The questions I ask before a risk is written

I have priced flood and windstorm risk from both sides of the reinsurance contract. As a treaty underwriter I assessed how well cedants understood their accumulations; as a primary insurer I am responsible for ours. My practice is to price the hazard at building level where the data allows, to make the zone and its loading visible to the broker, and to pair the price with something the customer can act on, such as a survey or a prevention credit. I distinguish modelled loss from the judgement we add for model gaps, and I want both shown separately in pricing papers. At Talvermark I review our accumulation by postcode cluster each quarter with the chief risk officer. I do not regard catastrophe models as answers. They are a disciplined way of asking how wrong we might be, and I expect our pricing teams to say where they distrust their own output.

Commercial insurance is won or lost in the referral rules and the renewal conversation, not in the annual plan. I care about who holds the pen, at what limit and with which information. As chief underwriting officer I introduced an authority framework that tied each underwriter's limits to their audited file quality, not to seniority alone. I ask for portfolio reviews by segment and by vintage, and I want rate change reported separately from changes in exposure and terms, because a renewal that raises premium while widening cover is not a price increase. I spend time with underwriters on real files every month. That keeps me honest about how our appetite statements read on a Tuesday afternoon with a broker waiting, and it shows me where our own rules have become workarounds that nobody owns.

I treat the Solvency II ratio as a constraint to manage rather than a score to maximise. Talvermark uses a partial internal model for natural catastrophe risk and the standard formula for the rest, and I work closely with our chief risk officer on the assumptions that move the solvency capital requirement most. Our board-approved range is 170% to 210%; we were at 192% at the end of 2025. When we sold the motor book, I insisted that the capital released be allocated explicitly between commercial growth, reinsurance and a return to shareholders, with each portion justified. I am now preparing us for the amended directive, especially its expectation that insurers with material climate exposure analyse long-term scenarios in their own risk and solvency assessment. I want those scenarios to inform pricing and reinsurance decisions, not to sit in an appendix.

IFRS 17 changed how a property and casualty insurer's result looks, even where the underlying business did not change. Discounting of incurred claims lowers the reported combined ratio when interest rates are higher, and the benefit varies with the length of the claims tail. I took the decision that Talvermark would lead with the undiscounted combined ratio and publish a bridge to the discounted figure every reporting period. I work with our chief financial officer and investor relations team on how we explain insurance revenue, the risk adjustment and the separation of the insurance service result from investment and finance results. I do not present myself as an accounting specialist. My contribution is to insist that the number we put first is the one that would still tell investors the truth about underwriting if rates fell.

About a sixth of our premium comes through partners who bind risks on our behalf: managing general agents and brokers with delegated authority. That model reaches customers we could not serve directly, but it separates the person writing the risk from the balance sheet carrying it. I reviewed every binding arrangement between 2023 and 2025 and made risk-level data within thirty days a condition of authority. I linked commission to data quality and loss experience rather than volume. I also take the Insurance Distribution Directive's product oversight requirements seriously as a manufacturer: we remain responsible for whether a product reaches the customers it was designed for. I respect what good brokers do, and I believe consolidation in the broker market makes clear agreements about information more important rather than less.