Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

insurancejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 241 posts

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#151

Post by lotsofpulp »

yborg wrote: post #130
lotsofpulp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never understood this buyback philosophy and spoke against it(my whispers in a hurricane) Buybacks come from net income (profit). A business always has a choice of using the profit to pay the business’s owners (via dividend or buybacks) or to invest it back into the business (such as spending on R&D). Obviously, what portion of the profit is ideal to spend on R&D and what portion of the profit to pay to owne…

>Buybacks come from net income (profit) Never confuse the textbook economics with the reality of individual incentives. Company management used the low interest rate environment of the recent past to borrow money that was then used in buybacks. Executive management generally is in a no-lose situation with regard to compensation, there may be long-term incentives, but the CEO generally can exit within the term of thei…

> Company management used the low interest rate environment of the recent past to borrow money that was then used in buybacks.

Are people who buy stocks not incorporating the increased debt levels of the business in their valuation of the share price?

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#152

Post by cryptonector »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #2

All I see in the article is the discussion of "profits". I would think the PR department could come up with something about "trying to keep costs competitive for our customers" or something like that. Instead they're telling California and Florida customers to take a hike ... along with 11% of their employees. When is the last time we heard a company enact a company-wide, 50% cut in officer's salaries and a freeze on…

> All I see in the article is the discussion of "profits".

> I would think the PR department could come up with something about "trying to keep costs competitive for our customers" or something like that.

Keeping pricing competitive and staying profitable are both things that a business has to do when it doesn't have a monopoly (or oligopoly). It can't stay profitable for long while losing customers, and it can't keep customers w/o having competitive pricing (or quality). It's a tight rope to walk. Which of these they talk about will depend on what audience they are talking to.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#153

Post by rs999gti »

kdmccormick wrote: post #96
elteto wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There already is a federal program for uninsurable properties (for flooding only, I believe). They take whatever insurers reject. By my understanding, people just keep building on the same spot, even if it floods constantly, therefore they are a huge drain on the program. I don’t see a solution honestly. With global warming large parts of the world will become uninsurable. And we shouldn’t expect insurance companies/…

I'm no free-market zealot, but in this case it seems like the market has spoken. They shouldn't live there! Of course, there are ways to be humane about this, given that tearing people apart from their communities is bad for society. The government could taper off the program slowly, giving communities time to relocate. Or they could provide damage payouts with the stipulation that they are used to relocate somewhere…

I would think that the market would also adjust towards building more hurricane resistant housing like earthquake proof buildings in San Francisco and Tokyo

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#154

Post by pc86 »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #148
pc86 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So rather than having insurance customers in other states subsidize Floridian homeowners so they can replace their property after damage, you'd rather have taxpayers in all states subsidize Floridian homeowners to buy out their homes? That's the same thing with extra steps, except now people who bought bad properties walk away with a nice bag of cash.

Eventually, we're going to have to abandon much of the vastly overpriced property along the seashore. Parts of Hollywood and Miami are already below sea level. We aren't willing to build the sort of dykes that one sees in Netherlands (homeowners will sue because it blocks their view of the sea), and we're too car-centric to let cities turn into Venice. So we're going to buy those folks out anyway. This year, next yea…

Why should we buy them out? Nobody forced them to buy beachfront property in the first place. If the property ends up being abandoned, it's abandoned, and the owner should lose their investment.

You're acting like a buyout is inevitable when it's not. The last thing we should do as a society is a multi-hundred-billion / trillion dollar buyout of beachfront hotels and luxury property.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#155

Post by Tangurena2 »

hypeit wrote: post #51
whalesalad wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people surprised when a company operates in its’ own best interest? Why should we expect anything else? Insurance companies are just about moving dollars around and hedging risk. Being perturbed about this is like being mad about your dog barking at the mailman. If someone said I’m going to start free climbing the tallest buildings in the world - but I need insurance - the company will tell you to get lost be…

> An insurance company is not a charity it’s just a profit engine. Odd then that so many forms of insurance are mandated by the government.

It is not odd. It is lobbying - have the government force people to pay you. In the case of autos, they're dangerous and deadly. Too many people should not be allowed to drive. But due to other lobbying, public transit is unavailable in the US, so you must drive in order to have a job, or reach grocery stores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#156

Post by datavirtue »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #35
londons_explore wrote: post #7

I really don't think an insurance company should have 24,000 employees. Even 240 employees sounds like too many to me. They serve 10 million customers. Nearly every customer should be able to use an entirely automated online form for signing up and for making insurance claims. Claims should be settled entirely with the customer uploading a 1 minute video showing what damage occurred, plus the bill to fix it. Assume 1…

Roofers will absolutely love to exploit this kind of company.

Roofers consult with prospective customers on how to ensure the claim is approved. "Get up there and knock a few more shingles off."

Do not call insurance first.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#157

Post by jen20 »

elteto wrote: post #110
kdmccormick wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no free-market zealot, but in this case it seems like the market has spoken. They shouldn't live there! Of course, there are ways to be humane about this, given that tearing people apart from their communities is bad for society. The government could taper off the program slowly, giving communities time to relocate. Or they could provide damage payouts with the stipulation that they are used to relocate somewhere…

I don’t think you are missing any nuance at this point. If the amount of uninsurable properties is (comparatively) small, it’s way easier to throw some money at them and keep everyone happy. I think that’s the basic premise of the program. Everything changes when, for example, a large chunk of South Florida becomes uninsurable or inhabitable, potentially displacing hundreds of thousands. I don’t think we have anythin…

Can’t we pay to put them on busses or something? That seems to be the approach to the displaced which is favoured by Florida politicians after all.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#158

Post by sokoloff »

cjrp wrote: post #146
Tangurena2 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the distant past, insurance companies used actuaries to price policies, so that the companies could make informed, rational decisions like "for people in this risk category, if we want to make X% profit, how much do we need to charge for that coverage?" Instead it became "insurance company M is charging $N for this type of policy, we have to charge something similar or else our customers would switch." Along comes…

True, although if you're the only one correctly pricing risk and your competitors are all cheaper then you'll be out of business anyway.

It seems that Farmer's has determined that's the situation they find themselves in in Florida, and logically conclude that the only winning move is to not play.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#159

Post by pnutjam »

kdmccormick wrote: post #96
elteto wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There already is a federal program for uninsurable properties (for flooding only, I believe). They take whatever insurers reject. By my understanding, people just keep building on the same spot, even if it floods constantly, therefore they are a huge drain on the program. I don’t see a solution honestly. With global warming large parts of the world will become uninsurable. And we shouldn’t expect insurance companies/…

I'm no free-market zealot, but in this case it seems like the market has spoken. They shouldn't live there! Of course, there are ways to be humane about this, given that tearing people apart from their communities is bad for society. The government could taper off the program slowly, giving communities time to relocate. Or they could provide damage payouts with the stipulation that they are used to relocate somewhere…

Read the act 1 section, or listen to the podcast. This has been tried and it's basically impossible in a capitalist system with local democracy. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/762/transcript

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#160

Post by alistairSH »

kube-system wrote: post #116
huthuthike wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of these people are stuck in the situation. While they can get flood insurance to rebuild the property, they can't afford to abandon the property, and they can't find anyone to sell it to. So they are in a cycle of rebuilding the property, waiting for a flood, then rebuilding it again. There is a pretty obvious solution in my mind: The federal government offers homeowners a buyout for them to move out of that p…

How would you handle sales of the property? Some of these are desirable beachfront properties.

Any property bought by the government under these conditions would be condemned.

Doesn't matter if it's beachfront - there shouldn't be a home on a beach that sees significant hurricane damage every year.

Post reply on HN