Immediate Gains Immediate Vault Immediate Access

The Risky ‘Business of Art’ Explored at Observer Event

From left: Massimo Sterpi, Elena Zavelev, Anne Bracegirdle, Devin Finzer, Curt Bilby / Photo: Keith Sherman & Associates

NEW YORK—On May 21, the Observer’s inaugural “Business of Art Observed” event brought experts in art, insurance, risk management, tech and finance to the Roosevelt Hotel to discuss established and emerging risks facing the $50 billion art industry.

The “Insurance and Risk Management” session wasted no time exploring creative risk and claims management approaches to the various forms of potential damage to artwork. From transit to security to geopolitical risk, panelists agreed fine art coverage is not a paint-by-numbers process, and said the “framing of a claim” can facilitate a payment.

“Insurance companies get a bad reputation,” said Mary Pontillo, senior vice president and national fine art practice leader at DeWitt Stern. “But the higher-end, really good-quality insurance companies are looking for ways to pay claims. I think that’s where there are a lot of misconceptions.”

For example, she mentioned advising a client whose work was being kept on a yacht. While certain maritime and environmental risks such as humidity were not covered by the policy, she was able to demonstrate that ocean spray had been the source of the damage and successfully get the claim covered.

The session discussed modernizing risk management in the art market and how the industry should apply forensic due diligence to transactions and ensure they view all business activities through a lens of strategic risk. And with transparency cited as a continuous challenge, Dennis Wade, a senior partner at Wade Clark Mulcahy, LLP, who has handled international fine art matters, pointed out the importance of reputation risk when drafting a policy.

“Many policies also contain an exclusion for the dishonesty of the person to whom you deliver or entrust the goods,” Wade said. “So if you consign a work to a corrupt gallerist, there may be an exclusion in your policy and you may not be covered at all.”

The emergence of blockchain technology dominated discussion at another session, “Art Market 2.0: Using Art & Technology to Drive the Industry Forward.” According to panelists, authentication and secure transactions have risen to the top of their risk registers. New Art Academy Founder Elena Zavelev said blockchain’s ability to put individual faces on digital artwork has mostly solved the prior risk of unauthorized duplications, forgeries, and fraud. Zavelev and her co-panelists said blockchain may facilitate a long-term change in the way art is created, sold, curated and insured by improving the ability to track a work’s provenance.

Christie’s AVP Anne Bracegirdle said the masterstroke for streamlining the authentication process is to create a digital, industry-wide registry. Tokenizing original works, she said, would simplify the experience of buying, selling and trading. “If each piece had its own digital identity that would stay the same, no matter where it went, it would instantly provide secure provenance and prices,” Bracegirdle said. “There are companies like Consensus and Microsoft working to create distributed identity networks. The security within that could be applied to scale blockchain—regardless of which blockchain you’re interacting with. Digital identities would provide clients with access to all their consignments and their purchases in one consolidated space, which currently doesn’t exist.”

The evolution of art was also a hot topic during this session since what’s considered a “finished piece” is no longer just a physical canvas. Digital, virtual and even crypto-art may be in their relative infancy but these are gaining global popularity and could significantly influence the industry, said Devin Finzer, co-founder and CEO of OpenSea, a peer-to-peer marketplace for crypto collectibles, gaming items, and digital art.   

“[Owning digital products] has always been confined to a specific ecosystem, like event tickets to a ticketing site,” Finzer said. “Blockchain offers a new type of ownership for these digital assets and it’s exciting for digital art because you can own it in a variety of [digital forms]. Right now, we see the enthusiasm is from tech enthusiasts, but I think over time these ideas around digital ownership will cross over to a mainstream crowd who appreciate the art more than the technology.”

Jacksonville Murders Force Reassessment of Active Shooter Risks

A mass shooting at a video game tournament in Jacksonville, Florida on Sunday has once again shined a spotlight on the growing risks businesses face even as they conduct normal operations.

