So, what consequences do Hunter and Birnbaum pay if they are wrong and RMS and the industry are right? NONE!!
What consequences does the industry pay? Insolvency.
These are the same guys complaining about insurer profitability in 2006 – rather conveniently forgetting that the 2004 and 2005 storm seasons effectively consumed years and years of entire state premium income for a number of property/casualty carriers.
Why anyone pays any attention to these guys is beyond my comprehension.
I want to see a CAT-5 hurricane make a direct hit on Miami, FL this season. When the state\’s economy goes into a tailspin, maybe these \”consumer protectors\” will shut up. It took Hurricane Andrew to shut Nader up.
Why do these a$$holes think we want their protection, anyway?
Think about the implications of the model. OK it is based on a five year history. We all know that the five year history has been disasterous for hurricanes and this model allows the insurnce industry to adopt rates which at this time are appropiate.
Now if we can\’t use this model, does it mean that if and when this cycle changes back to a more moderate cycle we don\’t have to lower rates as quickly?
The near-term models are NOT based on five years of history, contrary to the misrepresentation in this article.
Near-term models rely on the same historical data as their long-term counterparts, they just don\’t make the assumption that the 100+ year historical average is the best predictor of the next five years of hurricane activity.
Just remember Algore has said that MOST scientist beleive in man-made gobal warming and a group made up of SOME of the world\’s best scientists have used a model similar to this one to say that the Earf\’s climate WILL rise between 6 to 8 degrees C over the next 100+ years.
If those models are correct, why can\’t the insurance models be correct???
Just as a special note: PLEASE FORGET THE NATIONAL HURRICANE INSTITUTES PREDICTION OVER A YEAR AGO ON THIS PAST HURRICANE SEASON WHICH SAID THAT THIER MODELS PREDICTED THE WORST HURRICANE SEASON IN DECADES, but they were mistaken when it all played out…
I have a proposition for a bet to anyone willing to pony up. Please predict the exact high temperature of any place in the world for the next seven days. One degree off and you lose.
CFA and CEJ should team up to start a coastal property insurance company, as apparently they have identified an exploitable market inefficiency. They can undercut the rest of the industry and save their insureds billions in premium. It\’s easy. They just said so.
Or maybe they are just ignorant amateurs trying to make headlines.
Put your money where your mouth is and get in the game, or just be quiet.
Even in Florida, where use of the models in rate filings is explicitly permitted, the Office of Insurance Regulation won\’t let carriers use RMS and, instead, relies on the public model built by the state\’s university system. So, as usual, Bob and Bernie are about as credible on insurance as Jay and Silent Bob.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
So, what consequences do Hunter and Birnbaum pay if they are wrong and RMS and the industry are right? NONE!!
What consequences does the industry pay? Insolvency.
These are the same guys complaining about insurer profitability in 2006 – rather conveniently forgetting that the 2004 and 2005 storm seasons effectively consumed years and years of entire state premium income for a number of property/casualty carriers.
Why anyone pays any attention to these guys is beyond my comprehension.
I want to see a CAT-5 hurricane make a direct hit on Miami, FL this season. When the state\’s economy goes into a tailspin, maybe these \”consumer protectors\” will shut up. It took Hurricane Andrew to shut Nader up.
Why do these a$$holes think we want their protection, anyway?
Think about the implications of the model. OK it is based on a five year history. We all know that the five year history has been disasterous for hurricanes and this model allows the insurnce industry to adopt rates which at this time are appropiate.
Now if we can\’t use this model, does it mean that if and when this cycle changes back to a more moderate cycle we don\’t have to lower rates as quickly?
The near-term models are NOT based on five years of history, contrary to the misrepresentation in this article.
Near-term models rely on the same historical data as their long-term counterparts, they just don\’t make the assumption that the 100+ year historical average is the best predictor of the next five years of hurricane activity.
I don\’t see the problem here.
Just remember Algore has said that MOST scientist beleive in man-made gobal warming and a group made up of SOME of the world\’s best scientists have used a model similar to this one to say that the Earf\’s climate WILL rise between 6 to 8 degrees C over the next 100+ years.
If those models are correct, why can\’t the insurance models be correct???
Just as a special note: PLEASE FORGET THE NATIONAL HURRICANE INSTITUTES PREDICTION OVER A YEAR AGO ON THIS PAST HURRICANE SEASON WHICH SAID THAT THIER MODELS PREDICTED THE WORST HURRICANE SEASON IN DECADES, but they were mistaken when it all played out…
I have a proposition for a bet to anyone willing to pony up. Please predict the exact high temperature of any place in the world for the next seven days. One degree off and you lose.
Kenny Rogers
I\’ll take that bet. 60 degrees (F) will be the exact high temperature someplace in the world each of the next seven days.
What do I win?
Ohmygosh! An actuary with a sense of humor. Welcome to the human race!
CFA and CEJ should team up to start a coastal property insurance company, as apparently they have identified an exploitable market inefficiency. They can undercut the rest of the industry and save their insureds billions in premium. It\’s easy. They just said so.
Or maybe they are just ignorant amateurs trying to make headlines.
Put your money where your mouth is and get in the game, or just be quiet.
Even in Florida, where use of the models in rate filings is explicitly permitted, the Office of Insurance Regulation won\’t let carriers use RMS and, instead, relies on the public model built by the state\’s university system. So, as usual, Bob and Bernie are about as credible on insurance as Jay and Silent Bob.