As I have studied underwriting natural catastrophe, one of the more interesting things I’ve learned is that it’s widely done with software built for something else: accumulation. Even though many accumulation solutions (including some cat models) offer an underwriting function, it is not suited to the actual task of underwriting.
With 2015 now firmly in the past, I am seeing a lot of blogs with 2015 Top 5 lists. As with all good ideas, it needs to be copied assimilated. Today, I am counting down the Top 5 articles from last year based on viewership.
Without any ado at all, here are the Top 5 Risks of Hazard episodes from 2015:
The Internet of Things (or the IoT) is a real boon for technology bloggers, and it is time Risks of Hazard took a look at it. First, some background: here’s what the IoT is, how it works, why it’s not everywhere yet, its impact on insurance, and how it threatens the insurance industry (!). But there is not much about the IoT and natural catastrophe risk out there yet, presumably because they are not really related…
False. The IoT and natural catastrophe risk assessment have one thing very much in common: the importance of location.
With my last blog post of 2015, it’s time to honor the tradition of making predictions for the coming year. It is an especially fitting way for Risks of Hazard to end the year since we explore underwriting analytics that help underwriters understand the chances of something happening in the future.
This blog post is part 2 of 2 exploring how underwriting leakage manifests itself in the property insurance market. On Tuesday it was rate fluctuations after a catastrophic event. Today, we look at the coverage gap.
To recap briefly, underwriting leakage is the difference between perfection and reality when an underwriter assigns financial conditions on risk. Ideally, there is no difference, but in reality there is always a difference.
The coverage gap is the difference between total economic losses from an event and insured losses. It can be caused by a lack of insurance penetration into a market, a lack of suitable products available, or certain coverages missing from the available products. Here is a recent paper on the coverage gap from Swiss Re (they call it the “protection gap”, but it’s the same thing) that explains it much better. In a perfect world there would be no coverage gap because all the necessary policies would be available at the right price, offering the right coverage. This is the perfect world where there is no underwriting leakage.