the global financial crisis, given the tendency to kick the can down the road rather than crystallise a loss, I suspect the claims will be likely to ratchet up over the next few years as reschedulings potentially fall over.

Obviously, a lot of the defaults that we have seen so far are arguably not the result of Covid. Many of these entities probably already had existing liquidity issues and Covid in many respects was the straw that broke the camel’s back. But it no doubt hastened the demise of some companies that were already stressed, and in the process unearthed instances of fraud and accounting irregularities, particularly in the Middle East and Asia.

We’re seeing reports that claims might very well eclipse those of the global financial crisis. If that view is correct, how well is the market equipped to deal with this?

Makhija: You are absolutely right to say that the claims haven’t hit the market as much as we expected, and there have been quite a few restructurings and amendment requests but not many losses yet, and it does seem like the calm before the storm. But governments all over the world have been very active over the last few months and they have definitely learned their lessons from the global financial crisis. They’ve pumped a lot of money into the economy and have done a lot to help small businesses keep afloat during these tough times.

Hopefully, that should save quite a few businesses and the defaults may not be as high as one would have expected.

That said, there could be a strong element of kicking the can down the road as well because there are quite a few restructurings in the market.

An important point about some of these defaults as we have alluded to earlier is that there is fraud involved. And when there is fraud involved, the chances of recovery are poor. Another important aspect of this is that quite a few jurisdictions, especially in Asia, are not that friendly from an enforcement perspective. So if things do go wrong, recoveries will be hampered greatly because of that.

Houghton: If we look at the airline sector, there’s been a lot of government support, so I do think there will be some more pain down the line. You’re going to see some of that liquidity running out and there will be some very hard decisions. We have seen a number of situations around the world where there is good collaboration between insurers and insureds with respect to repayment deferrals and policy extensions.

In terms of the commodity sector, the frauds that we mentioned earlier on really permeated the start of the year. The Covid situation together with the oil price shock caused a lot of problems to some of the people and unravelled a lot of the accounting irregularities that were being undertaken in those organisations. I think that was a perfect storm for them.

It also changes the way we look at the underwriting and the regulatory position to help bring more clarity to this business and these transactions going forward.

I think there is still a fair bit of pain to come in secondary industries in the coming months.

Kilhams: I think we find ourselves already in a higher frequency claims environment than would be the norm, and that is purely because Covid has just permeated so many different economies and industries. Risks that have wobbled, restructurings, these have all been stressed much more than we would have expected them to.

A lot of the cases we are working on are ones that we have either worked on before or that were coming to fruition in 2019 that have just been exacerbated by Covid. Across the board there will be a whole host of reschedulings and new restructurings. This is the same with any crisis, that you have a number of restructurings and you hope that 60-75% of them work out in one way shape or form, and then you can try and pick up the pieces of the ones that don’t.

This is a very long-term strategy for the insurers that really does tend to work, but it means I am still sweeping up the last pieces of the global financial crisis today, and so with the effect of Covid on the industries that we tend to focus on and underwrite, it will again be three, four, five or six years into the future before we have a clear picture of which ones will materialise into claims or not.

Ashton: The focus here has been on the corporate side, but you have also got the added complexity that there is a number of sovereigns who are looking to restructure their debt in Africa in particular, and that is an additional headache that we are working through at the moment, and keeping an eye on closely just about how the restructuring discussions go and what the approach will be from our insureds.

Elkouby: We haven’t had one claim linked to Covid specifically, although one can debate how much of the oil price crash is linked to Covid, which is obviously putting a lot of strain on companies in the offshore sector for instance.

We have seen some cases in China where regional governments are getting their hands dirty with restructuring and supporting liquidity for their champions in the region, so that is a good sign. But in some cases, that might just delay the inevitable rather than remove the problem.

