Vermont is known for maple syrup, fall foliage, covered bridges and now . . . embezzlement?
As strange as it sounds, Vermont topped the list of states with the highest risk of loss due to embezzlement in 2011, according to new research from Marquet International Ltd.
The 2011 Marquet Report On Embezzlement, examined 473 major employee theft cases active in the US last year and found that: (more…)
European insurers are racing to meet Solvency II requirements by the January 1, 2014 deadline, and many are facing a stiff head wind, particularly with respect to their reliance on third parties for data, the sophisticated risk modeling requirements and the difficulties associated with obtaining sufficiently detailed fund data.
More specifically, a new study by BNP Paribas Securities Services and InteDelta found that insurers are facing key challenges around: (more…)
Even though bottom-line and performance risks are regarded as the most serious threats facing the construction industry, few construction firms use formal risk mitigation procedures, according to McGraw-Hill Construction’s latest SmartMarket Report.
As the report points out, the complexity of today’s construction projects creates greater risks for inefficiencies than those faced by other industries. For example, participants in the study revealed that:
Addressing risks like these early can help firms achieve significant cost benefits, and the report suggests that construction firms begin to focus on: (more…)
The House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee held a hearing last week about a proposed rule to limit truck driver time.
The rule, proposed by the Transportation Department, is an effort to reduce the risk and prevalence of fatigue-related truck crashes through improvements in the hours of service (HOS) regulations. Under the proposal, the current 11-hour HOS daily limit for drivers would be reduced to a 10-hour limit. In addition, the 34 hours of time off currently required between each week of driving would have to include at least two midnight-to-6 a.m. periods of nighttime rest.
In a statement, Anne S. Ferro, administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, offered detailed historical perspective on this rulemaking, as well as an analysis of its economic impact.
From the statement:
With regard to the economic impact of the proposed rule, FMCSA estimated that the regulatory option that included a 10-hour limit on driving time during the work day would impose costs of approximately $1 billion per year with annual safety and economic benefits of approximately $1.4 billion. The net benefits would be $380 million per year. The regulatory option that included an 11-hour limit on driving time during the work day would impose costs of approximately $520 million per year with annual safety and economic benefits slightly greater than $1 billion. The net benefits for this option would be $560 million per year. FMCSA acknowledged that the 10-hour driving time component of the rulemaking contributed more than $500 million to the estimated cost of the rule while providing only $330 million in safety and economic benefits. However, taken as a whole, the regulatory option that included a 10-hour driving time limit was cost-beneficial, based on the Agency’s analysis of the crash data and research.
Not everyone agrees the changes would be beneficial. Opponents of the proposed rule say shortening the daily driving limit would: (more…)
Most companies have tightened up their internal due diligence procedures over the past few years, but many remain unclear about how to test and evaluate the due diligence of potential suppliers.
That’s a big concern because, as research from the international legal practice Norton Rose Group shows, suppliers and their customers can often have very different perceptions of risk.
For example, the Norton Rose Group’s new survey found that customers rate reputational damage as a primary risk, but suppliers rank it only a secondary risk. On the other hand, suppliers see service performance failure as a primary risk, while their customers view it as a secondary risk.
In addition, nearly half (49 percent) of the customers polled felt suppliers should manage political/jurisdiction risk. But, only 8 percent of suppliers consider it their responsibility.
This disconnect leaves customers exposed to risk. And yet, the majority (65 percent) of companies in the study admitted that they do not conduct detailed due diligence on the incoming key personnel provided by their supplier.
“As many organizations have found to their cost, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for risk management and it should never be seen as a box-ticking exercise – customers need to visit a potential supplier, test their technology and speak to other customers of that supplier,” Mike Rebeiro, group head of technology and innovation at Norton Rose Group, explained. “The majority of customers assume that their suppliers will have done the necessary due diligence on their own staff and do not see the need to repeat the exercise. This is surprising given the impact a single rogue employee can have on the reputation of a business and all associated organizations, as underlined by the scope of the Bribery Act 2010.”
The survey, which analyzed a wide range of current outsourcing practices and trends, also revealed that: (more…)
