Mike Ashurst:

Hello everyone, I’m Mike Ashurst from ICMIF, and I’m pleased to welcome you to today’s webinar, “Environmental, Social, and Governance Approaches to Insurance and Reinsurance”. Our presenter today is Alex Ntelekos, who is Regional Director, Head of Public Private Solutions for Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Gallagher Re, a supporting member of ICMIF. There will be time for Q&A at the end of Alex’s presentation, so please submit your questions using the webinar control panel and we’ll get through as many of them as possible. So Alex, what exactly did Elon Musk say about ESG, and was he right?

Alex Ntelekos:

Yes, thank you, Mike, and thank you everyone. A pleasure to be able to present to you today on ESG and reinsurance. So most of the presentation is about whether Elon is right. No, no, but it’s a good part of the presentation actually. So if we make a start, Elon Musk, he’s known for sparking controversies anyway, and I guess a lot of people follow him. But what I was really surprised to see is this series of comments Elon lists, which people said it’s venom to ESG scores and ESG vendors, particularly for S&P Global Ratings, which as you can see in this slide, he has actually tagged. So Elon Musk started all of this when Tesla, one of his companies, fell off the ESG S&P 500 list, on the basis, as we will see later, of social and governance implications. So he posted a series of tweets that are quite harsh, tweets like ESG ratings make no sense, or ESG is scam, or ESG’s a leftist agenda.

And he kept on going for quite a few days. This didn’t, of course, change the outcome of Tesla being evicted by the S&P 500 ESG list, but he did make the rounds, of course, because he’s Elon. And it was probably, I would argue, as well, a really good advertisement for all the ESG vendors. But was he right? Was he right? So to a certain extent, at a first level, I think Elon Musk was right. And the reason for that is because most of the ESG in people’s, at least, minds focuses around net zero strategies, focuses around carbon intensity, CO2 intensity emissions. And in our industry, in the insurance industry, most of the commitments of the big companies, as you can see in this slide, focus around net zero emissions, in both the underwriting and investment portfolios. So these are on the back of the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance, NZIA, which has called for targets to be set anyway. So in most people’s minds, and what most insurance companies focus their strategies, is on CO2 emissions, net zero.

They may be branding this as ESG, which I think may have created some of the confusion around Tesla, because Tesla helps reduce global CO2 emissions massively by taking all the petrol cars and the diesel cars off the road, and substituting them with battery operated cars, which is where I think Elon, he was right. And so why, fundamentally, all these announcements, as I said, and the initiatives, come on the back of customers’ choices, and investors, and shareholders, preferences and customers’ preferences that are changing, but also regulators? And I think there’s a reason that most of the underwriting and investment strategies focus on net zero. And if you look around the globe and see what the main regulators of the world do, first of all, most of the ESG related staff, and most of the ESG related announcements, come from Europe, the UK PRA is the leader, I think, undisputed leader in that sense.

But if you go through this slide in a bit more detail, you will see that most of the announcements are focusing on climate change. Most of the requirements for those countries that do have requirements, because not many do have requirements, are disclosure requirements for CO2 emissions, they are stress tests for climate change, both on the assets and the liability side, but most of the regulatory agenda focuses on the E of ESG, for the time being. But ESG is far wider than that. So most of the people, as I said, focus on the environmental, environmental side of ESG, which has to do with climate change, resource depletion, et cetera. However, there’s an S and a G pillar, and those are fundamentally important for ESG. And the social part includes human rights, whether you have questionable political ties as a company, health and safety in the workplace, and mental health of your employees, diversity and inclusion, and the wider community and societal impact that the company has.

On the governance side, decision making, whether you maximize value for shareholders or whether you are working to satisfy the wider stakeholders of the company, board diversity, inclusive governance, ethics, whether your tax strategy is ethical and appropriate for where your company’s footprint is, et cetera. So the first message I want you to take from this is that ESG is not about the environment only. Most of the initiatives, both of the regulatory space, but also the initiatives that are being announced by insurance companies, focus on the E. But this is not the whole story, as you will see for the rest of the presentation. But change is happening and it is happening fast. So people are starting, as you can see from some snippet on this slide. On the top right, you see that Beazley has opened a syndicate on a box in Lloyds of London, which is an ESG syndicate. So what this syndicate does is it offers extra capacity to clients that are rated in the top quartile of ESG, based on these external ESG vendor providers that Beazley has chosen to accept.

