As a cornerstone of the Asia Consumer Insurance Awards’ integrity-driven approach, we are proud to launch our inaugural awards programme with a diverse panel of experienced and respected judges.
Each award category is assessed using a transparent methodology, featuring rigorously tailored and weighted criteria. Our panel of judges independently review every application to ensure a thorough, impartial, and merit-based selection process.
With 30 years in industry, half of which have been based out of Hong Kong, Greg has worked as an actuary in reinsurance, capital, risk, product design and pricing, and valuation.
Greg has also done advisory board work in insurtech, regtech, AI, wellness, sales and moon-based projects. He is also an author and part-time lecturer.
Jateen is a qualified actuary accredited by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA), brings 22 years of accomplished expertise in financial services.
He runs his own successful independent actuarial consultancy in Hong Kong. His previous experience includes as an Executive at Sun Life Financial (Asia) and key roles at Aviva Group Plc, Mercer, and Firstrand Bank.
John specialises in strategic advisory for Asia’s insurance sector, with deep expertise in M&A, bancassurance, and corporate development.
Based in Hong Kong since 2000, he has held leadership roles at Generali Asia, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Macquarie Funds Group and Manulife Financial.
Blake has spent the past 25 years covering politics, economics and financial markets from three different continents: Europe, Africa and Asia.
He has spent 10 years reporting on finance across Asia, including extensive coverage of insurance. During his career, he has also reported from Hong Kong, Brussels, Sudan, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK.
Stay tuned - more judges are being announced shortly.
Each award category uses tailored and weighted criteria. Applications are evaluated and graded by our independent panel of judges on a 5-point scale.
The scale considers relevance, clarity, and the demonstration of excellence within the criterion and is defined as follows:
5 | Outstanding: Fully answers the question, is clear, and demonstrates excellence and best-in-class achievement for the criterion. |
4 | Strong: Clearly answers the question and shows above-average achievement, though may lack the exceptional distinction of a 5. |
3 | Satisfactory: Addresses the question and is relevant to the award, but may be missing depth, specific examples, or clear evidence of strong achievement. |
2 | Limited: Provides a basic or partial response with some relevant information, but would benefit from more detail, examples, or clearer alignment with the award criteria. |
1 | Insufficient: Offers limited information or clarity and does not demonstrate alignment with the award criteria or evidence of achievement. |
To achieve your highest possible score, your entry should: