Hold the Line, Widen the Path
Five cross-functional Life & Health reinsurance simulations built for improvisation: rich context, asymmetric role information, meaningful constraints, and multiple defensible outcomes. The briefs provide the conditions for a dialogue; they do not prescribe the dialogue.
NorthBridge Life is preparing a significant new US individual life placement. Over the past two years it has invested heavily in metabolic-health programmes, and GLP-1 use among eligible customers has increased substantially. The broker has shared an indication from another reinsurer that appears to recognise materially more future mortality improvement than Swiss Re’s current position.
Swiss Re’s Pricing team agrees that GLP-1 therapies and broader metabolic-health improvement could change mortality over time. NorthBridge has supplied aggregate data showing increased GLP-1 use and improvements in some metabolic measures, but information on adherence, discontinuation, underlying health status, and persistence is incomplete.
Swiss Re’s quotation is approximately five basis points above the competing indication. Final indications are due in three days. The room must decide whether any economic recognition is possible now, what remains a mortality judgment, and what evidence or experience would justify movement later.
The group can recommend a permanent price change, a bounded commercial or structural response, a reviewable mechanism, or a decision to hold the current position. The purpose is to make the trade-off explicit rather than to discover one hidden correct answer.
Which statements were evidence, which were forecasts, and which were appetite or commercial choices? What information did each role need from the others before it could move?
Suggested time: 8 minutes preparation, 10 minutes conversation, 7 minutes debrief.
Pricing Actuary — Swiss Re
You lead the mortality pricing work. You agree that GLP-1 therapies and broader metabolic-health change could improve future mortality, but you do not believe the full improvement implied by the competing indication can be recognised today.
Information you hold
- GLP-1 use is not the same as sustained adherence.
- Improvement from an unhealthy baseline is not automatically improvement relative to the mortality already assumed for an insured population.
- Short-term observed change is not the same as durable mortality improvement over many years.
- NorthBridge’s aggregate data does not yet separate these cleanly.
- You have already recognised a modest amount of emerging improvement in the current view.
What matters to you
The mortality view must remain independently defensible. You do not want Swiss Re to become so cautious that it systematically fails to recognise genuine changes in risk.
What you can move on
You are open to different ways of recognising improvement over time, including better data, a defined review path, experience sharing, or another mechanism that lets economics respond as evidence matures.
Your constraint
You cannot change the mortality assumption simply to eliminate a competitive price gap. A commercial decision to accept a lower return may be legitimate, but it must not be represented as a different mortality conclusion.
What you need to learn
Which data NorthBridge can provide, what the client actually needs to demonstrate to its board, and whether the proposed economic recognition belongs in Cost, Price, or a structure connecting the two.
Senior Client Manager — Swiss Re
You own the NorthBridge relationship. The issue matters to the client beyond five basis points: leadership has invested heavily in metabolic health and believes it is building a healthier portfolio. They feel they are supplying the kind of data and prevention the industry asked for while Swiss Re is still asking them to wait.
Information you hold
- The competing indication is credible enough for NorthBridge to use.
- NorthBridge would prefer Swiss Re because of the broader relationship.
- NorthBridge’s Chief Actuary will struggle to defend a materially more expensive quote to the board.
- The client’s underlying need is economic recognition for its investment; the exact mechanism has not been fixed.
What matters to you
Swiss Re needs to look capable of responding to change, not merely explaining why established assumptions remain safer. You also need to avoid a price that wins today and looks indefensible when experience emerges.
What you can move on
You can explore timing, data access, review mechanics, experience sharing, a bounded credit, or other commercial terms. You can translate the technical position into a proposition the client can take back internally.
Your constraint
Returning with the existing quotation and a request for several more years of evidence is unlikely to preserve the opportunity. You are not authorised to quietly rewrite the mortality view or make Pricing carry a commercial concession.
What you need to learn
What NorthBridge values most: immediate headline relief, a credible route to future recognition, board-level certainty, or a specific feature of the structure.
Chief Actuary — NorthBridge Life
You are responsible for defending the reinsurance decision to NorthBridge’s board. The company has made a visible investment in metabolic-health programmes and expects the economics to acknowledge that work.
Information you hold
- The programme has increased GLP-1 use and improved some metabolic measures.
- The competitor appears to recognise materially more future mortality improvement.
- Swiss Re’s quote is approximately five basis points higher.
- The board will ask why the company should pay more while it is changing the underlying risk.
What matters to you
You need a position that is credible to the board and responsive to a genuine change in the portfolio. A purely qualitative acknowledgement has no value in that conversation.
What you can move on
You do not necessarily need the full competitor position permanently. You could consider a smaller initial benefit, a reviewable mechanism, stronger data access, an experience-sharing arrangement, or a structure that increases recognition if outcomes persist.
Your constraint
You cannot return to the board with the existing economics and only an assurance that Swiss Re will monitor the issue. Any path forward must identify the metric, the timing, the data owner, and the consequence of the review.
What you need to learn
Whether Swiss Re is willing to recognise the investment in a real economic way now, and what would need to be demonstrated before a larger movement becomes supportable.
Albion Mutual is renewing a sizeable UK income-protection treaty with Swiss Re. The portfolio has historically been affected by long-duration mental-health and musculoskeletal claims.
Eighteen months ago, Albion redesigned its claims-management model. The changes included earlier intervention, specialist vocational rehabilitation, more active mental-health support, metabolic-health interventions, and closer engagement with employers and treating professionals. Claims duration has fallen among several cohorts, and more long-term claimants have returned to work than under the previous process.
Albion wants Swiss Re to recognise the improvement through a 6% reduction in the renewal rate. The data is not fully mature: some cohorts are small, longer-duration claims have not completely developed, and several programme changes make attribution difficult.
The group can recommend a permanent reset, partial recognition, a staged or reviewable mechanism, or no immediate change. The important distinction is between rewarding a real intervention and treating early experience as a finished assumption.
How did the group handle attribution? What incentive does each proposed outcome create for future prevention and claims-management investment?
Suggested time: 8 minutes preparation, 10 minutes conversation, 7 minutes debrief.
Head of Income Protection Pricing — Swiss Re
Albion has done real work. This is not a client promising that claims management will improve next year; there are observable changes in outcomes already.
Information you hold
- Eighteen months does not give a complete view of long-duration claim development.
- Selection effects may be concentrated in the intervention population.
- Changing employment conditions may contribute to return-to-work outcomes.
- Several interventions changed at once, so attribution is uncertain.
- The effect may differ across mental-health, musculoskeletal, and other cohorts.
What matters to you
Better claims management should create value. If Pricing never recognises successful interventions, clients have less reason to invest in them. At the same time, promising early results should not automatically become a multi-year assumption.
What you can move on
You have latitude around how emerging performance is reflected economically and how future evidence could trigger further movement. You can discuss a smaller initial recognition, experience sharing, a corridor, or a defined review.
Your constraint
You cannot support a permanent 6% reduction solely on the basis of current experience. Any arrangement must keep long-duration development, sustainability, and attribution visible.
What you need to learn
Which outcomes Albion can evidence reliably, which interventions it can isolate, and what the client is willing to share or change in exchange for economic recognition.
Claims & Product Director — Albion Mutual
You personally sponsored the new claims programme. It was expensive and internally controversial. Your CFO supported it because you argued that earlier intervention would improve claimant outcomes and reduce ultimate claims cost.
Information you hold
- Claims duration has fallen among several cohorts.
- More long-term claimants have returned to work.
- The programme changed the experience the reinsurer ultimately cares about.
- Your actuarial team cannot yet prove that the ultimate improvement is precisely 6%.
- The board is watching whether the renewal creates any economic recognition.
What matters to you
This is about incentives as much as rate. You want a reinsurance partner who shares the benefits when Albion genuinely improves outcomes.
What you can move on
You would consider a mechanism that increases the benefit if improvement persists. You can discuss data definitions, cohort selection, reporting, and review mechanics if they create meaningful economics.
Your constraint
A purely qualitative acknowledgement has no economic value. You also do not want to accept a structure so conditional or administratively heavy that it makes the original intervention impossible to sustain.
What you need to learn
Whether Swiss Re can recognise the intervention as a source of value without demanding certainty that no responsible party could yet provide.
Chief Financial Officer — Albion Mutual
You approved the claims-management investment because the business promised better outcomes and lower ultimate claims cost. The board now wants to see whether the improvement is visible in the renewal economics.
Information you hold
- The pharmacy, rehabilitation, and programme costs are visible now.
- The financial benefit is expected to emerge over a longer period.
- The board wants a result it can explain and audit.
- You are concerned about paying twice for the same improvement: once to fund the intervention and again through a renewal price that ignores it.
What matters to you
Meaningful economic recognition, predictable downside if the improvement does not persist, and a mechanism that links the outcome to the investment.
