Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate advocates are scolding AMP for appointing climate skeptic David Murray as their new CEO.
AMP forges new path by appointing climate denier as chairman
On Friday 4 May, AMP announced the appointment of climate change-denying former Commonwealth Bank CEO and Future Fund Chairman David Murray as its new chairman, ahead of the company’s annual general meeting in Melbourne on Thursday.
Murray’s appointment is in response to the loss of AMP’s Chairman, CEO and Company Secretary, who left in the wake of scandals that have emerged from the Royal Commission into the financial sector.
If AMP’s Board is after forward-thinking leadership to tackle the challenges ahead for the financial sector, Murray’s views on climate change and even climate scientists give a clear indication mean we can abandon hope from day one about how the company will handle climate risk.
In an October 2013 interview on the ABC Latelineprogram, Murray said “the climate problem is severely was overstated” and, when asked what it would take to convince him of the science, he replied: “when I see some evidence of integrity among the scientists themselves”.
…
Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/amp-forges-new-path-appointing-climate-denier-chairman-31232/
Imagine the hubris of mere business people believing that decades of real world insurance industry experience can compete with the expert insights of government grant funded academics.
It was bad enough when Warren Buffett set himself up as some kind of authority on insurance. Now that other companies are defying climate advice, where will it end?
“This is not the end – it is not even the beginning of the end – but it is perhaps the end of the beginning” (Winston Churchill)
Its cyclic. Ideas in human society grow when there is fertile ground and die when the ground ceases to be fertile.
Marxism and generalised nonsensical Leftism is an extension of the Romantic movement that occurred when industrialisation gave people more wealth and time on their hands than they knew what to do with. The Devil duly made work.
But societies that espouse it succeed in becoming influential in inverse proportion to the degree in which they espouse it. Marxism, like renewable energy, is great in theory but doesn’t work in practice.
And Climate Change, the Movie is just another meme to add to the generalised Marxist armoury.
If its dimension is Moral, and it has no discernible religious content, it’s probably Marxism. ‘Climate change’ is not a scientific issue, nor is it a practical issue, it is a Moral Issue.
And that marks the conservative from the Liberal. Faced with incontrovertible evidence that CO2 was indeed altering the cliamte in a way inimical to human life, the conservative would immediately deploy massive nuclear power, as the best benefit least cost solution to curbing it.
The Liberal, faced with highly debatable evidence the CO2 is doing anything at all, instantly deploys ‘renewable’ energy, because its seen as a morally virtuous option, even though it doesn’t actually work.
Liberal solutions are there to solve the problem of liberal guilt instilled by liberals in liberal minds.
Conservative solutions are there to solve real world problems of survival.
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is.
If we persist in Leftism, we will simply die and Leftism will die with us…societies that ignore the fanciful navel gazing and get on with providing food shelter energy and medical care for their populations – by whatever means seems to work – will prosper in our stead.
Science often runs in fads.
+1
Your logic is undeniable. However, I am not sure you can exactly split Liberal and Conservative along the lines you have drawn, as there is a spectrum of conservatives and liberals. I agree 100% that solving real world problems rather than theoretical or imagined ones is what really matters.
Your ideas are very interesting about how Rousseau and the romantics led to Marxism.
It seems environmental & romantic beliefs can be extremely detrimental & cruel to human welfare. Today we worry about these fancy moral academic concepts as if they were as important or more important than world hunger and oppression. Of course a successful society is one that addresses the reality – food supply, energy, healthcare, quality of life and human rights being some of the major “realities”.
Well said, Leo Smith.
The great success of the West has led to decadence. For example, people whose lives depend on fossil fuels attack the use of fossil fuels. New York and California sue the oil companies that keep them alive.
And it’s not just the West. Polynesian islands absolutely dependent on fossil fuels to bring them food, energy and TOURISTS attack fossil fuels.
Look at Malé, Maldives. Population density 60,000 per square mile. How do they survive without fossil fuels? Yet they are leaders in pushing the Climate Change agenda.
If they got what they wanted, they’d all be dead.
Leo, wonderful comment so plain and self evident. Thank you!
I have to disagree. While there are some liberals that do feel like this, there is a very large middle ground. Do not forget that the extremes away from governmental control gave us the Gilded age, with all it’s faults. Some level of moderation of the capitalist mindset is necessary. Do not throw the baby of liberalism out with the dirty bathwater that it has accumulated.
That being said, I find the current generation of conservatives seem far more in line with reality than our current generation of liberal counterparts, who seem to be attempting to top each other with proposals that are simply unrealistic.
In your mind, what are the so called problems with the so called Guilded Age.
Everybody got richer. Are you offended that some got rich faster than others?
Factory work was dangerous, however it was less dangerous than farm work that the people had just left.
It also became safer on it’s own, without government intervention. The reason was simple, self interest.
On the part of factory owners, trained workers are expensive to replace.
