Live data from Hacker News

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

insurancejournal.com

201–210 of 241 posts

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

#201
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably right. From my vantage point (in an independent agent insurance office right now), the easiest way to shrink UW is to make it ALL run by independent workers (e.g., agents). The irony of this, though, is that the quality of the underwriting risk assessment can suffer, meaning premiums will often be underpaid relative to statistical risk, and create more problems if enough of them push through. Another…

Ignorant but curious questions Do insurance policies get packaged and sold as financial products, or are they re-insured on the backend but continue to be held by the originator? Related, at what point of policy origination/reinsurance are standards audited and applied? I.e. if I originate a mispriced policy, where does that get noticed/rejected?

Great question!

I have my own essay that tries to summarize it[1], but the entire idea of insurance is to work with pure risk:

- Speculative risk is when you might gain from big events (e.g., VC) - Pure risk is when you will only lose from big events.

The entire job of an insurance company is straightforward: take a little bit of premium calculated by actuarial data (historically represented as a table), then pay out large checks to the people who have an unlikely event.

I have a prevailing axiom that 3-10% of the population makes it difficult for the rest of us, and insurance gets complicated for that reason:

- people lie about claim damages - claims adjusters sometimes find legal ways to not pay claims - actuarial/legal framing can allow non-coverage of something that ought to be covered in good faith (e.g., driving your car out-of-state)

Now, that's the POV of the insurance company, which sets some context I wish I had had.

The POV of the party seeking insurance is that they're transferring pure risk, then paying rent to the insurer for it. It's possible to recurse this, and an insurer can become the insured by packaging up a bunch of risks and hand it off to other insurers for a price. I'm not THAT knowledgeable, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's what insurance orgs that took on too much risk actually do relatively often when they got a bit ambitious.

The tech world could actually learn a thing or two additionally from insurance. The secret to a functional insurance company with a liquidity issue is to, effectively, do nothing and wait for customers' insurance premiums to replenish the money supply. "Do nothing" is the exact opposite mantra of "Move fast and break things", and there's a time/place for both!

[1] https://notageni.us/insurance/

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

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But the vast majority of claims are for $300 to fix a dent in a car. It just doesn't make sense to spend more than 10 minutes on them.

Deductibles mean you can spend 0 minutes on those.

Not if it's a dent in someone else's car that your customer caused.

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

#203
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insurance mandates are for things that impact either your life or other people. I don’t want your judgement proof ass hitting me with your car without the ability to fix it, nor do I want you using emergency medicine as a pediatrician. Thus, mandates.

The problem is when you combine "mandated" with "for profit". The two should never go together. If it's mandated, I want exactly zero of my dollars going toward executive compensation, dividends, stock buybacks, advertising, sales... You're currently paying for that neat little 3d animated gecko under threat of US law.

Food is provided by for profit companies, and buying food is mandatory for the sheer majority of people. Yet on the whole it's mostly a functioning market with mostly stable prices, apart from the recent spikes of trumpflation.

The problem is lack of competition, both in pure number of companies due to consolidation, and also widespread collusion between what should be independent companies in the form of adopting the same business policies, software, and even surveillance databases (aka customer records).

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

#204

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…

Re: FL & CA becoming uninsurable-- I have almost zero knowledge in that area. I assume it's because of natural disasters such as Fires, Hurricanes, and sea level rise?

The issue in Florida is also idiosyncratic to the state -- in addition to macro factors such as an increase in reinsurance costs (driven by increased cost of capital) and increased weather volatility (driven at least in part by global warming), Florida has had an issue with insurance fraud. They had a set of laws and court cases, unlike any other state in the country, that created a financial incentive for contractors to inflate (or make unnecessary) insurance claims. They would work in concert with litigation mills to further inflate the size of those claims. The way the laws were setup it often allowed the attorneys to get a 3x multiplier on their fees (which they would inflate to begin with).

So you would have a situation where a roof needed to be replaced, should cost $30k. A roofer comes up with an estimate for $60k (and maybe pays the homeowner back a $10k kicker), gets the homeowner to sign over the insurance policy to him. Then he hires a lawyer who spends $50k of his time litigating the case. Let's say the court sides in favor of the insurer and awards $30k, the lawyer still gets $150k (3x multiplier on the $50k of fees).