What you can move on
You could consider a smaller immediate reduction if it creates a clear path to a larger benefit. You can discuss timing, data, reporting, and review mechanics if the result is understandable to the board.
Your constraint
You cannot return with exactly the same economics and only an assurance that the issue will be monitored. The arrangement must identify what will be measured and what consequence follows.
What you need to learn
How much uncertainty Swiss Re is asking Albion to carry, whether it can be shared, and how quickly an observable outcome can affect the renewal economics.
Europa Life is a large Continental European insurer with a mature book of traditional life business. The portfolio remains profitable but consumes significant capital and creates earnings volatility. Europa wants to release capital for growth while retaining customer relationships and avoiding an outright sale of the book.
The current proposal would transfer a large proportion of the portfolio’s economic risk to Swiss Re. At Europa’s target economics, Swiss Re’s internal review has concerns about the combination of biometric risk, lapse behaviour, asset-liability interaction, long duration, and incomplete historic data.
The Transaction Origination team believes Europa’s underlying objective is highly solvable. PPS believes the current structure is not. The participants must determine whether to reshape the transaction, continue investigating, or stop investing resources in the existing design.
The group can keep the existing structure, propose one or more redesigned structures, request further information, or decline the current opportunity. A strong outcome makes clear which risks are being transferred, retained, shared, bounded, or left unresolved.
Did the group solve the client’s actual objective or only debate the proposed structure? Which risk became a structure question rather than a reason to walk away?
Suggested time: 10 minutes preparation, 12 minutes conversation, 8 minutes debrief.
L&H Transaction Originator — Swiss Re
After several conversations with Europa, you believe its stated structure and actual needs are not identical. Leadership repeatedly talks about transferring the book, but the underlying objectives appear to be releasing a defined amount of regulatory capital, reducing earnings volatility, retaining customer relationships, preserving some future upside, and freeing management capacity for growth.
Information you hold
- A complete economic transfer may be only one way of achieving Europa’s objective.
- Europa may accept risk retention, staged execution, profit sharing, or a different duration if the capital and volatility outcomes are clear.
- Your team has already invested considerable time in the opportunity.
- You do not yet know which risk dimension matters most to Europa’s board.
What matters to you
You do not want Swiss Re to walk away from a solvable client problem because the first proposed structure is unattractive. You also do not want sunk effort to make you defend a structure that no longer makes sense.
What you can move on
Amount of risk transferred, risk retained by Europa, duration, profit sharing, collateral, review rights, and which risks Swiss Re actually assumes can all be explored.
Your constraint
You cannot solve the relationship by lowering the required economics until the existing structure looks acceptable. Any alternative must be recognisably useful to Europa and credible to Swiss Re’s risk owners.
What you need to learn
Which business outcome is non-negotiable for Europa and which parts of the proposed structure were simply the first design it found.
PPS / Portfolio Actuary — Swiss Re
You are not opposed to Europa or to structured transactions. Your objection is specifically to the current package of risk at the current economics.
Information you hold
- Lapse behaviour, asset performance, and long-duration guarantees interact.
- Some uncertainty is difficult to diversify away.
- Historic data is incomplete and the proposed transfer is broad.
- Repeatedly adding conservative loadings can make almost any deal look safe by making it prohibitively expensive.
- Swiss Re’s own risk framework requires meaningful transactions to withstand independent technical and risk scrutiny.
What matters to you
You need to understand what Swiss Re is actually being paid to own. You are more comfortable with risks that have clear boundaries, transparent downside, and an explicit decision owner.
What you can move on
You would consider materially different structures, including a smaller transfer with better-defined risks, stronger data, explicit review rights, or limits on the combination of lapse, asset, and guarantee exposure.
Your constraint
You cannot recommend the existing full-risk proposal. You also do not want the technical team to convert uncertainty into an opaque loading that avoids a real structural decision.
What you need to learn
What Europa is willing to retain, what collateral or governance can genuinely bound the downside, and how much capital relief the client requires for the opportunity to remain meaningful.
Chief Financial Officer — Europa Life
You want to release capital for growth and reduce earnings volatility without selling the book or abandoning customer relationships. The existing proposal is attractive because it appears to solve both problems in one transaction.
Information you hold
- The board has set a defined capital-release ambition.
- Earnings volatility is a management concern, not only a technical measure.
- Europa wants to retain some future upside and avoid losing customer ownership.
- The current structure was assembled quickly and may not be the only route to the outcome.
