7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
1/12
Life Insurance Growth MarketsInsights Report2012
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
2/12
Introduction
Lie insurers (with a ew exceptions) and the lieinsurance industry have emerged rom the GFC in
relatively good shape. While companies may have
been orced to tighten their belts, bolster balance
sheets and re-set short term expectations or growth
and margin (given the outlook or equity markets,
or interest rates and or consumer sentiment), they
have or the most part avoided the industry-wide
restructuring seen in banking, or the continuing
weakness impacting brokers and asset managers.
In act in our interviews with over 1,000 lie insurance
executives and unctional managers across 40countries (as part o our 2012 global lie and health
reinsurance programme cycle) it is clear that more lie
insurers are cautiously optimistic about the long-term
macro outlook, and that priorities are shiing rom cost
and capital management back to growth through the
next plan cycle.
At the same time insurers in some o the largest
lie markets (notably the UK, Japan and Canada
per Figure 1) expect urther pressure on domestic
protability, and are thereore looking or growth
outside their home markets. Whether they are starting
rom scratch, or building on an existing portolio, most
are ocused on a small number o perceived growth
markets in Asia (notably China and India) and to a
lesser extent in the Middle East and Latin America,which they believe oer more attractive growth and
margin opportunities based on developing demand
demographics, low lie insurance penetration, and
limited regulatory or competitive intensity. The broader
shi in emphasis rom cost and capital to growth is
entirely understandable in the context o the current
cycle, and we can see why large insurers in mature,
lower-growth markets are attracted by (apparently)
aster growing markets beyond their own borders.
However our analysis suggests that most o these
aspiring multinationals will ail to deliver expectedgrowth rates or margins, as a result o:
Over-estimating target market attractiveness (size,
growth and protability) relative to alternatives
(international or domestic)
Under-estimating the level o regulatory and
competitive intensity, and the extent to which new
entrant capability (as opposed to simply being in
the game) is critical to participation in growth and
margins
Under-estimating the complexity o market entry and
ongoing business management, and the longer-
term implications o entry structures or agreements
on competitiveness and perormance
Figure 1 Lie Insurer Expectations o Future Proftability (Insurer Executive Interviews)
US Western
Europe
Japan UK & I Canada
Increasing Decreasing
Direction o Future Proft Margins
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
3/12Lie Insurance Growth Markets - Insights Report 3
The list o lie insurers that have established a trulysuccessul and diversied international portolio is very
small, compared to the number o insurers that have
tried and ailed, or have chosen to persevere with a
jumble o non-perorming international businesses.
We do not expect that this will dissuade the next
wave o insurers rom trying the same strategies in the
same markets, even though the insurers they seek to
emulate entered 20 years ago or more, when these
territories really did conorm to the growth market
stereotype (large and ast growing populations, very
low penetration, permissive regulation and limitedcompetition) and when the development gap to
home markets was ar more pronounced. But many o
the territories most commonly cited as growth markets
no longer t that mould: they are not experiencing
the kind o rontier growth rates associated with very
low penetration (penetration levels have increased
rapidly, at least in the most economically attractive
segments and regions), they are by any standard
highly regulated (having rapidly assimilated and built
on learnings rom international markets), and they
are i anything over-contested, to the point that evenlong-established participants are struggling to achieve
their target growth and margins.
In short, we believe that insurers are ocusing too much
attention on a handul o high prole middle ground
countries that are no longer growing as ast as is
commonly perceived, and that oer limited entry and
participation opportunities. At the same time, they
are overlooking more compelling options at either
end o the development spectrum: in very large, low
growth mature markets that oer volume, scope or
innovation and (in certain cases) a broader range o
entry and participation options, and in those markets
that do oer near zero penetration, underdeveloped
regulation and limited competition albeit initially at
small scale and with a signicant level o country risk.
As a result, insurer growth portolios are increasinglyconcentrated (on ewer, bigger bets in markets with
limited exit options), but there is little or no appetite to
invest selectively in the next generation o true growth
markets: in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America as
well as in Arica, Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
We believe that insurers need to undamentally
re-think their approach to developing international
strategy, addressing the common ailings cited above.
