The Asia InsurTech Podcast spoke with Thomas Dijohn, SVP APAC at Dacadoo and Jeremy Rolleston, Head of Global Partnerships for Life and Health at Swiss Re, about how to make partnerships between InsurTechs and incumbents work and how to break down insurance and make it more accessible.
Listen to our other podcast with Thomas Dijohn here.
Find the transcript of our conversation below.
Michael Waitze 0:03
Super, we are on. Hi, this is Michael Waitze and welcome back to the Asia InsurTech Podcast today we are joined by Thomas Dijohn, SVP APAC at Dacadoo and Jeremy Rolleston, Head of Global Partnerships for life and health at Swiss Re. Thomas, it’s great to have you back on the show was great to see you in Singapore as well. And Jeremy, thank you for joining. Before we get to the main part of the conversation, our listeners have not heard from you yet. So maybe you can give us a little bit of your background for some context.
Jeremy Rolleston 0:32
Yeah, sure, Michael, my background is probably very non reinsurance, my, my first 15 years were actually in investment banking. And then I moved into venture capital. And then I ran my own startup for five years. Interestingly, a platform in the same space as Dacadoo around digital health and wellness. So I come to reinsurance having touched insurance, from a banking and investments perspective, not necessarily from an underwriting or accuracies perspective, but certainly, you know, have a long background in things around partnerships, tech, commercialization, and, and enjoy the role at SwissRe.
Michael Waitze 1:21
Superduper. Well, just to give you a little bit of context, maybe you and I can commiserate because I worked for Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs for most of my career. And normally, when I meet somebody else who comes from investment banking, I offer them my condolences, but I won’t do it until they know that I’ve been there as well. So just for a frame of reference. Do you think though, here’s the thing that I take out of this right when I joined Morgan Stanley in 1987, and then move to Goldman as well, technology was one of the main things that we did, it was the driver of our business. And I’m curious if there’s things that you’ve learned from those experience, and in the venture capital space as well, that you take into your current role can think I’ve been looking at Tech my whole life, and how it can make businesses more productive. And now I look at it through a slightly different lens, but I can add those two things together and just make it better. Does that make sense?
Jeremy Rolleston 2:07
It does, it’s probably less from a Goldman’s you know, I was sitting in front office sales. So I mean, tech enabled trades to get done. But really, the trade was more around the idea and of that particular investment or that particular portfolio construction. But I think the thing that has been highlighted to me having sat in Swiss Re and and this isn’t purely from a Swiss Re perspective, this is from also Swiss Re looking out to our clients, various insurers and non insurance. And I am consistently amazed at how the same things that you talk about in VC around lessons continue to be repeated. And I mean that in the negative sets. And I mean, as an example, how many incumbent corporates think that they have to build things himself. And it’s, it’s like a 101 lesson that you learn as a startup. And we talked about in VC death by 1000 cuts. It’s not one startup that’s coming to take out an insurer, it’s 200 startups that are taking little pieces of a value chain and doing things really well. But yet, it still amazes me how many conversations you’ll have in various forms where people think that they need to build things themselves, and they either don’t have the ability to do that, or it’s going to be more costly than they think. Or it’s going to take longer to market. And again, I say that not because I’m sitting as a head of partnerships role. I say that because I’ve been a founder, and I’ve sat on VC and it still amazes me to this day. And you know, ironically, we partnered with Dacadoo so I could say that, you know, there’s a reason why we do that. We don’t have to build it ourselves. But that is one thing that continually almost amazes me in the negative sense.
Michael Waitze 4:15
I want to dig a little bit deeper here. But I’ll tell you why I have a theory on this right I have a philosophy particularly that technology allows smaller companies to actually move a little bit faster, obviously, but also to abstract particular portions out of what a corporate does, and then just do them super well and then be able to build them at scale so that not just that particular corporation or company can use it but that so that everybody can use it in a way that’s way more efficient. And then they can parse out those innovations to every company, which means then that the investment in any individual company has to make and building out in using those abstractions and we can pick any part of the value chain you want to discuss this is so much smaller than the investment they’d have to make if they did it themselves? Does that make sense as well?
