Please find here our first Insurance Review on Digital Disruption of the Insurance sector. We've put together the best, most shared and liked articles on this topic. All articles have been published before on our Financial Services blog

1. INSURANCE
REVIEW
Digital disruption of traditional insurance
1ST
QUARTER 2016
Changing value chain
p.1
Blockchain
p.5
Data driven insurance
p.11

3. EDITORIAL
During the past years the financial sector experienced serious
challenges. External pressure from regulators, heavy competition and
macro-economic developments are still relevant topics. Cost focus
and the influence of technology are becoming increasingly important
while business models need to be adjusted ever faster.
These developments already had their impact on banks, while
insurers are so far dodging the bullet. The FinTech-1000 currently
entails around 25 insurance start-ups, which is a mere 2%.
FinTechs are especially aimed at banks, averting attention from
the insurance sector. However in the meantime established
players increasingly affect the value chain of insurers.
Simultaneously technological solutions, capable of changing the
traditional insurance business model are emerging. This edition
of the Insurance Review aims at providing insights into these
developments by focusing on three themes.
With the first theme we will discuss the changing insurance value
chain. In general factors such as low margins, low interest rates,
changing regulations and digitalization are seen as the biggest
challenges. At the same time a less obvious development is
gaining momentum, which is able to change the role of the insurer
completely. Because new and existing players are extending their
businesses, they increasingly operate within the value chain of
insurers. Therefore the first articles will focus on the changes
in the value chain, but also on how insurers can deal with these
developments.
The second theme focuses on a very real opportunity as well as
threat to insurers; the blockchain technology. This technology
has the potential to fully digitize insurance products. This
would completely transform the insurance business model; the
underlying technology and impact on insurers is explored.
The third theme is about the importance of data in your
organisation. What are the potential opportunities and why is it
especially important for insurers to make data quality a priority?
With this Insurance Review we would like to present you a
realistic and pragmatic overview of the most pressing challenges
insurers will be confronted with over time. I hope you will be able
to use these insights in order to strengthen your organisation and
transform challenges into opportunities.
Stephan Linnenbank
Head of Financial Services Benelux
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHANGING VALUE CHAIN
The unbundling of the insurance value chain
Digitalisation opens new doors for insurers
BLOCKCHAIN
Blockchain: Technology and implications
The impact of blockchain’s smart contracts on insurance
DATA DRIVEN INSURANCE
Usage based insurance: a springboard towards services
The importance of data quality
1
3
5
9
11
13

4. 1
THE UNBUNDLING
OF THE INSURANCE VALUE CHAIN
Digitalisation is changing the insurance industry; the value chain of Dutch insurers is unbundling due to newcomers. While these start-ups expand
their business, insurers compete over an ever diminishing and more fragmented market. How can insurers stop this downtrend and regain their
lead?
During recent years billions of euros have been invested in FinTech
companies. And it is not hard to understand why investors
are so keen to do so; the financial sector makes phenomenal
profits while using outdated technology in large, cumbersome
organisations. Also FinTech start-ups are not just chipping away
at their market share, but are fundamentally changing the value
proposition while they do it.
When it comes to finances, trust is important and established
brands as well as high regulatory barriers to entrance have kept
the financial sector largely from being digitally disrupted. After
the financial crisis however, trust has disappeared and been
replaced by an unprecedented willingness of policymakers to
change the financial system. And since it is the banks who are
under scrutiny of the general public, insurers worldwide seem to
think they will dodge the bullet. However when we take a closer
look at the insurance value chain, this sector could prove to be the
next victim of digitalisation that is still in denial.
Simply put, the traditional insurance value chain can be dissected
into various activities. This also shows a selection of the
newcomers, claiming their share in the traditional value chain and
uproot the traditional value proposition of insurers.
This unbundling has gained momentum during the last years.
When looking at information & orientation in the value chain,
(social) media, internet and finance authorities are bombarding
the consumer with information. Especially for non-complex
insurance needs, consumers will skip advice since newcomers
operating in the ‘Compare’ part of the value chain offer detailed
and easy accessible interfaces. More complex (business) related
products are still often outsourced to specialized insurance
brokers, who will often do the comparing, execution and customer
service as well.
The number of intermediaries aimed at private, non-complex
products has been greatly reduced in the Netherlands during
the last years, while (or, because) the popularity of comparison
sites skyrocketed. And this only signals the beginning; over the
years many of the newcomers have expanded their businesses.
Independer.nl for instance started as an informative site, but
is steadily expanding its business and is taking over a share of
the intermediary when it comes to comparing prices, providing
advice as well as the execution of policies on non-complex
insurance. For free.
UNBUNDLING OF THE VALUE CHAIN

5. 2
When looking at the value chain and the corresponding
competitors that outperform insurers, one question arises;
where can the traditional insurer add value? Currently the brand,
customer base and ingrained habits of customers form the
legitimacy for traditional insurers’ existence. But this will slowly
decay when start-ups will come with better products and services.
It is time to conclude that although insurers try to keep their value
chain intact, they cannot compete on all the components.
Therefore during the next years, insurers will have to decide what
their value proposition will be – what part of the value chain,
or what market will they focus on. Will you be the cost leader,
the excellent service provider or the data & risk guru? Or will
you focus exclusively on certain customer segments and tailor
products to their needs? Of course focusing on one proposition
is a more risky strategy than focusing on various components of
the value chain; if you have chosen the wrong strategy or your
more specialized competitor has a better proposition, there are
no other components left to soften the blow for your company.
How to mitigate this risk?
THE VALUE PROPOSITION
Insurers are still able to excel at the administration, data & risk
as well as customer service. Recent cost cutting initiatives
however means administration has been digitized and often
(partially) outsourced. Billing, declarations but also internal
processes like payroll and document handling; newcomers offer
specialized services even larger insurers cannot compete with.
But also when it comes to data & risk, a field eminently suitable
for insurers, customers have hardly seen any products related to
the incredible amounts of data insurers are able to gather.
If you are lucky, your insurer might have started to experiment
with car insurance pricing based on driving style. But brake
hard and you will be penalized for dangerous driving, even if it
is to avoid a collision. In the meantime, Palantir analyses data to
detect fraud at insurance companies, helps biotech companies
to find new cures for life-threatening diseases and track terrorists
worldwide. Also PredPol does not just help police, but can
accurately predict when and where a next crime will occur, using
data analytics. Why then, seem insurers to be unable to come up
with better products? It would seem obvious that any head start
insurers may have had when it comes to data & risk, they have
lost it a long time ago.
This lag in tech-savvy solutions also shows in the customer
service most insurers offer. While greenfield InShared has
automated its entire claim process (including claim assessment),
many insurers still require their customers to call them (see also
our recent article). In our shift to a digital-first self-service, this
does not live up to customers’ expectations.
Luckily insurers can cannibalize on their brands and customer
base for some time, and most insurers are making efforts to
adapt to the new reality. Neither is the situation so dire that
immediate revolutionary actions are needed. But insurers must
realize they have already lost their head start, and the current
pace of development is only increasing their arrearage. So in
order to find their own competitive advantage, insurers have to
pick up the pace in order to prevent drastic, high risk measures
in the future.
In order to prepare for this new reality, companies can adopt
various measures. Generali invests in hedge funds aimed at tech
start-ups, claiming it is time to “change or disappear” for the
insurance sector. A common tactic in the Dutch insurance sector
is to create a spin-off brand to test the waters. Once the spin-off
proves successful, it can be re-incorporated in the organisation
and can serve as a best practice as well as a cultural change
catalyst for the entire holding. Various insurers have founded
their own start-up booster (i.e. Allianz Digital Accelerator), where
insurer and start-ups can benefit from each other’s strengths. Or
organize your own corporate garage in which various (lean) start-
ups are created and tested (Aegon’s Kroodle).
The how in this matter is still subordinate to the why & what.
There is still time to discover the necessary tools and knowledge
needed for your future organisation. And when (inevitably) the
time has come that your traditional insurance value proposition
has become obsolete, your organisation will know what to do, and
why it is the most viable strategy for your company. After all, you
have done it before. But only if you start experimenting while you
still can; FinTech is not waiting for anyone.
PREPARING FOR A NEW REALITY