What matters to you
You need a result the board, auditors, and regulator can understand. Releasing too little capital or leaving the volatility problem unsolved is not a meaningful solution.
What you can move on
You could consider retaining some risk, using a staged transaction, sharing future profits, changing duration, or accepting stronger data and governance if the capital and volatility outcomes remain clear.
Your constraint
You cannot support an alternative that is technically elegant but fails the original business case. You also cannot provide unlimited flexibility or perfect historic data after inception.
What you need to learn
Which risks Swiss Re needs to bound, how those boundaries affect the capital outcome, and whether the team is solving your objective or merely negotiating over its first proposed structure.
Helix Life is negotiating a new multi-market protection treaty with Swiss Re. Pricing and Helix largely agree on the underlying technical risk. To secure the mandate, the Senior Client Manager wants approval for three departures from the normal target: a 4% reduction from the standard commercial price, lighter experience-reporting requirements for the first two years, and a wider experience corridor before automatic review is triggered.
Helix is important and is discussing additional opportunities with Swiss Re in two other markets. None of the proposed concessions appears unreasonable in isolation. PPS has a different concern: in five of the last eight sizeable competitive deals it reviewed, at least one similar strategic exception was approved. Each had a different rationale, but collectively they may be shifting portfolio economics and operating standards.
The group can approve, reject, or redesign the exception package. A strong decision states what Swiss Re is deliberately investing, what it receives in return, who owns the choice, how long it lasts, and whether it can be cited as precedent elsewhere.
How did the group distinguish a strategic appetite decision from a technical concession? What would have made the exception visible before it travelled into the next deal?
Suggested time: 10 minutes preparation, 12 minutes conversation, 8 minutes debrief.
PPS / Portfolio Steering Actuary — Swiss Re
You are not trying to stop Helix. Your concern is what happens when an exception becomes a reference point.
Information you hold
- Five of the last eight sizeable competitive deals included at least one similar strategic exception.
- The categories recur across markets even when the rationales differ.
- Several exceptions have no clear record of who accepted the appetite trade-off, how long it lasts, or whether it can be cited elsewhere.
- Teams are beginning to cite earlier strategic deals when asking for flexibility on new ones.
What matters to you
If Swiss Re deliberately invests appetite in Helix, that can be rational. You need the investment to be visible and governed.
What you can move on
You are open to a genuine strategic exception if the economics, governance, future commitments, duration, and precedent boundaries make sense.
Your constraint
You will not support three concessions being treated as though none has portfolio consequence simply because each looks modest in isolation.
What you need to learn
What Helix is actually worth to Swiss Re, what it is willing to commit in return, and which owner will monitor whether the strategic value materialises.
Senior Client Manager — Swiss Re
Helix matters. The immediate treaty is attractive, but the broader relationship is more valuable than this single transaction. There are credible opportunities in two additional markets, although neither is contractually committed.
Information you hold
- Helix probably does not need all three concessions; the package was assembled because it expects Swiss Re to negotiate.
- The client cares most about an attractive headline proposition and avoiding burdensome operational requirements during implementation.
- One concession may be worth more to Helix than the others.
- A slow governance process could damage the client relationship before the proposal is submitted.
What matters to you
You need room to differentiate between ordinary business and genuinely strategic business. If every opportunity must satisfy identical commercial criteria, the Market Unit cannot make meaningful strategic choices.
What you can move on
You can discuss different combinations of price, reporting, review triggers, and future commitments. You can also clarify what Helix would give Swiss Re in exchange for differentiated treatment.
Your constraint
You cannot defend a process that turns every exception into a long technical veto. You also recognise the danger of calling everything strategic.
What you need to learn
Which concession creates the most client value, what future pipeline is credible, and what boundary PPS requires in order to support a proportionate decision.
Market Head — Swiss Re
You own the regional growth strategy and must decide whether Helix warrants differentiated treatment. You care about the immediate treaty, future opportunities, and the credibility of portfolio rules.
Information you hold
- Helix is an important relationship with possible additional markets.
- The three requested concessions have different implications for price, data, and review discipline.
- The additional opportunities are credible but not contractually committed.
- You have discretion to approve an appetite investment if it is proportionate and visible.
What matters to you
You want the Market Unit to make intelligent choices quickly without disguising strategic choices as technical conclusions.
What you can move on
You can decide which concessions, if any, are worth approving; set duration and reporting requirements; assign an owner; and require a future review of the strategic value.