Jeremy Rolleston 5:05
Yeah, it does. But I think that there’s a flip side. So I don’t think, Well, I think that makes absolute sense. And I’d probably put a different skew on it. Necessity breeds invention. So when you, when you look at a problem as a startup, and you think, if I read if I don’t solve something that’s really important that they’re going to pay me for I’m dead. And so that is the you become really good at something or you die. But the flip side of that is, you still need to be thinking about the greater value chain, and you’ve got this active decision to be making around, how much do I do because you you come up against clients, where someone says, that’s fantastic. And I could see that, thank you very much. You come against the next person at the next client who says, that’s too niche, I can’t have 10 startups that I’m working with. And so there’s actually an active decision to be made. And it can go for you or against you.
Michael Waitze 6:08
Yeah, I mean, look, I completely agree, when I was a Goldman, the firm made a decision to buy an automated trading company, right? Because it said, trade automation is going to happen. We don’t know how to do it internally, we just want to buy a company that’s already doing it. And then they turn that into, you know, Goldman Sachs algorithmic trading, or we turned it into GSAT, right. So you know, this, right, from your experience at Goldman JP in Australia. But the point is that at some point, you have to understand that things are going to be abstracted out. And that that leads to these partnerships that you’re talking about. And I think that your perspective as a venture capitalist, but also working outside of the insurance industry leads you to this thing of how do we go out and then convince people internally, that we don’t have to build it? And when is it relevant? And when is it not? Yeah, cuz there’s an internal sales thing you have to do to know.
Jeremy Rolleston 6:56
There is and you know, I can, I can give you a current example from Swiss Re where some of these dynamics come in. So Swiss Re has formed a new division called Solutions within our reinsurance area. And there’s a few reasons for that and they’re very smart and good reasons, which is, we are not limited now by regulation to only dealing with those companies that we reinsure. That makes sense for us, because there are other companies that, you know, they won’t like our pricing at a particular point in time. But we still have a whole lot that we can add to that company. Secondly, as everyone on this call will know, if you’re bringing in revenue and income without balance sheet going out the door, analysts liked that a lot better. And that’s better for a share price. And so it makes sense as a as a marketing positioning. So when we think about that, that makes sense. But when you then go the next level down to partnerships, it actually brings an added layer of complication. Because, understandably, firms like Dacadoo, or firms like my own, have built what they’ve built, and they want to partner for channel distribution in a SAAS type relationship. But if the partnerships need to bring in revenue, and then not just value adding in a cost align, then the nature of those partnerships tends to be more JV, m&a, introductory referral type relationships. And so there’s an interesting construct that, that I now grapple beyond what we were just talking about before, which is the nature of the commercial construct of some of our partnerships. With that in mind.
Michael Waitze 8:51
So how does that get resolved, though? In other words, because this is an interesting and a different way to look at this, right, if you’re not just bringing in a partner, as you said, to take away some of the cost basis, right, but to also add to revenue without letting your balance sheet go out the door, like it’s so it’s very complicated. Yeah, it’s not super straightforward. And in a way, you kind of don’t know, before you make the partnership, whether it’s going to be effective or not.
Jeremy Rolleston 9:17
No, no, I mean, it is complicated, because you’ve got these dynamics that sort of pull against each other in a way out. If I think about how we partnered with Dacadoo it. It made sense for us for a bunch of reasons. You know, Dacadoo proved themselves a great partner for us and we’re just at the start of the partnership and that will be illustrated in other partnerships that will do in various other areas of what we do. Generally there SAAS type relationships, generally their value adding generally we will monetize via Reinsurance Treaty. As you know, as a reinsurer, would you take that into an insurer framework? And it starts to, you know, become a different conversation, as Thomas will know, where the insurers are thinking is this cost that I’m wearing? But it isn’t a cost that I’m pushing on to consumers or to group insurance? And that’s the decision for us, it’s perhaps a little bit more around. What’s the commercial construct?
Michael Waitze 10:20
I want to just, again, dig a little bit deeper on one of the other things, you said, is there a way to take the technology that you have and the partnerships that you’re building, either at scale or with Dacadoo in particular, and kind of move them down into places where they may not? It may not have been obvious to use them? Right. So in other words, if you’re, if you’re interested in financial literacy, and if you’re interested in financial inclusion, how do you take some of these Technology Partnerships, particularly in a region, like Asia, or Southeast Asia, where insurance penetration remains low, and still get some of the benefits of of that tech?
