London Technology - A Year of Turmoil, But Positive or Negative?
The Lloyd’s and London insurance market has in the past twelve months suddenly developed a ‘latent wake up call’ to the point of serious self criticism as
even the chairman of Lloyd’s has felt compelled to publicly tell the world that Lloyd’s and London is failing with its existing methods and standards.
To a conservative organisation leaving things alone means leaving things as they are. Unfortunately the opposite is probably true and the laissez-faire approach can result in an eventual torrent of change, which is what the London market has taken upon itself.Some might say that if a company has a little local difficulty it might be sensible to keep it from ones competitors and get on with a solution quietly and without too much fuss,as such publicity can only be used against one.
However, not so the Lloyd’s market, which has three public initiatives prodeding including discarding of one of its technology ‘jewels in the crown’ to America.
Starting with the latter and what must be considered as ‘not part of the original plan’, this being the demise of Wise. Wise was established to bring together the historic standards bodies of Limnet and Rinet, plus the additional brokers group Win. The result has been an expensive fiasco whereby Limnet, which was the only really successful body of the three, and which was developed by London for London’s edge in business has finished up in the hands of Acord the American standards body. To put this in perspective the London market stopped, to all intents and purposes, developing any new systems in 1992 when the US market was brought into discussions to allow their brokers and underwriters to take part and catch up with London’s Limnet initiative. I disastrous decision by London with hindsight. Whereas London uses standards almost one hundred per cent, the American market is still in its infancy in the use of the ‘joint venture’ standards, if at all.
However, America is now the standards tail wagging the London dog. At the same time Wise took upon itself the job of developing a secure e-mail system, called Trusted Trading, a good name but unfortunately nobody actually trusted it as it’s design, both technically and from a business perspective had more holes than a colander. This also is about to be resolved passing responsibility away from Wise to a professional provider of the complete system of secure and recorded e-mail for London brokers and underwriters.
From a ‘get London back on its feet’ perspective the initiatives concern overall standards of business practice, LMP - London Market Procedures, and InsSure the body to replace London’s two bureaux, the Lloyd’s Policy Signing Offices (LPSO) and the London Processing Centre (LPC).
LMP has taken shape because of the perceived shortcomings in the claims processing and general service provided by London to its global clients.
Apart from the fact that the LMP proposals have been slow to get critical mass support there is a problem in London but not necessarily universally. If the majority of claims in London are being badly managed then it could be because the majority of business, say sixty per cent, is actually being written by the top five brokers in London and it is these who are providing the problem. Many small brokers are offended that they are seen as giving a bad service, as their numbers of clients are annually retained and because of their smaller volumes of business they can respond to client’s problems efficiently.
If LMP is to deliver it will need to keep to it’s promised delivery dates (one slippage earlier this year and another recently announced ), and provide market practitioners with a track record of business change delivery to gain the market’s confidence.
The third area for change in London is ‘ins-sure’ which has been set up as a part private, part public company to provide one central system for brokers and underwriters in London.The provision of a ‘one stop’ system for brokers has always made sense, but has been a long time coming to London. The bureaux, LPC for companies and LPSO for Lloyd’s have been an essential part of the market in London and are now replaced by ‘ins-sure’. The anticipation is that single systems will be developed for the London market presumably with the requirement for one set of systems providers and one set of policy checkers. At the same time ‘ins-sure’ who are a commercial organisation expecting to make profits for the London market are looking for initiatives which the market needs and which can be profitable. The latter is the crux because such ideas have historically been few and far between.
At the same time ‘ins-sure’ umbrella company, Xchanging, have to provide profits in the long term for their own financiers. ‘Best of luck’ comes to mind unless the transaction costs for Lloyd’s users are ‘hiked’, something which is a suspicion rather than a fact.
After a decade of inactivity, London does seem to have jumped in with both feet to scenarios with which it has had little historic success, but if the top boys in the market are correct and London and Lloyd’s need these initiatives in place for the future then the sooner the better. Thankfully the smaller players in London do not see themselves as anything other than efficient and part of a successful financial service to the country.
Recently there has been criticism of the fact that Lloyd’s and London has already come near to running out of capacity, but this does seem to give the lie to any doubts that London is not providing a service to the global markets.
Changes should therefore be for those that want them and not change for changes sake. With this in mind, let us in the UK hope that is onwards and upwards at Lloyd’s and London!
