Month: April 2025

Intelligent automation platforms promise speed, efficiency, and smarter decision-making for the modern insurance enterprise.
But with so many automation solutions on the market, choosing between these platforms can be difficult, and it’s not always clear when new platforms are warranted.
How do you estimate your prospective return on investment (ROI) for each of these platforms?
The Potential of Automation for the Insurance Industry
As AI-powered automation for the Insurance industry can be extremely valuable, in the right contexts and applications. At a baseline, automation tools should be able to help you streamline your workflows, execute predictable tasks, and keep your institution more organized. If you tap into the full power of the AI capabilities of these platforms, you can use them to analyze data, generate insights, and ultimately inform better business decisions.
In general, these platforms can help you save money, save time, better allocate your internal resources, improve consistency, and more. But it’s also important to recognize that almost all technologies come with costs. Not only will you need to plan for subscription costs and integration costs, but you’ll also need to think about the time it takes to train people to use these tools and the potential drawbacks for your organization.
Why Estimating ROI Is Helpful
The Return on investment (ROI) is a measurement used in a variety of industries and applications, designed to estimate how much value a given resource returns to you, when compared to how much you spent on it. While often associated with the world of investments, it can also apply to the investment you make in intelligent automation platforms for your insurance enterprise.
It’s useful to directly compare the benefits of intelligent automation to its costs. This way, you can decide whether the tool is really worth using, and whether the tool is the best in its class.
The ROI Equation for Software Platforms
At the highest level, ROI is easy to conceptualize. It only requires you to compare the costs of a given resource to the benefits it provides.
When it comes to intelligent automation platforms for insurance, these are some of the biggest costs you need to factor in:
Subscription costs. One of the most obvious costs you’ll need to consider is subscription costs. How much are you going to spend on this tool to continue using it? How might those prices change in the future?Integration costs. What are you going to spend on integration with other tools in your network? What other costs might you incur by working this tool into your system?
Education and training costs. How much are you going to spend in terms of both time and money training and educating your users? This is one reason why it’s so important to look for tools that are easy to use.
Additional support & resourcing. Are you going to spend additional time or resources to adopt, integrate, and continue using this tool? Factor in any internal support or staffing needs required to keep it running smoothly.
These are some of the most important benefits to factor into your equation:
Time saved. The gold standard for most automation tools is time saved. Ideally, each intelligent automation tool in your tech stack should save dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of man hours.
Cost reduction. In parallel, consider how the platform reduces spending. Are there roles you can reassign or tools you can decommission? What types of operational friction or inefficiencies are you avoiding?
Improved customer journeys. Positive customer experiences can also be measurably valuable for insurance companies. If a customer has a much smoother, more streamlined initial experience with your business, they might be more likely to purchase an insurance policy, and you might be more likely to retain them. It’s hard to calculate a concrete number here, but you can at least conduct an estimate.
Future potential and scalability. Don’t forget about the future potential of this tool, along with its scalability. It might be able to offer your business even more benefits in the future, especially as you take on more customers.
Business decision impact. When it comes to intelligent automation, you also need to factor in its potential impact on your business decisions. Even a single moment of positive influence can lead to massive gains for your company.
Don’t worry about needing to have perfect data to make a smart decision. Estimating ROI is about gaining directional clarity.  Understand the balance of costs and benefits with respect to the intelligent automation platforms you consider, so you can ultimately choose the right solution for your organization.
Read more:
How to Estimate the ROI of Intelligent Automation Platforms for Insurance

Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, has warned that the United States faces a 50 per cent chance of recession, citing the fallout from President Trump’s sweeping trade tariffs and a growing mix of economic headwinds.
Speaking as markets continue to reel from the uncertainty triggered by the new tariff regime, Dimon said the world’s largest economy faces “considerable turbulence”. He pointed to stubborn inflation, high fiscal deficits, elevated asset prices and continued market volatility as compounding the risks.