6. 3
DIGITALISATION OPENS NEW DOORS
FOR INSURERS
A digital world is no longer just a theory…it is reality. Every two days we create as much information as we did from the beginning of time until
2003 and by 2020, it is estimated that the amount of digital information in existence will have grown from 3.2 zettabytes today to 40 zettabytes.
A major factor of this exponential growth in data production is the consumerisation of smart internet enabled devices & the rise of data and
analytics. These factors have huge implications for the insurance industry, which has traditionally been very conservative in their entrance into
the digital economy. Risks are no longer just in the physical world…but in the virtual too. This also means the unbundling of value chains, new data
driven business models, and products that are no longer fit for purpose, or at least, not ‘digitally ready’.
DIGITALISATION OF THE VALUE CHAIN
Within this maze of technological advancements there is a
massive opportunity for insurers under the following two
banners:
1. The Internet of Things (IOT) which can be defined as “an
intelligent IP-connected network of objects and devices, each with
a unique identity and the ability to sense, interact and communicate
with each other using embedded communications and processing
capabilities.”
2. Data optimisation using Advanced Analytics, which has the
capabilities to compare “countless different data points historically
and with each other, unlocking the potential of data into actionable
information.”
The purpose of this article is to argue the case for adopting the
latest technology for risk profiling, monitoring and proactive
claims management, packaged within traditional insurance
policies, creating a new breed of ‘Digital ready’ insurance. I will
take Health Insurance and the rise of ‘Technology enabled care’
as an illustrative example.
These factors present opportunities for insurers to change
the set-up of insurance products and how they interact with
policyholders enabling:
• The provision of individually-priced insurance products with
premiums varying on the basis of real-time data
• Communication with customers via interactive digital plat-
forms and devices, improving the customer relationship
and whilst changing the purpose of insurance from reactive
indemnity for policyholders to proactive intervention, informing
the insured when an increased risk is detected.
This convergence of IOT enabled devices and analytics
underpinned by data will impact the structure of the current
insurance value chain, creating a new ‘Digital Insurance Value
Chain’:
This emergence of the IOT allows behavioral and biometric data
to be captured and analysed, giving insurers far more information
than they would previously have had access too, enabling more
accurate and reflective risk based pricing and proactive risk
mitigation capabilities.
Current Insurance Value Chain
Marketing
Distribution &
Channel
Management
Product
Development
Underwriting /
New Business
Policy
Administration
Claims
Management
Distributions are fitted to claims data
By the time new prices are calculated, the claims data is outdated and not representative of the real
time risk

7. 4
Digital Value Chain
Let’s take Health Insurance as an example of this data driven IOT
approach to insurance.
According to the Association of British Insurers (2014), Health
insurance covers approximately 5.1m people in the UK and pays
out approximately £7.3m in claims every day.
One of the biggest technological development in the healthcare
sector has been that of ‘Technology Enabled Care’ (TEC), which
is defined as “the convergence of health technology, digital and
media communications to help patients self-manage conditions
and enable remote monitoring for care providers”.
This technology has huge implications on the Health insurance
claim equation, which has been modelled below and includes
example objectives and technology to achieve them:
THE HEALTH INSURANCE PRODUCT OF 2020
The data captured from these devices/solutions can be used
for risk profiling of the policyholder to better inform pricing, for
monitoring purposes and proactive risk management.
As a practical example, if an insured’s health data deviates from
a pre-defined ‘healthy norm’ i.e. their body weight dramatically
increases/decreases, the insurer is notified and proactive action
can be taken to investigate further, which could have resulted in a
more serious health concern/claim later in time.
The insured benefits from reduced premiums and more tailored
care by agreeing to be monitored, and the insurer benefits from
claim/cost mitigating capabilities through data driven insights, as
well as the potential for a improved customer relationship.
By using this technology, traditional health insurance policies,
which receive health information through form filling pre policy
inception, will now have a greater pool of ongoing data to work
with, leading to a new product set up:
For insurers wanting to develop a new line of ‘digitally ready’
insurance products, they will need to assess their current
competencies against the capabilities needed to develop a data
driven business model. There will be a need to integrate a variety
of systems that support all aspects of the value chain. They
will need to understand the importance of creating ‘partnership
ecosystems’ with device providers and system integration
specialists, and may consider outsourcing non value adding
tasks and focus upon driving value through digital investment.
WHAT NEXT?

