EP11: Linking Risk Management & Insurance – ILS, Captives & Catstrophic Risk w/ David Mocklow of Gramercy Risk Management

In this episode, David Mocklow and I discuss how we can link risk management and insurance together in order to tackle some of the costliest disasters we are (and will be) facing. Securitization has forever changed the nature of (re)insurance. David thinks that combinations or securitization along with the use of captives and other risk management techniques can be a way for us to deal with financing and mitigating large exposures due to natural catastrophes and more complex exposures such as liability and pandemics. We have a lengthy discussion about the current COVID-19 pandemic for both potential solutions but also more near-term ramifications around claims fallout.

Watch here:

 

Connect:
David Mocklow
Gramercy Risk Management Homepage

Some Useful Links On Insurance Securitization:
https://www.casact.org/pubs/dpp/dpp99/99dpp133.pdf
https://content.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_insurance_linked_securities.htm

Musical Credits:
Shadows by David Cutter Music:
https://davidcuttermusic.com
https://soundcloud.com/dcuttermusic
Free Download / Stream:
https://bit.ly/shadows-david-cutter
Music promoted by Audio Library:
https://youtu.be/qiBHOiEl9EI

Video Credits: Intro Stock Footage by Videvo

Transcript

Nick
So I say we just jump right in and talk about David Mocklow. You know, why don't you describe who you are and what you do for the audience.

David
Yeah, so, I have I've been in the states for gosh, now 23 years I moved from Bermuda in 1997. My American wife, I think, at the time was happy to sort of make a change back to the States. And I moved to Chicago in the middle of a snowstorm, which is sort of ironic for a guy from the beaches.

Nick
You, we're like, What? What kind of Armageddon? Did I land in here?

David
Yeah, it's funny, because, because when I landed there, and it was 22 inches of snow, I thought, you know, what the hell am I doing here? But it was a chance for me to get off the island and get involved in what was at the time sort of a new emerging area of the insurance market, which is using securitization to transfer catastrophe risk into the capital markets. I was sort of, of the view early on maybe probably earlier than most people that that was going to be a big driver of success for the insurance industry. I think most people looked at the few of us who were involved in that business at the time as though we have lost our minds. But it sort of seemed to me to be obvious that securitization was going to have an impact on our industry. I was maybe more enthusiastic about how quickly it would impact the industry. And I got my timing wrong, maybe. But I think all of us can look around now and know that securitization was probably the first real big sea change in the market structure of the insurance industry, right. Yeah. We had a few property CAT companies in Bermuda that started up but really, securitization really sort of changed the way that people thought about the transfer of risk from a client all the way to the end markets where that risk was born.

Nick
Yes, there was a there was a new source of capacity. I always look at the securitization is when people talk...there were there was this big push lately about how these insurtechs are going to come in and disrupt the market. Yep, I said, you think about insurance. The real big disruption that occurred was with securitization. Absolutely, yeah, just changed the way that reinsurance was and how risk was ceded. And how people thought about that. It's just a gigantic new source of capacity that really drove prices down.

David
Yeah. And if you think about the logical conclusion for that evolution, we may never get to this logical conclusion. By the way, it would suggest that insurance companies aren't really designed to be large consumers of risk, but really manufacturers of risk for that risk to be ultimately sent into the capital markets. And maybe over time, the most efficient form of an insurance carrier is what I think is someone who's a specialist...who can sort of take what would theory theoretically be the risks that the capital markets aren't good at, right? So they're really getting overpaid for the difference in conditions if you will. The DIC coverage. Provide and then all the, if you will the lower cost capital take all the rest of the risks. We'll see. I mean, we've had a few attempts to get beyond property CAT. You know, we've had Generali did a an auto transaction that looked at securitization of auto claims. On the liability side, we've had some things done now in the mortgage marketplace, which is sort of ironic, given insurers never liked to get involved in stuff that they held on their asset side of their balance sheet. We've seen a pandemic deal done by the World Bank, so I'm optimistic that that market will continue to evolve. But I think that's not the only change we see sweeping through the industry obviously now we're seeing much more market structure change anyway, right. So now we've got more MGAs as never before. We've got more front end companies than ever before. All of those all that market changes sort of really mind-blowing when you look back at the industry, 20 years ago, and you had a broker a large carrier, and maybe a few very giant reinsurance companies. So really? Yeah.