“As always, we hope for the best but prepare the firm for a wide range of scenarios,” Dimon said, underlining his concern about the direction of the US economy.
His comments came as John Williams, head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, also warned that the new tariffs could drive US inflation up to 4 per cent this year, pushing unemployment higher and cutting economic growth in 2025 to below 1 per cent.
Dimon said he had already observed major companies pulling back on hiring, delaying mergers and acquisitions, and preparing to withdraw forward earnings guidance as the full impact of Trump’s tariff policy remains unclear.
JP Morgan itself raised its provision for bad debts to $3.3 billion for the first quarter — up from $1.9 billion a year earlier — as part of its efforts to hedge against growing economic uncertainty.
In response to internal speculation, Dimon rejected the suggestion that analysts at JP Morgan were being pressured to tone down their views on the consequences of the trade war. The comments followed a note by Michael Cembalest, chair of market and investment strategy, who said he had to consider how his analysis might be interpreted internally and externally in the current political climate.
Dimon responded: “Our analysts are expected to speak their mind freely.”
President Trump himself appeared to take note of Dimon’s caution. The banking boss had previously said a recession was a “likely outcome” of the ongoing trade war — a comment Trump reportedly referenced when announcing a 90-day pause on tariffs for most countries earlier this week.
Larry Fink, chairman and CEO of BlackRock, also struck a sombre tone, saying the prevailing market turmoil was dominating client conversations and impacting retirement savings for millions. BlackRock reported net inflows of $84.2 billion, below analyst expectations, and a 4 per cent decline in net profit to $1.5 billion, attributed in part to acquisition-related costs.
Still, the recent market volatility has proved a windfall for trading desks. JP Morgan reported a 19 per cent rise in trading revenue, with equities jumping 48 per cent, while Morgan Stanley posted a 45 per cent surge in equity trading revenue, pushing total net revenue to $8.9 billion for the first quarter.
Despite this, Ted Pick, chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley, warned that the long-term implications of Trump’s trade policies remain uncertain.
“The simple truth today is that we do not yet know where trade policy will settle, nor do we know what the actual transmission effects will be on the real economy,” he said.
As America’s financial giants brace for the economic consequences of shifting trade dynamics, businesses and investors alike are preparing for a period of prolonged uncertainty — with recession now a very real possibility.
Read more:
JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon puts US recession risk at 50:50 amid trade war fallout

Fire and rehire, also known as dismissal and re-engagement, is a practice that’s been around in the business world for a long time.
It involves companies dismissing an employee, and then immediately rehiring them. With the ‘new’ job, comes a new contract which will generally contain less favourable terms for the staff member in question.
Yulia Barnes, Founder and Managing Director of boutique commercial law firm, Barnes Law Associates highlight a recent example which made headlines was that of union Usdaw who won a case against Tesco in the Supreme Courts. The case centred around three of around 50 distribution centre employees affected by ‘fire and rehire’ plans. Staff were asked to accept a one-off lump sum instead of the higher pay they’d been awarded a number of years previously to relocate; otherwise they’d face being dismissed and rehired without the increased salary.
Usdaw argued the workers’ contracts stated the pay increase was permanent, leading the judges to conclude Tesco should have set down an end date for the deal had it intended the pay rise to be temporary, and should not be able to fire and rehire whenever it ‘suited [their] business purposes to do so’ (BBC).
A controversial strategy
Naturally the wider public only becomes aware of fire and rehire strategies when they appear before the courts or in the media, as in the case of Tesco’s distribution centre workers. But, given employees are almost always rehired on a less preferential basis, the practice has been controversial for almost as long as it’s been around.
And it’s more common than perhaps thought: one Trades Union Congress survey found 9% of workers had been told to re-apply for the same jobs under worse terms between March 2020 and January 2021 (although it must be noted this was in the midst of the Covid pandemic which severely impacted almost every business in the UK).
While the number of people affected in the last couple of years may well be much lower, this spike in firing and rehiring brought it to the attention of the public – and of successive Governments who’ve introduced measures to curb the strategy.
