Millions of homes are underinsured against natural disasters

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

 

I see they mention new tariffs as a cause for rising construction costs. The URL is cnbc, I though that was Canadian. they don't have the tariffs.

However unfamiliar I am with main stream media, there should BE NO TARIFFS ON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. We are talking bricks, boards, drywall.

There should be tariffs on certain things, TVs would be a good choice. They screwed up a bit putting tariffs on electronic components, they should only be applied to parts that are made here.

But that is not the main cost of construction. Laborers are about $25 an hour, bricklayers $35, plumbers even more if they're good and let's not even talk about electricians, and of course cement and roofing. This is all labor intensive and the materials are not a big part of the total cost.

This is not exactly union blackmail causing this, these people simply won't work much cheaper. They went through a school and an apprenticeship, you are an engineer right ? Would you work for $15 an hour ?

We live in a country with formerly suppressed wages for all just about except for the government. Now this financial oppression made possible by blackmail due to too few jobs is over. However even though these are not labor unions but trade unions, wait until contract time and they decide they want more money. They will get it. It is that or do your own work and m9st people cannot. I can do a few things but not cement much or will I climb on a roof or do siding but I can do just about everything else and I might be less expensive than most I am not working for minimum wage.

Many of these natural disasters are floods, and the insurance is subsidised with tax money. It probably should have some guidelines, like once and only once. they have rebuilt houses five fucking times in some places and the people who know about it and pay taxes are bitching. Most people don't know though because Oprah didn't tell them or some shit. But I think these people after the second time a flood washes their house away they should relocate, and if they don't then no more insurance. Sorry Louisiana but you go into the ocean too much for us to rebuild you for free every few years.

This flooding does make for very fertile land, there is no doubt. But let the floods wash away a few crops instead of your house, your kid's schools, city hall, the fire department, whatever else. Just take that land and plant there, and keep GMOs the fuck out so we can have some really good food.

And then, there is a guy in Florida who had a brainstorm. People were being flooded but not bad enough to wash them away, the houses were rebuildable enough. But the cost. So this guy starts a company that'll put your whole house up on stilts or sorts and make you a garage underneath. Then only your car, lawnmower, grill, n shit like that is wrecked. Not the whole place.

I don't have much pity for people who are too stupid to move to land that is fit for human habitation.

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 06/05/19 23:46, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

Yes, reconstruction costa are a factor, but the main point is that
insurance companies aren't in the game to lose money. They'll pay out
once, but after that you are often on your own, and perhaps uninsurable.
Well, that's the way it is in the UK with regards to flooding. Many
properties which have suffered extensive flood damage are not able to
get insurance again for flood damage. That's not surprising with
developers building on what is well-known to b a flood plain. The
"once-in-a-100-years" flood has, shall we say, become somewhat more
frequent. So if the insurance companies base their risk assessment (and
so profit levels) on a flood every hundred years, they won't be happy if
it happens every 10 years. Increased premiums simply won't cover the
costs, particularly when - somewhat paradoxically - climate
unpredictability becomes more certain.

--

Jeff

 

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:39:55 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

I see they mention new tariffs as a cause for rising construction costs. The URL is cnbc, I though that was Canadian. they don't have the tariffs.

However unfamiliar I am with main stream media, there should BE NO TARIFFS ON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. We are talking bricks, boards, drywall.

There should be tariffs on certain things, TVs would be a good choice. They screwed up a bit putting tariffs on electronic components, they should only be applied to parts that are made here.

But that is not the main cost of construction. Laborers are about $25 an hour, bricklayers $35, plumbers even more if they're good and let's not even talk about electricians, and of course cement and roofing. This is all labor intensive and the materials are not a big part of the total cost.

This is not exactly union blackmail causing this, these people simply won't work much cheaper. They went through a school and an apprenticeship, you are an engineer right ? Would you work for $15 an hour ?

We live in a country with formerly suppressed wages for all just about except for the government. Now this financial oppression made possible by blackmail due to too few jobs is over. However even though these are not labor unions but trade unions, wait until contract time and they decide they want more money. They will get it. It is that or do your own work and m9st people cannot. I can do a few things but not cement much or will I climb on a roof or do siding but I can do just about everything else and I might be less expensive than most I am not working for minimum wage.