8. 5
BLOCKCHAIN: TECHNOLOGY
AND IMPLICATIONS
Blockchain technology has the power to lower costs, prevent fraud and reduce time to settlement. Read on to find out more about the innovation
that the major banks are investing in now to help them adhere to regulation and provide a better service for their clients.
Anju Patwardhan, Chief Innovation Officer at Standard Chartered,
has claimed Blockchain Technology could contribute to the
“securityofbanksandintegrityofthefinancialsystem”.WhileJohn
Palychata, of BNP Paribas Securities Services, says the “system
has the potential to completely upend post-trade infrastructure”.
Furthermore, Oliver Bussman, Group Chief Information Officer at
UBS, claims the technology has the possiblity “not only to change
the way we do payments but it will change the whole trading and
settlement topic”. So what is Blockchain technology and what
impact could it have in the real economy? In this article we outline
how Blockchain technology works, and discuss the benefits and
drawbacks of what could be the biggest change to the banking
industry since the 16th Century, when central clearing banks were
first established.
Origins of Blockchain technology, the real innovation of Bitcoin
Blockchain is the technology behind the much debated Bitcoin
currency. Bringing together cryptography, game theory and peer-
to-peer networking, the key innovation behind the digital currency
is a distributed ledger which allows a payment system to operate
in an entirely decentralised way, without any intermediaries. An
electronic payment system, such as Bitcoin, must have a reliable
method of recording transactions that all participants can agree
are accurate. To achieve this there are two main issues: devising
a secure and reliable method of updating a public ledger of which
there are multiple copies distributed globally, and the second
is creating the necessary incentives for users to contribute
resources to verify transactions.
The number of Bitcoins at any address is derived from the
output of earlier transactions that are all publically available
on the Blockchain. Bitcoin transactions may have a number of
inputs or outputs; for instance, any ‘change’ from a transaction
is paid as an output and any credit included in the input which is
not accounted for in the output is accepted as a transaction fee.
Digital signatures are used to provide proof that the transaction
message was created by the person who wants to make the
payment. This is a form of public-key cryptography – it works
by creating ‘public’ keys which can be used to decrypt messages
TECHNICAL OVERVIEW
encoded by a corresponding ‘private’ key. To create a digital
signature, the sender encrypts the message they wish to sign
with their private key. This message can then only be decoded
with the corresponding public key, which is also broadcast so the
transaction can be verified. ‘Miners’ is the term given to those
who compete to decrypt blocks on the Bitcoin network; these
miners are arranged in a peer-to-peer configuration, with no
centralised point. Although miners are under no obligation to do
so, the Bitcoin protocol calls for all messages to be transmitted
across the network on a ‘best efforts’ basis, sharing the message
with one’s immediate peers. This means the transaction is not
broadcast to the entire network at once, but instead goes to a
subset of the peers first, then to their peers and so on. Bitcoin
users are under no formal requirement to pay transaction fees
and if they do offer one, the size of that fee is at their discretion.
However, Bitcoin miners are able to choose which transactions
they process, so a higher fee offered gives them a greater
incentive to validate transactions.
Verification of a transaction block has two elements: validation
and achieving consensus. Validating a transaction, which
includes checking the digital signatures, takes a very short
amount of time – less than 10 seconds in 99% of cases. By design,
establishing consensus is more difficult and requires each miner
to demonstrate the investment of computing resources known
as ‘proof of work’. Digital currencies make use of a fundamental
principle in game theory: ‘cheap talk’. That is, any proposed
change to the ledger, since it is effectively free to issue, should
receive very little weight.

9. 6
In order for a proposed change to the ledger to be accepted by
others as true, those proposing the change must demonstrate
that is was costly for them to initially issue the proposal. This
allows the incentivisation of the system to be balanced in favour
of transaction verification by making it very easy to spot a
fraudulent transaction. The only method of attacking the system
is by assembling sufficient computing power on a network to
‘verify’ fraudulent transactions. This would undermine trust in the
ledger as a whole and the value of any Bitcoins the attacker could
steal. Therefore, it is logical for anyone capable of assembling the
necessary computing power to contribute to the continuation of
the system, rather than attacking it. The proof of work scheme
means that the time taken for a miner to successfully verify a
block of transactions is largely random. As new miners join the
network or as exiting miners invest in faster computers, the time
taken for a successful verification can fall. To allow time for each
verification to pass across the entire network, the difficulty of the
proof of work problem is periodically adjusted so that the average
time between block remains broadly constant at ten minutes for
Bitcoin, meaning that payments are not instantaneous.
The nature of a distributed system means that it is feasible for
two miners to successfully verify two different candidates for
the next block at essentially the same time. When this happens,
both copies are initially retained by the network as branches of
the main chain, but miners will proceed to work on the candidate
block that follow on from whichever one they receive first. The
chain of blocks representing the longest sum of work done is
accepted as truth within the Bitcoin network. Whichever branch
is received by the majority of the network will initially be selected.
However, the branch with the most computation resources
should ultimately take the lead. This branch will be the most likely
to have a subsequent block built on top of it and is therefore more
likely to eventually ‘win’ the race. Miners that are working from
alternate branches then have a significant incentive to switch
to the longer branch, as any work they contribute to the shorter
branch will never be accepted by the majority of the network.
Despite the application of new technology, the basic structure
of centralised payment systems has remained unchanged
since the early banks set up a central ‘clearing’ bank so their
clients could transfer money to the clients of other banks. In
the traditional banking system, there is a central ledger, with
settlement taking place across the books of a central authority,
acting as a clearing bank. This is traditionally undertaken by
the central bank of the given country. Each participant holds
a balance at the central bank, recorded in the ledger, which is
reflected in the participant bank’s internal ledger. However with
the application of the blockchain, financial organisations or even
individuals could directly exchange funds without the need for
any intermediaries. Banking is already almost entirely digital, so
technology innovation is likely to be the most influential source
of disruption. This should lead to reduced transaction transfer
times, at a lower cost.
APPLICATION IN THE REAL ECONOMY
Workflow of a simple blockchain
Source : Bitcoin : Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, Nakamoto
A key problem of any electronic payment system is how to ensure
that money cannot be ‘double-spent’. A payment system that
relies on digital records must have a way of preventing double
spending because it is simple to copy and edit digital records. An
alternate approach to the historic central ledger approach is to
implement a fully decentralised payment system, in which copies
of the ledger are shared between all participants and a process is
established by which users agree on changes to the ledger. Since
anybody can check any proposed transaction against the ledger,
this approach removes the need for a central authority and thus
for participants to have confidence in the integrity of any single
entity.
Combat Money Laundering
With Blockchain technology creating the visibility to view the full
transaction history of every event throughout the chain, vendors
have already shown how anti-money laundering (AML) services
can be developed. By giving greater transparency and enhancing
compliance to regulations, the technology can aid in the
identification of any activity that is suspicious or non-compliant.
Blockchain technologies can aid industry participants to adhere
to a number of regulations including AML and T+2 Settlement.
A Private Network
The traditional banking system has a level of privacy by limiting
access to information to the parties involved and the trusted
third party. In a distributed system it is necessary to announce
all transactions publicly, however privacy can be maintained
by recording events in a different way. By keeping public keys
anonymous everyone can see that an individual is sending an
amount to someone else, but without information linking the
transaction to that person. This is analogous to the level of
information released by stock exchanges, where the time and
size of individual trades is made public, without revealing who
the parties involved were. As an additional firewall, a new key
pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

