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

211–220 of 241 posts

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

#211

Post by zzleeper »

selectodude wrote: post #87
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/…

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.

That federal program, even with high deductibles, completely subsidizes their customers at the cost of taxpayers. They massively underprice the hazards, at the taxpayers ends up being on the hook at the cost of people who decided to built (and rebuilt) "their house on the sand"

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

#212

Post by alistairSH »

kube-system wrote: post #200
alistairSH wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I am saying that it could be desirable for the owner to refuse a buyout and sell it to someone other than the government.

Yeah, we'd have to condemn the home as part of the process to avoid that. Or at least flag it as uninsurable, so any buyer would have to bring cash and be willing to eat a total loss.

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

#213

Post by ryandrake »

Analemma_ wrote: post #92
uoaei wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unhelpful and tone-deaf response. I don't think anyone is "surprised" that companies act in their own self-interest. If they are surprised by anything, it's that the system that made mandatory the concept of insurance for a dignified, modern life (what we name in shorthand as "the economy") continues to allow for rug-pulling of this magnitude which obviously results in net-negative outcomes for society as…

> it's that the system that made mandatory the concept of insurance for a dignified, modern life You're talking like this is some kind of conspiracy theory, when there's not really any other way it could work. Banks will not give you a mortgage without home insurance, because then it would be an unsecured loan against an asset which would be worthless, with them eating the loss, if the house was destroyed. That's not…

What stops the bank from taking out their own policy and charging a higher interest rate on the mortgage to make up for it. Offer two interest rates: One rate for insured homes, one rate for uninsured homes. If that were offered, I'd definitely take the higher rate and choose to have the bank insure my home: Mortgage interest is tax deductible but home insurance isn't.

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

#214

Post by ryandrake »

pc86 wrote: post #154
Tangurena2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You're acting like a buyout is inevitable when it's not.

The wealthy beachfront property owners will point the media's cameras at the also-destroyed properties of the poor and elderly in the area, saying "How can the USA let these poor people lose everything!" We, the stupid taxpayers, will fall for it and bail everyone out.

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

#215

Post by cscurmudgeon »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #68
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-taking-pay-cuts-prevent...

Execs who are heavily compensated in equity also benefit from reducing their wage salaries to minimize tax liability exposure

There is no winning with some folks. Execs raise salary, they are bad. Execs lower salary, they are bad.

> Execs who are heavily compensated in equity also benefit from reducing their wage salaries to minimize tax liability exposure

That makes as much financial sense as a buying a $20 bill with a $100 bill.

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

#216

Post by kube-system »

alistairSH wrote: post #212
kube-system wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am saying that it could be desirable for the owner to refuse a buyout and sell it to someone other than the government.

Yeah, we'd have to condemn the home as part of the process to avoid that. Or at least flag it as uninsurable, so any buyer would have to bring cash and be willing to eat a total loss.

I'm not sure the federal government has the power to do anything other than refuse to insure it under their program.

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

#217

Post by [deleted] »

commonlisp94 wrote: post #24
criley2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to be that person, but this is the future. Because of climate change, more of our country is barreling towards "uninhabitable". It's not Farmers fault that we released too much CO2 and now wildfires and hurricanes are way worse and getting even more worse. If the people of California and Florida want insurance so they can build matchbox houses in high risk disaster zones, then they can start a public insurance…

> the people of California and Florida want insurance so they can build matchbox houses in high risk disaster zones, This has always been the case in Florida. Insurance simply costs more to compensate for risk. Flood insurance is separate in the US (and very costly). California might have more to do with the regulatory and legal environment. > now wildfires and hurricanes are way worse and getting even more worse. Wh…

[deleted]

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

#218

Post by Spooky23 »

hotpotamus wrote: post #180
alistairSH wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should be "easy" for the insurer to say "you get one more shingle replacement, then we dump you." At that point, the customer either buys a metal roof or moves. Market functioning correctly, no?

This is one thing I've never really understood about the market for insurance. Wouldn't the customer's best answer be, "OK, thanks for the new roof, I understand that you're dropping me, so I'll just switch to your competitor"? And then wouldn't it be in the interest of the insurers to maintain a shared list of "bad" (unprofitable) customers and freeze them out? Which is already a bit of what credit scores are for?

They already do. If you think that Google’s data collection practices are intrusive, you have no idea how much these folks know about you.

Insurance companies have a privileged legal position to do all sorts of stuff.

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

#219

Post by huthuthike »

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.

Personally I'd remove it from the National Flood Insurance Program. If the buyer can get a private company to insure it then the sale can go through. If the buyer cannot get a private company to insure it then the sale can only go through if they are not using a mortgage (mortgaged properties legally have to carry flood insurance). Couple this with plenty of disclosures so the buyer is aware they are taking on significant risk.

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

#220

Post by Spooky23 »

alistairSH wrote: post #144
toddmorey wrote: post #134

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.

Metal roofs last 3x longer but cost 7x more.

Depending on climate there’s some other options too.

Post reply on HN