What are the rules around firing and rehiring?
A code of practice was issued by the previous Government in the summer of 2024; whilst it does not seek to eradicate dismissal and re-engagement, it does set out the alternative options employers should consider, stating the strategy should be a last resort. Failure to follow the code doesn’t automatically mean an employer will face action but, should a staff member take the matter to a tribunal and win, their compensation can be raised by 25% if they can show non-compliance by their employer.
This is set to be replaced by the current Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which will see fire and rehire strategies deemed as unfair dismissal unless the employer can prove they had no other option except to propose a contract variation, and the reason behind it was to reduce or eliminate the impact of severe financial difficulties which were affecting the likelihood of the business being able to continue operating (UK Parliament).
As it stands, there is no specific definition of ‘financial difficulty’ set down in the Bill – which is over halfway through the Parliamentary approvals process – but this may well have been made clearer by the time it officially comes into law, likely not before autumn 2026.
What are the alternatives?
Clear communications with employees, a set period of negotiation and a willingness to be open to suggestions are necessary when changes may need to be made. With open and honest communications comes an increased likelihood that agreements can be made to the satisfaction of employers and employees alike.
Of course, there will always be situations when fire and rehire has to be considered. But to align with guidelines, this should genuinely be a last resort. It’s likely that the strategy will sour relations between management and staff, and there’s also a wider reputational issue to consider. Customers are more conscious than ever of the ethics of the businesses they use, and information can spread much more quickly in the digital age – so communication may also be required with wider stakeholders to ensure the brand’s reputation isn’t tarnished by firing and rehiring.
The best way to avoid getting into a situation where the strategy may be necessary is to ensure that contracts include flexible clauses. The ability to vary employment benefits and annual leave, for example, puts companies in a much stronger position should they find themselves having financial issues which call for contractual changes. It also means there’s a level of transparency and honesty from the outset, that staff may experience changes if (and only if) they’re necessary in order to keep the business afloat.
If the cautionary tales about big businesses who’ve been burned by their fire and rehire practices teach us one thing, it’s the value of having robust yet flexible contracts in place, and of keeping two-way communication going between leaders and employees throughout any difficulties or turbulence being experienced. By preparing for any eventuality from the outset with flexible clauses in contracts, businesses can best protect themselves from being forced down the fire and rehire route in the future – and in turn, they can help their staff avoid the ramifications of this controversial strategy too.
Read more:
Fire and rehire: the risks and alternatives

Ports across the UK and mainland Europe are becoming increasingly congested as the US-China trade war forces hundreds of vessels to divert or stall, causing widespread disruption in global shipping routes.
The turmoil follows President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a 145 per cent tariff on Chinese imports, prompting a swift retaliation from Beijing with a 125 per cent tax on US goods. As tensions escalate, shipping operators have been left scrambling, with end-customers in the US pulling out of deals and cargo ships rerouted or left in limbo at sea.
According to data from MarineTraffic, the scale of disruption is stark. The first week of April saw a surge in vessel traffic across Europe’s busiest ports. At Antwerp, 226 ships were recorded compared to just 34 during the same period last year. Rotterdam saw 99 ships dock, up from 17 a year ago, while Hamburg recorded 124 vessel calls compared to just 11. Southampton and Barcelona also reported major year-on-year increases, with 51 and 96 ships respectively, far above the 12 and 16 recorded in April 2023.
Industry insiders attribute the spike to cargo being diverted away from transpacific routes as exporters avoid the spiralling cost of sending goods directly between China and the US. The situation is being further inflamed by Washington’s plan to introduce a punitive $1 million docking fee for Chinese-made vessels entering American ports – a significant jump from the usual charges of between $20,000 and $50,000. The proposed levy will apply at every port stop, compounding costs for shipping firms already grappling with increased tariffs.
