估值技能危机：为何准确性和弹性面临风险

The Valuations Skills Crisis:Why Accuracy and ResilienceAre at Risk Why Certain Valuation Methodologies NowPose a Material Risk to Insurers and Insureds Foreword Insurance valuations have long been a core element of placing property risks, allowing underwritersto assess exposure, risk managers to test scenarios, and claims handlers to honour the promisesmade in the policy. However, over time, the methods used to produce insurance valuations have changed. A drive forspeed, consistency and efficiency over engineering-led judgement has influenced the approach ofmany valuers, even when assessing industrial and energy assets. The result is a growing disconnectbetween declared values and the realities of reinstatement, with implications that extend well beyondthe headline sum insured. This paper explores how the profession arrived at this point, and why the distinction between whatKroll describes as ‘Basic’ and ‘Expert’ valuation methods has become so important. While the twoapproaches can appear similar on the surface, they produce fundamentally different outcomes whenvalues are used to support underwriting decisions, Estimated Maximum Loss (EML) and ProbableMaximum Loss (PML) analysis, and claims settlement. Sitting at the centre of that difference, is the role of engineering-led expertise. Accurate insurancevaluations depend on understanding how assets are designed, constructed, modified and operated,as well as spending sufficient time on site to verify what is actually there. Without that grounding,values risk being built on partial information, historical data or assumptions that do not hold up toscrutiny when a loss occurs. As assets become more complex and scrutiny of declared values increases, the margin for errornarrows. Getting valuations right is not simply a technical exercise - it plays a fundamental role inensuring the right cover is in place, for the right risks, at the right time. This paper sets out why anexpert, engineering-led approach remains the best way to achieve that level of confidence. ““Over more than 30 years valuing assets,I’ve seen a clear shift towards modellingapproaches replacing engineering-ledexpertise. That shift introduces real risk forclients. At Kroll, we believe insurancevaluations must be grounded in technicaljudgement to be truly fit for purpose. —Antony Attwell, Managing Director and Insurance ValuationLeader at Kroll. How valuations have changedand their impact Insurance valuations are facing a quiet but potentially significant crisis. Over the last two decades, thediscipline has drifted steadily toward commoditisation, with many firms relying on modelling, basicasset register manipulation or simple cost-to-capacity metrics to produce reports. The result is amarket wherevaluations look clean and data-driven on paper but bear limited resemblance to thecosts clients could face in a loss. Against that backdrop, the demands of an engineering-ledvaluation stand out sharply. Such an approach requiresdiscipline, a structured training pathway, technicalunderstanding of how insurance valuations are used, andthe judgement to assess anomalies, and recognise whenthe data doesn’t make sense. By contrast, many modelling-focused valuers depend too heavily on the asset register,don’t understand the issues within and spend too littletime on site to develop this depth of understanding. For The Sake of Speed And Efficiency “What began as a search for speed andefficiency has quietly hollowed out the technicalfoundation of insurance.” Underinsurance, which has plagued insurance claims formany years, illustrates the scale of the problem perfectly.According to research by insurance broker Gallagher,nearly half of all UK commercial properties are thought tobe undervalued, with shortfalls commonly reaching 40%or more. If that level of error exists in standard commercialproperty, the exposure is likely to be far greater in energyand other complex asset classes, where bespoke equipmentand unique design specifications make an overreliance onmodelling and asset registers even more hazardous. “They do go on site but not for long enough to get underthe skin of the assets they are valuing. Less experiencedvaluers tend to use this method and may be unaware thereis another approach to conducting valuations. The twoapproaches are fundamentally different.” says Antony. The difference between these two approaches onlyreally becomes clear when a claim is madeand those atthe sharp end of claims management are seeing the issuerear its head on a regular basis. The challenge is that many clients don’t fully realise howfar the methodology has moved: “Clients aren’t necessarilyaware of the difference,” says Antony. “But without thetechnical grounding of an engineering-led survey, valuationsrisk becoming increasingly detached from reality.” “In a recent discussion with a senior loss adjuster, I askedhow often he sees claims with no valuation attached. Hesaid he saw it quite often but more alarmi