There is a big question mark for me as to all that government debt that is building up for generations to come. How will it affect the assessments of underwriters taking sovereign risk in some regions?


van den Born: Let’s move to the issue of recoveries. Assuming that there are going to be additional defaults at some stage down the line, what do you think the prospects of recoveries are going to be this time around? And what about enforcement of those securities? And if the experience turns out to be not terribly positive, could we perhaps see the insurers giving more importance to PD rather than LGD, for example?

Kilhams: Recoveries have really become our lifeblood and there is a high degree of expectation now from senior management and – if you are a Lloyd’s underwriter – from Lloyd’s, from reinsurers, that a lot of effort will be put into recoveries. Obviously, it does reflect on the initial underwriting as well and the enforcement of security packages. So, at the moment we do have that as an expectation, but it will take a very long time for the recoveries on the paid claims that emanate from the Covid crisis to become clear.

Everyone that we report to realises that this is a long and drawn-out process. But I think that the type of deals that have been coming into the market and have been underwritten, and the security packages that go alongside them, actually do give us hope for some cash recoveries from the paid claims that are inevitable from this crisis.

Houghton: Enforcement will be interesting on some of the aviation transactions, not just the aircraft but the receivable structures and some of the other deal structures that have been put together in better times. We are seeing some of the fallout from court cases and enforcement processes that will come, and that will be quite interesting because it’s a good test. We haven’t tested security packages for some time.

Elkouby: Over the few cases we have had, I have seen that insurers are typically a little bit less patient than banks in waiting for the recovery and going until the bitter end with us. If indeed the reinsurers and Lloyd’s are now a bit more appreciative that this asset class is special and it does have recoveries coming through, then the best way to manage that is to play along and wait for it to happen. Very often I have seen insurers lose patience too quickly and sell out to a distressed lender and then leave money on the table.

Ashton: Sometimes it is a trade-off between the time that you are spending on a case and what you can get in the secondary market. If the secondary market is quite good from a pricing point of view, at 70-80%, and the expectation is that you are going to get a recovery of 90-100% in five years’ time, then for the sake of 10%, why not just sell out, move on and focus your efforts elsewhere? But don’t get me wrong. We hate leaving money on the table, especially when it comes to recoveries.

Makhija: I think there is merit in considering forms of security which haven’t been that popular in the insurance market so far, such as security over shares. In many markets, having pledge over shares is maybe a better way of getting your money back, because it’s probably easier to enforce it and easier to become an owner of the company and then manage recoveries, rather than having a pledge over land or some physical assets which aren’t very easy to enforce.

Crises like these do provide the optionality to rethink a few of the mindsets that we’ve had for a long time, and hopefully this changes things for the better.


van den Born: Let’s touch on policy wordings. Despite the initial reticence in some quarters, most of us have accepted the need for a standardised policy wording. Not only would this arguably improve operational efficiencies, but it would also reduce any further scrutiny from the regulators. The Loan Market Association (LMA), who is leading this endeavour, has just issued its second draft of the working group for review and we look forward to seeing that and providing our comments. With that in mind, given the current situation, and notwithstanding the fact that we hopefully are going to have this standardised policy wording at some juncture, is there more scrutiny around existing policy wordings? Are you pushing back slightly? And are the banks getting what they need?

Kilhams: There has been steadily more focus on policy wordings from both sides of the equation for quite some time now. The economic crisis this year has even further refocused people’s efforts on policy wordings. It’s been a joint effort from the clients, the brokers, and the insurers. I don’t think it’s been driven by one side or the other. But the fact of the matter is, there is intense scrutiny on policy wordings. More scrutiny than there was three or four years ago.

Now, honestly, this makes the underwriting of the risk much more time-consuming and more involved, but I just feel that both sides are trying to get more out of the product, hence why there has been more focus on the policy wordings, and I don’t see it going away in the short term.

Ashton: Policy wording discussions are being raised in our credit committee when we talk about specific deals and the certain parameters that the policy would cover. This is something that is getting looked at more frequently and in more detail by the management.