As Chinese-made ships dominate the global freight sector and are frequently used by Western operators, industry leaders fear the new rules could grind international trade to a halt. One shipping executive warned that companies are being cornered into an impossible choice: pay exorbitant fees to use non-Chinese vessels, or forgo access to the US market entirely.
The uncertainty has already forced businesses to rethink their logistics. One luxury retailer, initially planning to ship goods from China to the US via Europe, reportedly abandoned the final leg of the journey to avoid the new tariff regime, instead opting to store and sell the merchandise in Europe.
Marco Forgione, director-general of the Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade, warned that the influx of rerouted Chinese goods could flood UK and EU markets, offering short-term consumer savings at the expense of domestic manufacturers. “Chinese products are looking for new markets, and the UK and EU would be prime markets for dumping,” he said. “In the short term, there’ll be cost reduction for consumers. But in the medium term, you destroy or undermine your local production capability.”
With growing numbers of ships unable to offload in the US, major shipping companies and oil and gas multinationals are reportedly lobbying the Trump administration to reconsider the new docking fee. The US Trade Representative is expected to release further details later this week.
While weather and industrial action can affect shipping volumes, industry sources insist the surge in activity is directly linked to the ongoing trade war. “Stuff coming out of Asia is being cancelled left, right and centre, or is being diverted to other places,” said one logistics executive. “Genuinely, people are painting pictures where you’ve just got ship after ship waiting outside the US because of the uncertainty.”
As tensions escalate, businesses are warning that the impact could stretch far beyond the shipping sector, disrupting supply chains, inflating costs, and ushering in a new era of protectionist trade.
Read more:
Chaos at European ports as trade war leaves ships in limbo

British sports car manufacturer Lotus is set to cut up to 270 jobs in the UK, citing “volatile and evolving market conditions”, including the impact of new US tariffs on its vehicles.
The Norfolk-based company said the restructuring was “vital to enhance our competitiveness” and ensure long-term sustainability. The cuts will affect staff at its Hethel plant near Norwich, where the Emira coupé and Evija hypercar are manufactured. Other UK sites — including the Lotus Advanced Structures facility at Norwich Airport, its R&D centre in Warwick, and commercial HQ in London — will remain unaffected.
The move comes just days after Lotus halted US shipments of the Emira, in response to President Trump’s 25% import tariff on UK-built cars — part of a broader tariff shake-up that has sent ripples through the global automotive sector.
In a statement shared with Business Matters, the company said: “Lotus Cars has announced a proposed business restructure to ensure sustainable operations, amid volatile and evolving market conditions including the US tariffs and shifting consumer demand for sports cars.”
The company added that it would seek greater synergies with its parent company Geely, the Chinese automotive giant which also owns Volvo, Polestar and LEVC. This could include closer collaboration in engineering, technology and operations, although details remain limited.
Second round of job cuts in six months
This is the second major wave of redundancies at Lotus in less than a year. In late 2023, the firm announced up to 200 job cuts, also citing market uncertainty and a need to restructure operations in line with global demand.
The latest decision brings total potential job losses to nearly 470 roles — a significant reduction for a UK workforce of around 1,200 employees, according to LinkedIn data.
Despite the restructuring, Dan Balmer, Lotus’s European boss, reaffirmed the importance of the company’s Hethel base: “Having that as our sports car base is important,” he said, citing its FIA-approved test track and the site’s historical significance.
Lotus’s challenges are part of a broader disruption across the car industry. Its China-based division, Lotus Technology, was hit hard by Trump’s 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles — recently revised to 145%. That forced Lotus to more than double the price of its Eletre SUV in the US to maintain margins, jumping from under £100,000 in the UK to more than $220,000 (£170,000) stateside.
Despite the pricing shift, Lotus Technology has not announced job cuts or production changes at its Wuhan plant, where it builds the Eletre and Emeya SUVs.
Lotus’s UK leadership says it remains committed to the brand’s heritage and local operations, but the latest cuts underscore the pressure facing performance and EV brands amid protectionist trade policies and global supply chain challenges.
