APPENDIX 1: BUSINESSES AT LLOYD’S Top ten syndicates by capacity, 1987 and 1997, with agency rankings 1987 1997 Syndicate Stamp Managing Agent Syndicate Stamp Managing Agent number capacity agent rank1 number capacity agent rank1 (1988) 418 £220 m Merrett 2 2001 £530 m Murray 5 Lawrence 206 £200 m Sturge 1 33 £201 m Hiscox 4 799 £175 m Merrett 2 488/2488 £330 m Ace2 2 210 £167 m Sturge 1 510 £303 m RJ Kiln 9 932 £117 m Janson Green 4 672 £263 m Wellington3 3 362 £116 m Murray 5 435 £234 m DP Mann 13 Lawrence 190 £113 m Three Quays 16 861 £225 m Brockbank 6 367 £113 m Secretan & Co 10 218 £212 m Cox 7 317 £111 m Outhwaite 19 51 £187 m Wellington3 3 448 £106 m Wellington 3 37 £174 m Ockham2 17 1 Rank refers to agency groups. 2 Including many former Sturge syndicates. 3 Merged in 1997 with Catlin Underwriting Ltd. Source: Lloyd’s APPENDIX 1 331 Changing fortunes: managing agents at Lloyd’s 1988, 1998 and 2010 Capacity Capacity Capacity Rank 1988 1998 2010 (£ m) (£ m) (£ m) 1Sturge Group1,270Bankside1 755 Kiln 1,562 2 Merrett Group 764 Ace2 692 Catlin3 1,441 3Wellington 420 Hiscox/Venton 606 QBE4 1,365 Group 4 Janson Green 374 Brockbank 552 Beazley 1,307 Furlonge 5 Murray Lawrence 331 Wellington 551 Hiscox 1,195 6 Methuen 309 Murray Lawrence 538 Amlin5 1,100 7 Wren 294 Kingsmead, 530 Chaucer 986 Beazley, SVB 8 Bankside 277 Cox Group 484 Liberty 910 9 Gooda Walker 272 Octavian 393 Brit 745 10 FLP Secretan 260 Kiln 356 Ascot 700 1 Includes Janson Green. 2 Includes Methuen. 3 Includes Wellington. 4 Includes Bankside and Janson Green. 5 Includes Murray Lawrence. Source: Statistics Relating to Lloyd’s Top ten members’ agents, 1988 and 1998 1988 1998 No. of No. of Agency Group Agency Group members members Sturge Group 2,658 Sedgwick Oakwood 684 Sedgwick Lloyd’s 1,915 Stace Barr 623 Willis Group 1,664 Christie Brockbank Shipton 619 Merrett Group 1,256 Aberdeen 612 Fenchurch 962 Falcon 595 Poland Group 742 Kiln Cotesworth Stewart 566 Bowring Members Agency 721 Bridge Underwriting Agents 501 Wellington Group 642 Murray Lawrence Members Agency 471 Dashwood Outhwaite Group 609 Richmond 432 Stewart, Gray’s Inn 596 Greenwich 426 Source: Statistics Relating to Lloyd’s 332 APPENDIX 1 Ten largest Lloyd’s brokers, 1986 The larger Lloyd’s brokers belong to groups who conduct much of their business elsewhere. The following ten brokers were ranked by size in the London market in 1986 Sedgwick Group Willis Faber C.T. Bowring (Marsh Group) Minet Stewart Wrightson Hogg Robinson Alexander Howden C.E. Heath Jardine Insurance Brokers Group Bain Clarkson Source: London Market Newsletter Ten largest Lloyd’s brokers, 2014 At the time of writing, the two largest broking groups each have worldwide revenues of over $11 billion. There is no official ranking of Lloyd’s brokers. Ranking is not straightforward, as it depends on the criteria chosen and the availability of comparable information; the order shown below is therefore only approximate Marsh & McLennan Aon Willis Group Jardine Lloyd Thompson Arthur J. Gallagher Miller NMB & Cooper Gay Howden Broking Group RK Harrison Group Price Forbes & Partners Source: estimate compiled from various sources REQUIREMENTS 1969–2002 WEALTH AND DEPOSIT NAMES’ MINIMUM APPENDIX 2: £350,000 £300,000 £250,000 £200,000 £150,000 £100,000 £50,000 Minimum wealth requirements for UK domiciled Names were dropped from £75,000 to £0 £50,000 following the Cromer report. For Names domiciled elsewhere, requirements were higher. For vocational Names they were lower. In 1978, a category of ‘mini-Names’ was introduced,1969 for which the minimum wealth re- quirement was only £37,500. This was dropped from 19701 January 1980. Each member’s OPL was restricted to twice the amount of wealth1971 shown, until 1988. A min- imum deposit, from 1981 expressed as a percentage of OPL, was also required.1972 The minimum deposit requirements require too many qualifications to be expressed1973 accu- rately on a chart. Broadly speaking, British-domiciled Names were required to deposit an1974 effective 20 per cent of OPL until 1981, when it was increased to 25 per cent. From 1988, the 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 334 APPENDIX 2 premium income limit control was switched from ‘net’ (after reinsurance) to gross under- writing. To compensate for this, the minimum deposit fell to 20 per cent of OPL from 1988; OPL was 2.5 times the amount of wealth shown. From 1990, a new requirement of 30 per cent of OPL relating to all Funds at Lloyd’s (FAL) was introduced, including deposits, Personal Reserves and Special Reserves. From 1998, the minimum FAL ratio was 40 per