Specically they need to adopt a model or decision-
making based on:
A bottom-up, act-based approach to
determining whether and where to expand,
based on holistic market size and growth
Prior consideration odomestic market
alternatives and implications including the
organisational issues arising rom separation o
international and domestic accountabilities
A realistic assessment o market development
paths and implications or participation
Market prioritisation driven by competitive
advantage and market entry model rather
than primarily by abstract market metrics
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
4/124
Why have so many lie insurers pinned their internationalgrowth strategy on a ew large, high prole (highly
contested, dicult to enter) markets? We would
suggest that too many make the decision to pursue an
international growth agenda top-down, based on views
rom members o the Board or senior executive (or pressure
rom investors) and without an holistic analysis o global
markets, an explicit business case or consideration against
domestic alternatives or implications. By the time they
commence any meaningul bottom-up analysis there is
already a strong target market hypothesis, and the ocus
and scope has oen moved to how rather than whether
or where to grow. Even where this is not the case, insurers
tend to rely on data sources that will only conrm the
attractiveness o the usual suspects, notably:
Macroeconomic indicators it is surprisingly common or
insurers to rely on growth in demographics or national
economic indicators (notably GDP) to evidence the
growth prospects o the lie insurance market
Historical trends we will see that many insurers assume
that lie insurance market development plays out slowly
and predictably, such that any positive growth and
margin readings rom last 5-years can be reasonablyextrapolated orward
Best practice reerence points there is an
understandable tendency to extrapolate rom
the investor presentations o the ew established
multinationals and domestic champions with long-
standing ranchises (who can hardly be blamed
or accentuating the positives arising out o their
incumbent positions)
Third-parties nally, insurers turn to reinsurers andconsultants or inormation, even though both groups
have an implicit interest in promoting relatively high prole
markets (where they have expertise, or at least experience)
rather than nascent markets (where they do not)
There is no question that good data is hard to come by,
despite the best eorts o regulators and insurer associations
in many markets. But these are major decisions that are
not easily reversed, and it does not seem unreasonable
to suggest that insurers should take the trouble to start
with an holistic view o potential markets rather than
a pre-determined short list, and to build meaninguldatasets (insurance takeup/penetration, new business
sales volumes, real volume growth and realised product
margins) rather than relying on what is readily available
(such as meaningless insurance density statistics expressing
premium over GDP, nominal growth rates or target margins).
In our experience, hypothesising target markets too early
and anchoring to available data will tend to obscure the
attractiveness o alternatives to the path most trodden.
For example, Figure 2 shows that while North America, the
UK and Europe may not oer double digit nominal growth
rates, they may still be attractive based on new business
volume and potential share gains, given the scope or
innovation or niche specialist participation strategies as
well as alternative entry models. Germany is a case in
point: a low-growth, mature market by any denition, with
~100 domestic lie insurers ocused on traditional insurance
products and intense competition on pricing o guarantees
impacting mainstream margins, in which a handul o UK-
based international insurers have been able to establish
very protable, growing cross-border businesses selling
investment-linked business via the broker channel.
Holistic Life Market Size and Growth
Figure 2 Global Lie Insurance Market Size (NB) and Growth by Region
10% 3% 5% 5% 3% 6% 4% 15% 18% High15% High
New Business APE Annual Growth Forecast
Global LieMarket
NorthAmerica
UK & I WesternEurope
NorthAsia
Japan India South EastAsia
LatinAmerica
MiddleEast
Arica EasternEurope
New Business APE (USD)
$200b
Account or >77% o global lienew business
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
5/12Lie Insurance Growth Markets - Insights Report 5
Insurers aiming to expand internationally mustpresumably believe that their home market oers
limited opportunities or growth at target margins, and
that either their domestic capabilities are suciently
portable, relevant and dicult to replicate as to orm a
basis or competitive advantage internationally, or that
target international markets are so under-developed
that any capability at all is a basis or advantage. But
we can think o only a handul o insurers that could
be justiably condent that they have a basis or real
competitive advantage in their own home markets, let
alone internationally. And we have already identied
the lack o appetite to invest in truly under-developed
markets, not least given the very real regulatory,
operational and political risks.