Jeremy Rolleston 10:54
I think there is. And I think, let me give you a positive example of that. And a challenging example of, I think, a positive example of that is someone like a health and wellness platform, like Dacadoo, or what we’re doing around mental wellness. You know, there are many clients that are not insurance clients that are interested in those topics, for various reasons. And the vehicle to bring those two paths may involve, you know, other pieces of the puzzle. So if iptiQ for us might be involved in that. And so that’s an example where, by beyond the traditional reinsurer client, there’s, you know, you can scale that out and start to think about it, it almost from our perspective becomes a little bit more right cartouche in that sense. But let me give you a perhaps a challenging example, that’s a bit more akin to true underwriting and risk assessment. I have a lot of a lot of alternative data companies will contact me digital biomarkers, etc. And there’s a lot of fantastic things happening in that space. But even if I find the world best startup doing something really, really interesting in one specific part of that risk assessment process. So let’s just say so I can we have really strong evidence that on a mobile phone, we can measure blood pressure, the studies have done and, you know, the colleagues on my side are comfortable with the efficacy. So the question isn’t efficacy. The question is, is that in an overall risk assessment process of clinical and lifestyle data? How is that one tiny piece going to really impact that? And how do I then scale that into multiple insurers, into their various processes. So it’s almost like you need the new box, combining a bunch of these. It’s harder to take the old box and just change that one piece. And that would be a challenging example of some partnerships, which in and of themselves are great and make sense, but in the hole to take to market a lot more difficult.
Michael Waitze 13:27
They are and look, you can see, right, I actually put this back on, I took it off so that I wasn’t that I wasn’t distracted, right? Because it does send notifications. But I do keep it on so that I can track my blood pressure, my blood pressure about my heart rate and stuff like that. Is there a way to use this? I don’t know what you’d call it like lifestyle data, to make the stuff that insurers and reinsurers are doing more relevant to customers, insurance underwriters to add to the whole value chain, if that makes sense.
Jeremy Rolleston 13:54
Yeah, I mean, that is absolutely true. And that is, in fact, the core reason why we partnered with Dacadoo, which is Swiss Re we’re going to deal with a lot of clients, we’re going to come across a lot of health and wellness platforms. At the end of the day for us doing risk assessment. How can we make things more personalized, more dynamic? Therefore, how can we take lifestyle into account? Therefore I need lifestyle data? As you’ll hear Thomas say, in many instances, you don’t just get lifestyle data in something something economy, you need to engage the consumer around health and wellness. So for us, actually, our decision wasn’t necessarily driven purely by the health and wellness platform itself. It was driven by our desire to get lifestyle data to take into account in the risk assessment process to start driving what you’re saying which is, you know, the end point of that is dynamic underwriting at a personal level ongoing, taking into account someone’s lifestyle.
Michael Waitze 15:05
Do you Sorry, it’s so exciting to me. And I love this idea. Like, it makes me smile when you say you don’t just get lifestyle data, right? Like, you can’t just call somebody and go, Okay, look, I want all your lifestyle data because they won’t even know what you’re talking about, right? You’ve got to I mean, obviously, if you’re talking about data, data analysis, and ml ops, right, you have to build this whole infrastructure, to understand how to extract that data and make that data useful using the data and stuff like that. It’s kind of neat. But do you feel like you’re at the beginning of something? Do you know what I mean? We’re like, it just feels exciting to me in the insurance industry, where there’s all this new access to data that can actually make things more relevant. And is it exciting from your perspective? Because things are changing so fast? Does that make sense? And Thomas, you can jump in as well. From your side, too.
Jeremy Rolleston 15:50
Yeah, I do. I do. And again, it’s I smile when I say this, because having come from my background, you know, obviously, my starting point is, insurance and reinsurance is slow and too slow. And, you know, if we look at what’s happened in the FinTech space over the last 10 years, you want to see that, but I definitely think that we we are at the start of that, you know, and me as a person, Jeremy Rollston, why should I pay the same as someone who’s not as healthy as me? That’s where the customer centricity, why should I pay the same? That’s where really the buck stops when you’re thinking about customer centricity? And then we can move into all different areas around the protection gap and things like that. But you know, maybe a pause there. And, you know, Thomas, you might have a view on that from your side.