London Technology - A Year of Turmoil, But Positive or Negative?
London Technology - A Year of Turmoil, But Positive or Negative?
The Lloyd’s and London insurance market has in the past twelve months suddenly developed a ‘latent wake up call’ to the point of serious self criticism as
even the chairman of Lloyd’s has felt compelled to publicly tell the world that Lloyd’s and London is failing with its existing methods and standards.
To a conservative organisation leaving things alone means leaving things as they are. Unfortunately the opposite is probably true and the laissez-faire approach can result in an eventual torrent of change, which is what the London market has taken upon itself.Some might say that if a company has a little local difficulty it might be sensible to keep it from ones competitors and get on with a solution quietly and without too much fuss,as such publicity can only be used against one.
However, not so the Lloyd’s market, which has three public initiatives prodeding including discarding of one of its technology ‘jewels in the crown’ to America.
Starting with the latter and what must be considered as ‘not part of the original plan’, this being the demise of Wise. Wise was established to bring together the historic standards bodies of Limnet and Rinet, plus the additional brokers group Win. The result has been an expensive fiasco whereby Limnet, which was the only really successful body of the three, and which was developed by London for London’s edge in business has finished up in the hands of Acord the American standards body. To put this in perspective the London market stopped, to all intents and purposes, developing any new systems in 1992 when the US market was brought into discussions to allow their brokers and underwriters to take part and catch up with London’s Limnet initiative. I disastrous decision by London with hindsight. Whereas London uses standards almost one hundred per cent, the American market is still in its infancy in the use of the ‘joint venture’ standards, if at all.
However, America is now the standards tail wagging the London dog. At the same time Wise took upon itself the job of developing a secure e-mail system, called Trusted Trading, a good name but unfortunately nobody actually trusted it as it’s design, both technically and from a business perspective had more holes than a colander. This also is about to be resolved passing responsibility away from Wise to a professional provider of the complete system of secure and recorded e-mail for London brokers and underwriters.
From a ‘get London back on its feet’ perspective the initiatives concern overall standards of business practice, LMP - London Market Procedures, and InsSure the body to replace London’s two bureaux, the Lloyd’s Policy Signing Offices (LPSO) and the London Processing Centre (LPC).
LMP has taken shape because of the perceived shortcomings in the claims processing and general service provided by London to its global clients.
Apart from the fact that the LMP proposals have been slow to get critical mass support there is a problem in London but not necessarily universally. If the majority of claims in London are being badly managed then it could be because the majority of business, say sixty per cent, is actually being written by the top five brokers in London and it is these who are providing the problem. Many small brokers are offended that they are seen as giving a bad service, as their numbers of clients are annually retained and because of their smaller volumes of business they can respond to client’s problems efficiently.
If LMP is to deliver it will need to keep to it’s promised delivery dates (one slippage earlier this year and another recently announced ), and provide market practitioners with a track record of business change delivery to gain the market’s confidence.
The third area for change in London is ‘ins-sure’ which has been set up as a part private, part public company to provide one central system for brokers and underwriters in London.The provision of a ‘one stop’ system for brokers has always made sense, but has been a long time coming to London. The bureaux, LPC for companies and LPSO for Lloyd’s have been an essential part of the market in London and are now replaced by ‘ins-sure’. The anticipation is that single systems will be developed for the London market presumably with the requirement for one set of systems providers and one set of policy checkers. At the same time ‘ins-sure’ who are a commercial organisation expecting to make profits for the London market are looking for initiatives which the market needs and which can be profitable. The latter is the crux because such ideas have historically been few and far between.
At the same time ‘ins-sure’ umbrella company, Xchanging, have to provide profits in the long term for their own financiers. ‘Best of luck’ comes to mind unless the transaction costs for Lloyd’s users are ‘hiked’, something which is a suspicion rather than a fact.
After a decade of inactivity, London does seem to have jumped in with both feet to scenarios with which it has had little historic success, but if the top boys in the market are correct and London and Lloyd’s need these initiatives in place for the future then the sooner the better. Thankfully the smaller players in London do not see themselves as anything other than efficient and part of a successful financial service to the country.
Recently there has been criticism of the fact that Lloyd’s and London has already come near to running out of capacity, but this does seem to give the lie to any doubts that London is not providing a service to the global markets.
Changes should therefore be for those that want them and not change for changes sake. With this in mind, let us in the UK hope that is onwards and upwards at Lloyd’s and London!