Nick
You know, just recently in the last couple years, I think that the CAT events that have occurred where I think you might be on the right track, in terms of what you're describing, which is, you know, ceding off risks to the lower cost capacity would be wildfire, in that it would be it's, it's going to be it would be extremely so you see carriers starting to leave California. You know, leaving the exposure that's there. The difficult is, how do you define wildfire versus fire? They can't they're not going to be able to cleave that off. And so now I'm thinking well, if they don't even want to write fire, what what is their purpose? It's, it's that existential thought has crossed my mind. And when I when I see that they're fleeing fire now I understand why. But if we're going to have that sort of discussion, it's why do they even need to exist if they're not going to have a write fire?

David
Yeah. And I think you can you can extend that example to other risks, right? There are. And some of it is, is not so much the existential nature within one region. But you know, other things that might affect all the time that the pandemic that we're going through right now, right, how does the insurance industry grapple with something so big and so cumbersome and put securitization as an example be away for the you know, the industry to respond and partner with with other entities like the government, so you're right, you're firing examples of government, but the pandemic is not one where securitization could be a potential tool, right?

Nick
What do you think? Because I don't think the traditional insurance capacity is going to touch this with a 10 mile pole, they're going to stay. I mean, they're already really nervous that they're going to get dragged into this, anyways, I'd like your opinion on that at some point in this conversation, but let's talk about the pandemic. And let's talk about what could potentially be the different avenues to try to do that, including securitization.

David
Yeah, I think this one is hard, right? Because we're looking at it at the moment in the in the middle of a storm, excuse the pun.

Nick
Yeah.

David
And because of that people are sort of caught up in solutions that might be applied retroactively. Versus what can we do to create a sustainable way to manage the risk going forward. So I'm always careful about not saying too much that could be construed as a solution for the current environment because I believe the current environment creates the sort of large loss that really the industry is not designed to handle well, right? It's It's too big an event, even if we thought there was reasonable mechanisms to for the industry to get involved with or participate in the size of the event is so ginormous as to sort of make those solutions, if you will not tenable. I want to come back to my view on what we might do going forward. One of the things I worry though right now about in the market discussions is this concept of sort of changing the way that the insurance contracts are interpreted. And I think there's a much bigger question that should be asked by everybody looking at this right now, which is the Constitutionality of amending our contract law. There's some serious questions as to the ramifications for doing that and that those go far beyond the question of interpreting insurance contracts. We've had a lot of states raise, you know, legislation or, you know, raise the prospect of legislation for reworking contract law, I am surprised by the lack of news media around the impact of changing contract law that would change everything we love about this country, not just the way we interpret insurance contracts. So I'm surprised by that. Um, and it's way above my paygrade as to how we deal with that. But I think the reality is this is this is an event that needs for the moment a government led response. But what we do about it in the future is an important topic, right? Because this will not be the only time we have these events. There'll be events like this in the future, your your forest fire event was a good example. Right? What are large events industry is not equipped to deal with well, how are we going to handle those in the future, and what the insurance industry is really good at doing, if you will, as analyzing and administering risk, and in some cases financing risk, but in other cases that risk financing is too hard. too big. So let's let them do what I think they're good at doing administrating risk, maybe managing risk, you know, differentiating between high risk clients and low risk clients, and finding other ways to finance the actual losses when they occur. One solution could potentially be to tap into the capital markets and get pandemic triggers that create some capacity. Now, of course, that raises questions as to whether or not we understand how to price that risk. And the World Bank transaction, it'll be interesting to see what people ultimately think about how they price the risk of an Ebola outbreak that wasn't triggered, even though there was theoretically an Ebola outbreak that could have triggered the contract. So the pricing around the pandemic version of capital markets is an open question. So but I hope my hope is that securitization would be a part of this solution set. I think ultimately, the solution is going to look a lot more like a flood insurance response. Maybe a crop insurance response, you know, there are various attributes in those models that work well, that could be applied here. But I think it's sort of, I think we have to be really careful to differentiate between the stuff that's being talked about for a retroactive response and what we do ultimately down the road for the future.

