Where is the assumption going wrong in that case? And what should these people be focused on in the questions that they should be asking?

Sure.

So I'll give you an example from like 12, 13, 14 years ago when I was at TQL and my shipper clients like Whirlpool, Polaris, Dana Corp, so automotive shippers.

These guys were saying, Mark, you're doing a great job handling our inbound and outbound Laredo expedited freight.

Can you handle our Mexican business too? And as any dumb freight broker would say, send it over.

I'll take care of it.

But after I looked at the detail a little bit harder, these shippers were asking us for an all-risk cargo insurance solution in Mexico.

How do you as a company kind of mitigate that risk yourself? And then how do you get insurance to cover what you don't see, what maybe you have blinders to?

in the

world domestically and in London.

And no one really had a clean product out there where it would provide a true all-risk product.

product that would cover the cargo for its full value, regardless of conveyance type, something that it needed to include the transloading process.

It needed to not have too many restrictions on carriers, needed to not have too many warranties that would require these Mexton carriers to follow these outrageous stipulations for the cargo insurance to really be valid in the case of a claim.

So I ended up having to have a few different insurance companies work together to put out a product that would work for the logistics industry where logistics service providers could obtain Cargo insurance on a per shipment basis and on a per client basis, per project basis for cross-border and for intra-Mexico.

And we got something off the ground about eight years ago.

How do you strike that balance between intentionally doing something that's going to stress your risk management to the to potentially a breaking point or to the edge, but then also still taking the risks and winning that additional business?