I don’t think the Zurich guy gets it. You do NOT have the same exposure today as you did before RMS 11. That’s the whole point. RMS and their years of data probably know a thing or two about the exposures they have been modeling and tracking over the years. If the model is telling you that you have more exposure and your loss expectations are rising in certain area, you need to listen and act accordingly.
I’ve always believed that the RMS models have lacked common sense, primarily their “distance to the coast” definition. In many cases, the RMS distance to the coast is to a river, and not to the coast. Next thing they’ll be telling us is that Chicago is the coast because it sits on Lake Michigan. In addition, from what I’ve heard, RMS 11 models a CAT 5 hurricane in the Northeast, even though that’s never happened in recorded history, and is scientifically impossible due to the required ocean temperature to achieve a sustained CAT 5 status. Let’s stop relying 100% on CAT models, and start using some common sense and sound underwriting judgment. CAT models are a useful took, but should not be considered the final word.
Dear “D” I cannot speak to the accuracy of the RMS model but to discount it simply because it forecast something that has never happened before is wrong. In April of this year we had the largest outbreak of tornados in history according to NOAA. Check out the AM Best May 9, 2011 article, “In Southern Tornadoes’ Aftermath, Army of Adjusters Toil to Tally Claims” for the details.
My common sense tells me with all the unprecedented catastrophes that have happened across the planet, it would be wise to start expecting the impossible.
I am putting my fingers in my ears and saying, “NAHNAHNAHNAHNAHNAHNAH…”
I don’t think the Zurich guy gets it. You do NOT have the same exposure today as you did before RMS 11. That’s the whole point. RMS and their years of data probably know a thing or two about the exposures they have been modeling and tracking over the years. If the model is telling you that you have more exposure and your loss expectations are rising in certain area, you need to listen and act accordingly.
I’ve always believed that the RMS models have lacked common sense, primarily their “distance to the coast” definition. In many cases, the RMS distance to the coast is to a river, and not to the coast. Next thing they’ll be telling us is that Chicago is the coast because it sits on Lake Michigan. In addition, from what I’ve heard, RMS 11 models a CAT 5 hurricane in the Northeast, even though that’s never happened in recorded history, and is scientifically impossible due to the required ocean temperature to achieve a sustained CAT 5 status. Let’s stop relying 100% on CAT models, and start using some common sense and sound underwriting judgment. CAT models are a useful took, but should not be considered the final word.
It’s time to Underwrite again! What a novel concept!
Dear “D” I cannot speak to the accuracy of the RMS model but to discount it simply because it forecast something that has never happened before is wrong. In April of this year we had the largest outbreak of tornados in history according to NOAA. Check out the AM Best May 9, 2011 article, “In Southern Tornadoes’ Aftermath, Army of Adjusters Toil to Tally Claims” for the details.
My common sense tells me with all the unprecedented catastrophes that have happened across the planet, it would be wise to start expecting the impossible.
i think those in Joplin, MO would agree with the change in inland wind speed.
GD – the Joplin, MO event was wind convection, not a hurricane – the 2 are very different. The RMS debate is over coastal wind.