With the US — formerly Lotus’s largest market — now pricing out many of its exports, the company’s strategy will need to evolve fast to remain competitive in an increasingly fragmented global market.
Read more:
Lotus to axe up to 270 UK jobs amid “volatile market conditions” and US tariffs

Parliament is to be recalled this Saturday for an emergency debate on the future of British Steel’s Scunthorpe plant, as the government considers taking control of the business to safeguard jobs and the UK’s industrial capacity.
The unexpected move comes just days after MPs left Westminster for their Easter recess, with no plans to return until 22 April. However, the urgency of the situation has prompted a rare interruption to the parliamentary break.
A government source confirmed the decision to recall MPs, stating that ministers are actively “looking to take control” of British Steel in response to deepening concerns over the future of its Scunthorpe operations — one of the UK’s last remaining blast furnace steelworks.
The emergency session is expected to see cross-party debate on national industrial strategy, job security, and the economic significance of domestic steelmaking.
More details are expected to be announced in the coming days.
Read more:
Parliament to be recalled over British Steel

The price of gold soared to an all-time high on Friday, reaching $3,223.72 per ounce, as investors rushed to the safe-haven asset amid rising geopolitical tensions and a sharp escalation in the trade war between the US and China.
China raised tariffs on American imports to 125% in retaliation for President Trump’s decision to increase duties on Chinese goods to 145%, fuelling concerns about the stability of global trade and rattling markets.
Adding to the rally, the US dollar weakened to a two-year low against a basket of major currencies, raising further doubts over America’s role as a stabilising force in the global financial system. Because gold is priced in dollars, a weaker greenback typically boosts demand by making the metal cheaper for overseas buyers.
The surge in gold prices reflects a confluence of global pressures. Beyond trade tensions, markets have been driven by:
• Ongoing central bank purchases of gold
• Expectations of rate cuts by the US Federal Reserve
• Geopolitical instability in regions such as the Middle East and Europe
Gold has traditionally been regarded as a safe-haven asset — a store of value during periods of economic or political uncertainty. Unlike fiat currencies, which can be printed, gold is finite, giving it intrinsic value and appeal during times of volatility.
“Gold is proving its worth once again as the ultimate hedge during times of market turmoil and currency devaluation,” said one commodities analyst.
The rally in gold also reflects changing sentiment over US monetary policy. Inflation data released on Thursday showed an unexpected drop in consumer prices in March, fuelling speculation that the Federal Reserve could begin cutting interest rates as early as June.
Markets are now pricing in the possibility of a full percentage point in rate cuts by the end of 2025.
Lower interest rates make gold more attractive to investors as it reduces the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like precious metals.
Despite its appeal, gold is not without drawbacks. Unlike equities or bonds, gold doesn’t generate income — it pays no dividends or interest. And while it has a long-term track record of preserving wealth, the price can be volatile in the short term, especially as investor sentiment and macroeconomic conditions shift.
Nevertheless, with markets on edge, the dollar under pressure, and political tensions on the rise, gold continues to shine as a preferred hedge in uncertain times.
Read more:
Gold price hits record high as trade war and weak dollar drive safe-haven demand

London’s iconic Bond Street has reclaimed its position as Europe’s most expensive shopping street, thanks to a sharp rise in demand for prime retail space among global luxury brands.
According to new research from Savills, prime headline rents on Bond Street surged 20% in 2023, reaching £13,162 per square metre — overtaking Milan’s Via Monte Napoleone, which stood at £12,872 per square metre.
The West End destination, home to prestigious labels including Chanel and Louis Vuitton, is now ranked as the third most expensive retail street globally, trailing only Tsim Sha Tsui in Hong Kong and New York’s Fifth Avenue.
Savills attributed the jump in rents to renewed post-pandemic interest in physical retail and increased competition for flagship locations. Despite global economic uncertainty, luxury retailers are betting on stabilisation in the high-end market and looking to secure long-term positions in key global shopping destinations.