The Lloyd’s and London insurance market has in the past twelve months suddenly developed a ‘latent wake up call’ to the point of serious self criticism as
even the chairman of Lloyd’s has felt compelled to publicly tell the world that Lloyd’s and London is failing with its existing methods and standards.
To a conservative organisation leaving things alone means leaving things as they are. Unfortunately the opposite is probably true and the laissez-faire approach can result in an eventual torrent of change, which is what the London market has taken upon itself.Some might say that if a company has a little local difficulty it might be sensible to keep it from ones competitors and get on with a solution quietly and without too much fuss,as such publicity can only be used against one.
However, not so the Lloyd’s market, which has three public initiatives prodeding including discarding of one of its technology ‘jewels in the crown’ to America.
Starting with the latter and what must be considered as ‘not part of the original plan’, this being the demise of Wise. Wise was established to bring together the historic standards bodies of Limnet and Rinet, plus the additional brokers group Win. The result has been an expensive fiasco whereby Limnet, which was the only really successful body of the three, and which was developed by London for London’s edge in business has finished up in the hands of Acord the American standards body. To put this in perspective the London market stopped, to all intents and purposes, developing any new systems in 1992 when the US market was brought into discussions to allow their brokers and underwriters to take part and catch up with London’s Limnet initiative. I disastrous decision by London with hindsight. Whereas London uses standards almost one hundred per cent, the American market is still in its infancy in the use of the ‘joint venture’ standards, if at all.
However, America is now the standards tail wagging the London dog. At the same time Wise took upon itself the job of developing a secure e-mail system, called Trusted Trading, a good name but unfortunately nobody actually trusted it as it’s design, both technically and from a business perspective had more holes than a colander. This also is about to be resolved passing responsibility away from Wise to a professional provider of the complete system of secure and recorded e-mail for London brokers and underwriters.
From a ‘get London back on its feet’ perspective the initiatives concern overall standards of business practice, LMP - London Market Procedures, and InsSure the body to replace London’s two bureaux, the Lloyd’s Policy Signing Offices (LPSO) and the London Processing Centre (LPC).
LMP has taken shape because of the perceived shortcomings in the claims processing and general service provided by London to its global clients.
Apart from the fact that the LMP proposals have been slow to get critical mass support there is a problem in London but not necessarily universally. If the majority of claims in London are being badly managed then it could be because the majority of business, say sixty per cent, is actually being written by the top five brokers in London and it is these who are providing the problem. Many small brokers are offended that they are seen as giving a bad service, as their numbers of clients are annually retained and because of their smaller volumes of business they can respond to client’s problems efficiently.
If LMP is to deliver it will need to keep to it’s promised delivery dates (one slippage earlier this year and another recently announced ), and provide market practitioners with a track record of business change delivery to gain the market’s confidence.
The third area for change in London is ‘ins-sure’ which has been set up as a part private, part public company to provide one central system for brokers and underwriters in London.The provision of a ‘one stop’ system for brokers has always made sense, but has been a long time coming to London. The bureaux, LPC for companies and LPSO for Lloyd’s have been an essential part of the market in London and are now replaced by ‘ins-sure’. The anticipation is that single systems will be developed for the London market presumably with the requirement for one set of systems providers and one set of policy checkers. At the same time ‘ins-sure’ who are a commercial organisation expecting to make profits for the London market are looking for initiatives which the market needs and which can be profitable. The latter is the crux because such ideas have historically been few and far between.
At the same time ‘ins-sure’ umbrella company, Xchanging, have to provide profits in the long term for their own financiers. ‘Best of luck’ comes to mind unless the transaction costs for Lloyd’s users are ‘hiked’, something which is a suspicion rather than a fact.
After a decade of inactivity, London does seem to have jumped in with both feet to scenarios with which it has had little historic success, but if the top boys in the market are correct and London and Lloyd’s need these initiatives in place for the future then the sooner the better. Thankfully the smaller players in London do not see themselves as anything other than efficient and part of a successful financial service to the country.
Recently there has been criticism of the fact that Lloyd’s and London has already come near to running out of capacity, but this does seem to give the lie to any doubts that London is not providing a service to the global markets.
Changes should therefore be for those that want them and not change for changes sake. With this in mind, let us in the UK hope that is onwards and upwards at Lloyd’s and London!