Nick
Yeah. So you you kind of touched on a couple of these, I think we have certain frameworks globally. where, you know, individual countries or provinces, municipalities have tried to tackle that. We have the NFIP here in the States. I'm actually a big fan of Flood Re, in the UK where the, the the Flood Re entity acts as a reinsurer and allows the carriers that they've forced them to offer flood coverage, and then they can see it off whatever they want to cede it off and keep what they want to keep. And that's, to me that seems like a good dividing line. Then we have as you mentioned the crop insurance which I don't know a heck of a lot about, but I know it's you know, heavily government government oriented and then, TRIA the terrorism coverage, which where the Treasury acts as a reinsurance backstop for that before you get into how those pieces might play together, I can already I can already sense like, there's already like, wow, this is such a gigantic problem. And I always try to I always try to kind of whittle it down to okay, but not all cases are gigantic problems. Right. Like if you were going to do you know, an event cancellation for a Carnival Cruise by itself that might be doable, but the the scope of the entirety seems like very massive and it gets to like your opinion on this before we try to put the jigsaw puzzle together is in insurance, there never seems to be a concept of a minimum viable product. Yeah, when we do stuff it's always got to be grand and big and, you know, cover it covers cases that it wasn't, you know, supposed to cover. I write flood insurance, David on a day to day basis, I have to issue terrorism quotes. I'm not sure why. Yeah, but they the government forces me to do it. And so that gets to you know, we're in the middle of this everyone, you know, there is the there already has been something put forward to do something with pandemics similar to the way we did terrorism. But maybe we need like a breather and allow you know, a potentially allow an opportunity for minimum viable products like event cancellation, like small unit stuff, where it's more binary. You know, it's either either happens or doesn't happen in the pricing, the pricing becomes much more straightforward because everything in the in the underwriting piece is binary. And we can clearly craft language on that and want to get your opinion because you've been doing this for a while. Am I making sense here to try to try to tackle it potentially in that way? Or do you think that we should put a grand umbrella over this that may cause some entrepreneurship?

David
Yeah, I think there's probably a case for both right and your idea of doing a minimally viable product is a good one, right? Why not start small so at least we get some coverages in place for certain companies. You might also get that same, if you will, minimal coverage by maybe not necessarily thinking small about the product, maybe thinking larger about the product and thinking about it through the lens of risk management. How do we get more people to buy the product if we can somehow create some sort of risk management adjunct to the product. So if you're a restaurant and you have gone through a Risk Management Protocol, maybe mandated by the government, if it's a government program, for example, and you qualify you you've been vetted for how to keep your operations, relatively free from the pandemic exposure. Maybe you qualify for a lower rated a lower rated policy on a more broadly available product, right. So so there are ways to sort of create an expansion of the number of people you touch with whatever product you create. One is find the minimally viable product and sell it as much as you can. The other is to try and find a broader net. But make sure that the that somebody is providing risk management solutions to those insureds so they can qualify for whatever that product is. That's the first thing I think risk management is often not talked about. In the context of creating a solution, and we're really good at risk management in this industry, if you look at the flood program, there's a ton of active risk management and risk mitigation that takes place to lower your premiums. There's no reason why we couldn't bring that approach to the pandemic world. I think the second thing is, is trying to create an environment where you foster some sort of private public/partnership, not just on how its administered, but encouraging competition for, if you will, certain of those insureds so they don't have to go into whatever the public part of the response is, whether it's a flood model or crop model, right is creating an environment where a private version of that form exists. That one's a little harder, but theoretically, after every major that we've had, we've had the private market come back and offer a product. Now maybe the pricing is too high, but at least there is a product available. So whatever we do from a solution perspective should allow the industry the opportunity to price a competing product that doesn't avail and avail themselves of the public. I don't think we should lose sight of those two concepts. But to your point about the minimally available product, I think that's a great idea. It may be that you can argue that you've got some minimal coverage because it's, it's at least the minimum available. And what you do is you go to your bank, and you say, Listen, I got a loan outstanding, I bought this pandemic coverage and want to lower costs to my for my loan, right? You use that in available insurance coverage, you argue for a subsidy from the government for your premium, because you've bought the minimally available product from a private insurance company, right? There are ways for you to lower your costs by buying that product either through folks who, who provide your capital, or maybe through the government because they're, they're focused on subsidizing some of those minimal viable products.

Nick
Yeah. So, you know, let's talk about the securitization aspect of it. Perhaps you can give a little primer on what would be the necessary pieces to have in place to get, you know, the pension funds or whatever that have been funding securitizations in the property CAT market to potentially want to do something there. You already talked about the pricing aspect of it. What would they need to see to make them comfortable to, you know, there with the capital markets, like several trillion dollars, makes the insurance market look like, you know, a little startup in comparison, what would it take to get access to some of those several trillion dollars to cover some of these risks?

