“bottom line.”
Comment:
like a good neighbor -Ethical?
: The Chief Executive Officers (
all in the name of the “bottom line.”
;Profits and salaries are skyrocketing. The property/casualty and life insurance industries average $30B in profits every year. In fact, the U.S. insurance industry as a whole receives premiums of over $1 trillion (with a “T”) every year and has assets of $3.8 trillion.
The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the ten insurers in the report averaged an annual salary of nearly $9 million in 2007.
The Louisiana suit is based on the testimony of a group of former insurance adjusters, who say they found that private insurers overcharged the federal flood program in every single one of 150 cases that were reinspected.
The suit alleges numerous violations of the False Claims Act.
The adjusters say the companies purposely underestimated wind damage, which is paid for by private insurers, while overestimating water damage, which is covered by the federal government. WHAT YR WAS KATRING WAS IT 2005?
Excuse Me…but State Farm Has to Pay for Wind Damage ESPECIALLY when there is proof. So please don’t act like they are so generous in doing us a favor.
It’s like PEEING ON YOUR LEG AND TELLING YOU IT’S ONLY WATER.
FACT: Katrina Winds were 100-200 MPH AND HIT LAND 1 TO 4 HRS BEFORE THE WATER…
Hell it blew the roof off the Superdome in New Orleans and whiped out major cities from LA to MS. True to Form, they waited for their Best Friend to arrive, Mr. Water and they blamed all of the damage on the water. Refusing to pay for wind by blaming the water. Shame on all involved with his crime against your fellow American. No wonder other countries don’t trust us. Look what’s done to one another. It’s wrong.
FEMA SHOULD SELL HURRICANE INS.
WIND AND WATER DAMAGES ALL IN ONE POLICY.
If reinsurance markets are stable, why are so few standard insurance companies willing to compete in coastal area? We continue to experience market withdrawel along the NY, New England coast, percentage hurricane deductibles are the norm, along with 40-60% rate increases on renewals. Since there have been no serious hurricanes in recent years (Since 1954) the loss ratios have got to be exceptional. Why doesn’t anyone want to be a player in the property insurance market if things are stable? Help me understand.
OK Realist. You explained nothing. Pass the reinsurance cost onto the ulitmate buyer and price the policy appropriately. If you read the article is stated that reinsurance cost were stable. Dedcutibles do nothing, but mitigate claims to the insurance company reducing the amount they pay; ultimately making the business more profitable. So I remain confused and look for a better understanding. Wanna take another crack at an explaination that makes more sense.
Take a deep breath, Confused, and bear in mind I’m no teacher. I am using simple terms, not complicated, no hidden meanings.
1. The Ins Co must pay reinsurance premiums from profits, if there are any, prior to your suggestion of “they just past them on” spoken like you have no knowledge of what’s it’s like to run and fund a business. To quote Jimmy Buffet “It just ain’t that simple”.
2. And the deductibles (or self-insured retentions, if you will) cost the Ins Co. direct monies (profits) if they write the business and have the losses even with reinsurance.
Confused, you must have the ability to think regarding my simple explanation and this is not helped by copping some superior attitude. You must be a Liberal.
Pay out of profit!!!??? No I do not expect the insurance company to pay anything out of profit. I expect them to price their product so that they can make a profit; and a fair one. The reason for the confusion, (IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE)is that the article states that reinsurance rates are stable. I have been hearing for 5 years that the reason companies are retreating from the coast is due to increased reinsurance cost, or lack of reinsurance availability. The article is stating that there is stablility in pricing and adequate capacity. If that is the case, then the insurance companies should be able to adequately estimate reinsurance cost and build that cost into the price of their product. Now if that pricing is above residual markets than I can begin to understand. With the exodus of companies I do not think that many insurance departments are going to deny any companies rate increases, especially if they are willing to enter a coastal market, with a justifieable price. Neither of us are teachers Realistic, but that does not justify us not understanding and being confused.
Consider:
Allstste had no reinsurance for Katrina- they lost 4 billion. Next yr, they bought 4 billion reinsurance policy with a 2 billion deductible for $550 million. There were no losses.
Go figure after you eat some pasta what it cost them.
Confused has some pretty logical questions concerning coastal issues. Your arrogance is unecessary. What does ones politcal affiliation have to do with any of this? An easy answer would be to state that the reinsurers took it on the chin last year on CAT and investment results and leave it at that. Us simpletons can handle that answer. Wish we could all be as smart as you for one day…
As far why carriers are retreating from the coast even though reinsurance rates are “Stable:”
Stable doesn’t necessarily mean low. The cost of reinsurance is taken as an expense and figured into the indicated rates for a product. Many carriers may find it easier to compete on a product with lower expenses.
Second, reinsurance contracts, ESPECIALLY catastrophe reinsurance, are not designed to fully insulate a company against the loss. Cat contracts have limits and coinsurance provisions, so the company still retains a good portion of the cat risk even with the catastrophe provision in place.
Finally, while an appropriate price including the reinsurance expense may be calculated, that doesn’t necessarily mean it can be charged. Some states are worse than others (I’m looking at a certain peninsular state in the southeast) about this, but regulators can either deny needed rate increases or drag out the approval process indefinitely.
“bottom line.”
Comment:
like a good neighbor -Ethical?