London Technology - A Year of Turmoil, But Positive or Negative?
The Lloyd’s and London insurance market has in the past twelve months suddenly developed a ‘latent wake up call’ to the point of serious self criticism as
even the chairman of Lloyd’s has felt compelled to publicly tell the world that Lloyd’s and London is failing with its existing methods and standards.
To a conservative organisation leaving things alone means leaving things as they are. Unfortunately the opposite is probably true and the laissez-faire approach can result in an eventual torrent of change, which is what the London market has taken upon itself.Some might say that if a company has a little local difficulty it might be sensible to keep it from ones competitors and get on with a solution quietly and without too much fuss,as such publicity can only be used against one.
However, not so the Lloyd’s market, which has three public initiatives prodeding including discarding of one of its technology ‘jewels in the crown’ to America.
Starting with the latter and what must be considered as ‘not part of the original plan’, this being the demise of Wise. Wise was established to bring together the historic standards bodies of Limnet and Rinet, plus the additional brokers group Win. The result has been an expensive fiasco whereby Limnet, which was the only really successful body of the three, and which was developed by London for London’s edge in business has finished up in the hands of Acord the American standards body. To put this in perspective the London market stopped, to all intents and purposes, developing any new systems in 1992 when the US market was brought into discussions to allow their brokers and underwriters to take part and catch up with London’s Limnet initiative. I disastrous decision by London with hindsight. Whereas London uses standards almost one hundred per cent, the American market is still in its infancy in the use of the ‘joint venture’ standards, if at all.
However, America is now the standards tail wagging the London dog. At the same time Wise took upon itself the job of developing a secure e-mail system, called Trusted Trading, a good name but unfortunately nobody actually trusted it as it’s design, both technically and from a business perspective had more holes than a colander. This also is about to be resolved passing responsibility away from Wise to a professional provider of the complete system of secure and recorded e-mail for London brokers and underwriters.
From a ‘get London back on its feet’ perspective the initiatives concern overall standards of business practice, LMP - London Market Procedures, and InsSure the body to replace London’s two bureaux, the Lloyd’s Policy Signing Offices (LPSO) and the London Processing Centre (LPC).
LMP has taken shape because of the perceived shortcomings in the claims processing and general service provided by London to its global clients.
Apart from the fact that the LMP proposals have been slow to get critical mass support there is a problem in London but not necessarily universally. If the majority of claims in London are being badly managed then it could be because the majority of business, say sixty per cent, is actually being written by the top five brokers in London and it is these who are providing the problem. Many small brokers are offended that they are seen as giving a bad service, as their numbers of clients are annually retained and because of their smaller volumes of business they can respond to client’s problems efficiently.
If LMP is to deliver it will need to keep to it’s promised delivery dates (one slippage earlier this year and another recently announced ), and provide market practitioners with a track record of business change delivery to gain the market’s confidence.
The third area for change in London is ‘ins-sure’ which has been set up as a part private, part public company to provide one central system for brokers and underwriters in London.The provision of a ‘one stop’ system for brokers has always made sense, but has been a long time coming to London. The bureaux, LPC for companies and LPSO for Lloyd’s have been an essential part of the market in London and are now replaced by ‘ins-sure’. The anticipation is that single systems will be developed for the London market presumably with the requirement for one set of systems providers and one set of policy checkers. At the same time ‘ins-sure’ who are a commercial organisation expecting to make profits for the London market are looking for initiatives which the market needs and which can be profitable. The latter is the crux because such ideas have historically been few and far between.
At the same time ‘ins-sure’ umbrella company, Xchanging, have to provide profits in the long term for their own financiers. ‘Best of luck’ comes to mind unless the transaction costs for Lloyd’s users are ‘hiked’, something which is a suspicion rather than a fact.
After a decade of inactivity, London does seem to have jumped in with both feet to scenarios with which it has had little historic success, but if the top boys in the market are correct and London and Lloyd’s need these initiatives in place for the future then the sooner the better. Thankfully the smaller players in London do not see themselves as anything other than efficient and part of a successful financial service to the country.
Recently there has been criticism of the fact that Lloyd’s and London has already come near to running out of capacity, but this does seem to give the lie to any doubts that London is not providing a service to the global markets.
Changes should therefore be for those that want them and not change for changes sake. With this in mind, let us in the UK hope that is onwards and upwards at Lloyd’s and London!