David
Well, I want to be careful here because obviously while I have a great affinity for that market, and I cut my teeth in that market, I'm not in it every day anymore. I certainly stay very close to some of the people in the market so I understand the issues and the important drivers

Nick
We won't hold it against you, you can just spitballing

David
Yeah, but stepping back from it, I think the most important thing is is for any securitization doesn't matter whether it's a pandemic, or it's, or it's, you know, mortgages. What investors want to understand is what is the probability of the loss likely to be? And what's the distribution of that loss likely to be? And knowing those things I can create, if you will, in my mind, some pricing that allows me to determine what I will, I will accept as a return for accepting that volatility. And I think that's the big challenge here is how do you price the probability of a global pandemic or regional pandemic? And how do you create some sort of transaction that gives the investors comfort that they're sort of getting full value for money and they're willing to put the money into the transaction. So I think that I think we have to think long In the heart about that dilemma. Now having said that, having said that we had the same problem when the property CAT market first started, right we, we were sort of theoretically pricing risk with models for one in 100 year events, which in many cases had never occurred before. So I don't want to say we can't do it. I just think we have to be thinking about it in the way that the early property CAT folks thought about what the probabilities of risk are. And, as you might imagine, right the the distribution back in 1993, between the price you take for property CAT risk, and the expected loss was way wider than it is today because now we have a lot more data to help us understand whether our volatility calculations have been reasonable or not. There's also supply demand dynamics right which are also shortening the pricing tail. And in theory, under a perfect environment, pandemic risk would be another diversifying classification for invest now

Nick
I know...scary.

David
I'm not stupid enough to believe that's enough to convince them to buy bonds. So I think it can get done. I think it's hard, but and maybe, you know, maybe we get into a situation where some sponsors, maybe the government, maybe some of the world governmental agencies overpay for a while to drive demand for being invested in that securitization, those those are all ideas I've got, you know, we can create models, we can create demand without overpaying. But it's going to take a long slog, but hopefully we've got enough time till the next one, right if we start now, and it takes us 10 years to get the right equilibrium between pricing and risk and get a large enough capacity boost. Maybe we've got some maybe we've got a chance now. And again, with all that said, What's our current issuance of securitization for property cameras, there's like 20 billion outstanding at the moment. Something like that. I think that's a reasonable estimate. I haven't looked at the numbers for ages. Yeah. What do you got? 20? Billions good not gonna cut it if we have a global pandemic.

Nick
So that's a good point, right? Like, even in the property, CAT space, it the securitizations might be up to like $50 billion.(ed note: It's ~$100 BILLION!). So I mean, it's it's probably in the, you know, 10 to 20% of the total reinsurance that's out there for property CAT. Yeah. And growing, which is, which is nice. I think one advantage that the pandemic is shown to have is that I think the epi models, you have is almost like an excitement with the mathematicians and the quants, who are just like, Oh, I can be an epidemiologist now and create one of these models. So everyone's creating a model. They those models seem to be on much better footing. Even though they were wrong, property CAT models are wrong all the time. Even though those ones are wrong. I think those ones are a much better footing to sort of explain how these things work. I think I think that's an advantage. I think one of the disadvantage we probably have is that we're in the middle of it. And it's scaring the bejesus out of everybody.

David
Yeah, no, I think you're right. I think when we look back at some of the models use for this pandemic concluded the IHG model and we, in theory, look back and test what the assumptions were and where they can be improved. We might be able to be on a better footing than we were with property cat and if we start to use, if you will, parametric like triggers as the driver for you know, the loss on the bond. That may be another good advantage to that model versus say the property CAT world. So I think it's possible I, again, I'd reiterate that even if we were to do it properly, I'm not sure how much capital we will bring to bear on this problem that truly is a ginormous problem in the context of law we're talking about

Nick
Yeah, it's so ginormous David that I've been a I just released a podcast last week, the first one of several that are going to be talking about captives, insurance captives. And, to me just seems like a no brainer, you're gonna have a lot of businesses that are going to ask their own internal leadership team. How do we avoid this ever happening to us again? And

David
I'll make it even more obvious your questions. Exactly right. In fact, part of the company I worked for that's a big topic for us right now. The next obvious step is if you're a large corporation, it's not just thinking about it within the context of your own company, but all your vital suppliers, and are you better off as a corporation to self manage this risk and maybe managing on behalf of your key suppliers fliers and deliver them risk management in order to insulate you and your key suppliers and key stakeholders from this risk and we see a Gramercy potentially a significant trend towards insurance companies losing out to big commercial companies with large captives who increasingly take on this risk themselves on behalf of their own company, but their key suppliers and which is just another trend in theory that I think is going to burn is going to sort of create competition for the traditional insurance market, right the Googles of the world they're going to increasingly become their own insurance companies. This business interruption risk is the classic example of why they do that.

