Over the past months, the shifting tone of voices saying that the insurance industry is not up to the challenges posed by climate change has moved from mezzo-piano to mezzo-forte. In his own authorization of a Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)'s proposal to create a federal insurance settlement, Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield declared that “it is becoming increasingly clear that the insurance industry is unwilling or unable to serve the needs of consumers…and for that reason government intervention is necessary .” Former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones picked up on that “We march slowly towards the indefensible in the future, not only in California but in the entire United States.” I the anti-fossil fuel organization Insure Our Future it ends that insurance policies contribute to climate change. Securing Our Future is supported by the Connecticut Citizens Action Group, whose mission is statement “to actively engage Connecticut citizens in changing power relations to bring about environmental, economic and social justice.”
The “insecure future” crowd is mostly on the left, but it doesn't have to be. Ours research showed that the severity of natural disasters-especially floods-has increased, even after the normal increase in built-up area. And storms, hail, storms, floods are not combined. As they become more aggressive, they will destroy Republican homes with the same fury as they attack Democratic homes.
The analysis of determining whether the future is uncertain or not implies that we know what the future holds. We don't know. But there is data to support the argument that, even if the future is brought, it does not pose a threat to the insurance industry.
Insurance and Other Expenses
Property and The casualty insurance industry had assets of $2.7 trillion by the end of 2023. It suffered a loss of $627 billion a year. In addition to primary insurance funds, the insurance industry has another $670 billion in cash, $108 billion of which is “separate” cash in the form of insurance-linked securities, mainly catastrophe bonds. It is important to note that the volume of alternative income support insurance has almost doubled since the last decade. This means that third-party investors and asset managers, seeking diversification in their investments that are not linked to capital market fluctuations, are increasingly comfortable with insurance risk–running from it, not away from it. And importantly, while ten years ago credit risk and cyber risk were considered fair game for ILS products because there were no pricing models, today there are cats. commitments to all kinds of risks that were once considered insecurity – lawsuit risks, cyber risks, nuclear risks and wildfire risks. To be sure, as insurers obtain data to inform loss predictions, they are willing to insure risks that were once considered “uninsurable.” Many decades ago, insurance companies would not cover the risk of earthquakes because earthquakes were considered unpredictable “acts of God”. Today earthquake insurance and reinsurance and ILS products are vulnerable to earthquakes.
Historically, when insurers get a black eye from unexpected disasters, such as the great disaster of the 1980s, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, $81 billion (adjusted for inflation) in hurricane losses in 2005, the year of hurricanes Katrina, Rita. and Wilma (KRW), insurance markets were only temporarily disrupted, and insurers responded creatively. New foreign capital supported the creation of credit insurance companies in the 1980s. After 9/11 and KRW the new insurers with clean balance sheets were built. These responses to the shock of insurers show that insurers are up to the challenge. Resilience means being able to bounce back. That's what insurance companies do, the first financial responders. It's their business.
I'm From The Government, And I'm Not Here To Help
The unsubstantiated assertion that the insurance industry is not up to the task of insuring the risks exacerbated by climate change may be a thorn in the side of efforts to introduce federal insurance and insurance companies, as proposed by Representative Schiff's INSURE Act. This is intended to create a federal catastrophe reinsurance organization, supported by a balance sheet of US $5.4 trillion a sheet and $50 billion in seed funding. The federal government has already failed to administer two insurance programs – federal flood insurance and crop insurance. Instead of burdening taxpayers with potential risk, if the ILS market were to attract only five percent of the $35 trillion in retirement assets, adding unrelated risk to investment portfolios, that would bring another $1.8 trillion to the P&C balance sheet. Private markets can face a challenge. Foods don't stand in the way.
Articles
Trends
Interested in Trends?
Get automatic alerts for this article.
Source link