A lone shooter, 24-year-old David Katz, opened fire on football video gamers at a pizza restaurant, killing two and injuring at least nine before turning the gun on himself in an adjacent restaurant. Reports indicate that Katz was allegedly upset at being eliminated from the tournament. One of the deceased victims was a player who defeated Katz in a prior tournament, leading investigators to believe there had been a motive for the shooting. 

The effect of mass shootings has left Florida numb, especially since this follows the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, which left 17 dead and 17 injured; and the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando in 2016, leaving 49 dead and 53 injured. These tragedies demonstrate that no business or venue should consider itself inherently safe and serve as reminders to risk professionals in all sectors that their organizations could be vulnerable to a mass shooting.

Public Safety
The shooting was unique in that it occurred during a live broadcast of the football gaming tournament. Gunshots were clearly audible as players delivered commentary during their simulated contests, prompting them to take cover and call the police, who responded minutes after receiving the first call.  

The incident marked the 235th mass shooting in the U.S., according to the Gun Violence Archive, an organization that collects information about gun-related violence in the country. The FBI and the United States’ Congressional Research Service consider a mass shooting to be one that injures at least four people, excluding the shooter.

In light of this increasingly commonplace threat, understanding how to respond to an active shooter situation can mean the difference between life and death. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has provided the Run.Hide.Fight plan for guidance in what to do in an active shooter scenario.

Mental Health
As more information about Katz emerges, the links between gun violence, mental health and public safety in the United States become more evident.

CNN reported that Katz had a history of mental health issues and legally purchased a 9mm handgun and a .45-caliber handgun in Maryland. How he transported the weapons and ammunition across state lines and into the event are details still being investigated.

CNN also obtained police records that show 26 calls to the police from the Katz family home in Columbia, Maryland, from 1993 to 2009, for issues ranging from “mental illness” to domestic disputes. At least two of those calls involved Katz arguing with his mother, although none of the reports provided to CNN indicate any physical violence.

Since 2013, residents in Maryland must obtain a handgun qualification license from the state police before purchasing a pistol or revolver. That means Katz would have submitted his fingerprints, undergone a background check (which includes disqualifying individuals who were voluntarily or involuntarily hospitalized for more than 30 days), and passed a firearms safety training course to buy those guns. This scenario has been met with wide skepticism. And since some of his documented mental health issues may have occurred before the gun laws were revised, the disqualifications may not have applied to Katz.

“That clearly is an area in need of reform,” said Democratic Sen. Robert Zirkin, who chairs a Senate committee that handles gun laws.

Insurance
Risk Management magazine recently reported that companies may not be aware of potential gaps in their coverage or that the limits of their coverage, when considering active shooter incidents, are insufficient.

“You might have property coverage, but you might not have assessed your properties in specific locations against this type of risk,” said Robert Hartwig, clinical associate professor of finance and co-director of the Risk and Uncertainty Management Center at the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business.“You almost certainly would not have crisis management under your ordinary property or liability policy. So these represent gaps that, as a risk manager, you might be unaware of.”

Beyond property damage, it can be unclear what is covered after a shooting. For example it is difficult to establish the liability for allowing an assailant on a property. “Unfortunately, the increase in the number of active shooter situations has probably gotten ahead of the law on this issue,” Hartwig said. He added that a number of states do allow individuals to carry concealed weapons much, if not all, of the time. “So it’s not necessarily the case that, just by entering the premises with a weapon, individuals are violating the law. Therefore, a business is not necessarily negligent by allowing an armed individual to enter its premises.”  

Multiple Risks to Watch Out For at 2018 World Cup

Above: Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow 

The 2018 World Cup tournament began on June 14 and lasts until July 15. Thousands of fans will travel to Russia for the event, which consists of 64 matches and 32 teams in 11 cities. Like other mega events, it presents countless challenges for a number of industries including construction, travel, hospitality and security.

Circuit Magazine for security specialists reports that threat for terrorism is high, as there have been attacks in Moscow and the North Caucasus and most recently, a suicide attack on a Metro Train in St. Petersburg. It notes, however, that “Past performance in security terms of Russia at large events has been very strong, the Sochi Olympics was well controlled with no terrorist incidents affecting fans. Based on our assessment we continue to recommend that any attendance at large events, or corporate travel in Russia is supported by additional risk management measures.”