So this is not about emissions only, this is about your wider ESG ratings. And the article from Swiss Re on the right, as you can see, it says the investors start to increase focus on the S in ESG, so on the social aspects of ESG, and the social footprint of the companies you insure or you reinsure, or et cetera. And as you can see, this is an extra from, I think it’s Bloomberg. It says that the decision, with the smaller font on the bottom, it says it highlights Tesla’s problems with S and the G. Obviously Tesla would do very well on the E, as I explained. And S may include staff as controversies, or the social impact of your products. And there are several lawsuits in the United States for the autopilot of Tesla, and the fact that it may be doing some harm to people.

And governance, he’s, when I say he, I mean Elon is often accused for the way he governs, that he’s not very inclusive, that he governs with an iron fist, and other stuff about conditions in his factory, about the workplace. The mental health of the employee, being himself, a leader that works like 20 hours a day, et cetera. So what got Tesla off the ESG S&P 500 list is not the E, it’s the S and the G. So who drives those discussions around ESG and their ratings at this point? So it is those ESG vendors. And I wanted to bring it all together and show you who are those vendors, and explain a few fundamental stuff about these ESG vendors. So there are dozens of ESG rating providers in the market. They broadly fall on three categories that I’ll show here on this triangle. So on the bottom of the triangle, you see your fundamental ones, which are very high level, broad and typically self-reported ESG data, so such as Bloomberg. There is the middle part of the triangle, which is the comprehensive ESG rating providers, which is the bulk.

So you have there a number of names in there, as we can see. And I think this is the bulk, you can see the numbers. And then on top, you have those specialist ESG providers, which focus on specific segments of the market, or maybe focusing on specific aspects of ESG, so those are far less. So the majority focus is on the comprehensive approach. And we’ve made the call at Gallagher, that it is these vendors that are going to drive fundamentally decisions, as we’ve shown, decisions and discussions around ESG, as we saw about the Tesla decision, and the S&P decision to remove Tesla. And there is no, basically, point in trying to run away from them. So we’ve decided to go full on and embrace and understand those ESG vendors, with a view of creating our own view of ESG vendors’ ability to provide scores that are objective, that have a transparent methodology, et cetera.

So we’ve done a massive amount of work on that. And I’m not going to take you through everything, obviously, in this presentation, but we’ve ended up in selecting three ESG vendor companies, Sustainalytics, MSCI and S&P Global Ratings, which we think are the market leaders in this space. They have a good footing on the market. We’ve done some surveys in the market, and we’ve seen that most insurance companies are using those three providers. I mentioned previously the business syndicate, so Beazley accepts ratings from Sustainalytics and S&P and another rating anyway, which I think is RepRisk. But Sustainalytics, MSCI and S&P are the three vendors that we feel have the most robust methodology, they have the biggest footing in the market, and they have a focus on insurance, and I’m going to come to that in a bit, and are probably going to be the drivers of the decisions and the discussion going forward in the ESG space.

To give you an idea, and to also highlight that these vendors are at the beginning of their development, you can see here that on the second line, the number of the reinsurers and insurers that these companies are covering. So 300 for Sustainalytics, 5 5 for MSCI, and 272 for S&P Global Ratings. These are the insurers or reinsurers they have comprehensive ESG ratings available. So they’ve done some work, they’ve analyzed data, they’ve gone, they’ve sat down with firms, et cetera, and they’ve assigned a comprehensive rating. You can see here that in terms of reinsurers, at least this is the top 100 reinsurers that Gallagher Re works with, this is the coverage that they have, and it’s about in the order of 40%, 45%, for all three of them. When it comes to yourselves, the insurers, our clients, you see that, and I think we’ve extended here, I think Gallagher Re works with about over 2,000 insurers, and you can see that the coverage is low, but really, there’s a good number, healthy number of insurers. And these companies keep adding new firms into their methodology, and assigning ESG ratings.

So we think that those three are fundamentally the ones that we feel are the most robust in terms of methodology and dominance in the market, and we’re going to focus on these. But what I wanted to highlight for just a bit is that it is very difficult for these to compare directly the ratings from across vendors. And the reason being that fundamentally these ESG rating providers, I mean, yes, they’ve been in the market for a few years now, but their methodology, still, to a certain extent, under development, there’s a lot of scrutiny from everyone on the methodology. Not just because they’re driving investment decisions and action by people, but it’s difficult to directly compare the two because their methodologies differ, and these slides gives an example that this shows the range of waiting that they assign in the insurance industry in terms of the E, S and G. So not everything counts the same.