Nick
Yeah, and what the captive they have a lot more control over the triggers.

David
Yes.

Nick
So they can define what is a business interruption and it could be as simple as my supplier can't get to me because a regional pandemic or countrywide pandemic or a global pandemic has hit it my supplier can't get to me that is going to trigger my policy. And I'm going to now have cash infusion. And all of a sudden, David, I'm thinking of this is, you know, it, there have been a lot of negative articles written about stock buybacks, excessive dividends, excessive executive pay. And it's like, well, there's a, here's this other option here, where you can now tell your investors, your shareholders and your stakeholders. We're taking care of this. This is gonna be part of our risk management.

David
Yeah, absolutely. And and I never for forced government action, but it might be interesting for the government to essentially say, one of the ways we manage risk better going forward is to induce these companies to in effect, use better risk management techniques through their captive some of that financing through some sort of incentive schemes, right, you're always want the government to play the last possible role, unless they have to. And one way they can play a role is to help is to help these companies, in effect, self finance these exposures, and give them tax credits. I'm not sure what they could do to do that, but I'm sure there are things they can do to encourage them to, to self finance this risk. And by the way, that that, in theory creates a whole world of other opportunities, right, where these companies, if they become giant insurance companies, they're gonna need help to manage those insurance companies. So there are there is a host of insurance opportunity here. It may not be in the risk bearing part of it, but it may be in the administrating of those insurance programs on behalf of those captives.

Nick
Yeah, or reinsurance?

David
or reinsurance.

Nick
You know, because that won't exist. So unlike, you know, a captive that's, you know, For let's say Amazon that might be making this up a captive for Amazon that might have a worker's comp plan. There may be reinsurance layered on top of that. So, you know, if it gets to some tail particular event, they can kind of risk transfer that that part off of it, but then the incentive is on them to keep injuries low, but at the same incentive, from risk management on a captive for a pandemic to make sure that, hey, not only we're going to take care of our company, but this is going to extend out to our suppliers or whatever, so we're going to make sure they're taken care of as well.

David
Absolutely. If you and I know you I know you know, Zack Finn of Butler University. This is an area that Zach is really sort of keen on is to help these corporations understand that they may be better off financing this risk through their own insurance companies, rather than relying on risk transfer, pricing, and contract frustration with the insurance carriers

Nick
Yeah. And in the huge advantage was the captives already have the tax deduction for the premium you're paying in. You're right. Like if the government could really come in and really see them this, yeah, throw some, you know, some salt and pepper on this to get this to with more tax deductions, that would get a lot of attention.

David
Yeah, I think you're right. And I think some of the contacts that we have Gramercy are making with sort of industry groups are, those are some of the conversations we're having to sort of encourage people to think about self financing these things rather than just simply the big blood bludgeoning hammer that the government can bring to a process, right.

Nick
Yeah, yeah. I kind of wanted to finish off to kind of get your sense of how this might play out for insurance. You know, you're looking your crystal ball. My sense is that day by day, I think it's getting uglier in that even if the policies don't respond, even if the courts agree that the policies aren't going to respond to me very expensive battle, no matter what, how do you how are you looking at it?

David
You know, I think our corporate view here Gramercy is we are we're sort of watching what is sort of a it's sort of a strange tsunami right. Last year, we started talking about social inflation and the increase in the frequency of claims in general. The increasing awards at the jury level, the increasing financing of the plaintiffs bar by Wall Street and all leading to sort of upward trends in you know, casualty business in the US and something we at Gramercy, we're starting to sort of really pay attention to and advise our clients on now we've got this pandemic. And so it's kind of weird. You've got these, this sort of strange phenomenon where you've got a lot of businesses are sort of closed. So your typical activity of losses is not taking place. Right. So the average, you know, generic claims less cars on the road. Yeah, no, restaurants are closed. People aren't slipping and falling. So you're getting a less activity in those areas, but you're also not getting potentially the premium that goes with those. But you're getting a tsunami of new and emerging claims. Now, a lot of them in the business interruption area are, they're homogenous, right. They're arguing that they are owed money. And there's a certain formulaic response to what that dollar response should be from the insurers. So the allegations around whether the coverage is viable or not right, is pandemic excluded is pandemic not excluded. The more troubling area for us is what's going hap what's happening more in the liability end of the world. So, allegations that maybe there's some negligence on the part of a party for allowing someone into their restaurant and the restaurant was how to a sick, sick worker, more increasing sort of concern around the professional liability space where maybe people are going to start bringing lawsuits with respect to well, why didn't the company buy pandemic insurance? You knew it was available. You You, you could have bought it, you didn't buy it, I'm going to sue the directors and officers failing to buy that insurance. What about contingent BI (busines interruption)? Right? There's a whole bunch of related items that are coming out. And what's what we in the casualty world, really trying to focus on is helping our clients understand that whatever cases emerge, are really important precedents. And if you don't understand what that precedent will do, and potential second order effect, ie the next allegation using the same argument, and you don't get a surge in coverage, costs insurers facing a lot of new coverage conversations so they have to pay for it, which traditionally they would not have bothered, you know, would not have been a big expense. But then there's just going to be how do you manage this litigation around the casualty side when this is a whole new?