At the same time, our experience working with
incumbent insurers is that most i not all have growth
options at home: in new customer segments, or
channels, or product categories, or to drive earnings
growth through optimising risk management and
costs. We think insurers over-emphasise the challenges
associated with these domestic options relative to
international alternatives (perhaps anchoring on the
acts that they know too well, over the glamorous
unknown). And as stated above too ew insurers
explicitly compare international and domestic options
side-by-side (at inception, and on an ongoing basis)
to identiy which is more compelling on a risk/return
basis. Finally, ew i any consider the potential negative
implications o international expansion in terms o
domestic ocus and investment driving business
perormance, despite the act that our analysis
suggests that these are material (per Figure 3).
Far rom trying to mitigate this disconnect betweendomestic and international opportunities, we would
observe that insurers actively entrench it. Having decided
to pursue an international growth strategy, common
practice is to sequester a project team and steering
committee with a remit to nalise target markets,
develop the detail around how to execute and build
the investment case. Once this case is accepted,
organisational responsibility or the international business
is typically separated, with distinct international roles,
decision processes and metrics rom inception. O course
separation o domestic and international unctions at
some point is inevitable, but we would argue that i
considerations o domestic capability are central to
market selection and entry strategy, then separating
too early merely inhibits decision-making, organisational
buy-in and eectiveness. We know this is a cause o
considerable rustration or the executives running the
domestic businesses: they may eel they could do better
with the capital committed to the international arm, and
ear that they will bear the costs o building transerable
capability (not to mention carrying the load i the
international businesses do not perorm). At the same time
the international executives may eel that their needsare not appropriately understood and prioritised, and
believe there is a lack o appreciation rom investors and
management o the realistic time horizons to build an
international business. O course execution is complex, but
we eel some degree o complexity could be avoided by
ensuring that domestic alternatives and implications are
considered rom the outset, by recognising the need or
organisational alignment rather than segregation early on,
and by ensuring an ongoing basis or comparison between
domestic and international portolios.
Domestic Market Alternatives and Implications
Figure 3 Impact o International Operations on Domestic Perormance
Lie Insurer Forecast Growth Rates (2011/12)
US Canada UK Western Europe
Lie insurers with domestic operations only Life insurers with domestic and international operations
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
6/126
Having settled (all too easily) on the imperative togrow beyond their home market, insurers tend to
underestimate the extent to which capability (as
opposed to simply being in the game in markets they
regard as undamentally attractive) will be critical to
participation in growth and margins, and the relevance
and portability o their own sources o competitive
advantage. They also underestimate the complexity
o entry, and the longer-term implications o licensing,
joint venture or partnership structures required to
enter, on their subsequent ability to compete. Our
interviews show these misjudgements are linked to awidely held assumption that growth markets ollow a
linear development path similar to that o the insurers
home market, including an inevitable move away rom
joint venture structures, rom investment-linked to risk
products and (at least in the case o UK insurers) rom
tied to broker/IFA distribution.
We understand why insurers look or predictable
development patterns, but the subjective belie
that market evolution will enhance a new entrants
participation and competitive position entrenches the
ocus on macro market dynamics and being in the
game, and compromises appetite and capacity toadapt to (or infuence) alternative evolutionary paths
down the track. We eel there is a need to develop a
more objective ramework based on market maturity
(dened in terms o insurance takeup or penetration
the proportion o the economically active population
holding an insurance product which we consider to
be a key driver o demand dynamics and competitive
outcomes) rather than subjective concepts o
development relative to the norms o any specic market.
Our analysis shows that markets with very low lie
insurance penetration do initially develop in a more
or less linear ashion (albeit with signicant variation in
pace) driven by the evolution o consumer demand
and leading to airly predictable channel, product
and competitive outcomes as the level o penetration,
amiliarity and sophistication increase. However at
some point (at insurance penetration between 15
25%) the pace o evolution accelerates and outcomes
ragment, based on the impact o regulatory settings
or economic shocks which become the primary driver
o subsequent evolution.