As a result you had Florida accounting for 8% of the homeowners insurance claims nationally and 75% of the lawsuits nationally. There are billboards for insurance attorneys EVERYWHERE in florida.

The phenomenon impacted big national companies like State Farm that have similar claims handling procedures across their book. So State Farm would handle claims exactly the same in Florida as in Illinois and get sued 10x more often in Florida because of the financial incentive to sue. It also impacts Florida's state-owned insurer, which does compete very vigorously in the market and is the largest insurer in the state.

David Altmaier, the former Commissioner of Insurance in Florida, wrote a good piece on that situation - https://floir.com/siteDocuments/ChairIngoglia04022021.pdf

Fortunately Florida took a really good stab at fixing the problem with some legislation passed last December. It will take a while to see if the legislation worked, however. Meanwhile we still have the macro factors (climate change, reinsurance costs) to contend with. https://bestsreview.ambest.com/edition/2023/february/Florida...

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

#205
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is physically changing. Weather patterns are shifting. Hot is getting hotter. Wet is getting wetter. Wildfires are becoming larger, more prevalent and more destructive. Sea levels are rising. Ocean temperatures are rising. Parts of the world are becoming inhospitable for human life. We can try as we might to terraform and engineer against it but Mother Nature will win. At some point as an insurance company…

All the facts you state about the environment are true. But it makes zero sense IMO to make this an individual decision governed by the whims of the market and replicated anew across every single person. That is a purely reactive stance and, being humans, we can do better than that. We are smart enough to be proactive about these sorts of things, and considering we already have such an apparatus called "the state" to…

Here is a decent summary from one of the weather modeling firms about the impact of global warming on hurricane strength -- https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/kcc-mainwebsite-dev/publi...

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

#206
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If enough insurance companies decide to stop doing business in Florida, Florida is welcome to create a state-run insurance company to serve its residents. That's literally the apparatus of the state (in both senses of the word) used to the benefit of the residents. That may just have the effect of moving the problem from "my insurance premiums are too high" to "my taxes are too high", because at the end of the day, s…

Florida already has a state run insurance company for this exact reason https://www.citizensfla.com/who-we-are

In Florida Citizens is the largest homeowners insurance company and it competes vigorously with the private market.

The issue with Citizens is that it does create a lot of financial risk for the state, especially since it doesn't buy as much reinsurance as a private company would.

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

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point, wouldn't a standing seam metal roof be the best investment? The cost is about 3x, but beats an annual roof replacement.

I've wondered the same about storm damage in Florida. There has to be a better option than shingles, even really high quality shingles.

+1 for metal roofs -- I run an insurance company that specializes in high risk areas. Metal roofs are a superior technology to shingles and tiles.

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

#208
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…

People will always be willing to pay a premium to live near the ocean. There are some places where that premium will be too high except the very very wealthy - living on a barrier island - for example.

In order to enjoy living in places where nature exact a larger toll - near the ocean, on a mountain that gets dry and doesn't have a fire station nearby - homeowners will need to invest in hardening their homes, invest in buying more expensive insurance and will need to make sure they have the financial buffer to rebuild if their home is damaged by the weather.

As the ocean rises, we will need to move more inland.

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

#209

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…

People will always be willing to pay a premium to live near the ocean. There are some places where that premium will be too high except the very very wealthy - living on a barrier island - for example. In order to enjoy living in places where nature exact a larger toll - near the ocean, on a mountain that gets dry and doesn't have a fire station nearby - homeowners will need to invest in hardening their homes, invest…

Of course. This is all common sense and I'd wager that most people feel this way.

That's why I'm surprised that the government provides subsidized insurance for folks in extremely flood-prone areas.

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

#210
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/…

That federal program is broke as a joke, and it generally comes with extremely high deductibles and poor payouts. It’s easy for states to regulate insurance companies for political points, which you’re seeing in California and Florida. However, insurance markets collapse slowly and then very very quickly when the math stops working out.

The national flood insurance program shows one of the downsides with government participating in the private market (there are some plusses as well) - their rates were set too low, and that created a group of people who were politically motivated to agitate to keep them low. It's very hard to find the political will to raise insurance prices on those people, even though the majority of people/voters understand that it's a subsidy that doesn't make sense - first because its not fair, second because it encourages outsizes risk taking.
Post reply on HN