Many of these natural disasters are floods, and the insurance is subsidised with tax money. It probably should have some guidelines, like once and only once. they have rebuilt houses five fucking times in some places and the people who know about it and pay taxes are bitching. Most people don't know though because Oprah didn't tell them or some shit. But I think these people after the second time a flood washes their house away they should relocate, and if they don't then no more insurance. Sorry Louisiana but you go into the ocean too much for us to rebuild you for free every few years.

This flooding does make for very fertile land, there is no doubt. But let the floods wash away a few crops instead of your house, your kid's schools, city hall, the fire department, whatever else. Just take that land and plant there, and keep GMOs the fuck out so we can have some really good food.

And then, there is a guy in Florida who had a brainstorm. People were being flooded but not bad enough to wash them away, the houses were rebuildable enough. But the cost. So this guy starts a company that'll put your whole house up on stilts or sorts and make you a garage underneath. Then only your car, lawnmower, grill, n shit like that is wrecked. Not the whole place.

I don't have much pity for people who are too stupid to move to land that is fit for human habitation.

The materials cost, especially those items requiring high energy input for manufacture and transport, are increasing sort of horrifically. Then the labor pool, who know there are shortages, are gouging the contractors. So everyone is doing their part to make a bad situation worse. This is typical of America.
https://www.agc.org/news/2018/10/10/construction-material-costs-increase-74-percent-contractors-continue-be-squeezed

 

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 5:35:46 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 06/05/19 23:46, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

Yes, reconstruction costa are a factor, but the main point is that
insurance companies aren't in the game to lose money. They'll pay out
once, but after that you are often on your own, and perhaps uninsurable.
Well, that's the way it is in the UK with regards to flooding. Many
properties which have suffered extensive flood damage are not able to
get insurance again for flood damage. That's not surprising with
developers building on what is well-known to b a flood plain. The
"once-in-a-100-years" flood has, shall we say, become somewhat more
frequent. So if the insurance companies base their risk assessment (and
so profit levels) on a flood every hundred years, they won't be happy if
it happens every 10 years. Increased premiums simply won't cover the
costs, particularly when - somewhat paradoxically - climate
unpredictability becomes more certain.

In U.S. our industry regulators have done such a good job, the insurance companies can't begin to cover the losses, and default into bankruptcy. Insurance is a state run operation here, so usually the state can move in pick up the pieces when that happens, but they struggle to make 25-50 cents on the dollar compensation.
The forest fire losses in California 2018 are an example of what happens.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/us/camp-fire-insurance-company-liquidation/index.html

--

Jeff

 

>Then the labor pool, who know there are shortages, are gouging >the contractors.

Well they didn't bitch when they could get roofers for $12 an hour, they didn't bitch when the labor market was flooded and they could act like gods. Now the laws of supply and demand are not quite in their favor. Boo hoo.

>So everyone is doing their part to make a bad situation worse.

It depends on what you mean by worse. I don't know about people, some seem to think we don't have enough unemployment.

You have to pay people top work ? Oh dear, whoda thunkit ?

Get used to it, if this keeps up you will pay more for many things, but with any luck you'll be making more.

 

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:29:10 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Then the labor pool, who know there are shortages, are gouging >the contractors.

Well they didn't bitch when they could get roofers for $12 an hour, they didn't bitch when the labor market was flooded and they could act like gods. Now the laws of supply and demand are not quite in their favor. Boo hoo.

The material suppliers have moronized the professions, very little skilled labor is required. As recently as 1980 the ratio of skilled/unskilled, as required to do the job, was 80/20. Today it is no higher than 20/80, and plummeting.

So everyone is doing their part to make a bad situation worse.

It depends on what you mean by worse. I don't know about people, some seem to think we don't have enough unemployment.

Most of the money is going to the marketeers, moneymen and investors.

You have to pay people top work ? Oh dear, whoda thunkit ?

Get used to it, if this keeps up you will pay more for many things, but with any luck you'll be making more.

 

>Most of the money is going to the marketeers, moneymen and >investors.

What the fuck are you talking about ? You mean the factory workers, bricklayers and plumbers are marketeers, moneymen and investors ?

I don't buy it, state your case.

