Verisk Maplecroft Reviews

Established by an idiosyncratic former CEO who treated employees extremely badly, the acquisition of Maplecroft by Verisk in December 2014 and de facto merger with sister company Wood Mackenzie in 2015 were widely expected by employees to turn the company around. However, performance has flatlined, with the underlying root causes of the company’s malaise left completely unaddressed by the new management. While there have been a few marginal improvements around processes and benefits in the area of human resources, the core of the company remains as rotten as it ever was in the pre-Verisk era. The fundamental flaws in the company lie with a cadre of middle/senior managers – most previously in position before the acquisition – who facilitated a business culture that treated employees with total disdain, working them to the bone and regularly deceiving both them and clients on deadlines and deliverables. Instead of jettisoning the senior team after the acquisition, these people were rewarded with new jobs and pay rises, while much more competent and respected employees were permitted to leave the company. In addition to weak middle/senior managers, the company continues to suffer from an identity crisis. Cynically positioning the company as a ‘data analytics’ company to attract suitors in New York, the former CEO and her acolytes – many still with the company – deliberately downplayed the real strengths of the company in political risk, human rights and the environment. Instead, the emphasis was placed on indices and supply chain management despite an almost total absence of anyone with real expertise in quantitative research or logistics/supply chain management. Unfortunately, the errors of the previous era have been perpetuated by the new CEO based in New York, who makes very infrequent visits to the UK offices where the bulk of staff work. This has left her over-reliant on the same people who created the mess in the first place. Two employee surveys have revealed that employees are very unhappy – morale is extremely low and there is little light at the end of the tunnel.

If you are looking for a career and a company that is intellectually rewarding, that treats employees with respect and offers serious career opportunities, then look elsewhere immediately. The workforce has been gutted by a relentless drive to reduce every bit of analysis to a set of numbers; even carried out by the most conscientious analysts, this is at best an exercise of fumbling in the dark. Just look at the data provided to Bloomberg the other week, which suggest there is a 70-80% chance of a militarised dispute between the US and India this year. The mind boggles! There is absolutely no interest in providing nuanced, well-informed content for clients - this would require actual investment in analysts and employing senior people with some genuine political/security/economic experience (something done at all our competitors, by the way). Instead, it is much better to be in a position where anyone, no matter their background or expertise, can just turn the cogs on the random number generator. Making matters worse, all this vacuous number crunching is accompanied by the most atrocious corporate babble; the only use for which might be to obfuscate and hide the methodological gaps in the 'data'. It also seems to be a good way for those of little discernible talent to appear knowledgeable and bamboozle the CEO into thinking that their ideas are worthy of any merit. Unfortunately, this describes most of the senior managers who have remained from the old regime. Despite their manifest failings - which have included numerous complaints to HR - these people remain firmly ensconced and are showered with praise by the CEO. It isn't too much of a stretch to see that voicing opinions contrary to those of the CEO's lauded lieutenants results in being labelled a dissenter, and "not on the bus". Criticise too much and you will find yourself on the receiving end of a campaign by a bullying manager, who will do everything just within the rules to make your work life as unpleasant as possible. Unthinking loyalty is, then, the main criteria for success as an analyst, which is why many of the most talented individuals - with bona fide experience and knowledge of their subject matter - have departed. Those left are typically under-qualified sycophants who wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of reaching a similar level at a competitor. Indeed, a chasm has opened up between the haves and have-nots in the company. The senior managers and those analysts deemed loyal enough are given opportunities to travel and meet with clients, while junior analysts or those "not on the bus" have to beg and scrape for a mere train ticket to London.