Market Development Paths
Figure 4 NMG Market Development Framework
Penetration 0 - 5% 5 - 25% > 25%
Maturity Low High
Passive
Active
Tied advice models (DSF and bank) dominate
Traditional lie (savings) product, undedcommissions
Product/risk/capital ocus given product structures
Tied and broker advisory models pluscorporate/EB
Linked and traditional savings products,unded commission
Sales/share ocus given uncertain businesseconomics
Broker advice, corporate and direct salesmodels
Permanent insurance and pure protection,unded commission
Scale and eciency ocus given revenuemargin pressure
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3b
Phase 3b
Near-zero penetration; little product/pricecompetition
Minimal awareness necessitates active selling
Limited/permissive regulation
Semi-proessional direct sales channels (agents)
Distribution build ocus
Increasing insurance penetration, competitionand substitution
Increasing supply-side regulatory intensity (aroundproduct, capital and corporate/joint venture structures)
Proessional tied advisory channels (agency and bank)
Distribution productivity ocus
High penetration, large stock increases exposureto demand volatility
Increasing demand-side (advice, incentives)regulation
Outcomes ragment based on regulation as wellas market/risk shocks
Retirementand adviceregulation
Phase 3a
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
7/12Lie Insurance Growth Markets - Insights Report 7
Generalisations are always dangerous, and this modelis ar rom perect. The boundaries between the
three phases are not denitive (so that a number o
markets are best described as being in transition) and
categorisation at country level is not always satisactory
(in South Arica the HNW segment is in Phase 3 and the
mass market exhibits characteristics closer to Phase
1, while in India or China the state o the market in
the major metro cities will be quite dierent to that in
regional and rural areas). And we should be clear that
we are not saying that there is no scope or subsequent
development beyond what we have described as
Phase 3, though the scope or insurance penetration
rates to grow clearly diminishes, such that vertical
oscillation between Phase 3 states seems more likely
than urther progression.
A summary o analysis rom over 40 markets (Figure 5)
shows that Phase 1 markets exhibit the characteristics
expected o growth markets. Participants report very
high target new business margins (and with more than
85% o insurers indicating that they are perorming in
line with or better than assumptions), high percentage
growth rates (albeit initially rom a low base), limited
entry barriers and signicant (potentially diversiable)
country risk. At the other end o the spectrum,
incumbent participants in Phase 3 markets are targeting
and achieving lower margins and lower growth rates,
though with signicant volumes and lower entry barrierspresenting opportunities or innovative new entrants.
On average, participants in Phase 2 markets expect
realised margins and growth rates that are somewhere
in between. But averages are misleading: the
polarisation between top tier participants and the rest is
most pronounced in Phase 2 markets, and i we exclude
the outliers (top-3 and bottom-3) rom our analysis
we end up with realised margins that are in line with
outcomes in Phase 3, and expected growth rates that
are only marginally better. And the observed squeeze
is most pronounced in the most popular Phase 2
markets: in India or example, penetration is up in the
most economically attractive segments in major metro
cities, market growth is expected to be in the single
digits (ollowing a decline o new business premium by
9% in 2011-12), but competitive intensity and regulatory
risk continues to impact product mix and margin. So at
either extreme, insurers have a reasonable expectation
o higher margins and higher growth in smaller and
higher risk markets, or lower margins and lower growth in
very large, lower risk markets. But as we asserted at the
beginning o this report, many lie insurers are ocused
on a small number o Phase 2 markets - China, India,Malaysia and the UAE - that occupy a sub-optimal
middle ground oering lower margins, higher growth,
higher entry barriers and higher risks (at least or new
entrants and second-tier participants).
Figure 5 Lie Insurer Growth and Proft Experience by Phase
Phase 1 Markets Phase 2 Markets Phase 3 Markets
New Business Growth (%)
Individual Group Individual Group Individual Group
New Business Margins >50 % 25 50 %
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
8/128
So why do new entrants prioritise market entry orinvestment in the most heavily contested Phase 2
markets, when even the established top-tier participants
are less than optimistic on growth and margins? And
why are they so reluctant to look selectively at next
generation growth markets in Phase 1 (or example
Kenya, Egypt, Cambodia or Ukraine) and in transition
rom Phase 1 to 2 (we would suggest Sri Lanka, Vietnam,
Indonesia or Turkey)? We have already identied
contributors in the way insurers approach international
strategy development; these are compounded by
market selection processes that emphasise marketattributes (population, penetration and historical
growth) then considerations o accessibility (ability
to enter and restrictions on participation) over
competitiveness (capability, relevance and portability)
as a basis or market selection.