And the reason for that being that they think, for example, that the emphasis on the environment, from the point of view of polluting and deforestation, et cetera, is not as significant as the social aspects and governance aspects of insurance companies. And you can see that they have different even ways of categorizing. So investments for MSCI falls under the S pillar while it falls under the governance pillar on responsible finance. So this is just some nuances. No one will become expert, and at the end of the day, you will just get your rating. But just to say that these methodologies differ, and it’s not like there is a robust, one way of doing these methodologies. And these comments are being challenged every day on this obviously, and as they become bigger and they command some of the decisions that are happening in the market in terms of investment.

So I want to switch gears now. That was very brief high level introduction on ESG. So what insurance companies do with ESG, the fact that they focus on climate and carbon intensity, and ESG is far wider than that, and the vendors are playing their part into assigning those ratings, and driving discussions and decisions in the market. But I want to switch gears and say, “Okay, so now if you, as our clients, come to us, what can we offer to help you out?” Because it is a very complicated arena. We are reinsurance broker, so we’re not going to play on everything, so it is very unlikely we’re going to advise you on your investments, because we’re not qualified to do that, and we’re not allowed to do that. But what we’re very good in doing, as reinsurance brokers, is understanding your reinsurance placements and understanding your underlying exposure.

And not everyone’s at the same, obviously, level of sophistication when it comes to ESG. And as I said, there is no immediate, right now, pressure from regulators to do something when it comes to ESG, apart from the climate stress test and the disclosures on the investments, and underwriting, most of these are voluntary anyway. But if you came to us, we have put together an increasing sophistication service offering, which we could help you with your ESG. So at the very basic level, what we could do, which we think is the first step in ESG, is to analyze your CO2 intensity in your portfolio. So we can help, and I’m going to come to that, with what risks are driving the emissions in the portfolio. And if you decided to decarbonize your portfolio, how you should go about it. Where should you start from? And then, as a second level, we’re licensing those vendors to be able to use these ESG ratings to inform your insurance discussions.

And I’m going to come back to that later in terms of benchmarking your own reinsurance panel, but that of your peers as well. And then, as a third level of sophistication, is, “Okay, if I wanted to be a leader or a fast follower in this space, and I want to be part of the decision in the discussion, what can you offer?” And we can help you in that sense by changing your ESG reinsurance panel, for better ESG rated reinsurers, potentially for the same price, we’re going to come back to that. And we can also look into ESG cat bonds. So we can do a varying degree of sophistication, depending on the journey you are, and depending on how quickly would you like to embrace this ESG debate that is going on.

So if I start from the exposure analysis for CO2 intensity, what we’ve done, and this is outside the ESG vendors obviously, we have developed an internal capability, that basically, in very simple terms, you give us your exposure data, another spreadsheet, or an RMS or an AIR EDM, and we can throw it into this tool. And this tool analyzes the underlying risk based on the occupancy type, and assigns them to a known OECD CO2 intensity activity. So you can see on the right here, this is a real portfolio of a client that we have taken, and we’ve broken it down into the various types, on the right, of industrial activity. So that means that in this instance, that about 20%, 22% of this client portfolio falls in the agricultural space, for example. And that, of course, is associated with a carbon intensity, and so on and so forth.

So we can analyze the portfolio and pick up your risks and assign them into a carbon and a CO2 intensity. What that allows us then is to aggregate the portfolio up, and say, “Okay, how many risks are low carbon intensity, medium carbon intensity, or high or very high carbon intensity.” So we’ve done that. And the next step here is on the top. You can see the percentage of locations and you can see that about 85% of the locations have a low intensity. It can be houses that have a low CO2 intensity, but as we can see, on the orange and gold and blue bars here, on the high and very high intensity of locations, you have about 6% of the locations of this portfolio driving 96% of total CO2 emissions on the bottom. So you can start analyzing your portfolio in this instance to say, “Okay, so what are the risks that are driving?” And in this instance, in just 6% of the locations, and that will be the truth for a number of you. I mean. In bold part, that’s what I mean.