10. 7
being linked to a common owner. However if regular multi-input
transactions occur there is a risk of the transactions being linked
to the owner.
Risk
In an intermediated banking set up there are three main types
of risk: credit, liquidity and operational risk. The modern banking
system evolved in response to the need to make payments more
efficiently, and when payment systems were computerised this
need remained. However, because there is a centralised point in
the network which all transactions must pass through, there is a
single target for attackers. Current distributed payment systems
remove the credit and liquidity risks by eliminating intermediaries:
payments are made directly between the payer and the payee.
To confirm this, users need to have confidence that for any
distributed system they use, the cryptography employed has
been implemented correctly.
Distributed systems should also be more resilient to systematic
operational risk because the system as a whole is not dependent
on a centralised third party. A distributed system effectively has
as many redundant backups as there are contributors to the
network. The ledger exists in multiple copies which essentially
makes it more resilient than a centralised database. Historic
transactions are unalterable and permanently accessible to
all participants, ensuring that if an attack does occur each
participant’s balance is recoverable.
Fraud
The nature of fraud risk is also significantly different between
a centralised and decentralised payments system. In a
decentralised system there is no need for users to disclose
their complete payment details when making a payment,
thus removing the risk of payment details being stolen in the
transaction process. However, the risk of direct loss of currencies
is higher than that for deposits held with commercial banks: if
a user’s private key is lost then their digital currency will not be
recoverable. The problem of keeping private keys secure means
that investors could entrust an authority to look after them,
opening up a new market for companies offering this service.
Distributed systems are also subject to a danger of system wide
fraud if the process of achieving consensus is compromised.
Cryptocurrencies are currently designed so that a would-be
attacker would require sustained control of a majority of the total
computer power across the entire network of miners. The rule
that the chain with the greatest sum of work done wins is the vital
element in combating fraud in the Bitcoin network. Any attacker
attempting to modify earlier blocks would have to control enough
computing power for them to both catch up with and overtake the
genuine blockchain as the longest. To be assured of success, the
would-be attacker would need to obtain and retain the majority
of all computing resources on the network. This is known as the
50%+1 rule.
There are two areas of weakness in the 50%+1 rule: the position
of the attacker in the network and the strategic timing of when
an attacker chooses to release messages to the rest of the
network. An attacker’s position in a network is significant
because the longer it takes for messages to propagate across a
digital currency’s network, the greater the probability that a fork
in the chain will emerge. A potential attacker which is centrally
located will be able to communicate to most of the network
quickly, and so may not strictly require a majority if other users
are relatively distant. Furthermore, an incentive exists for miners
to strategically choose when they broadcast their success at
verifying transaction blocks. Miners can delay announcing their
success so that other miners waste time trying to verify the old
block, while the user starts to work on the new block. As mining
is a zero-sum game, it is possible that when one miner receives
outsized returns, this creates an incentive for other miners to
either drop out or to join in the first pool, eventually leading to the
pool controlling a majority of the network’s computing resources.
However, in principle this could be resolved by existing completion
rules, assuming that Regulators have visibility of the proof-of-
work of each pool.
Moreover, it is possible to impose conditions on the payment,
so they the receiver cannot spend the proceeds unless they are
met. Therefore, the rules could be set so that any user would have
to announce the block to the whole network fully before they
could start work on the next block. More complex transactions
may require multiple conditions to be met before any funds are
released. This capability allows the technology to be expanded to
support more complex transactions.
Impact on intermediaries
Through better visibility between supply and demand, settlement
processes will be more easily streamlined leading to reduced
overheads in settlement costs including personnel to run
settlement desks, reduced/non-existent buy-ins, reduction in
failed trades and associated costs, to name a few. Overall the
transparency allows the whole supply chain to work a lot more
efficiently, reducing overall costs, through direct personal and
indirect costs (buy-in, fails etc) and lead times to settlement.
As the adoption of blockchain continues, we expect to see
rationalisation in intermediaries, in addition to new blockchain-
only entrants offering a more efficient service to clients who wish
to trade directly.
The cost
One major concern about blockchain technology’s application to
banking is how all these transaction blocks would be stored, as a
distributed ledger is far less efficient than a centralised database.
A block header with no transactions is roughly 80 bytes in size. In
cryptocurrencies so far, a new block is generated approximately
every ten minutes. This equates to: 80 bytes x 6 x 2 4 x 365 =
4.2MB per year. Moore’s Law predicts that at the current growth
of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the
block headers must be kept in memory. Consequently, there is
the question of how much computing power would be required
to operate at the volume and frequency of modern payments. In
order to be able to break the keys quickly, significant computing
power is required; the amount of heat this would generate
could be significant, causing unexpected server shutdown. This
amount of server power is expensive to maintain efficiently and
is damaging to the environment – something which financial
services organisations are increasingly considering when making
investments.
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

