Live data from Hacker News

Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

nytimes.com

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#51
post #22

>Communities that are deemed too dangerous to insure face the risk of falling property values, which means less tax revenue Now that is the funnest quote I have seen in 2024. I would love to know what government will lower your property tax if your house value falls ? I have never seen that happen ever nor do I know anyone who has seen that happen over the past 40 years.

In my state, homes are assessed using true cash value (TCV) when the property is sold and then the taxable value is adjusted annually. If the property values within a neighborhood decrease (e.g. due to uninsurability) then that would be reflected in the taxable value.

Take a look at Detroit and surrounding area property values in the late 1980s and 2008-2012.

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#52
post #32

The cool thing is that private insurers invest heavily in fossil fuel. https://consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/top-10-us-insurance-c...

Property insurers are even more intense about it than life and business insurers. Berkshire Hathaway and State Farm Insurance are each something like $100B in fossil fuels.

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#53
As it's only tangentially mentioned in the article people should know that in many (most?) places insurers can't raise prices commensurate with risk making "nonrenewal" their only option.

These regulations have reasonable origins because as a mandated product it's pretty tempting to price gouge, but there's no exception for circumstances where the price really should be 3x the historical cost.

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love it. As things are now, I'm mandated to spend $XXXX/year on insurance that I've never used and know, for a near certainty, that I'm never going to use. I'd really rather not. I've looked at the statistics and, for me, it's a better bet to eschew insurance. (Which, generally speaking, it would have to be, otherwise the insurance industry would be losing money.)

>know, for a near certainty, that I'm never going to use. That's what most people say right up until they make a claim.

I don't want to make any claims, though. I'd be much happier in a position where I'm totally unable to make claims. (And don't have to deal with the insurance industry.)

I'd even pay good money for (de facto-) fake insurance, just so mandates and overly-bureaucratic clients/partners leave well enough alone.

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#55
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue is state boundaries (at least in the US case). If someone moves from Florida to Georgia, or California to Colorado, then the former state loses their tax base (even in FL: sales/corporate tax). So it sets up a musical chairs scenario where the state in question has every incentive to keep the game going. Which will ultimately mean (a) using state revenue to balance out insurance plans and/or (b) out…

Could you elaborate about the outright fraud by Freddie Mac? This is a genuine request for information.

Not OP, but GSEs are transferring unknown climate risk to investors (and potentially taxpayers if a bailout is required) by not updating their insurance guidelines around climate risk models and the mortgages they securitize for sale into the bond market. Insurance repricing or wholesale refusing to underwrite a territory is the leading indicator of stress, because they can move the fastest (versus mortgage market regulators, federal flood data mapping, etc).

TLDR There is an enormous amount of unpriced risk between GSE securities and potential insurance liabilities everyone is attempting to ignore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/07/business/economy/mortgage... | https://archive.today/wVcoy

> Mortgage Regulators Are Shrugging Off Climate Risk. It Could Cost Taxpayers Billions.

> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which backstop most U.S. mortgages, know floods and fires are a growing problem. But little action has been taken.

https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_b...

> The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events present potential risks to real estate finance. It has been argued that mortgage lenders may be able to securitize and sell mortgages that are more exposed to risks of flooding to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This possibility arises from two factors: the limited spatial variation in GSE guarantee fees (e.g., the fees are similar between houses with different flood risks) and the fact that GSE insurance mandates rely on outdated floodplain maps (which may fail to account for predicted increases in flood risks over the next 30 years). If this is the case, then there may be a concentration of flood risks at the GSEs, which play an important role in guaranteeing the stability of the mortgage market.

> However, the flood risk exposure of the portfolios of mortgages backed (purchased or guaranteed) by GSEs — specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — remains unknown. This article summarizes my examination of projected flood-risk exposures and the actual impacts of Hurricane Irma on mortgage defaults, documented in detail in my recent working paper "Leveraging the Disagreement on Climate Change: Theory and Evidence," co-authored with Laura Bakkensen and Russell Wong.

> Our first finding focuses on the GSE exposure to future flood risks. Restricting our attention to mortgages outstanding in 2023, the following table summarizes GSE portfolio exposure to future flood risk. We estimate that more than a quarter of outstanding mortgages — or more than 23 million loans, with a total outstanding balance of more than $2 trillion dollars — are at risk of future flooding, defined in this subsection as lying in a ZIP code with an average flood factor of at least 2.5 A smaller fraction (nearly 6 percent) are at higher risk, defined as lying in a ZIP code with an average flood factor of at least 3.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/confe...

> Conclusion:

> Mis-calibrated GSE insurance requirements → growth of fragile insurers.

> GSEs bear large unpriced exposure to climate due to insurance risk → taxpayer externality.

> Too much GSE mortgage origination in risky areas → distorted credit supply.

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#56

The climate firms are also faking data to protect their clients home values in places like Florida. The models are so wrong it's ridiculous. The amount of fraud going on from home insurance is astronomical.

What ya really gotta watch out for are the weather firms.

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#57
post #22

>Communities that are deemed too dangerous to insure face the risk of falling property values, which means less tax revenue Now that is the funnest quote I have seen in 2024. I would love to know what government will lower your property tax if your house value falls ? I have never seen that happen ever nor do I know anyone who has seen that happen over the past 40 years.

It is very common for a home owner to have their home value decrease.

Real estate is complicated but physical houses are depreciating assets - this is how rental properties are treated by landlords. Regular maintenance, land value, and market value usually offsets the depreciation.

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#58
post #22

>Communities that are deemed too dangerous to insure face the risk of falling property values, which means less tax revenue Now that is the funnest quote I have seen in 2024. I would love to know what government will lower your property tax if your house value falls ? I have never seen that happen ever nor do I know anyone who has seen that happen over the past 40 years.

It is tradition to contest the annual re-evaluations of the assessment of your home as that's exactly how your property taxes are based. The only time it is good for an owner's property's assessment to go up is when they are wanting to sell it. The rest of the time, they are constantly fighting to keep it low specifically because of taxes.

You must live in a state without property taxes, or you just have no idea how they work. Either way, this is exactly how property taxes work.

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#59
post #22

>Communities that are deemed too dangerous to insure face the risk of falling property values, which means less tax revenue Now that is the funnest quote I have seen in 2024. I would love to know what government will lower your property tax if your house value falls ? I have never seen that happen ever nor do I know anyone who has seen that happen over the past 40 years.

"I would love to know what government will lower your property tax if your house value falls ?" Plano, TX.

Why did you used all of those extra letters? TX would have sufficed

Re: Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

#60
The issue here has less to do with climate change itself and more to do with a combination of regulatory and economic factors. While left-leaning outlets might point to climate change as the primary cause, the reality is more nuanced—similar issues are visible in other sectors, such as health insurance. Here are a few key points to consider:

- Insurance Company Consolidation: As the industry consolidates, large insurers gain the ability to strategically drop unprofitable market segments. This allows them to improve profitability, but it often leaves consumers in those markets with fewer or no options.

- Regulations: Some states, like California, have introduced stringent requirements that compel insurers to continue providing coverage, even in high-risk areas. In response, many insurers have opted to exit these markets entirely. Consolidation has made this easier for them to implement at scale.

- Lack of Investment in Disaster Prevention: Across both Democrat- and Republican-led states, we’ve seen a decline in state and federal spending on preventive measures for natural disasters. This shortfall exacerbates the risks insurers face, further disincentivizing them from operating in high-risk areas.

Post reply on HN