From your perspective, what role does insurance play in determining which of those is going to happen?

So I propose that we might do a small thought experiment.

Let's think that we are house owners and once we are hit by a flood, And we have no insurance, no help, nothing at all.

Once we hit by a flood and we get some help from the government and maybe some aid organizations.

And then once we hit by a flood and we actually get the whole money that we need to rebuild our house from the insurance company.

So now if we start with this worst case scenario, our house was destroyed in a flood and we get no help.

Actually, probably our entire wealth is destroyed because most people, if they have a house, that's their wealth that they have.

But do you think it's new tools that are the most likely to solve the protection gap? Or do we need to actually accept that there are limits to what insurance can do and look at how we take a more integrated approach to how we solve the problem?