And then we can start pulling out those risks, mapping them in maps. I don’t have any more on this, but I think you can follow. We can map them on maps, we can put them out in Excel spreadsheets, and then you can discuss internally and say, “Okay, what is my strategy then for these risks? What do I do if I wanted to decarbonize my portfolio? Do I start from these locations and do I write something else that absorbs CO2? And then, I can make an argument to my regulators and to everyone else that I’m responsible.” “Do I push those companies?” which most people say is the responsible thing to do. “Do I push these companies, these clients, to decarbonize? And so evidence that they decarbonize, what do I do?” So we think this is a very helpful tool to help clients to manage this overall strategy. And I think this can get you a long way with your regulators. I mean, I worked out at the UK regulator for a number of years, for over a decade.

And what the regulator, I can tell you, could not stand is a plan that doesn’t exist, or a plan that doesn’t have specific milestones. Where the regulator would always move away from is if they saw that a company was being reasonable about what they were going about in terms of like CO2 emissions, for example, and they had the plan together, and they were looking into things in detail. And so, no one expects that you’re going to drop all your CO2-emitting clients in a year or so, there is no such expectation. It’s all about how you want to engage with it, and how you want to engage with your regulators, your stakeholders, your board. And that helps you. So that’s the first level then, focusing on the E side of things. So if you wanted to use the ESG vendors to then start being a bit more sophisticated, what this slide is showing is the client, it’s analyzing basically the ESG rating of the reinsurers in a reinsurance panel of a client, in the first column, and on four of their peers.

So what this says is that the client in discussion here has about 8% AAA-rated reinsurance on their panel, this is weighted by capacity. This is weighted by premium, anyway, by ceded insurance premium. And you can start seeing your own spectrum of what your panel looks like, and you can start comparing it to that of peers. And you can select any person will do this analysis for you because that then is the next level of sophistication where you see, Huh. Okay, so there is someone in the market that has about 50% of AAA-rated ESG insurers on their panel, but what does that mean? Is that becoming commonplace? Am I the only one that has about eight, for example? In this instance, the answer is no. What about the non-rated, which is the dark green color stack on the top. Am I far away from what my peers are doing?

So you can start then being a bit more sophisticated. And if you wanted to take it to the next step, then you could say, “Well, I’m not very happy with my AAA. Can you please go and do an analysis that says how much it would cost me to change my reinsurance panels, X percent of my reinsurance panel to a better rated ESG provider?” So we can start pulling this together. And this shows, on the top right, you can see specific ratings from Sustainalytics on different reinsurers. On the left, you can see how expensive, in a sense, are those reinsurers from the average quote. Okay. And you can overlay the ratings here. And on the right-hand side, you can see what’s their capacity for property, for example, property cut. What’s their capacity change, and whether these re-insurance have the capacity, because you may want the capacity, but the capacity may not be there.

So we can start being far more sophisticated with the offering. And you can start having those very meaningful discussions with the board about ESG in reinsurance, ESG ratings in reinsurance, and say, “Okay, so where do we want to be? Do we want to engage in this discussion now? Do we want to start increasing our capacity for better rated reinsurers, or is this going to be far more expensive to do? Is price our only consideration?” And we can work with you to help you make that decision, show you what others are doing, and help you improve. So at the very end of the sophistication spectrum anyway, we are working, we can look to source some ESG capacity, but the highlight of this ESG capacity is that it is independently accredited. So I put this snippet from the Financial Times on the left-hand side, which is only, it happened in Frankfurt on the 31st of May, as we can see. So the German police raided Deutsche Banks and DWS, the provider that was rating their investments, which they owned a part, on greenwashing allegations.

So there were some allegations that there were some greenwashing. So funds that were supposed to green were not, there was a whistleblower, and the police raided the Deutsche Bank and DWS offices. And this is here to say two things. The first is that regulators are taking massively seriously greenwashing allegations. Greenwashing is the top priority of regulators globally when it comes to ESG. The second point is that there is a lot of self-accreditation on investments, on cat bonds. We have seen cat bonds that are called green cat bonds, but it is all self-accredited. The difference that we want to make here is that we’ve already engaged in very close and very detailed, I can assure you, discussions with Moody’s, S&P and Sustainalytics, that are open in doing that, to independently, to call them in on a transaction.

So if you want it as part of your reinsurance program, to have a cat bond that is ESG positive, then we can call an independent third party, or we’re in the process of agreeing with them what the process is, like Moody’s or S&P, to come in and certify this cat bonds, which is part of your reinsurance program, as ESG positive. So it may sound a straightforward thing, but no one is doing this currently. Everyone, as I said, is self-certifying their cat bonds or their investments. And that can lead to greenwashing allegations. But no one is doing this. And we are very close in coming into a conclusion on this with these vendors, to offer our client the choice, if they wanted to do that. And so you can drive positive change and get marketing kudos and good publicity as part of your renewal, if this is what you wanted to do.