The majority o market entry initiatives we have seen inAsia (or in the Middle East, or in Eastern Europe) have
been premised on a traditional market-back approach:
the selection o a set o markets perceived to oer high
levels o growth and low levels o sophistication, entry
by any means possible in the hope that over time a
rising tide will foat their boat, or alternatively that a basis
or dierentiation will emerge as the market matures.
Our view is that insurers need to consider reversing
this approach: starting with what they have to oer
(internal attributes providing a basis or competitive
advantage) and how they can oer it (market entryand business model) and then seeking to identiy
markets aligned to these elements. This approach may
seem counterintuitive, but we are not advocating
that insurers ignore external market and demand
dynamics, just that they change the emphasis and
order o consideration. Figure 6 outlines three examples
o strategies premised on organisational attributes, and
illustrates the parameters or market entry model and or
market selection arising rom these.
Market Entry Model
Figure 6 Illustrative Strategy Models
Target Market/Entry Models Organisational Attributes Examples
Model A(Appetite-Based)
Focus on Phase 1 markets
Composite or bank-aligned insurer
Organic entry and growth
Ad hoc business structures
Capital supporting business build
Appetite or risk and timerames
Organisational fexibility andcapacity to build
Diversication across many small,long-term bets
Tokio Marine
MAPFRE
Hollard
Model B(Capability-Based)
Focus on Phase 2 markets(including markets in transition)
Integrated lie insurer
Consolidation/entry via M&A
Prescriptive (traditional) structures
Regional capability supportingproductivity and growth
Business management andunctional (distribution) capability
Organisational structure and scaledriving eciency
Financial capacity anddiversication against existingbusiness portolio
Prudential
AIAMetLie
Model C(Innovation-Based)
Focus on Phase 3 markets
Segment or unctional specialist
Organic or partnership market entry
Flexible (non-traditional) structures
Expertise or innovation drivingcompetitiveness
Demonstrated unctional expertiseor innovation
Organisational model supportingtranser o competitive advantage
Flexible entry and participationparameters
ReMark
Discovery
Lombard
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
9/12Lie Insurance Growth Markets - Insights Report 9
These three models are not intended as an exhaustivelist, but do illustrate the dynamics and dierences o
approach required under each:
Model A is relatively more dependent on appetite
than on capability, with fexibility in strategy, structure
and timerame being key success actors
Model B turns on the existence o an existing
international ootprint (commonly built out rom
earlier Phase 1 oundations), international or regional
management inrastructure and transerability o
people and processes expediting execution (oenvia acquisition o an established second-tier player or
bank distribution partner)
Model C rests on the existence o some portable
basis or competitive dierentiation, oen based on
innovation outside the core insurance manuacturing
model (in customer engagement, or distribution,
rather than risk assessment) and with scope to
execute outside a traditional corporate structure
O course these models will not work or every insurer.
We know that appetite to invest in Phase 1 marketsis in short supply, and we also know that only a very
small number o insurers can boast an established
oundation and organisational model providing a
basis or dierentiation in execution. And innovation
is useul only i it is both relevant and portable: being
the leading manuacturer o VAs or impaired annuities
in one market does not provide a platorm or growth
i these products do not t with demand dynamics or
regulation in markets that are otherwise attractive (as
a number o the US providers have ound in the UK) or i
entry or regulatory constraints impact the portability othe manuacturing model.
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
10/1210
We suspect there is little in this report that will interestthe lucky ew insurers that have an existing, diversied
and successul international strategy (whether premised
on much earlier entry into todays Phase 2 markets
or else selective participation at either end o the
development spectrum). They have existing growth
portolios and the capability, structure and capacity
to grow them (organically, or through consolidation as
second-tier players exit). In many cases they will have
devolved decision-making down to regions, such that
the domestic versus international dynamics cited above
will no longer be a bone o contention. And they havea level o portolio diversication, such that they can
aord to selectively exit or scale back in less attractive
markets. While some themes may still ring true (in respect
o specic countries/businesses, and the commentary
and expectations o investors and brokers) existing
capability and management structures should provide
a basis or continuing growth.