<INAUDIBLE CONNECTION>

structure issues. Everyone's working remotely and traditionally, many ensures it's going to test our ability to get investigators in the field, and will ensures you no have to worry about what happens if I can't get an investigator to a site. What will that do to my defense of a claim in a scenario is that we're testing that from an infrastructure place we haven't tested before. It'll be interesting to see how that emerges over the next few weeks, but our counsel to our clients as you need to start thinking about these issues now because this is only going to obviously build as the longer the lockdown continues.

Nick
Now, this is crazy times like this is I think precedence is the good word because we're going to be, start seeing things we've never seen before. I'll give you an example from property CAT. When we get an account that needs to be having an inspection, we can only do exterior inspections. We can't send somebody into the home and there's a there's a liability for them. Now to do that, there's all of a sudden all these things we've never had to really think about or worry about that are coming up and it's it this will almost be like the defining event. Yeah, okay. That was like the Hurricane Andrew of Nay Cat this will be similar.

David
I agree and think about all the potential entrepreneurial opportunities, right. You just mentioned the ability inability to get inside a property to do an inspection. What if you had a robot or drone that could to get inside of a building to inspect the building for, for at least enough of the purpose that you're trying to do. How do you get better technology to link people in from a remote working perspective? I mean, if you looked at London, London's the use of e-placement for, for for binders and for submissions is skyrocketing, right and something that we've never we, we knew the industry was reluctant to embrace. But all of a sudden, because they had to embrace it, they're suddenly embracing it. So there's going to be a ton of businesses that crop up or get much bigger. Because I think this is testing the way our infrastructure was was set up to handle them and we're failing in some areas. So I think that's a good thing. I think it will make our industry stronger going forward.

Nick
Because I do excess and surplus lines. It's the quarter end, I have to file my E&S tax forms. They need those a lot of those need to be notarized. right there's a not a notary to be found. I found an online notary. Yep. So, unfortunately, my notarization price goes from $5. Now to $25, you would think digital would kind of bring that down, but I have access, I can just, it's a zoom meeting. And there's like a bunch of digital ways to do it. Like, if we really kind of sink our teeth into it, we can. This is the this is a could be a potential wonderful pivotal moment for insurance, where we have struggled with the technology aspect of our business. And this forces everyone like this forces that CEO that did not want to make that, you know, $10 million investment in technology because like, How do I explain this? Right? What if it goes wrong? Now? He's got cover? Yeah, to make that investment?

David
Yeah, it's it's amazing. In the last month, I've gotten more phone calls inbound from on entrepreneurs in the tech space, trying to see what our views are on the applicability of their technology. And then there's some things that frankly, I think have been around a little bit longer. We you and I have talked about litigation management software, which now you know, it's all the lights going on for a lot of a lot of insurance carriers, right. They're looking around going, Wow, yeah, maybe I should be doing that in my business. Because for the longest time, I had an argument why I didn't have to do it. Now. I have no choice. We are going to see a huge amount of sweeping changes. There's no doubt.

Nick
Yeah, interesting times.

David
Thank you. So we get through and get to the other side quickly, though.

Nick
Well, stay safe. Wash your hands. Take care of yourself. And let's, let's try to do this like on six month intervals, I think I think the audience would appreciate the Gramercy see David Mocklow view of, of what you're seeing and how it's it's probably different than a lot of stuff that they're going to probably read.

David
Yeah, I'd love to keep in touch Nick and stay safe and we'll talk soon.

Nick
Okay. Thanks, everyone. Take care.