On 7 October, I’ll be speaking at the ABI’s General Insurance Conference in London, in the morning session on property risk and resilience.
The framing for the day is “risk to resilience.” I want to use my session to push that framing further, because most of the industry conversation still treats resilience as a cost line rather than a valuation input.
The argument: resilience investment moves through more than loss frequency
Insurers, government and the wider risk ecosystem already understand that resilience measures reduce risk. What gets discussed less is how that reduction moves through the system: from underwriting appetite, into pricing, into lending terms, into what an asset is actually worth on a balance sheet.
I call this the Valuation Gap. Most property owners and developers can describe the first link in that chain. Very few can price the last one, and that’s usually where resilience business cases stall.
Why this matters now
Physical climate risk, insurance market dynamics, and real asset markets are no longer separate conversations. A planning decision, an underwriting model, and a lending covenant are all pricing the same risk from different angles, often without reference to each other. Closing that gap, rather than debating whether resilience is worth the investment, is the more useful question for property owners, insurers and lenders to be asking now.
Get in touch
If you’re attending the ABI conference on 7 October, I’d welcome the chance to meet in person. If you’re working across property, insurance or real asset finance and want to talk through the Valuation Gap before then, get in touch.