The Lloyd’s and London insurance market has in the past twelve months suddenly developed a ‘latent wake up call’ to the point of serious self criticism as
even the chairman of Lloyd’s has felt compelled to publicly tell the world that Lloyd’s and London is failing with its existing methods and standards.
To a conservative organisation leaving things alone means leaving things as they are. Unfortunately the opposite is probably true and the laissez-faire approach can result in an eventual torrent of change, which is what the London market has taken upon itself.Some might say that if a company has a little local difficulty it might be sensible to keep it from ones competitors and get on with a solution quietly and without too much fuss,as such publicity can only be used against one.
However, not so the Lloyd’s market, which has three public initiatives prodeding including discarding of one of its technology ‘jewels in the crown’ to America.
Starting with the latter and what must be considered as ‘not part of the original plan’, this being the demise of Wise. Wise was established to bring together the historic standards bodies of Limnet and Rinet, plus the additional brokers group Win. The result has been an expensive fiasco whereby Limnet, which was the only really successful body of the three, and which was developed by London for London’s edge in business has finished up in the hands of Acord the American standards body. To put this in perspective the London market stopped, to all intents and purposes, developing any new systems in 1992 when the US market was brought into discussions to allow their brokers and underwriters to take part and catch up with London’s Limnet initiative. I disastrous decision by London with hindsight. Whereas London uses standards almost one hundred per cent, the American market is still in its infancy in the use of the ‘joint venture’ standards, if at all.
However, America is now the standards tail wagging the London dog. At the same time Wise took upon itself the job of developing a secure e-mail system, called Trusted Trading, a good name but unfortunately nobody actually trusted it as it’s design, both technically and from a business perspective had more holes than a colander. This also is about to be resolved passing responsibility away from Wise to a professional provider of the complete system of secure and recorded e-mail for London brokers and underwriters.
From a ‘get London back on its feet’ perspective the initiatives concern overall standards of business practice, LMP - London Market Procedures, and InsSure the body to replace London’s two bureaux, the Lloyd’s Policy Signing Offices (LPSO) and the London Processing Centre (LPC).
LMP has taken shape because of the perceived shortcomings in the claims processing and general service provided by London to its global clients.
Apart from the fact that the LMP proposals have been slow to get critical mass support there is a problem in London but not necessarily universally. If the majority of claims in London are being badly managed then it could be because the majority of business, say sixty per cent, is actually being written by the top five brokers in London and it is these who are providing the problem. Many small brokers are offended that they are seen as giving a bad service, as their numbers of clients are annually retained and because of their smaller volumes of business they can respond to client’s problems efficiently.
If LMP is to deliver it will need to keep to it’s promised delivery dates (one slippage earlier this year and another recently announced ), and provide market practitioners with a track record of business change delivery to gain the market’s confidence.
The third area for change in London is ‘ins-sure’ which has been set up as a part private, part public company to provide one central system for brokers and underwriters in London.The provision of a ‘one stop’ system for brokers has always made sense, but has been a long time coming to London. The bureaux, LPC for companies and LPSO for Lloyd’s have been an essential part of the market in London and are now replaced by ‘ins-sure’. The anticipation is that single systems will be developed for the London market presumably with the requirement for one set of systems providers and one set of policy checkers. At the same time ‘ins-sure’ who are a commercial organisation expecting to make profits for the London market are looking for initiatives which the market needs and which can be profitable. The latter is the crux because such ideas have historically been few and far between.
At the same time ‘ins-sure’ umbrella company, Xchanging, have to provide profits in the long term for their own financiers. ‘Best of luck’ comes to mind unless the transaction costs for Lloyd’s users are ‘hiked’, something which is a suspicion rather than a fact.
After a decade of inactivity, London does seem to have jumped in with both feet to scenarios with which it has had little historic success, but if the top boys in the market are correct and London and Lloyd’s need these initiatives in place for the future then the sooner the better. Thankfully the smaller players in London do not see themselves as anything other than efficient and part of a successful financial service to the country.
Recently there has been criticism of the fact that Lloyd’s and London has already come near to running out of capacity, but this does seem to give the lie to any doubts that London is not providing a service to the global markets.
Changes should therefore be for those that want them and not change for changes sake. With this in mind, let us in the UK hope that is onwards and upwards at Lloyd’s and London!
<< Back to news index
Click here to register for our newsletter
London Technology - A Year of Turmoil, But Positive or Negative?