11. 8
Incentivisation
One of the biggest questions about how to put a distributed
system into practice, is how to incentivise people to actually join
the network. Bitcoin rewards users with new coins each time they
map the transaction keys – this also serves to grow the supply of
the currency within the network. However, this is not sustainable
in the real economy. An alternate method of incentivisation can
also by funded with transaction fees. If the output of a transaction
is less that its input values, the difference is a transaction fee
that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the
transaction. Similarly there could be a fixed transaction fee, like
with Paypal, that the public would be willing to pay over and above
traditional banking rates for an improved service.
The incentive may also help to encourage miners to stay honest.
If a potential attacker is able to assemble more CPU power that
all the other nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to
generate more money. He ought to find it more profitable to play
by the rules than to undermine the system and the validity of his
own wealth.
Infrastructure challenge
Adopting this technology would require the industry to completely
change the way they think about IT architecture. This will require
significant investment and modification of internal, as well as
external, processes. However, when financial institutions are
faced with such challenges – as has recently been the case with
KYC – they can collaborate and find cost effective solutions if
there is a common goal. We are seeing nearly all global banks
setting-up research departments into this area or buying-up
fintechs who are specialized in distributed technology to stay
competitive.
BLOCKCHAIN IN PRACTICE
This could be one confirmed success story where banks,
regulators and tech companies work together to reduce costs,
increase transparency and restore consumer trust. Distributed
ledgers work best where transactions can be pre-funded,
participants are knowledgable and where money-laundering is an
issue. The largest potential markets are cross-border payments
and clearing securities. These are obvious opportunities as
blockchain technology thrives where new parties regularly enter
and leave the market, and where transactions involve multiple
entities and assets.
Not only does Blockchain technology have the potential to
completely revolutionise the traditional banking industry, it has
the capacity to bring banking services to completely new markets.
According to the IMF, around 50% of the World’s adult population
do not access formal banking services in any form. This may be
due to geographic location, lack of trust in the banking system
or being ‘unbanked’ because they lack the credit worthiness
financial institutions require. However, with blockchain, as long
as you have an internet connection and the appropriate software
you can make a transaction; furthermore, as described above,
a distributed ledger removes the need for preceding trust in the
participants as money cannot be double spent.
It remains to be seen whether banks will successfully adopt this
new technology or be completely surpassed by it. While it is likely
that there will continue to be demand for transitional banking
services, this is another threat to profits that banks will have to
carefully navigate. This challenge is so apparent that China has
banned Bitcoin because of the threat it poses to the traditional
banking system. On the other hand, blockchain technology
could, according to Santander, ‘reduce banks’ infrastructure
costs related to cross-border payments, securities trading and
regulatory compliance by $20bn a year up to 2022.
CONCLUSION
When it is recommended to have which type of network
DISTRIBUTED LEDGER CENTRALISED LEDGER
Multiple entries and exists in the market Stable market
Low value transactions High frequency transactions
Irreversible transactions Long/short transactions
Trust is an issue Participant verification required
Multiple assets in a transaction Unsophisticated participants
Susceptible to money laundering Trades cannot be pre-funded

12. 9
THE IMPACT OF BLOCKCHAIN’S SMART
CONTRACTS ON INSURANCE
In the previous article we’ve discussed the blockchain, the disrupting technology behind cryptocurrency Bitcoin. We outlined how the technology
works and discussed its implications for the banking industry. This article focuses on smart contracts that can be created in a blockchain, and
how they will affect the insurance industry.
The most widely known blockchain is the ledger of transactions
for cryptocurrency bitcoin. A blockchain is a distributed ledger
that maintains a continuously growing list of data records on
decentralized servers, working as nodes. Every node holds a
complete copy of the blockchain, a shared single source of
truth. Nodes are incentivized to maintain a copy of the ledger by
rewarding them with the cryptocurrency through a process called
mining. A transaction would only be added to the ledger when a
majority of the nodes agree on the validity of that transaction.
The core advantage of the blockchain as decentralized ledger
is that it exists in an endless number of nodes. This ensures
transparency, even when nodes are run anonymously, have poor
connectivity with one another, and have operators who may be
dishonest or malicious. Furthermore, through the elimination
of intermediaries, blockchain ensures lower fees, whatever the
ledger may hold.
The data in the distributed ledger can hold any amount or
information, not just a cryptocurrency like bitcoin. The data is
both individually identifiable and programmable. This means that
users can assign properties to the data. Users can program the
data to represent an amount in a currency, a share in a company,
or even diamond certificates. Everledger is a start-up launched
in 2015 that collects dozens of cross-referenceable data points
on each recorded diamond in a permanent distributed ledger to
ensure verification for insurance companies, owners, claimants,
and law enforcement.
BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY
A concept that lends itself ideally for the blockchain is the smart
contract. A smart contract is a contract between two or more
parties that is created and stored in the blockchain, it involves
more than the mere transfer of an amount and is self-executing
upon programmed rules.
The concept is most easily explained with an example. Imagine a
life insurance smart contract that pays a benefit to the designated
SMART CONTRACTS
beneficiary upon the death of the policy holder. The contract
can perform real time checks on online death registers to
determine the moment of payout. Smart contracts are trustless,
autonomous, and self-sufficient.
Last September, a team at the London FinTech Week hackathon
utilized smart contracts to walk away with the first prize. Given
the fact that around 550,000 airline passengers in the UK do not
claim on their insurance for delayed flights, the team presented
a smart contract system that provides direct compensation for
affected passengers. The team was able to do so by connecting
tons of online data feeds containing flight information to smart
contracts in Ethereum.
The Ethereum platform, by some experts dubbed as ‘Blockchain
2.0’ or ‘Bitcoin 2.0’, is a programming framework to allow a
network of peers to create and administer their own smart
contracts, without a central authority. It combines a blockchain
network with a universal programming language that would
allow users to invent whatever smart contract they want. These
smart contracts, or apps, run exactly as programmed without
any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party
interference. The apps are able to interact with one another and
conduct transactions in Ethereum’s own cryptocurrency, called
ether. The platform even enables the design and issuance of
one’s own cryptocurrency, where you either set the total amount
in circulation to a simple fixed amount, or let it fluctuate based on
any programmed ruleset.
Although Ethereum was launched in July 2015 and is still in a
developmentphase,theplatformhasalreadyspawnedthecreation
of a large number of interesting apps and projects. WeiFund, for
instance, is a non-profit, decentralized crowdfunding platform
built on Ethereum. Because of the blockchain, this ‘Kickstarter in
a box’ features lower fees and enhanced security.
BLOCKCHAIN 2.0

