WYO premiums have been as high as 60% Commissions w/ NO risk. (Congressional Testimony.)
That’s as close to fraud as you can get.
Moreover,,
– Congress didn’t have comprehensive P&L on NFIP before passing BW-12.( Per Rep Coble) No valid P&L seen so far,, in fact>>
– GAO said NFIP Financials were undecipherable.
– INS. management Cos. (Not the Agents) were paid 30% to 60%(WYO) commissions, management, and Legal fees,, with No Risk .
– New Orleans uninsureds were rebuilt and still don’t have insurance. ( Behind Federal built Levee, that didn’t and won’t hold. Insureds pay the Losses for the uninsureds.)
– EPA & Wildlife Foundation directed writing BW-12.
How does Congress know NFIP is actually in Debt (from paying excessive Commissions, and paying to rebuild Uninsureds), without Comprehensive Financials?
Agreed that NFIP has facilitated unwise building practices, but BW12 double-crossed legitimate Insureds by increasing Premiums to pay for Uninsureds in New Orleans and elsewhere.
Bill Price
The 60% commission case must be a miniscule loss cost situation or a low level risk, with a fixed cost approach to the premium load… my curiosity is peaked… will have to look into this case.
Note current plan is to cap WYO at 25%. Big I bunch wants 30%.
BUT remember that Commissions paid in Private Ins underwriting are from Companies that underwrite the risk, and have to compete to sell. In this case NFIP requires the coverage ( no Selling) and takes the Risk. Simply no justification for such commissions.
We couldn’t obtain valid P&L so no idea how much was WYO.
It’s obvious that Ins. Lobby has great influence over NFIP policy.
BP
The private market will skim off the best risks leaving the taxpayer responsible for even higher deficits. Why is the taxpayer subsidizing private property? i can understand subsidizing health insurance as this is needed to support coverage for those who are chronically ill. But why are taxpayers asked to subsidize ocean front homes and other areas that have a high likelihood of flooding? No one has died because the could not get flood insurance on their home. This entitlement needs to end.
WYO premiums have been as high as 60% Commissions w/ NO risk. (Congressional Testimony.)
That’s as close to fraud as you can get.
Moreover,,
– Congress didn’t have comprehensive P&L on NFIP before passing BW-12.( Per Rep Coble) No valid P&L seen so far,, in fact>>
– GAO said NFIP Financials were undecipherable.
– INS. management Cos. (Not the Agents) were paid 30% to 60%(WYO) commissions, management, and Legal fees,, with No Risk .
– New Orleans uninsureds were rebuilt and still don’t have insurance. ( Behind Federal built Levee, that didn’t and won’t hold. Insureds pay the Losses for the uninsureds.)
– EPA & Wildlife Foundation directed writing BW-12.
How does Congress know NFIP is actually in Debt (from paying excessive Commissions, and paying to rebuild Uninsureds), without Comprehensive Financials?
Agreed that NFIP has facilitated unwise building practices, but BW12 double-crossed legitimate Insureds by increasing Premiums to pay for Uninsureds in New Orleans and elsewhere.
Bill Price
The 60% commission case must be a miniscule loss cost situation or a low level risk, with a fixed cost approach to the premium load… my curiosity is peaked… will have to look into this case.
Note current plan is to cap WYO at 25%. Big I bunch wants 30%.
BUT remember that Commissions paid in Private Ins underwriting are from Companies that underwrite the risk, and have to compete to sell. In this case NFIP requires the coverage ( no Selling) and takes the Risk. Simply no justification for such commissions.
We couldn’t obtain valid P&L so no idea how much was WYO.
It’s obvious that Ins. Lobby has great influence over NFIP policy.
BP
” and repeal the mandatory flood coverage requirement for commercial and multi-family properties located in flood hazard areas.”
Is it just me, or does this smell bad?
The private market will skim off the best risks leaving the taxpayer responsible for even higher deficits. Why is the taxpayer subsidizing private property? i can understand subsidizing health insurance as this is needed to support coverage for those who are chronically ill. But why are taxpayers asked to subsidize ocean front homes and other areas that have a high likelihood of flooding? No one has died because the could not get flood insurance on their home. This entitlement needs to end.