Your constraint
You cannot approve a package whose economic or governance implications are invisible. You also cannot treat an uncommitted pipeline as though it were guaranteed value.
What you need to learn
What each concession buys, whether the combined package is proportionate, and how to prevent a Helix decision from becoming a general market promise.
Swiss Re is in a live renewal call with a large L&H client and its broker. The Client Manager has led the relationship and aligned internally on a 6% renewal increase. The Technical Expert has joined to explain the experience deterioration, remaining uncertainty, and conditions under which a future review could occur.
During the call, the broker directs a series of personal and technical challenges to the Technical Expert rather than the Client Manager. The objective is to create daylight between Swiss Re’s technical and commercial positions, extract a reservation price, and turn uncertainty into a live concession.
The team has a credible answer only if ownership stays clear: the Technical Expert owns explanation and evidence; the Client Manager owns commercial positioning; any appetite decision belongs to the accountable leader. The exercise is a live conversation, not a prepared presentation.
The team can hold the aligned position, identify a future review path, or surface a structural option. The goal is not to “win” the call; it is to leave with credibility, role clarity, and a useful next step.
Where did the broker try to change the decision owner? Did the team answer the client’s concern while keeping Cost, Price, and Appetite separate?
Suggested time: 6 minutes preparation, 8 minutes live call, 8 minutes debrief.
Client Manager — Swiss Re
You lead the client relationship. The renewal increase is internally aligned. You brought the Technical Expert onto the call to make the explanation credible, not to reopen the price live.
Information you hold
- The current Cost view reflects deteriorating experience and unresolved uncertainty.
- There may be structural options, but there is no live negotiation of the reservation price.
- The Technical Expert can explain evidence; you must translate it into commercial options and manage the next step.
- The broker is likely to test whether the team has a single position.
What matters to you
You need to protect the relationship without creating a public concession. The client should leave understanding what is known, what is uncertain, and what can be discussed next.
What you can move on
You can clarify the decision process, invite the Technical Expert to address evidence, explore future review conditions, and propose a follow-up on commercial or structural options.
Your constraint
You cannot ask the Technical Expert to be flexible in front of the broker or let a technical caveat become a public concession. You also cannot make the technical explanation carry a commercial answer it does not own.
What you need to learn
Which client concern is most important: the experience, the uncertainty, the rate increase, the timing, or the absence of a visible route to movement.
Technical Expert — Swiss Re
You are joining the client call to provide technical credibility. You do not own the commercial price. Your job is to explain the evidence in plain language, acknowledge what is uncertain, and return the conversation to the Client Manager.
Information you hold
- The renewal position reflects observed experience and the assumptions needed to make the structure sustainable.
- Some recent improvements are promising but not yet sufficient to remove the uncertainty.
- Competitor price is not evidence that the same assumptions or appetite are being used.
- A future review could be supported by specific experience, data, or structural changes.
- The broker may attempt to turn your personal view into a negotiation anchor.
What matters to you
You want the client to understand the evidence without hearing a lecture or a false promise. You also want to preserve the integrity of the technical view.
What you can move on
You can explain assumptions, evidence quality, uncertainty, and the conditions that could change the view. You can distinguish what is technical from what requires a commercial or appetite decision.
Your constraint
You do not own a minimum price, a reservation price, or a commercial concession. You must not let the broker’s framing make you negotiate against your own team.
What you need to learn
Which technical question is genuinely blocking the client and which is being used to extract a commercial movement in the room.
Broker — Client Representative
You believe Swiss Re’s renewal position is too high. The client has a credible alternative and expects you to create movement. You suspect the Technical Expert is more flexible than the Client Manager is admitting.
Information you hold
- The competitor’s indication is lower, but you do not know whether it uses the same assumptions or appetite.
- The client wants clarity on the difference between observed experience and prudence.
- The Technical Expert appears to hold the strongest technical credibility in the room.
- The Client Manager appears to control the commercial position.
What matters to you
You need enough movement or clarity to keep the client engaged and demonstrate that the broker is creating value. You are willing to discuss structure if it produces something the client can value.
What you can move on
You can provide additional data, clarify the client’s priorities, discuss timing, and explore a review mechanism or structural change if Swiss Re identifies a credible route to movement.
Your constraint
You will not accept a generic request for more data with no explanation of what it could change. You also cannot force a permanent price change if the team makes the risk boundary and decision rights credible.
What you need to learn
Whether Swiss Re has a real path to movement, which information matters most, and whether the team’s technical and commercial positions are genuinely aligned.