The Risks of Hazard

Earlier this month the New York Times published an op-ed piece discussing the new FIRMs in New Orleans. Now, if ever there were going to be contentious flood maps published by FEMA, these would be them. It is nigh impossible to discuss flood mitigation or flood risk in that city objectively after Katrina.

The author, Andy Horowitz (an assistant professor of history at Tulane), states his intent early: “I was briefly elated — and then, horrified — when, earlier this year, the federal government declared most of New Orleans safe from flooding.” At length, here is the cause for his concern:

Flaws and All

In 2014 Deloitte published a research paper entitled The potential for flood insurance privatization in the U.S. Could carriers keep their heads above water? Despite the marks the authors might have lost in the “Title Brevity” category, they more than redeemed themselves in the all-important “Usefulness” category. This is a white paper that anyone underwriting, contemplating, competing with, or studying private flood should read, over and over. It is such a rich vein of material that The Risks of Hazard is going to write two posts on it this week. Today, we will provide an overview that includes a deeper look at the key problem and solution. Later this week, we will review their survey of all the available ways that private flood can be introduced into the US market. 

The title of the introductory section reveals the conclusion: Greater privatization may provide growth opportunities, but leveraging them might be problematic. It is a very safe, uncontroversial conclusion, which makes sense because it was written 2 years before the current private flood legislation is on its way to becoming law. The first half dozen pages of the report offer an orthodox summary and summation of the NFIP, its travails and its successes (yes, it has been a success for some – especially lenders).

Then it gets more interesting.

Two weeks ago, we published a post on how analytics aren’t so smart after all. It has been a sensation (only our Cat Modeler’s Guide to the Protection Gap has been read more this year), so it is only natural that we pursue the topic further.

The blog that lit up a little corner of the web was about the limitations of analytics, specifically flood risk analytics. It turns out there is some interesting science and folklore about the topic, so let’s take a look.

Analytics are an attempt to measure an immeasurable phenomenon. Cat risk analytics (flood, quake, hail, etc.) are perfect examples, as they aspire to determine the chance of something happening in a given location during a given timeframe – it is not possible. However, by evaluating a combination of different types of information, they can begin to produce results that are useful for underwriters who need those unknowable answers.

Earlier this month I published a post on LinkedIn about underwriting “challenging” flood in California’s Central Valley. It generated a decent readership and some likes, but, most importantly, it generated some comments. One of the comments posted was a very prescient piece of commentary, and it deserves a blog post to explore the topic it raised: The limitations of analytics.

The comment came from Mr. Tim Pappas (a VP at Gen Re), and I am grateful to him for raising this important topic. Here are the points he raises that this post will address:

• Without understanding the limitations of “superior analytics,” insurance companies can be putting their bottom line in great danger.
• The picture may not be quite as clear as the “high resolution” data provided indicates.
• The complexity of all the factors involved can lead to errors in estimation, making the computations imprecise and sometimes outright faulty.
• If the data is off on just a small percentage of risks, the impact on portfolio profitability can be quite large.

In August 2015, Lloyd’s and JBA Consulting published a white paper called California Flood – Central Valley Risk Analysis. At the time of publication, it was received with raised eyebrows as the state was in an historic drought. Characteristically, Lloyd’s took the long view and they released the study, knowing El Niño was on the way.

The report is very much focused on the accumulated flood risk in the Central Valley, including property, crop, and business interruption, and the figures it cites are as huge as expected – a potential loss exceeding $24B.