13. 10
Lower operating costs are the biggest beneficiary for insurers
that utilize smart contracts. Because the contract would be self-
sufficient after its creation, no costly human interaction would
have to take place afterwards. Furthermore, the self-executing
character would greatly increase speed and efficiency in claims
processing. Smart contracts are also said to avoid the textual
ambiguity of traditional contracts, preventing legal disputes.
Because the rules of the smart contract are programmed at
creation, the contract would only execute according to said rules.
The programmable character also allows for less insurance
fraud. Imagine a car insurance payout that can only be used for
repairs at certified parties. Whether someone actually follows the
rules is no longer verified in the bureaucratic process afterwards.
The payout can even be programmed in such a way that it will
automatically return to the insurer if the receiver doesn’t use it
within a certain amount of time.
The hackathon example with the flight delay information showed
us that the smart contract can also interact with the online
world outside the blockchain. By connecting with the Internet
of Things, insurers could even take this one step further to tailor
their products. Think of travel insurance premiums that are only
collected when your phone tells the contract you are abroad
or car insurance premiums that are only collected when your
car tells the contract you are driving. The possibilities of smart
contracts fully depend on the creative minds walking around in
the offices of the insurer.
But, what if the ‘traditional’ insurer can be cut out of the
policy? Dynamis is creating peer-to-peer insurance on the
Ethereum blockchain. Like Friendsurance, policyholders pool
together, based on a sharing economy concept, and support each
other financially in the event of any claim. But instead of a policy
managed by people who process applications for new policies
and applicants for new claims, the peer-to-peer insurance in
Dynamis would only be managed by smart contract code,
significantly reducing costs.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
Whether the current blockchains are the most suitable for smart
contracts is still doubtful. Blockchains rely on an underlying
cryptocurrency that is highly volatile. Furthermore, the networks
are maintained by miners that expect a reward to compensate
for the energy consumption this requires. You would expect
a consumer of insurance to be able to depend upon a network
for more than a decade without having to worry about crypto-
economic game theory issues. And are consumers going to rely
on networks where jurisdiction and regulation have no reach?
Distributed ledger systems, like Ripple and Hyperledger, are said
to overcome these issues. Rather than existing in anonymous
nodes, these ‘permissioned’ ledgers use legal entities to
CHALLENGES
validate transactions. Imagine a distributed ledger between
an insurer, intermediaries and a network of health providers.
These distributed ledgers are applicable to all assets, including
fiat money and shares, but can still replicate all applications
pioneered by the cryptography community. Furthermore, they are
relatively compatible with existing regulations.
Some of these distributed ledgers, like Ripple, still use a
cryptocurrency. But, these currencies or tokens are being built
without the expectation or intention of making these coins
available for purchase to retail customers. These tokens are
only used as verifiable cryptographic receipts internally between
permissionedparties,asawaytoprovethatcertaineventshappen
at certain times for the parties involved, as well as for outside
compliance and auditing agencies. Other distributed ledgers, like
Hyperledger, do not even have an built-in cryptocurrency.
The distributed ledger might, for the time being, be more attractive
because of the control they afford over the system. They are
not subject to price volatility of underlying currencies, offer less
regulatory risk and have a more secure authentication process
that doesn’t rely on the incentives for miners to authenticate
transactions.
Ultimately, it is for the organisation to question whether the
blockchainordistributedledgerscouldprovideinitsrequirements.
The possibilities of the smart contract are endless. It is for the
insurance sector to experiment with it, before everybody else
does.

14. 11
USAGE-BASED INSURANCES:
A SPRINGBOARD TOWARDS SERVICES
Pay what you actually consume: the principle is becoming more appealing to the insured, as they are in search of ever more transparent offers.
This in turn, offers the insurance companies the possibility to adopt a more pronounced differentiation strategy in a market where traditional
growth drivers have already been explored. Since its first car application ‘Pay as you drive’ by Corona Direct in 2006 in Belgium and ‘De
Kilometerverzekering’ in the Netherlands, the increased penetration of smartphones and connected devices raises the question of the possibility
of a widespread consumption insurance under which the insured would pay a premium depending on his actual usage. The usage would then
be measured by the instant activation and deactivation coverage via a smartphone or connected device. This new trend embodies an offer the
insurers of today are currently struggling with to explore, but which could redesign the insurance of tomorrow.
At the moment, the insurance sector is becoming a market of
requirements, representing a big change compared to the mass
market of the past. Consumers increasingly ask for offers which
are adapted to their personal needs. The affinity offerings and
micro-segmentation – in terms of products, related services
or business approach –meet these requirements. Within this
hypercompetitive market, insurers must organize their offerings
around the products and customers, integrating the best possible
behavioral dimensions of the targeted segments. An insurance
that is dependable on the actual usage, fits perfectly with this
approach and offers the following advantages:
USAGE-BASED INSURANCE,
A DISRUPTIVE OFFER
1. It allows the insurance companies to improve their image
toward the policyholders. Enabling or disabling the insurance
coverage allows the consumers to obtain an insurance contract
which is more transparent and whose price is less difficult to
understand given the reverse cycle.
2. The insurance gives the insurers the possibility to capture new
customers. The fact that more and more people are comparing
prices on the internet shows that consumers are increasingly
looking for the best price.
3. It allows insurers to capitalize on the underlying trend, being the
increased penetration of digital equipment. The digital innovation
is indeed a way to seduce consumers who are more susceptible
to connected devices: in 2014, 17% of the cars sold globally are
considered as ‘connected’ and this number is expected to further
increase to 90% in 2025. In Europe, the rise of connected devices,
• Example – classic car insurance The pricing reflects the behaviour of the client.
The offers have a preventive dimension.
• Example – car insurance depending on driving
behaviour, Pay How You Drive
Take into account actual consumption of the insured
Each these two types of insurance can be the object of an evolution towards the consump-
tion insurance, allowing the insured to (de)activate his coverage via connected device
TRADITIONAL CONSUMPTION INSURANCE
"PAY AS YOU"
Reflects the quatity used
USAGE AND CONSUMPTION INSURANCE
Either the cover is permanent, and only the pricing is based on consumption.
• "Pay as you drive" offer, a device automatically measures the mileage
Either coverage also depends on the manual activation/desactivation cycles by
the insured.
• Insurance is only activated when needed (i.e. travel insurance)
The usage volume criteria is already being captured
through
the behaviour. this therefore comes back to the
principle of the usage insurance
Consumption insurance types developed in this article