 

[R Collins]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default..

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

--

Rick C.

- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[amdx]

On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

Mikek

 

[R Collins]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

--

Rick C.

+ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 05:06:34 UTC+1, R Collins wrote:

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies.. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

In every case the insurer looks to make money. Not only do they have to account for the risk versus premium, there are also the many costs of running a business, advertising etc. So in every case, if the insurer gets it right, you can expect to lose overall by insuring. IOW if you can financially survive the loss, don't insure. Most insurance policies people hold they'd be better off without.

There are always folk who think they've found those edge cases where their ins co has it wrong and they stand to profit in the long term. They're usually wrong.


NT

 

[R Collins]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:54:29 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 05:06:34 UTC+1, R Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

In every case the insurer looks to make money. Not only do they have to account for the risk versus premium, there are also the many costs of running a business, advertising etc. So in every case, if the insurer gets it right, you can expect to lose overall by insuring. IOW if you can financially survive the loss, don't insure. Most insurance policies people hold they'd be better off without.

I don't agree. Insurance is about minimizing losses, not necessarily about preventing cataclysmic disaster. While I would continue living a rich, full like if a house burned down, I prefer to spend the bit of money to deal with the loss in a substantial way. It's more about piece of mind than it is preventing a non-surviable loss.

Car insurance is the bad one. Insurance is always limited to some max dollar amount. Your liability is never limited. If you are at fault in a serious accident you could end up losing everything even with insurance.

--

Rick C.

-- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 18:23:20 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:54:29 AM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 05:06:34 UTC+1, R Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

In every case the insurer looks to make money. Not only do they have to account for the risk versus premium, there are also the many costs of running a business, advertising etc. So in every case, if the insurer gets it right, you can expect to lose overall by insuring. IOW if you can financially survive the loss, don't insure. Most insurance policies people hold they'd be better off without.

I don't agree. Insurance is about minimizing losses,

if that's your aim, insurance has no place at all

> not necessarily about preventing cataclysmic disaster.

That's your call - but it's really the only way you can win with insurance.


> While I would continue living a rich, full like if a house burned down, I prefer to spend the bit of money to deal with the loss in a substantial way. It's more about piece of mind than it is preventing a non-surviable loss.

When nawlins flooded there were many many houses that could have been fixed up within the capabilities of a practical owner. Insurance companies dragged the process out so long that these people had no home to live in for years, years of stress, and by the time the insurance co acted the building was condemned due to water damage & mould. Who were the winners there, the insured or the uninsured?

When people take out BG boiler insurance, they are often told their easily cheaply repaired boiler is unfixable, and that they should pay BG thousands for a new one. Who is better off there, the insured or the uninsured, who from not paying the premiums have not only enough saved to pay the repairman, but also enough to buy 2 new boilers when the time finally comes?

I could go on. Point is insurance is partly of value, partly a problem, and partly an illusion. People like to just see it as some sort of magic comfort blanket. It isn't.


> Car insurance is the bad one. Insurance is always limited to some max dollar amount. Your liability is never limited. If you are at fault in a serious accident you could end up losing everything even with insurance.

No I couldn't.


NT

 

On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:23:15 -0700 (PDT), R Collins
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:54:29 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 05:06:34 UTC+1, R Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

In every case the insurer looks to make money. Not only do they have to account for the risk versus premium, there are also the many costs of running a business, advertising etc. So in every case, if the insurer gets it right, you can expect to lose overall by insuring. IOW if you can financially survive the loss, don't insure. Most insurance policies people hold they'd be better off without.

I don't agree. Insurance is about minimizing losses, not necessarily about preventing cataclysmic disaster. While I would continue living a rich, full like if a house burned down, I prefer to spend the bit of money to deal with the loss in a substantial way. It's more about piece of mind than it is preventing a non-surviable loss.

Car insurance is the bad one. Insurance is always limited to some max dollar amount. Your liability is never limited. If you are at fault in a serious accident you could end up losing everything even with insurance.

