Climate Hoax

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, RockLobster said:

Um. No. (Not sure where you got that idea.)

Possibly if they “know” Florida will be literally under water and gone from the map …….

why Would they insure anything?

Why would they banks invest?

 

[Lipdrag]

 

Stupid is as stupid does.

[RockLobster]

2 hours ago, Caveira said:

Possibly if they “know” Florida will be literally under water and gone from the map …….

why Would they insure anything?

Why would they banks invest?

 

Banks invest because that is exactly how they profit.

• Some investments may be riskier than others, which is where insurance comes into play. Banks will carefully review insurance policies for higher risk investments in order to confirm that the insurance policies will be able to be paid in the event of an unfortunate event.
• If everything is in order, investment proceeds.

Insurance companies will sell insurance because that is exactly how they profit.

• If the risk is high, the cost of insurance increases in accordance with the risk as determined by actuaries. Unpredictable things happen, of course, and losses are sometimes incurred. In that event, the future rates are increased in order to recover these losses - as undesirable as this is for their customers.
• If the risk is deemed too high, however, insurance companies may simply decline to provide coverage. The knowledge of risk outweighs any potential profit and the potential negative effect on their customers.

If it is a foregone conclusion (aka "they know") that a catastrophic event is imminent. Then coverage will be declined.

(But, you already know all of this.)

[Bigbrog]

11 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Banks invest because that is exactly how they profit.

• Some investments may be riskier than others, which is where insurance comes into play. Banks will carefully review insurance policies for higher risk investments in order to confirm that the insurance policies will be able to be paid in the event of an unfortunate event.
• If everything is in order, investment proceeds.

Insurance companies will sell insurance because that is exactly how they profit.

• If the risk is high, the cost of insurance increases in accordance with the risk as determined by actuaries. Unpredictable things happen, of course, and losses are sometimes incurred. In that event, the future rates are increased in order to recover these losses - as undesirable as this is for their customers.
• If the risk is deemed too high, however, insurance companies may simply decline to provide coverage. The knowledge of risk outweighs any potential profit and the potential negative effect on their customers.

If it is a foregone conclusion (aka "they know") that a catastrophic event is imminent. Then coverage will be declined.

(But, you already know all of this.)

Do you even know how insurance companies make their money??

[Husker_Du]

 

[RockLobster]

11 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Do you even know how insurance companies make their money??

Selling insurance.

[Bigbrog]

12 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Selling insurance.

Wrong!  A lot of companies run in the negative in terms of profit from just selling the insurance.  They make money off of the investments of the premiums...hoping the percent increase in the markets they invest is greater than the losses they incur from claims.

[Caveira]

50 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Wrong!  A lot of companies run in the negative in terms of profit from just selling the insurance.  They make money off of the investments of the premiums...hoping the percent increase in the markets they invest is greater than the losses they incur from claims.

100%

or 

83%  

[RockLobster]

10 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Wrong!  A lot of companies run in the negative in terms of profit from just selling the insurance.  They make money off of the investments of the premiums...hoping the percent increase in the markets they invest is greater than the losses they incur from claims.

Don't be so incredibly ignorant.

Insurance companies make their money by selling insurance. Period. That is their income stream.

How they choose to invest could result in positive or negative results. Just like the rest of us. We make money where we work, and we either gain or lose money with our investments.

Edited yesterday at 02:26 AM by RockLobster

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

Don't be so incredibly ignorant.

Insurance companies make their money by selling insurance. Period. That is their income stream.

How they choose to invest could result in positive or negative results. Just like the rest of us. We make money where we work, and we either gain or lose money with our investments.

Read slowly 

The percentage of revenue from underwriting profits versus investment income can vary significantly based on the type of insurance and market conditions. However, here are typical trends:

1. Property & Casualty Insurance

• Underwriting Profits: ~10–20% of total revenue, depending on the company's risk management and claims experience.
• Investment Income: ~70–80% of profits come from investment returns. Many property & casualty insurers aim to break even or achieve modest underwriting profits, relying heavily on their investment income.

2. Life Insurance

• Underwriting Profits: ~10–30%, as life insurers rely on premium revenue and reserve management.
• Investment Income: ~70–90%. Since life insurance policies often involve long-term premiums and payouts, companies invest reserves over extended periods, making investment returns crucial.

3. Health Insurance

• Underwriting Profits: ~5–15%, as these insurers focus on balancing premiums and medical claims.
• Investment Income: ~5–15%, as health insurers typically deal with shorter-term claims, leaving less time to generate significant investment returns.

Industry Averages

• In general, investment income tends to contribute a larger share of total profits, especially in industries like life insurance or during periods of strong market performance.
• Underwriting profits can be cyclical, shrinking in years of high claims (e.g., during natural disasters for property insurers) or growing in stable years.

Edited yesterday at 02:31 AM by Caveira

[RockLobster]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Read slowly 

The percentage of revenue from underwriting profits versus investment income can vary significantly based on the type of insurance and market conditions. However, here are typical trends:

1. Property & Casualty Insurance

• Underwriting Profits: ~10–20% of total revenue, depending on the company's risk management and claims experience.
• Investment Income: ~70–80% of profits come from investment returns. Many property & casualty insurers aim to break even or achieve modest underwriting profits, relying heavily on their investment income.