15. 12
and in particular connected cars, is expected to be partly driven
by the introduction of new regulations regarding eCall.
4. Finally, this new way of insuring allows the insurer to have a
better knowledge of his policyholders and their behavior through
the collection of behavioral data transmitted via connected
devices.
For these reasons, the usage-based insurance is expected to be
used as a growth catalyst for insurers in line with two trends: the
‘Pay As You’, reflecting the amount of use, and the ‘Pay How You’,
reflecting the individual behavior.
However, the relative performance of actors who offer ‘Pay As
You Drive’, highlights the difficulties this new model imposes.
The prerequisite for the effective functioning of the
consumption insurance ‘Pay As You’ primary lies with the
insured since it is based on their provision of personal data,
whether in real time or not. While the popularity of connected
devices is assured, one cannot assume each insured will
declare themselves ready to share all their personal data to
their insurer. Assuming they do, the ‘Pay As You’ insurance
however, can currently only be applied to the car insurance.
Indeed, home and health insurance offers are not eligible, as
they are required to be continuous in time. In addition, only
a small part of the population benefits from the ‘Pay As You’
insurance. For example, policyholders do not necessarily
gain from the affinity packaged deals which are based on the
principle of sharing. Furthermore, they should be sufficiently
occasional users in order to achieve premium savings. Finally,
they also introduce a significant risk of fraud. All these issues
together limit the growth potential of the contracts.
THE IMPORTANT OBSTACLES
OF THE ‘PAY AS YOU’ INSURANCE.
Meanwhile,the‘PayHowYou’modelhasalreadyseduceddifferent
players to adapt their offer. In the Netherlands, for example, four
insurance companies are currently offering an insurance of which
the premium is dependable on the driving behavior of the driver.
Their offerings mainly focus on young drivers who are not able
to achieve premium savings thanks to their accident-free years.
Overall, the principle applied is the same, only the basis premium
and possible premium savings differ. In Belgium, however, these
offers are still non-existent, but are expected to pop-up in the
upcoming years.
Other insurers also offer customized offers starting from the
‘connected buildings’. These ‘Pay How You Live’ offers adjust
the home insurance rate according to information gathered by
occupancy sensors, door closings, volume measurement or
alarm operations.
If this type of offer presents similar obstacles as the ‘Pay As You’
insurance, why should we care? Overall, for one simple reason:
the ‘Pay How You’ insurance offers the insurers an opportunity to
break with their traditional profession and to change from a logic
of compensation to a logic of prevention. The insurance is thus
changing towards the delivery of Big Data usage optimization.
Indeed, given the considerable amount of information collected
through these contracts, the insurer will be able to offer different
recommendations with high added value, such as:
In home insurance, optimization of the energy consumption;
In health insurance, follow-up and monitoring of health practices;
In car insurance, optimization of the fleet usage.
Many growth opportunities to explore, for which car insurance
appears to be the chosen lab.
THE ‘PAY HOW YOU’ AS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO SHIFT TO OTHER SERVICES

16. 13
THE IMPORTANCE OF DATA QUALITY
Much like oil for an engine, data is the resource that will determine if your business is up for a long run. More than ever, Data Quality is essential to
run a successful business. A survey conducted by the Data Warehouse Institute covering 647 companies in various industries demonstrates how
impactful data quality can be. The results are unequivocal.
In the insurance industry, data plays an even more important part
because it is used in every area of the business such as actuarial,
risk management, accounting, asset management and even
marketing and commercial. Moreover, the industry has faced a
number of challenges during the last few years, such as:
• The volume of data to deal with has been growing significantly
• Insurance practices are getting more industrialized, as a
consequence, data management is getting even more complex
• Regulatory pressure impose higher quality requirements and
tighter deadlines for reporting the information, therefore limiting
the possibility to control and correct the data if needed
‘WHY DO I NEED TO ESTABLISH
A DATA QUALITY FRAMEWORK?’
Anticipating and preventing the cost of Data Quality is crucial.
Many of the costs are often not considered by the companies.
54% of the respondents claim that "poor data quality has led to losses in revenue"
72% of them admit that "poor data quality has lead their business to significant extra costs"
67% of them declared it "impacts negatively their customer satisfaction"
Indirect Costs
• Bad strategic choices leading to financial losses
• Loss of user confidence in Data Quality
• Under-untilization of existing tools
• Time lost in corrections
• Financial sanctions for non-compliance
Direct Costs
• Incorrect automatic processes
• Manual modifications
• Increased reconciliation team
• Time lost in corrections
• Financial sanctions for non-compliance
Not paying enough attention to Data Quality will become a vicious circle soon enough
Anomalies found by users
but not reported
Loss of confidence in the
application and in its use
Quality level overstated
by management
Under-dimensioning of controls
and corrective actions
Increased number of discrepancies
within the application

17. 14
DATA PROTECTION REGULATION:
INSURERS RISK HEAVY FINES
The new European Regulatory Framework for Data Protection is
just around the corner and if insurers fail to comply they could be
liable to penalties of up to 100 million euro or up to 5% of global
turnover. What does the Data Protection Regulation entail for
insurers?
The scale of data sharing and collecting is continuously increasing
and the use of Digital technologies and Big Data applications
becomes more important. However, over the years the number
of data breach incidents have also increased. This phenomenon
could jeopardize the right of the citizens over their Personal
Data. Following these trends, the need for a new European
Regulatory Framework that is future-proof and fits our digital
age has increased. Especially since the centrepiece of existing
EU legislation on personal data protection, the European Data
Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC), dates from 1995(!).
The completion of the new European General Data Protection
Regulation is a policy priority for 2016 and will supersede the
1995 Data Protection Directive.
THE EUROPEAN GENERAL DATA
PROTECTION REGULATION
Although the proposed General Data Protection Regulation is
not final yet, in principle it will consist of a more comprehensive
and coherent policy on the fundamental right to personal data
protection. It aims at harmonizing the local legislations and
granting individuals more rights and control over their personal
data. A main advantage for companies is that organisations will
only have one regulatory authority, the Data Protection Authority
(DPA), which supervises their activities across all EU member
states.
However, the new Data Protection Regulation could significantly
change these insurers’ activities of data collecting and
processing. Here are a number of legal changes that will impact
every insurance company;
• Documentation of data processing operations
• Impact assessments
• Appointment of data protection officer
• Data subject consent
• Data transfers
• Mandatory security breach reporting
• Fines of up to EUR 100 million or of up to 5 percent of annual
worldwide turnover (the numbers are still under debate)
As regulation will change, the insurance industry will become
more accountable for safeguarding personal data. The
new regulation requires (increased) mandatory reporting to
supervisory authorities. Insurers will need to document their
data processing operations and this documentation must be
made available to the DPA on request. In practice this will entail
(another) work stream of monitoring, reviewing and assessing
data processing procedures. Safeguards need to be included
in all data processing activities in order to minimize operational
and reputational risks. Furthermore, increased responsibility and
accountability and the changes on operational processes will
make data impact assessments a must for every insurer.
Also, organisations with over 250 employees will need to appoint
a data protection officer (DPO) that is exclusively responsible for
data protection.
More than data privacy rules reinforcement, the forthcoming
regulation also aims at changing the way Personal Data are dealt.
For example, the European Commission wants to implement
a Data Privacy system or Internal Control system centralized
around the Data Privacy Officer. The idea is to urge companies
to embed Data Privacy into their operational processes by
implementing two notions: Data Protection by Default and Data
protection by Design. When transferring personal data to third
parties, the legitimacy must be ensured. Moreover, the transfer
outside the European Economic Area must be approved by the
Data Privacy Authority first. In the context of globalization, this
requirement has a substantial impact on operational processes.
Nevertheless, for intra-group (international) data transfers, a
Binding Corporate Rules agreement can be implemented in order
to reduce the number of formalities with the DPA. This agreement
ensures that all entities within a group comply with the regulation.
RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Customers will have the right to access their personal data, have
it rectified or erased, object to its processing and not be subject
to profiling. Also, they will have to give their specific consent for
data processing activities of insurers. This implies that insurers
need to prove that their customers gave explicit consent for data
collection. In other words, insurers’ data collecting activities will
have to rely on data subject consent to process personal data.
When transferring personal data to third parties, the legitimacy
must be ensured. Moreover, the transfer outside the European
Economic Area must be approved by the Data Privacy Authority
first. In the context of globalization, this requirement has a
substantial impact on operational processes. Nevertheless, for
intra-group (international) data transfers, a Binding Corporate
Rules agreement can be implemented in order to reduce the
number of formalities with the DPA. This agreement ensures that
all entities within a group comply with the regulation.
CONSENT AND DATA TRANSFERS

