131–140 of 349 posts
One of the most frustrating aspects of the process is that once outside of insurance/insurance-adjacent industries, the credentials are useless. I have my FSA (fellowship of the SOA) and CERA (chartered enterprise risk analyst) from the SOA. I no longer wanted to work in insurance and left for data science. I felt the need to obtain a graduate degree to feel qualified enough for the data science space. My Master's de…
Is the answer to the question at the top 0.33? let pc = purchased_collision, pd = purchased_disability we have: 2 * P(pc) = P(pd) P(pc & pd) = 0.15 so P(pc) * P(pd) = 0.15 2 P(pc)^2 = 0.15 --> P(pc) = 0.274, P(pd) = 0.548 So the probability of neither pc nor pd is !P(pc | pd) = 1 - P(pc) - P(pd) + P(pc & pd) = 0.328 ~= 0.33? The addition of P(pc & pd) was to take account of the double counting of pc and pd. Please le…
Did you reverse the likelihoods? P(pc) = 2 * P(pd), probability of purchasing C is twice as likely to probability of purchasing D.
I. P(C) = 2 P(D)
II. 0.15 = P(C and D)
= P(C) P(D) {by independence}
= 2 P(D)^2 {by I}
implies P(D) = 0.27
III. P(~C and ~D)
= P(~C) P(~D) {by independence}
= (1 - P(C))(1 - P(D))
= 0.33 {by I and II}Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees The free market is required to accurately price the risk for each driver. A 45 year old female driver with no infractions is much less risk than an 18 year old male with a DUI, so the former should pay less in premiums. The current system is doing that. I do not see how a state-provided solution would come up with "accurate" prici…
A government entity could perform this, no free market required. See residential flood insurance for a government based risk rating example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The public policy motivation for liability insurance is to protect the lawsuit route. A friend of mine had the same experience from the other side. She ran into some guy's car, apologised for her mistake and told him not to worry because she was fully covered. The first sign that something wasn't right was when a summons to appear at the magistrate's court appeared in the letter box. She asked the insurance company…
> The judge should hit the other party. What judge? The whole scenario is around a party who was not willing to go to court. There's no judge involved.
The judge will know that the other driver's insurance will ultimately pay, so he can punish the insurance company for its intransigence by putting a heavy financial penalty onto the other driver.
In this [1] interview by Barry Ritholtz, Markel CEO essentially told the origin story of an insurance giant. Basically a family member was a lawmaker, passed a law that drivers of the newly invented cars (maybe horse buggies?) must be insured. They simultaneously started a company that sold insurance. Over time they learned to make money from investing their customers capital. It blew my mind at how candid he was abo…
I guess this is 2021 so...something something... blockchain...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault, their insurance should pay out to those they damaged. The reality is that may only happen if you have an entity of similar magnitude to go to bat for you. That do…
> The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. Even without insurance or greater wealth, a party from whom you believe a liability should exist who has no interest in paying could have done the same thing here. If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as we…
I think this might be at the heart of it.
The article (about how hard actuarial math is) and the insurance buyers make the mistake of thinking that all that matters is downside in case of event X with particular probability P. However, instead you have to think about chances of X AND chances of being able to navigate a system that is outright adversarial to parties that are not the insurance companies.
The “house” always wins…
In this [1] interview by Barry Ritholtz, Markel CEO essentially told the origin story of an insurance giant. Basically a family member was a lawmaker, passed a law that drivers of the newly invented cars (maybe horse buggies?) must be insured. They simultaneously started a company that sold insurance. Over time they learned to make money from investing their customers capital. It blew my mind at how candid he was abo…
Side story about how satisfied people can be with the mandated insurance. I was on coast-to-coast road trip when I got into an accident in TX. Someone was trying to pass me on the left in a turning lane, veered into the incoming lane, and then hit my vehicle's front wheels from the back. The police ticketed the other driver, and told me that insurance will surely take care of that on my side. "Wow, it's worse than we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Side story about how satisfied people can be with the mandated insurance. I was on coast-to-coast road trip when I got into an accident in TX. Someone was trying to pass me on the left in a turning lane, veered into the incoming lane, and then hit my vehicle's front wheels from the back. The police ticketed the other driver, and told me that insurance will surely take care of that on my side. "Wow, it's worse than we…
Am I missing something here? Shouldn‘t the other driver pay you personally? And then he‘d have to hash out whether his insurance pays him that money?
If rando-joe you go to the other insurance company...yeah, of course they'll tell you "we investigated our client and found we don't have to pay you" because they're very much hoping you'll say "well shoot then" and go away.
The other option is to have an attorney do it. With multiple witnesses and video footage, it's a slam-dunk case unless the driver's identity can't be established. That means a)an attorney is happy to take it on and b)the other insurance company will likely cave well before anyone even starts talking about court cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hot take: if it's something that's universally a good thing that should be required of every driver, it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees. Otherwise, it's just an income-generating scheme for private parties. Oh, and fun fact: the liability insurance isn't required to pay up anything unless the covered driver loses in court . They don't have to follow that the police r…
> it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees The free market is required to accurately price the risk for each driver. A 45 year old female driver with no infractions is much less risk than an 18 year old male with a DUI, so the former should pay less in premiums. The current system is doing that. I do not see how a state-provided solution would come up with "accurate" prici…