Which is why I have a $2M umbrella policy. Make it worthwhile for the
insurance company to mount a defense and hopefully the injured person
will be happy with the insurance company's money and leave mine alone.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:19:07 PM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 18:23:20 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:54:29 AM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 05:06:34 UTC+1, R Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail..com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

In every case the insurer looks to make money. Not only do they have to account for the risk versus premium, there are also the many costs of running a business, advertising etc. So in every case, if the insurer gets it right, you can expect to lose overall by insuring. IOW if you can financially survive the loss, don't insure. Most insurance policies people hold they'd be better off without.

I don't agree. Insurance is about minimizing losses,

if that's your aim, insurance has no place at all

Not sure what you are saying... or more accurately, why.

not necessarily about preventing cataclysmic disaster.

That's your call - but it's really the only way you can win with insurance.

I've already explained why I have insurance. It is about comfort. Knowing I will not have to deal with the full financial impact of loss compared to having to pay the full costs on my own is what insurance is about for me. Also there is the fact that since the insurance company is an interested party, they will help with various aspects of the recovery process.

While I would continue living a rich, full like if a house burned down, I prefer to spend the bit of money to deal with the loss in a substantial way. It's more about piece of mind than it is preventing a non-surviable loss.

When nawlins flooded there were many many houses that could have been fixed up within the capabilities of a practical owner. Insurance companies dragged the process out so long that these people had no home to live in for years, years of stress, and by the time the insurance co acted the building was condemned due to water damage & mould. Who were the winners there, the insured or the uninsured?

When people take out BG boiler insurance, they are often told their easily cheaply repaired boiler is unfixable, and that they should pay BG thousands for a new one. Who is better off there, the insured or the uninsured, who from not paying the premiums have not only enough saved to pay the repairman, but also enough to buy 2 new boilers when the time finally comes?

I could go on. Point is insurance is partly of value, partly a problem, and partly an illusion. People like to just see it as some sort of magic comfort blanket. It isn't.

Insurance companies come in all forms. Some of them try to minimize payments to the detriment of the insured's well being. What's your point?

Car insurance is the bad one. Insurance is always limited to some max dollar amount. Your liability is never limited. If you are at fault in a serious accident you could end up losing everything even with insurance.

No I couldn't.

Not much of an argument, that. I guess that's your way of saying I'm right..

--

Rick C.

-+ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Thursday, 9 May 2019 03:45:46 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:19:07 PM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 18:23:20 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:54:29 AM UTC-4, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 05:06:34 UTC+1, R Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

In every case the insurer looks to make money. Not only do they have to account for the risk versus premium, there are also the many costs of running a business, advertising etc. So in every case, if the insurer gets it right, you can expect to lose overall by insuring. IOW if you can financially survive the loss, don't insure. Most insurance policies people hold they'd be better off without.

I don't agree. Insurance is about minimizing losses,

if that's your aim, insurance has no place at all

Not sure what you are saying... or more accurately, why.


not necessarily about preventing cataclysmic disaster.

That's your call - but it's really the only way you can win with insurance.

I've already explained why I have insurance. It is about comfort. Knowing I will not have to deal with the full financial impact of loss compared to having to pay the full costs on my own is what insurance is about for me.. Also there is the fact that since the insurance company is an interested party, they will help with various aspects of the recovery process.


While I would continue living a rich, full like if a house burned down, I prefer to spend the bit of money to deal with the loss in a substantial way. It's more about piece of mind than it is preventing a non-surviable loss.

When nawlins flooded there were many many houses that could have been fixed up within the capabilities of a practical owner. Insurance companies dragged the process out so long that these people had no home to live in for years, years of stress, and by the time the insurance co acted the building was condemned due to water damage & mould. Who were the winners there, the insured or the uninsured?

When people take out BG boiler insurance, they are often told their easily cheaply repaired boiler is unfixable, and that they should pay BG thousands for a new one. Who is better off there, the insured or the uninsured, who from not paying the premiums have not only enough saved to pay the repairman, but also enough to buy 2 new boilers when the time finally comes?

I could go on. Point is insurance is partly of value, partly a problem, and partly an illusion. People like to just see it as some sort of magic comfort blanket. It isn't.

Insurance companies come in all forms. Some of them try to minimize payments to the detriment of the insured's well being. What's your point?


Car insurance is the bad one. Insurance is always limited to some max dollar amount. Your liability is never limited. If you are at fault in a serious accident you could end up losing everything even with insurance.