18. 15
Under EU law insurers must protect personal data from misuse.
The latest proposal includes fines up to EUR 100 million or up
to 5 percent of annual Group turnover for data privacy law
breaches (versus €300.000 currently in France and €450.000 in
the Netherlands). Furthermore, when security breaches occur,
companies will have to notify serious data breaches without
undue delay and where feasible within 24 hours.
PENALTIES AND FINES
WHY DOES THE NEW REGULATION MATTER
FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY?
Collecting and processing personal information is integral to
the proper functioning of an insurance business. Automated
processes in accessing and processing personal data enables
insurers to assess risks, process and pay claims and to tailor
information and cover to consumers’ individual needs. Some
of the data insurers collect and process contain sensitive data.
Also the volume of data in combination with the complex product
distribution chains make insurers particularly sensitive to the
importance of keeping data safe.
The proposed rules could make it difficult for insurers to continue
provide the insurance services consumers expect and to fight
fraud effectively. The Data Protection Regulation will restrict
the ability of insurers to assess risk properly. This will result in
a reduction of availability and range of insurance products and
increase of cost for customers’ cover.
For example, the proposed regulation will not allow calculating
risk that includes analysis of (claim history) data and measuring
risks of potential policyholders who wish to transfer. This makes
it hard to calculate risk and insurance premium for individual
customers and this will eventually result in higher cost for
customers’ cover. Moreover, without access to previous claim
history, the efforts to protect honest policyholders against the
consequences of insurance fraud will be hindered.
Finally, given that customers become more and more demanding
and are drawn to new technologies, insurance activities are
changing. Yet, the regulation can hold back innovation as well
as the release of new products in the insurance industry. For
example, the innovative life insurance product ‘Vitality’ of the
South African insurer Discovery has the potential to transform the
pricing of life insurance. In essence, customers who choose the
Vitality program are willing to continually share their health data
via wearables. Discovery then translates this private data into
premium savings and other perks. However, with the proposed
EU regulation, it is doubtful whether European Insurers will be
able to drive their activities to this kind of products.
Questions insurers can ask themselves to assess Data Privacy
risks:
• Do my current activities rely on data subject consent to process
personal data? Or do these activities have a legitimate interest
in processing data that is not overridden by the interests of the
data subject?
• Are my documents and forms of consent adequate? Are the
consents freely given, specific, informed and explicit?
• How can I embed data subject consent in my future and current
products, systems, documentations and processes?
• What data transfers are currently undertaken? How will I
ensure that the transfer of data to other (non-EEA) countries are
safeguarded in a way that is compliant with legislation?
• How can I implement Binding Corporate Rules on facilitating
intragroup data transfers?
• Are my colleagues aware of the operational and regulatory
changes ahead?
• What will I do to smoothen implementation of the Data
Protection Regulation?
The General Data Protection Regulation is due to come into
play soon. Given that the proposed financial penalties for non-
compliance are severe, financial sanctions and reputational risk
are the top data protection threats for insurers. However, insurers
that start to take steps to address the proposed changes will be
in a stronger position. After all, most of these risks can be avoided
by adaption on time.
In conclusion, the implementation of the General Data Protection
Regulation should be a part of every insurers’ current strategy.
MOVE TOWARDS COMPLIANCE

20. YOUR CONTACT
Founded in 1999, Sia Partners is an independent global management consulting firm with over 700 consultants and an
annual turnover of USD 125 million. The Group has 17 offices in 13 countries, including the U.S., its second biggest market.
Sia Partners is renowned for its sharp expertise in the Energy, Banking, Insurance, Telecoms and Transportation sectors.
ABOUT SIA PARTNERS
All our publications are accessible on the Sia Partners blog : en.finance.sia-partners.com
For more information on Sia Partners : www.sia-partners.com
Follow us on Twitter @SiaPartners & Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/company/sia-partners
Stephan Linnenbank
Head Financial Services Benelux
+ 31 6 23 59 82 23
Stephan.Linnenbank@sia-partners.com
ASIA
Hong Kong
23/F, The Southland Building, 48
Connaught Road Central, Central – HK
+852 2157 2717
Singapore
3 Pickering street #02-38
048660 Singapore
T.+ 65 6635 3433
Tokyo
Level 20 Marunouchi Trust Tower-Main
1-8-3 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-0005 Japan
EUROPE
Amsterdam
Barbara Strozzilaan 101
1083 HN Amsterdam - Netherlands
T. +31 20 240 22 05
Brussels
Av Henri Jasparlaan, 128
1060 Brussels - Belgium
+32 2 213 82 85
London
Princess House,
4th Floor, 27 Bush Lane,
London, EC4R 0AA – United Kingdom
T. +44 20 7933 9333
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA
Dubai, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi
PO Box 502665
Shatha Tower office 2115
Dubai Media City
Dubai, U.A.E.
T. +971 4 443 1613
Casablanca
14, avenue Mers Sultan
20500 Casablanca - Morocco
T. +212 522 49 24 80
NORTH AMERICA
New York
115 Broadway 12th Floor
New York, NY10006 - USA
T. +1 646 496 0160
Charlotte
401 N. Tryon Street, 10th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
Montréal
2000 McGill College, Suite 600, Montreal,
QC H3A 3H3 - Canada
Lyon
Tour Oxygène,
10-12 bd Vivier Merle
69003 Lyon - France
Milan
Via Medici 15
20123 Milano - Italy
T. +39 02 89 09 39 45
Paris
12 rue Magellan
75008 Paris – France
T. +33 1 42 77 76 17
Rome
Via Quattro Fontane 116
00184 Roma - Italy
T. +39 06 48 28 506