Michael Waitze 16:46
Thomas, I want to get to that in just one second, if you don’t mind. Just give me one second, because I want to ask Jeremy, one more thing. You know, when you were sitting on a sales desk, I was sitting on a trading desk, and people always ask me, like, how did you make that transition? Or what’s similar between what you do today? And what you did back then? And here’s the answer that I give. And I’m curious about your perspective on this, because you said that the sales was all about the idea, right? And the trading, frankly, was all about synthesizing this sort of data funnel, this massive data hose of information, trying to find out the signals and then coming up with the idea as well. But today, I have to do the same thing. But it’s a little bit more slowly, right. So I feel like uniquely qualified to be able to do this, because I’m getting slightly less data but still have to make decisions, right? Do you feel like it’s the same thing to that you’re so qualified to do this because of all the experience you’ve had, taking all this very data in? And then being able to make decisions about what that data means? In real time? Yeah, sometimes?
Jeremy Rolleston 17:45
I do. But the thought that comes to mind is this. If in markets, it’s yes, we use the premise of the idea being trading or sales, but it’s 80% execution. I feel like it’s the complete opposite here. And I feel like we’ve all been on many podcasts, too many conferences, where we’ve talked about the same thing for years and years and years. And the most recent conference, I mean, how many times was embedded insurance? No, thank you. But the point is, it feels to me like for this industry, it’s about execution. And there’s lots of things involved in that. But the challenge is actually much more the execution, not the idea, because people know what needs to be done. But, but doing that with legacy systems, or really flipping and thinking about customer first and really, really, truly doing that, like startups do, or moving decision processes more quickly, is difficult. And maybe let me just add one other thought there, which I think is an interesting thought in this overall context. Because you asked me, Michael, if I was excited, and I think things are changing, and my answer was, yes. But I think quite rightly, Swiss Re has a view on this whole space, which isn’t necessarily in line with some of the other market participants that I see. And that is this that is that most sources of alternative data are not yet able to fully replace existing underwriting methods, except when that data is highly comprehensive, like an electronic health record or in lifestyle, maybe steps is the closest and so the view is, yes, these lifestyle factors are important. Yes, they impact health, but these other risk factors like medical history and, and family history, they’re vital to underwriting and they’re more risk relevant right now. And they can’t be completely disregarded. So we would say that we’re not saying that existing underwriting doesn’t have inherent weaknesses, but nor are we saying that you can completely throw out traditional underwriting and therefore, right now new or risk factors want to create creative to existing and, and to there really only should be considered if they’re cheaper, quicker, or more accurate, and there’s a process to go there. So we don’t see lifestyle factors completely replacing traditional underwriting at this stage.
Thomas Dijohn 20:38
I think that’s, I think it’s also worth having in mind that the world of insurance actually differs a lot between geographies, right? If we look at more developed markets, Europe and the US as well, hats, insurance for, you know, for centuries, and when you grew up your parents and your grandparents had, it’s become sort of a part of the journey as you as you become older. And whereas in Asia, you don’t have that, you know, the, your parents might not have an insurance might not even have it today, as well. So the understanding of insurance and the role it plays in society differs a lot between emerging markets and more established markets. And the other thing is, if you go to the US there is access to a lot of data, which is not available, maybe in other markets, access to your driving record, your RX information, etc, which we rarely find in many other markets. So, so I think, being in Asia, if you look at those two things, you have a market which, broadly speaking, at least from from any markets, insurance is still a novelty, you have a market where we don’t have access to the types of data that we usually have in some of the more developed markets as well. I think that combination and and maybe add to that as well, that you have many countries who has approached digital different than and more than some of the more developed markets. So Peter, our founder and him and I used to build a satellite company and a content company out here in Asia. And we’ve always been used by some of the developing markets that they didn’t have a copper lines, where it’s all about broadband, they went straight to the fiber, because very few people had telephones, they didn’t have computers, you know, they went straight into mobile phones, computers didn’t simply didn’t exist, right. So in Asia, you have had many industries where people have skipped a couple of steps, which we often see in more developed markets. And I think that means that the opportunity in Asia and maybe the, your the requirement in Asia is different than what we find in the US and Europe, people out here are super data. So people are having a very different relationship with the data and sharing data. Insurance is not well understood. So it needs to be presented in a different context and a different packaging. And a lot of things that we take for granted legacy systems, Legacy approaches, etc, from the more developed markets simply doesn’t exist in this part of the world. So I think these things are going to drive, the way products are offered to the consumer is going to be the data that consumers are willing to share are going to be potentially far more than what we found in some of the other reasons as well. And I think that is going to really put Asia at the forefront in the way that new types of data are being used. And I think Jeremy can confirm we’re seeing that in Asia with some of the the early movers and health and well being how they have accumulated a lot of data now that which they are interested in utilizing for development and underwriting etc. So I think it’s it’s also worth having that that perspective in mind as well that this is not a world, it’s a very fragmented world with a different history.