: The Chief Executive Officers (
all in the name of the “bottom line.”
;Profits and salaries are skyrocketing. The property/casualty and life insurance industries average $30B in profits every year. In fact, the U.S. insurance industry as a whole receives premiums of over $1 trillion (with a “T”) every year and has assets of $3.8 trillion.
The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the ten insurers in the report averaged an annual salary of nearly $9 million in 2007.
The Louisiana suit is based on the testimony of a group of former insurance adjusters, who say they found that private insurers overcharged the federal flood program in every single one of 150 cases that were reinspected.
The suit alleges numerous violations of the False Claims Act.
The adjusters say the companies purposely underestimated wind damage, which is paid for by private insurers, while overestimating water damage, which is covered by the federal government. WHAT YR WAS KATRING WAS IT 2005?
Excuse Me…but State Farm Has to Pay for Wind Damage ESPECIALLY when there is proof. So please don’t act like they are so generous in doing us a favor.
It’s like PEEING ON YOUR LEG AND TELLING YOU IT’S ONLY WATER.
FACT: Katrina Winds were 100-200 MPH AND HIT LAND 1 TO 4 HRS BEFORE THE WATER…
Hell it blew the roof off the Superdome in New Orleans and whiped out major cities from LA to MS. True to Form, they waited for their Best Friend to arrive, Mr. Water and they blamed all of the damage on the water. Refusing to pay for wind by blaming the water. Shame on all involved with his crime against your fellow American. No wonder other countries don’t trust us. Look what’s done to one another. It’s wrong.
FEMA SHOULD SELL HURRICANE INS.
WIND AND WATER DAMAGES ALL IN ONE POLICY.
Criminal investigation of State Farm is what is needed. IN ALL 50 STATES.
If reinsurance markets are stable, why are so few standard insurance companies willing to compete in coastal area? We continue to experience market withdrawel along the NY, New England coast, percentage hurricane deductibles are the norm, along with 40-60% rate increases on renewals. Since there have been no serious hurricanes in recent years (Since 1954) the loss ratios have got to be exceptional. Why doesn’t anyone want to be a player in the property insurance market if things are stable? Help me understand.
I’ll try:
1. Reinsurance costs
2. “Deductibles”
OK Realist. You explained nothing. Pass the reinsurance cost onto the ulitmate buyer and price the policy appropriately. If you read the article is stated that reinsurance cost were stable. Dedcutibles do nothing, but mitigate claims to the insurance company reducing the amount they pay; ultimately making the business more profitable. So I remain confused and look for a better understanding. Wanna take another crack at an explaination that makes more sense.
Take a deep breath, Confused, and bear in mind I’m no teacher. I am using simple terms, not complicated, no hidden meanings.
1. The Ins Co must pay reinsurance premiums from profits, if there are any, prior to your suggestion of “they just past them on” spoken like you have no knowledge of what’s it’s like to run and fund a business. To quote Jimmy Buffet “It just ain’t that simple”.
2. And the deductibles (or self-insured retentions, if you will) cost the Ins Co. direct monies (profits) if they write the business and have the losses even with reinsurance.
Confused, you must have the ability to think regarding my simple explanation and this is not helped by copping some superior attitude. You must be a Liberal.
Pay out of profit!!!??? No I do not expect the insurance company to pay anything out of profit. I expect them to price their product so that they can make a profit; and a fair one. The reason for the confusion, (IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE)is that the article states that reinsurance rates are stable. I have been hearing for 5 years that the reason companies are retreating from the coast is due to increased reinsurance cost, or lack of reinsurance availability. The article is stating that there is stablility in pricing and adequate capacity. If that is the case, then the insurance companies should be able to adequately estimate reinsurance cost and build that cost into the price of their product. Now if that pricing is above residual markets than I can begin to understand. With the exodus of companies I do not think that many insurance departments are going to deny any companies rate increases, especially if they are willing to enter a coastal market, with a justifieable price. Neither of us are teachers Realistic, but that does not justify us not understanding and being confused.
Consider:
Allstste had no reinsurance for Katrina- they lost 4 billion. Next yr, they bought 4 billion reinsurance policy with a 2 billion deductible for $550 million. There were no losses.
Go figure after you eat some pasta what it cost them.
Confused has some pretty logical questions concerning coastal issues. Your arrogance is unecessary. What does ones politcal affiliation have to do with any of this? An easy answer would be to state that the reinsurers took it on the chin last year on CAT and investment results and leave it at that. Us simpletons can handle that answer. Wish we could all be as smart as you for one day…
As far why carriers are retreating from the coast even though reinsurance rates are “Stable:”
Stable doesn’t necessarily mean low. The cost of reinsurance is taken as an expense and figured into the indicated rates for a product. Many carriers may find it easier to compete on a product with lower expenses.
Second, reinsurance contracts, ESPECIALLY catastrophe reinsurance, are not designed to fully insulate a company against the loss. Cat contracts have limits and coinsurance provisions, so the company still retains a good portion of the cat risk even with the catastrophe provision in place.
Finally, while an appropriate price including the reinsurance expense may be calculated, that doesn’t necessarily mean it can be charged. Some states are worse than others (I’m looking at a certain peninsular state in the southeast) about this, but regulators can either deny needed rate increases or drag out the approval process indefinitely.