No I couldn't.

Not much of an argument, that. I guess that's your way of saying I'm right.

That sure is one gross failure to comprehend.


NT

 

[amdx]

On 5/8/2019 12:23 PM, R Collins wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:54:29 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 05:06:34 UTC+1, R Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

In every case the insurer looks to make money. Not only do they have to account for the risk versus premium, there are also the many costs of running a business, advertising etc. So in every case, if the insurer gets it right, you can expect to lose overall by insuring. IOW if you can financially survive the loss, don't insure. Most insurance policies people hold they'd be better off without.

I don't agree. Insurance is about minimizing losses, not necessarily about preventing cataclysmic disaster. While I would continue living a rich, full like if a house burned down, I prefer to spend the bit of money to deal with the loss in a substantial way. It's more about piece of mind than it is preventing a non-surviable loss.

Car insurance is the bad one. Insurance is always limited to some max dollar amount. Your liability is never limited. If you are at fault in a serious accident you could end up losing everything even with insurance.

You need liability on a house also. And from what I understand, they
won't sell you the liability if you don't buy the other half of the policy.
Mikek

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 2:08:46 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 5/8/2019 12:23 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:54:29 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 05:06:34 UTC+1, R Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:20 PM, R Collins wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

The costs of labor and materials have risen significantly in the past two years and continue to rise, due to a construction labor shortage as well as new tariffs on materials.

You would think the lenders would stay on top of this if it means default.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/millions-of-homes-are-underinsured-against-natural-disasters.html

I was dropping by my insurance agent today and when finished with the rest of the business I asked about my policy limits. They have a tool for accurately estimating the costs of replacing a home. After entering a ton of data the numbers they came up with were some 20% lower than my policies. So I was able to lower my insurance by more than 10% and still have margin on the coverage.

Thanks.

I don't know about under insured, but after the recent hurricane, I
was surprised to find so many people that didn't have ANY insurance on
their homes.
Thank goodness I did, and the insurance company (St. Johns) has
treated us very well. I have a screened porch to finish up and then I
should get paid for that and they will then also pay the depreciation
they withheld and I will be back to whole again.
I had according to the adjuster, I had $98k of damage. The ins. co.
didn't pay for the chain link fence around the yard, but it was probably
35 to 40 years old and pretty rusty, but they did pay for our greenhouse
which I didn't expect.
So many stories of people having to fight their ins. co. but my
company did good by us.
One of my coffee buddies says he didn't have insurance but says he is
happy he didn't spend that money every year on a policy, he says he came
out ahead. He only had about $20k of damage, so ya, over 40 years of not
paying for insurance he did come out ahead, I would not have.

But you aren't done paying are you?

Insurance is about paying a small amount to cover the risk to a larger amount. If you own a thousand homes or are covered for a thousand years it comes out in the wash and you could self insure. Or if you live in an area where the risk is not so much "if" as "when", you may well be better off not paying the insurance company since they add up all the risk in addition to profit. If you take the premiums and sock them away in some investment you can likely end up doing better than paying for insurance. But then you would still have a risk of total loss of the property. Even if storms have a high likelihood of causing damage over 40 years where you are, there is still the possibility of the house burning down totally and it would take a lot more than 40 years of premiums to pay for that.

In every case the insurer looks to make money. Not only do they have to account for the risk versus premium, there are also the many costs of running a business, advertising etc. So in every case, if the insurer gets it right, you can expect to lose overall by insuring. IOW if you can financially survive the loss, don't insure. Most insurance policies people hold they'd be better off without.

I don't agree. Insurance is about minimizing losses, not necessarily about preventing cataclysmic disaster. While I would continue living a rich, full like if a house burned down, I prefer to spend the bit of money to deal with the loss in a substantial way. It's more about piece of mind than it is preventing a non-surviable loss.

Car insurance is the bad one. Insurance is always limited to some max dollar amount. Your liability is never limited. If you are at fault in a serious accident you could end up losing everything even with insurance.

You need liability on a house also. And from what I understand, they
won't sell you the liability if you don't buy the other half of the policy.

"Need"? Houses don't travel down the road at 70 MPH. Shoot everyone who comes on your property and you don't need liability insurance on your home.

--

Rick C.

+- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209