The article also recommends that attendees remain vigilant in public places, adding that to address this risk, security has been increased at airports and transportation hubs. It warns of street crime, including pickpocketing, that targets tourists. “Bogus police officers have harassed and robbed tourists.

If you are stopped always insist on seeing identification. Avoid openly carrying expensive items, or anything that might easily identify you as a tourist. Avoid walking about late at night alone,” Circuit warned.

Not to be overlooked are health concerns. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (EU/EEA) recommends in a recent report that anyone traveling to Russia for the games make sure their vaccinations are up-to-date, particularly for diphtheria, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, measles, meningococcal infection, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis rubella and tetanus. According to the EU/EEA:

“As is often the case with mass gathering events, during the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia visitors may be most at risk of gastrointestinal illness and vaccine-preventable infections. The risk of being affected by gastrointestinal illness can be reduced by employing standard hygiene measures including regular hand washing with soap, drinking safe water (bottled, chlorinated or boiled before consumption); eating thoroughly cooked food and carefully washing fruit and vegetables with safe drinking water before consumption.”

It added that while outbreaks and spread of vaccine-preventable diseases are of particular concern during such mass gatherings. “there are no indications that the risk is higher than usual.”

Beazley notes that many of the 2018 World Cup’s risks impacting various industries will be covered by the London insurance market. The insurer outlines some of the key risks and their likely insured values:

Reputational Crisis Forces Cambridge Analytica’s Closure

Most of us are aware of the recent scandal involving Facebook and political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, wherein the latter company obtained data from up to 87 million Facebook users and, in turn, built profiles of individual voters and their political preferences to best target advertising and sway voter sentiment. This information was used to enable Donald Trump’s campaign in the 2016 presidential election.

Right around that time it was reported that the Cambridge Analytica board of directors suspended CEO Alexander Nix. This action was taken after a whistleblower claimed Nix set up a “fake office” in Cambridge to present a more academic side to the company, and made comments to undercover reporters  that “do not represent the values or operations of the firm and his suspension reflects the seriousness with which we view this violation.”

A feature about the scandal in Risk Management’s current issue explains why the incident was not a data breach and how companies can learn from this and comply with EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in time for its May 25 implementation.

In the aftermath of the scandal and Cambridge Analytica’s concession that it will not be able to recover from its reputational crisis—although the company’s leadership maintains that it acted ethically—the UK-based firm and its affiliates announced on May 2 that it will be “ceasing all operations.” Excerpts from its statement are below:

Over the past several months, Cambridge Analytica has been the subject of numerous unfounded accusations and, despite the Company’s efforts to correct the record, has been vilified for activities that are not only legal, but also widely accepted as a standard component of online advertising in both the political and commercial arenas.    

Despite Cambridge Analytica’s unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully, which view is now fully supported by [Queen’s Counsel Julian Malins] report, the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the Company’s customers and suppliers. As a result, it has been determined that it is no longer viable to continue operating the business, which left Cambridge Analytica with no realistic alternative to placing the Company into administration.

This once again demonstrates how attacks in the court of public opinion can cripple a business. Despite a fast reaction and being exonerated by a credible authority, no amount of crisis management and communication could make up for the actions of Cambridge Analytica’s leadership. It also seems that the company had not considered a business continuity plan for a reputation crisis of this magnitude.

Last year, Steel City Re CEO Nir Kossovsky wrote for Risk Management Monitor about reputational risk—reflecting on it and warning of the consequences to an organization. When public anger rises, he said, “more blame is being cast upon recognizable targets, such as CEOs.”

And while Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg seems to have dodged the bullets fired his way during a Congressional hearing last month (did you #deletefacebook?), Cambridge Analytica’s leadership knew that, based on its actions and the cavalcade of accusations, neither their clients nor the public would ever “like” them again.