Michael Waitze 23:49
Jeremy, did you want to comment on that? Because I can jump in as well.
Jeremy Rolleston 23:53
Now, I may not think it’s I think it’s a very good point. The thing that comes to mind, Thomas is Asia is a good example of that in the context of embedded insurance, when you think about what happens with people like Alipay, or what Grab insurance has done in the past three years, you know, very good examples, I think of what you just said.
Michael Waitze 24:15
I mean, the mobile phone obviously changes the way people get access to their insurance. You know, we didn’t comment as much on this literacy and the inclusion aspect of this. And I’m wondering, Jeremy, if you want to comment on how incumbent insurers just at scale, not even just yours can focus more on getting people to understand what insurance actually is like, where does that engagement actually come in? And why does it matter if it does at all?
Jeremy Rolleston 24:40
I think the the one of the questions for reinsurance has been, where they play in the ecosystem, and to what degree they’re trying to play in that engagement space, which is the natural place that the insurer would play. My personal view is that that is the natural place of either the insurer or the alternative distribution channels in their various ways, shapes and forms. And they’re the front facing of the engagement. And you know, what’s what a reinsurer like Swiss Re needs to do is play very well in the pricing of risk. But also, I would like to see us and certainly, we want to do more here. And it’s one of the reasons again, one of the conversations we have with Dacadoo do is we shouldn’t just look at pricing risk better, because we’ve got more data or better that we should look at trying to influence the risk. And so you know, that’s where we as a reinsurer could play with value adding propositions, which again, is a natural space that an insurer could play. But we also could play as a reinsurer because we shouldn’t just be only pricing risk and pricing it better, we should be trying to influence the risk.
Michael Waitze 26:09
But isn’t this where technology really does come into play? I mean, you know, we talked a lot about the idea and the execution, all this other stuff, right, and has kind of stayed away from this idea that the tech actually matters. But I think the tech is changing the way reinsurers actually can engage with their clients. So we can spend a lot of time talking about how to get access to some of this alternative data and even more of this alternative data, I’d like to get back to that in a second. Right. But the more you engage with these potential clients, you’re right, you can change the place where reinsurers are actually interacting with them in places where you couldn’t do before because you didn’t have access to them. And the mobile phone changes this drastically. No.
Jeremy Rolleston 26:48
Yeah, yeah, it does. And, you know, you can now see if I come back to my previous conversation, you know, as a regulated entity, where services needed to be provided in the context of a reinsurance treaty, if we’ve got a new division that isn’t encumbered by that regulation, it means that the ability to have a whole lot of value, adding conversations with a whole lot of clients that are not just insurers, who reinsure with you becomes really interesting.
Michael Waitze 27:22
And do you look at partnering with some of these alternative sources of distribution, right, whether it’s Grab or whether it’s some other some other platform to get more of that lifestyle data, because that’s where a lot of that lifestyle data is actually being accumulated. Right. And to be fair, if you build the right infrastructure, in a way, it almost feels to me like the people that can deal with the data, the best are going to be the ones that win, right? Because that’s where all the new underwriting new products and the personalization is going to come from.
Jeremy Rolleston 27:50
Yeah, I think there’s two elements to that. I think the first element is, you’re absolutely right. Getting access to a whole lot of that data becomes really interesting, with the caveat that how much can really, really be used? So either lifestyle data and reinsurance process? Or how much can we really use metadata yet, in, you know, in risk assurance process, the second thought that comes to mind is different distribution channels certainly have different propensity to want to share that data. And so one starting I mean, perhaps that stating the obvious, but the practical outworking of that is, you might see one client saying we know our customers, we just want you for product and balance sheet, we will co develop and work together to come up with a proposition. But that’s slightly different, to we’ll share all of that data with you, which is to be honest, what our business is based on.