Hitge: It is long overdue that a template is put in place. At the end of the day, a template is just a template, to be used as a guide. Having looked at the template and reviewed it extensively, I think it is very market standard and it will be received well, but at the end of the day parties in a climate like this are going to be pushing for their own agendas.

There is still the potential for a lot of negotiation on both sides, and that will never change: it is always about balancing those interests.

Houghton: If I think about the organisations that we deal with in the Asia Pacific region, we have a handful of banks that are relatively sophisticated as to how they use insurance, and banks who have very little experience in using the insurance market. We are probably 15 to 20 years behind the political risk insurance market in London. Some banks haven’t even reviewed a policy wording before.

So, we are a little bit cautious in Asia about giving too much away to some of the banks who perhaps haven’t really used the market. In London, you’ve got repeat buyers who understand the philosophies of using the market and the partnership we seek to develop.

Standardisation is great, but for a developing insurance market like we are in, there is still a lot of work to do.


van den Born: Is it right that some insureds should get more advantageous terms over perhaps a new entrant into the market or a lesser user of the market, when ultimately the coverage is, and should be, fairly binary?

Houghton: Do banks give large listed multinational companies the same lending arrangements as they give a mid-cap miner in West Africa? The loan conditions are different. For insurers, the only way we can control the behaviour of the insured is through our policy wording. If you can give me more tools other than the policy wording to control the insured’s behaviour, that’s fine, but at the moment, I’ve only got that one tool to ensure they behave responsibly.

Hitge: If you think about it, the LMA also has different templates for investment-grade borrowers and leveraged loans, as an example. They are quite different.

We haven’t got to that stage with the credit risk insurance template but, ultimately, the insurance relationship is always going to be based on good faith and trust. We are never going to depart from that, because at the end of the day the insurers are never going to be able to underwrite the transaction to the extent that the insured can. So there has got to be that level of trust, and I think that comes with a track record. If you are a new participant, you are unlikely to get an ‘insured-friendly’ policy. It is just the point of negotiation. But the standardisation is to have a point of departure so that new participants can know what it could look like.

Elkouby: From our point of view, we haven’t seen that much scrutiny on wording lately. We did the bulk of our masters after the insurance act and they have been in place and have done what we wanted them to do, which was make it more efficient and allow us to park it up and not touch it for a while. The LMA initiative is good at least in the sense that as we attract more attention from regulators on our products then we can at least point to some standardisation and principles – that is very helpful.

Makhija: As a big buyer of insurance, we believe a standardised wording for new entrants as well has a lot of merit because it instils an additional level of trust in the product.

We talked about the ability to control the behaviour of new insureds, which is a great point, but even for that, I would think that there should be some well-defined clauses or maybe commercial terms. For instance, new entrants into the market when they are getting into an insurance policy should have higher minimum retention requirements, or maybe the pricing should be higher, because from the insurers’ perspective who they insure is probably as important as what the underlying risk is.

The comment around LMA having different wordings for leveraged loans versus investment-grade loans and other structures makes a lot of sense for something like this as well. Maybe there should be different wordings for the new entrants versus the more established buyers, but there should be standardisation on both fronts.


van den Born: Optionality will still remain because, notwithstanding when we have the standardised policy wording, there is nothing to prevent insureds from continuing to use their own form should they so wish.

Let’s talk about remote working. Technology has allowed us to continue to trade and the ability to bind electronically, and the acceptance of electronic signatures has been a godsend. However, does this new virtual world that we inhabit sound the death knell for the face-to-face market as we know it?

Kilhams: Quite the opposite. We’ve got through the last six months because of strong and long relationships and internal procedures that could be moved onto a digital basis, but realistically these relationships are under strain now. We haven’t seen individuals for months, and it is going to be quite tricky for the insurers going into the reinsurance renewal season without being able to see our reinsurers face to face. When the possibility of meeting up again presents itself, we will grab it with both hands.