 

2. Life Insurance

• Underwriting Profits: ~10–30%, as life insurers rely on premium revenue and reserve management.
• Investment Income: ~70–90%. Since life insurance policies often involve long-term premiums and payouts, companies invest reserves over extended periods, making investment returns crucial.

3. Health Insurance

• Underwriting Profits: ~5–15%, as these insurers focus on balancing premiums and medical claims.
• Investment Income: ~5–15%, as health insurers typically deal with shorter-term claims, leaving less time to generate significant investment returns.

Industry Averages

• In general, investment income tends to contribute a larger share of total profits, especially in industries like life insurance or during periods of strong market performance.
• Underwriting profits can be cyclical, shrinking in years of high claims (e.g., during natural disasters for property insurers) or growing in stable years.

Be honest:

• Insurance companies make money by selling insurance. Period.
• Insurance companies can increase their profits by investing - which could yield a positive or negative return.

Direct profits are exactly that, per the policies that were sold. Investment profits include risk and may result in loss.

You make the mistake of including past performance as if it was a guarantee of future results. (Finance 101 mistake.)

[Caveira]

7 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

Be honest:

• Insurance companies make money by selling insurance. Period.
• Insurance companies can increase their profits by investing - which could yield a positive or negative return.

Direct profits are exactly that, per the policies that were sold. Investment profits include risk and may result in loss.

You make the mistake of including past performance as if it was a guarantee of future results. (Finance 101 mistake.)

Cool cool brother.    I don’t think you read it slowly.     

[mspart]

What we've got here is failure to communicate.  Some crustaceans, you just can't reach.  So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it anymore than you men.

So I think everyone is correct here.   Insurance companies don't have anything to invest if they don't sell insurance.   But what that tells you is that they bring in a lot more than they payout generally speaking.   So they invest the difference and that is what makes almost all of the profit for them and increases their ability to payout when  the big storms happen.     

Honestly, I can't believe I am sticking up for our arrogant and testy crustacean.   But he is our crustacean after all!! 

mspart

[Husker_Du]

17 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Be honest:

• Insurance companies make money by selling insurance. Period.
• Insurance companies can increase their profits by investing - which could yield a positive or negative return.

Direct profits are exactly that, per the policies that were sold. Investment profits include risk and may result in loss.

You make the mistake of including past performance as if it was a guarantee of future results. (Finance 101 mistake.)

what a dippy

[Lipdrag]

 

Even makers of silly little rich boy toys no one needs but are cool to have to show off have to admit that silly little rich boy toys to have to show off but no one even wants (except a very small slice of the world who already have a useful vehicle and can afford a rich boy toy) is a bad idea.

 

 

This is a headline that should have the SEC investigating the whole industry for the hoax.  "Re-prioritizing" to actually doing business and making dividends for widows and orphans and retirees and every other person who has given you their hard earned money is a damning phrase.  There must never be re-prioritizing back to your original mission!

 

Stop the madness!!  If Rivian has a valid business plan then banks will lend the money and make money from the investment.  DO NOT STEAL MY GRANDCHILDREN'S money for something the market can spend its own money to do!

Edited 9 hours ago by Lipdrag

[red viking]

4 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

 

Even makers of silly little rich boy toys no one needs but are cool to have to show off have to admit that silly little rich boy toys to have to show off but no one even wants (except a very small slice of the world who already have a useful vehicle and can afford a rich boy toy) is a bad idea.

 

 

This is a headline that should have the SEC investigating the whole industry for the hoax.  "Re-prioritizing" to actually doing business and making dividends for widows and orphans and retirees and every other person who has given you their hard earned money is a damning phrase.  There must never be re-prioritizing back to your original mission!

 

Stop the madness!!  If Rivian has a valid business plan then banks will lend the money and make money from the investment.  DO NOT STEAL MY GRANDCHILDREN'S money for something the market can spend its own money to do!

When wingers fail (as they ALWAYS do, 100% of the time) at their attempt to show that global warming is "natural," they then resort to arguing about how are policies re: global warming are bad. 

LMAO. 

Edited 5 hours ago by red viking

[Lipdrag]

 

The second headline should say " . . . benefit citizens of every country in the world."  Gasoline vehicles are inanimate objects and cannot receive a benefit.

[Offthemat]

 

[mspart]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

When wingers fail (as they ALWAYS do, 100% of the time) at their attempt to show that global warming is "natural," they then resort to arguing about how are policies re: global warming are bad. 

LMAO. 

Policies that mandate certain behavior is wrong when costing more money to implement for the citizenry.   Car companies are losing money making EVs and the batteries to power them.   Why?  Because there is very little market for them.  Gas and diesel are eminently reliable and much cleaner than before.   Natural gas is way cleaner than most other energy sources but that is also attacked.  Water dams are the cleanest of all and they want to get rid of the dams.   So who is ont he right side of things here.   The so called wingers or the leftists?

mspart

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

 

I've said this many many times on these here boards, its diesel and coal maybe some NG but a lot of diesel to transport, construct & maintain.  

BTW: like the Landman show.  Have a nephew was a Landman after BS now a well paid oil & gas attorney.  Tommy is not a Landman.  

Edited 2 hours ago by ionel