Now, I have to highlight that, as I said, this is trailblazing, as I said, it’s on the far side of sophistication, and there’s a significant effort in educating these ESG vendors on how a cat bond works, and what is a trust fund, and how the funds are ring-fenced, and how they’re invested, et cetera. So there’s a significant effort in educating these ESG vendors, but we feel that this can be a significant value-add on having a holistic ESG approach on the high end of the sophistication, for our clients. So it depends on where you are on the journey. We can help you at every part of this journey. And hopefully, that gave you an understanding of how we can do this.

So the last slide is about key messages, what I want you do to keep from this presentation. So the first is about ESG as a whole, that it is a constellation of sustainability related themes that influence customers behaviors and investor choices. And ESG is far broader than climate change, ESG is not only about CO2 emissions, but in most people’s minds, including Elon Musk, ESG is the environment. But it is not as simple as that. So that’s the first message. The second message is that European regulators are driving ESG related disclosure in actions. Most of them are voluntary, and most of them focus on climate change and the impact on the asset and the liability side on climate change, including disclosures on the investment portfolio, which is most of the emphasis. So there is little right now driving on the S and G. However, there’s a lot of thinking behind regulators in terms of what’s the next step.

And of course, the regulators are always a bit behind from the market when it comes to regulations because they need to see how the market develops and they need to be a bit more certain about the impact that any actions will have on the market. But they are thinking about bringing those ESG vendors under the regulation. So that’s the second thing about regulators and climate change, and climate change related disclosures. The third point is about insurers and reinsurers. So many insurance and reinsurers have starting incorporating ESG in their underwriting and investment decisions. But most of it, again, being driven by regulators and the wider thinking on this, is on the decarbonizing their portfolio. However, some shift has already happened, and there’s a growing interest on the S and G parts of ESG.

The fourth message is on vendors. There’s a wide offering of ESG vendors, dozens, as I said. Their methodologies differ and they’re still in development, but they are the defacto providers of ESG ratings in insurance already. And as we saw from the example of Tesla, they are already driving significant noise and discussion in the market. We have spent a considerable effort, as probably it has come through in those slides, in analyzing the methodologies in developing an in-house view of ESG, based on this, to help develop the client’s approaches around ESG. And the fifth message is that not everyone is on the same level in terms of sophistication and journey to ESG. We have developed capabilities that can help clients at every point of the way.

From analyzing your exposure in terms of CO2 emissions, and selecting the drivers and working on these risks to decarbonize, to the most sophisticated end, which is to use those rating vendors to analyze your insurance panel, to see what your peers are doing, to see your own ESG ratings, which I didn’t show here. And to compare your own ESG ratings, forget for a moment the reinsurance panel ratings, your own ESG ratings and these of your peers, to see where you sit and decide your strategy, to combining these ESG ratings then with market security and pricing data, to have more informed decisions about reinsurance purchasing, to the most sophisticated end of the part, which is to explore about independently accredited ESG carbon capacity, which we can help you do, by partnering with the providers that I have mentioned. So I appreciate this is new stuff, hopefully, and I think I went through quite a lot. But I’d like to join in here. I think that’s all I had, yes. And maybe take any questions, if you have any questions.

Mike Ashurst:

Thank you very much, Alex, for sharing these fascinating insights about ESG approaches. We do have a few questions in already. But if you have any more, please do submit them now. But we’ll go to the first one. So first one, apart from Mr. Musk, what are the current hot topics for ESG?

Alex Ntelekos:

Yes. So hopefully this came from the presentation, but I would think the hot topics for ESG right now are CO2 emissions have come under an immense amount of public scrutiny. Greenwashing is absolutely, as I said, very topical and you hear a lot about this in the press. And a renewed push and an emphasis on the S of ESG, which is the next phase of development after focusing on the, I would say, other three topics.

Mike Ashurst:

Okay, thank you. And the next one, you spoke about reinsurance buying. How far are we from ESG ratings driving reinsurance capacity decisions?

Alex Ntelekos:

Look, as I said, it depends on the sophistication of the buyers. We have clients that have absolutely told us, “We expect as part of this renewal, that you provide the ESG ratings of our insurance panel, and we will have an informed decision. And all of a sudden this will form part of our buying process.” These are not many, but it’s already happening. So it’s not a vexatious thing that will happen in a few years time, this is already happening. But it is not, by any means, the top priority of every client that we speak to. And it is on the most sophisticated end of the clients.