Published on 19/09/2001 12:09:00
The Lloyd’s and London insurance market has in the past twelve months suddenly developed a ‘latent wake up call’ to the point of serious self criticism as
even the chairman of Lloyd’s has felt compelled to publicly tell the world that Lloyd’s and London is failing with its existing methods and standards.
To a conservative organisation leaving things alone means leaving things as they are. Unfortunately the opposite is probably true and the laissez-faire approach can result in an eventual torrent of change, which is what the London market has taken upon itself.Some might say that if a company has a little local difficulty it might be sensible to keep it from ones competitors and get on with a solution quietly and without too much fuss,as such publicity can only be used against one.
However, not so the Lloyd’s market, which has three public initiatives prodeding including discarding of one of its technology ‘jewels in the crown’ to America.
Starting with the latter and what must be considered as ‘not part of the original plan’, this being the demise of Wise. Wise was established to bring together the historic standards bodies of Limnet and Rinet, plus the additional brokers group Win. The result has been an expensive fiasco whereby Limnet, which was the only really successful body of the three, and which was developed by London for London’s edge in business has finished up in the hands of Acord the American standards body. To put this in perspective the London market stopped, to all intents and purposes, developing any new systems in 1992 when the US market was brought into discussions to allow their brokers and underwriters to take part and catch up with London’s Limnet initiative. I disastrous decision by London with hindsight. Whereas London uses standards almost one hundred per cent, the American market is still in its infancy in the use of the ‘joint venture’ standards, if at all.
However, America is now the standards tail wagging the London dog. At the same time Wise took upon itself the job of developing a secure e-mail system, called Trusted Trading, a good name but unfortunately nobody actually trusted it as it’s design, both technically and from a business perspective had more holes than a colander. This also is about to be resolved passing responsibility away from Wise to a professional provider of the complete system of secure and recorded e-mail for London brokers and underwriters.
From a ‘get London back on its feet’ perspective the initiatives concern overall standards of business practice, LMP - London Market Procedures, and InsSure the body to replace London’s two bureaux, the Lloyd’s Policy Signing Offices (LPSO) and the London Processing Centre (LPC).
LMP has taken shape because of the perceived shortcomings in the claims processing and general service provided by London to its global clients.
Apart from the fact that the LMP proposals have been slow to get critical mass support there is a problem in London but not necessarily universally. If the majority of claims in London are being badly managed then it could be because the majority of business, say sixty per cent, is actually being written by the top five brokers in London and it is these who are providing the problem. Many small brokers are offended that they are seen as giving a bad service, as their numbers of clients are annually retained and because of their smaller volumes of business they can respond to client’s problems efficiently.
If LMP is to deliver it will need to keep to it’s promised delivery dates (one slippage earlier this year and another recently announced ), and provide market practitioners with a track record of business change delivery to gain the market’s confidence.
The third area for change in London is ‘ins-sure’ which has been set up as a part private, part public company to provide one central system for brokers and underwriters in London.The provision of a ‘one stop’ system for brokers has always made sense, but has been a long time coming to London. The bureaux, LPC for companies and LPSO for Lloyd’s have been an essential part of the market in London and are now replaced by ‘ins-sure’. The anticipation is that single systems will be developed for the London market presumably with the requirement for one set of systems providers and one set of policy checkers. At the same time ‘ins-sure’ who are a commercial organisation expecting to make profits for the London market are looking for initiatives which the market needs and which can be profitable. The latter is the crux because such ideas have historically been few and far between.
At the same time ‘ins-sure’ umbrella company, Xchanging, have to provide profits in the long term for their own financiers. ‘Best of luck’ comes to mind unless the transaction costs for Lloyd’s users are ‘hiked’, something which is a suspicion rather than a fact.
After a decade of inactivity, London does seem to have jumped in with both feet to scenarios with which it has had little historic success, but if the top boys in the market are correct and London and Lloyd’s need these initiatives in place for the future then the sooner the better. Thankfully the smaller players in London do not see themselves as anything other than efficient and part of a successful financial service to the country.
Recently there has been criticism of the fact that Lloyd’s and London has already come near to running out of capacity, but this does seem to give the lie to any doubts that London is not providing a service to the global markets.
Changes should therefore be for those that want them and not change for changes sake. With this in mind, let us in the UK hope that is onwards and upwards at Lloyd’s and London!
Top
