2017 Global cyber risk transfer comparison report

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<rdf:Description>
<dc:creator>Ponemon Institute</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>AON Risk Solutions</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2017</dc:date>
<dc:description xml:lang="es">Sumario: The purpose of this research is to compare the relative insurance protection of certain tangible versus intangible assets. How do cyber asset values and potential losses compare to tangible asset values and  potential losses from an organization¿s other perils, such as fires and weather? The probability of any particular building burning down is significantly lower than one percent (1percent). However, most organizations spend much more on fire-insurance premiums than on cyber insurance despite stating in their publicly disclosed documents that a majority of the organization¿s value is attributed to intangible assets. One recent concrete example is the sale of Yahoo!: Verizon recently reduced the purchase price by $350 million because of the severity of cyber incidents in 2013 and 2014. Acceleration in the scope, scale and economic impact of technology multiplied by the concomitant data revolution, which places unprecedented amounts of information in the hands of consumers and businesses alike, and the proliferation of technology-enabled business models, force organizations to examine the benefits and consequences of emerging technologies. This financial-statement quantification study demonstrates that organizations recognize the growing value of technology and data assets relative to historical tangible assets, yet a disconnect remains regarding cost-benefit analysis resource allocation. Particularly, a disproportionate amount is spent on tangible asset insurance protection compared to cyber asset protection based  on their respective relative financial statement impact and potential expected losses. Quantitative models are being developed that evaluate the return on investment of various cyber risk management IT security and process solutions, which can incorporate cost-benefit analysis for different levels of insurance. As such, organizations are driven toward a holistic capital expenditure discussion spanning functional teams rather than being segmented in traditional siloes. The goal is to identify and protect critical assets by aligning macro-level risk tolerance in a more consistent manner</dc:description>
<dc:identifier>https://documentacion.fundacionmapfre.org/documentacion/publico/es/bib/160090.do</dc:identifier>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dc:publisher>Ponemon Institute</dc:publisher>
<dc:rights xml:lang="es">InC - http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</dc:rights>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Ciberriesgos</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Transferencia de riesgos</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Riesgos intangibles</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Activos intangibles</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Mercado de seguros</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Riesgos emergentes</dc:subject>
<dc:type xml:lang="es">Books</dc:type>
<dc:title xml:lang="es">2017 Global cyber risk transfer comparison report</dc:title>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>