Mike Ashurst:

Next one, will buying better ESG reinsurance capacity or cat bonds improve a company’s ESG rating?

Alex Ntelekos:

Yeah, a very good question. I think it will, it will. Otherwise, I guess, why do it? But you might be doing it for the social, for driving positive changes, et cetera. But I think it will. Because as I said, most of these companies, ESG vendors have a process by which they assign an ESG rating, and they have a process by which they refresh an ESG rating for a firm. Now, when they take you through this process, it’s usually a combination of questionnaires, surveys that they do in the company, and also interviews. So obviously, they’re going to be able to capture, if you go and tell them, “I have looked at my reinsurance, which is a significant part of the way I conduct business, reinsurance buying is a significant part of my business model, and within that, I have looked carefully with those three vendors,” or one vendor or two vendors, “I have looked at how I’m buying my insurance and I’ve taken action as a consequence of that.” I think, yes, this is going to be captured and reflected then in your refreshed ESG score. So absolutely.

Mike Ashurst:

Okay. What do regulators think about ESG vendors?

Alex Ntelekos:

Interesting question as well, because I think I’ve made a passing comment that they’re thinking about regulating them. And I’ve seen, there is an open consultation about climate related disclosures in ESG in the United Kingdom that I know of, for example, where the UK government is considering bringing the ESG, and they have written this out in a public document, bringing the ESG vendors into the FCA remit. So I think given their level of maturity and how quickly these companies have taken a footing in the insurance industry, I think it’s pretty fascinating. And it speaks to the importance that the regulators put on these companies driving decisions, behaviors, and investments, that they want to regulate them. I just want to contrast that with cat models, which are all very close to.

Cat models, we may think that they play a very important role, and as a broker, I know that first hand. But there has been no move from regulators in bringing cat models within the regulatory regime. And I think the fact that they have decided, or potentially are considering doing that for the ESG vendors, speaks to the power that these vendors have all of a sudden acquired.

Mike Ashurst:

Okay. We’ve just had a couple more questions come in. So we’ll take those, and then draw to a close. So as a large broker, do you have any restrictions placing certain ESG-unfriendly business?

Alex Ntelekos:

No, as I said, no. No one yet. Okay, so apart from any prohibitions in terms of sanctions, what were also required, as a large broker, is obviously to not conduct any business with companies that don’t comply with the UK Slavery Act or any other act that is enforced. So we have statements and we have controls and checks to ensure that we don’t place any business with those sorts of things, but not for the context of the discussion we’re having here today, I would say, no.

Mike Ashurst:

Yeah, okay. And the final one, how are the CO2 emissions calculated for treated reinsurance?

Alex Ntelekos:

So very good question, and thank you for putting me against the wall on this one, because A, I haven’t worked on the methodology. I’m just a seller of the methodology here, but we have a quite detailed way of not only accounting for the locations, the premium, so what I showed here is underlying exposure data, this is exposure data. This is not your reinsurance buying data. This is not the CO2 emissions of your reinsurance, if you may. This is your CO2 emissions of your underlying portfolio, of the risks you have on your portfolio. But we may need to be doing that, it’s a good idea, we may need to be doing that for the reinsurance panel as well, because I guess, you do transact with them. So someone may be asking you. It’s a good idea. Now, how would it work for insurance? I’m not sure, we would have to find a way to weight it by premium, by ceded premium, I guess.

Mike Ashurst:

Okay. Well, excellent. Thank you, Alex. Thank you for answering all those questions. We’ll leave it there for today. Reminder to everyone that a recording of today’s webinar will be sent to you all, everyone who’s registered, and it will also be added as usual to the ICMIF Knowledge Hub. We do have some more webinars coming up in the next few weeks, so please do join us. And finally, thanks again to Alex for your presentation today, thank you to all of you for joining us, take care, and we look forward to seeing you again in future ICMIF events. Goodbye.

Alex Ntelekos:

Thank you. Goodbye.

The above text has been produced by machine transcription from the webinar recording. ICMIF has made every effort to ensure that transcriptions are as accurate as possible, however, in some cases some text may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. Listening to or watching the webinar recording will allow you to hear the full text as delivered during the webinar but this is available in English only. Our transcriptions are provided to enable members to select the language of their choosing using the dropdown menu above.