There is more here or insurers with an existing but sub-
scale portolio o international businesses, particularly
where the international division has ailed to deliver
promised growth or margin relative to their domestic
business. Our experience is that these companies tend
to explain past non-perormance by reerence to
short-term market actors or management execution
(with predictable results or management) without
addressing the strategic issues which are the root cause.
Worse, the ailure to deliver across the international
portolio (notably in Asia) typically leads to growth
targets being passed down to the ew perorming
country units, driving unsustainable behaviours and
ultimately jeopardising perormance in the very markets
that should be careully nutured. Lamenting past
decisions is pointless, but these companies need toask whether the basis or their initial decision to enter
remains valid, whether their current portolio can
reasonably be expected to deliver growth and margin
relative to the broad range o alternatives, and what
alternatives exist to continuing to build out the current
portolio. In the months leading up to our publication
o this report, we are encouraged to see a number
o instances o lie insurers apparently deciding to exit
non-perorming international markets, or to curtail their
activities in specic Phase 2 markets (notably in India,
albeit on a temporary basis). At the same time, with anunprecedented number o international portolios up or
sale (ormally or inormally) we ear that insurers in this
category may be tempted to try to bulk up through
acquisition, even though this is unlikely to address their
undamental strategic issues.
The primary intended audience or this report are those
lie insurers embarking on (or considering embarking on)
an international growth path or the rst time. We aim to
encourage at least a ew to re-consider their domestic
prospects, and to ask whether they really have the
appetite, structure and capability to succeed. For those
that decide that they do, we have sought to propagate
a dierent approach to determining how and then
where to participate, starting with capability rather
than market dynamics. Finally we hope that we can
convince more insurers intent on participating outside
their home market, to seriously consider investing in the
next generation o lie insurance growth markets, with
an eye to building a growing, protable and diversied
international portolio over the long-term.
Epilogue Implications for Insurers
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
11/12Lie Insurance Growth Markets - Insights Report 11
Sydney
NMG Consulting
Level 22, Grosvenor Place
225 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
P.O.Box R1863, Royal Exchange Sydney
NSW 1225 Australia
Tel: +61 2 9251 7888
Fax: +61 2 9251 2888
Hong Kong
NMG Consulting
2410 Fortis Bank Tower
77 79 Gloucester RoadWanchai, Hong Kong
Tel: +852 9539 5699
London
NMG Consulting
5th Floor, Holden House,
Rathbone Place,
London W1T 1JU
Tel: +44 207 631 3087
Fax: +44 207 462 5719
Montreal
NMG Consulting
6795 Des Coquelicots
St-Hubert Quebec J3Y 8P1
Canada
Tel: +1 450 656 4694
Fax: +1 450 462 8358
Singapore
NMG Consulting
65, Chulia Street,
#37-07/08, OCBC Centre,
Singapore 049513
Tel: +65 6325 9855
Fax: +65 6325 4700
Kuala Lumpur
NMG Consulting
A-13A-5 Block A, Northpoint
Mid Valley City,
No 1 Medan Syed Putra Utara
59200 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 2283 6478
Fax: +60 3 2283 6487
www.NMG-Group.com
NMG Consulting is a specialist multinational consultancy ocused on the insurance, reinsurance and investmentsindustries. We provide strategy consulting, actuarial, marketing and research services to nancial institutions
including banks, insurers, reinsurers and und managers. NMG Consulting is part o the NMG Group, a global
nancial services business with operations across employee benets, pensions administration and advisory,
underwriting services, product origination and strategic equity.
NMGs Strategic Insights programmes use interviews with key clients and intermediaries as a basis to analyse
industry trends, competitive positioning and capability. Established programmes exist in wealth management, lie
insurance and reinsurance across North America, the UK and Continental Europe, Asia-Pacic, South Arica and
the Middle East.
Insights reports draw on NMGs research and consulting experience to advance a perspective on topical, macro
industry issues, relevant to product providers, distributors and clients and with a view to driving long-term change.
About NMG
Ashwin Field
Partner Strategy Consulting
Paul Ernest
Manager Strategic Insights
Tom Dunbar
Principal Strategy Consulting
Jane Cheng
Senior Consultant Strategy Consulting
Hamish Worsley
Director Strategic Insights
Roshan Perera
Manager Actuarial Consulting
7/30/2019 NMG Life Insurance Growth Markets 2012
12/12