cent, although Individual Names were able to hold FAL of 32.5 per cent of OPL, the balance (7.5 per cent) being covered by ‘other personal wealth’ (OPW), recognising that they had unlimited liability underwriting. The concept of OPW was dropped in 2006. Risk-based capital assessment was introduced for all members from 1998, subject to the minimum FAL ratio of 40 per cent. Minimum capital requirements for Lloyd’s corporate members were 50 per cent of OPL from 1994, until they were adjusted according to their underwriting risk profile from 1996 onwards. Source: extracted from various Lloyd’s market bulletins. APPENDIX 3: THE EVOLUTION OF LLOYD’S GOVERNANCE The first Committee of Lloyd’s was formed in 1771. Before long, John Julius Angerstein, an energetic young immigrant born in St Petersburg into a family of German merchants, found new premises for a group who established a new Lloyd’s at the Royal Exchange. He soon became Chairman of Lloyd’s. The powers of the Committee were strengthened by the Lloyd’s Act of 1871. In 1908, after a fierce debate within the Committee, the principle of an audit of each underwriting account was established. In the wake of the 1923 failure of a Lloyd’s syndicate run by Stanley Harrison, the Chairman, Arthur Sturge per- suaded all underwriters to contribute so that Lloyd’s policies were honoured. Afterwards, financial guarantee business was prohibited and a central fund was set up in 1927 to protect policyholders in future.1 Lord Cromer, a former Barings banker and Governor of the Bank of England, chaired a committee that reported in 1969. Although Lloyd’s accepted many of his proposals for restoring growth, it fatefully decided not to publish his proposals for reform of the agency system. Several incidents in the late 1970s involved a breach of trust, including the long-running Savonita and Sasse sagas.2 These led the Committee to appoint a working party under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Fisher to consider the whole system of regulation at Lloyd’s. Fisher recommended a new Act of Parliament to give the Lloyd’s authorities much greater powers of supervision. Fisher also recommended that the constitution should better reflect the now much larger constituency of external Names. Names’ representation on the Council, he said, would assure them that their interests would be prop- erly looked after. He also saw a risk of a conflict of interest in brokers owning 336 APPENDIX 3 managing agents and recommended that brokers should sell them off, known as divestment. A number of Lloyd’s people – many brokers, Robert Hiscox, Bryan Kellet and others – made strenuous efforts to persuade Parliament that compulsory divestment was a sledgehammer to crack a nut and would have many adverse consequences, but Parliament insisted on it. The intense debate about the provi- sions in the Lloyd’s Act is fully reported in Godfrey Hodgson’s Lloyd’s of London: A Reputation at Risk, first published in 1984. The Bill gave Lloyd’s a new consti- tution and a much stronger ability to regulate the market; more controversially, it also conferred on the Society immunity from suit by its members. The 1982 Lloyd’s Act received Royal Assent in the summer. Soon after this, a major fraud was discovered, involving the theft of syn- dicate money by Peter Dixon and Peter Cameron Webb, later referred to as the PCW scandal. The Governor of the Bank of England, Gordon Richardson, per- suaded the Lloyd’s Chairman to accept the appointment of Ian Hay Davison as Lloyd’s new Chief Executive and Deputy Chairman. The new Council set about the process of reform with vigour. Despite much progress, in 1985, when the government decided to introduce a Financial Services Bill to reform the operation of the investment market, there were many calls for its scope to be extended to cover Lloyd’s as well. To resolve this ques- tion, the government appointed a committee of enquiry, headed by Sir Patrick Neill. The Neill Committee came down in favour of Lloyd’s continuing to be re- sponsible for supervising its own marketplace. However, it set out an ongoing obligation to achieve a level of protection for its Names that was equivalent to the new investor protection regime elsewhere, making 70 recommendations for further reform. In a report entitled ‘Neill Lets Lloyd’s Off the Hook’ published on 24 January 1987, The Economist said that Neill had sidestepped some of the biggest issues that he was asked to address: while some of his recommendations were for sensible and much-needed reforms, he made ‘a powerful case against the self-regulation that he did not seek to change’.