“Luxury brands are clearly taking a longer-term strategic view of the market,” said Anthony Selwyn, co-head of global retail at Savills. “They are recalibrating portfolios to get closer to their consumers.”
He added that while affluent domestic markets remained important after the pandemic reduced international travel, core luxury hubs like London are becoming increasingly competitive, with the quality and location of units more important than ever.
Recent store openings reflect this trend: Watches of Switzerland launched a four-storey Rolex flagship on Old Bond Street last month, while Moncler opened a new location on New Bond Street in December.
Selwyn noted that upward pressure on rents is likely to persist in prime luxury areas, although the pace of growth may ease as space availability tightens.
“We expect further rent increases, but at a more measured rate, as retailers secure space in the most prestigious pitches where availability is limited.”
While Milan remains a key player, Savills said deals in the Italian city are still being completed at above-average levels, underscoring continued strong demand.
Savills also revealed a notable shift within the luxury sector. Its Global Luxury Retail report, due to be published next week, will show that while fashion remains dominant, accounting for 68% of all new store openings globally, it is the jewellery and watch segment that is accelerating fastest — with a 25% year-on-year increase in new openings.
Read more:
Bond street reclaims title as Europe’s most expensive shopping street

Gas boiler installations in the UK outpaced heat pump fittings by more than 15 to one last year, highlighting how far the country still has to go in meeting its clean energy targets.
According to new research by the Resolution Foundation, the uptake of low-carbon alternatives is well off track — with poorer households particularly shut out of the transition.
Fewer than 100,000 heat pumps were installed across the UK in 2023, compared to around 1.5 million gas boilers, the majority of which were replacements. Worryingly, only 13% of new homes were fitted with heat pumps, meaning gas remains the default heating method in most new-build properties.
The government’s net zero plans require around 450,000 heat pumps to be installed each year by 2030, but current trends fall far short. High upfront costs are a major barrier, particularly for low-income households.
The £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme grant available in England and Wales still leaves homeowners paying an average of £5,400 out of pocket. That’s unaffordable for many — and it’s showing in the distribution of heat pump adoption.
Only 19% of heat pumps in use are located in the poorest third of neighbourhoods, while 45% are found in the richest third, the report found.
“The mass adoption of heat pumps in our homes is vital if Britain is to hit its net zero targets,” said Jonathan Marshall, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation. “But the rollout is miles off track, with heat pumps particularly out of reach for many poorer families.”
The thinktank has proposed reforming the subsidy system to offer top-up grants of £3,000 for lower-income households — specifically, those with a gross income below £30,000 and non-pension assets below £500,000. This would cost approximately £370 million a year by 2030.
Even beyond installation costs, running a heat pump remains more expensive than using a gas boiler. That’s despite heat pumps being far more energy efficient. The problem lies in the structure of the UK’s energy pricing model, where green levies are applied to electricity bills rather than gas, making electricity — and therefore heat pumps — more expensive to run.
At current prices, switching from gas to a heat pump would add an average £32 to a household’s annual energy bill. However, if levies were shifted from electricity to gas, most households would save over £300 a year, the report found.
The Future Homes Standard, expected to require all new-build homes to be fitted with low-carbon heating systems, has yet to be published. Mandating heat pumps in new homes would expand the market, increase competition and drive down costs — but delays in regulation are holding back progress.
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “Our warm homes plan will transform homes across the country by making them cheaper and cleaner to run, rolling out upgrades to up to 300,000 homes this year. We have almost doubled the boiler upgrade scheme’s funding to help more people install heat pumps.”
The government has committed £3.4 billion over the next three years, including £1.8 billion for fuel poverty schemes, with full details to follow in its upcoming spending review.
As the UK eyes its 2030 climate commitments, pressure is growing for clearer regulations, improved affordability, and targeted support to ensure the heat pump rollout becomes a reality — not just a policy ambition.
Read more:
Gas boiler fittings outnumbered heat pumps by 15 to one in UK last year