Michael Waitze 29:03
And I mean, from your perspective, I think this is key, right, from your perspective as the head of partnerships in this area. Isn’t it up to you and those partners to figure out how the future of that is going to get done? Whereas before it was kind of either this way or that way? But today, it’s not like that anymore. Right? And isn’t that part of the excitement for you as well to say, like, we can do whole new models on this, because of the way we have access to that data, who’s going to share it, how they’re going to share it, and how we create new business models, not just for us, but for the for the extractors of that data as well.
Jeremy Rolleston 29:38
Absolutely. I mean, there is a partner that we’re speaking to at the moment who would be very well known. And the premise of that whole conversation is whether we could drastically change the future of underwriting and that’s a moonshot.
Michael Waitze 29:59
It is. But that’s where the excitement is. That’s why I said this early, we’re still at really early days of gathering, you know, we can call it lifestyle data, we can call it whatever we want. But we don’t know where it’s gonna lead. Right. And as we you said, now, we don’t even know which part of that data is useful. 100%. So as we gather more of that data, as we build more partnerships, as we start to really understand, then yeah, there is this sort of legacy, underwriting and actuarial mathematics that exists today. But we could change that whole scope for so many different reasons. And that’s got to be fun for you now.
Thomas Dijohn 30:34
But Michael, I think that’s also, I mean, we talk a lot about access to more data. But I think there’s also situations where this data actually can be equally valuable. So we talk a lot with clients on accelerated underwriting, how do you ask the least plausible questions, to get to to be able to make an underwriting decision. And one of the things they have causes that insurance historically have been trying to sell you their insurance product. And that’s it. And that might not change for the life. But once you’ll move into a, an accelerated underwriting situation is more about not doing the final sales. But how do we offer a simple product, maybe a low value product with a low premium, that requires less data points. So we as an insurer, as a reinsurer can take a bit more risk on board. And the objective here is not to do the final sale, but is to acquire the customer. And then over time, as you engage them, you collect more data, and then you find the ways to upsell as well. And in these situations, you will require not more data, but maybe use some of the new data in replacements from the old data. So I think there’s that perspective as well, looking at how new data can complement but also some, in some cases, substitute some of the old data, but the trade off is a bit more risk. And that flow through to the product design and everything as well. So I think that’s important to have that in mind as well, because we one of the buzzwords that’s being used a lot at the moment is snackable. How do you make insurance snackable? Right around to sell you the whole, the whole, the whole whale? How do you go and sell them a bit of a krill in the beginning, right? And snackable is a lot about how do you just create piecemeal insurance, it can be insurance for specific situation, or it could be something just to get people on, on the insurance conveyor belt, right? So, so looking at insurance as a more of a snackable thing as well, I think it’s equally important in the context of data,
Jeremy Rolleston 32:35
What comes to mind, for me, there is good, I would love to see, to spend three days in a room with Richard Branson’s Virgin team, and how they would look at the insurance from a snackable perspective, because I often think about what they did, in terms of gym memberships, or flights and the way that, you know, they were able to build up compartmentalized pricing in that snackable way. I’d love to see how they would sit in a room and think about it.
Michael Waitze 33:11
I was gonna say like, it makes me smile, actually. Because I think if people were just eavesdropping on this conversation, they would think that I would be the guy that would use the term snackable. And embedded and I just love you guys to do to do the buzzwords, which makes me smile. But the difference I think a little bit and again, you can tell me where I’m wrong here is that there’s a different kind of risk in building out a gym business and building about an insurance business, which is essentially about taking risk onto your balance sheet and understanding what the payouts are going to be on the other side. And I agree with you, Thomas, the point I was trying to make was not that you need more data, you just need different data. And as you get access to that different data, you can do things with less, right, and we learn this again, in the trading business, the more we understand what that data means, the less of it, we need to make better decisions. And I think that’s actually part of the really cool thing that’s happening, which is why I use the term earlier excitement because it’s such early days, particularly in this new kind of data that’s being gathered. And I’m excited actually to see what types of new business models will come out of this. And frankly, if I were sitting in Jeremy’s Chair, I’d be super duper happy because it looks like a fun place to be. Thank you both Thomas Dijohn SVP APAC at Dacadoo = and Jeremy Rolleston, Head of Global Partnerships for life and health at Swiss Re.