On the part of workers, since there were always options, when the work was more dangerous than average, they were able to demand a wage premium.
Faced with the fact that Socialism has abjectly failed in its every incarnation, those who see only hopelessness in the current system feel they must cling to their ideals. They cannot expand their minds to what possibilities the future might hold so they revert to Socialism, convincing themselves that it was the implementation that failed rather than the concept. They fail to understand that Socialism is coercive by nature, which necessitates its becoming oppressive.
If they could step back I believe they would see that Capitalism provides the ideal organizing system to maximize productivity, but fails to show us how to live.
Socialism tells us how to live but provides an utterly unworkable system of productivity and in the end cannot allow us any options other than what we are told.
Religion tells us how to live as spiritual beings but, like Socialism is arbitrary, intolerant and hierarchical to the point that the spiritual dimension is lost in organized religion. And so, it is failing.
Politics has become nothing but a vehicle for the not-so-talented opportunists in our society. They understand the real issues no better than the rest of us and simply play the game of taking credit and casting blame.
We need a different mix of systems.
Remove some of the spending authority from the politicians and give it to technocrats, at least as a first stage.
Promote spiritual enhancement free of religious do’s and don’ts.
Find ways to involve the underemployed in the economy. There are so many tasks that go undone that there is no good reason to pay people welfare while they do nothing. Perhaps volunteers could be engaged to oversee this type of work, providing employment training and getting some things done while getting people off the streets. Only the Left would find this offensive or “exploitative” and if it is done right it could solve a lot of problems.
Andy,
“Men, it is said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.” Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841.
Wise words.
One of my favourite books. Essential reading for all climate sceptics.
Except they don’t read or discuss the “hard stuff”.
Ah, the ultimate dilemma – those who know the business have a vested interest in the business. so how can we trust them to be impartial? But those who don’t have a vested interest in the business dont know the business. So how can we trust them to be effective?
It’s another twist on ” Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
There are many things that business doesn’t do because there is no profit in it, in spite of the obvious value of those actions. Taking care of public spaces, for instance, or helping addicts and the homeless. As a result we throw these issues onto government, which has revealed itself to be utterly incompetent as an actor in the lives of individual people. Meanwhile, government has pushed aside the volunteer sector which does a much better job with minimal resources.
Capitalism should be limited to what it does best. Allocating resources for economic return. Capitalism and the consumerism it drives shouldn’t constitute a way of life.We are missing a spiritual and social dimension in the modern world.
John, there are three main things that derail the human mind, life and relationships, thus undermine society.
(1) False ideas and associated invalid knowledge.
(2) BELIEF in imaginary non-testable ideas.
(3) Use of both legal and illegal substances that distort sensory input, alters perceptions and impairs clear thought, undermines memory and generates errors, mistakes, lethargy, poor choices, accidents and disorganisation.
—
The najority of human problems stem from prolonged indulgence in one, two or even all three of those factors. All three destroy lives, minds, relationships and personal potential, and impairs and damages the lives of all people connected to people indulging those three things.
Generally, simply staying clear of those 3 things, and also clear of people involved in those 3 things, will immediately improve your personal satisfaction, survival and life’s prospects and rewards.
If that foundational stuff is gotten wrong, there can be no lasting healthy, flexible, intelligent, adaptive capable person, society, or country.
All else is noise and BS.
It’s not so much “who watches the watchers” (thanks: I had to go to Google translate…), but how accountability is enforced when violations are detected.
Lots of red flags were raised in the USA IRS by Lois Learner & her illegal political agenda for granting tax exemptions. The issue wasn’t detecting the bias, it was that ABSOLUTELY nothing happened to punish the bias.
The Board decision to appoint David Murray as CEO gives much gravitas to this once honourable great Australian company.
Australians have been hit with poor govenance not only in some areas of banking, but in Government itself, where South Australia has managed to shut most of its industry and create costly electricity, fuelled by sunlight,wind and power from other states.
Murray, in his historical command of the CBA, his developement of the Future Fund, our Sovereign Wealth Fund, is a safe pair of hands to manage this troubled AMP.
The fact that he has made the effort to look at the climate question shows his enquiring mind.
In that he simply leads by example, as in anything he does and achieves.
Whats not good about that for the general insured public as well as the shareholders of the AMP?
And this is just the opposite:
Quote:
Allianz has pledged to stop selling policies to coal companies in an effort to cut back the use of fossil fuels.
Europe’s biggest insurance company said on Friday that it would immediately pull its coverage from single coal-fired power plants and coal mines, and that it would phase all coal risks out of its business by 2040.
It also said it would stop investing in companies that do not cut their greenhouse gas emissions. The move, which will apply to Allianz’s €664bn of investments, is an extension of its coal divestment policy that was announced in 2015. …Unquote
Excerpt from the Financial Times here:
https://www.ft.com/content/a23a6c3c-4eec-11e8-9471-a083af05aea7
Yup: The question is, will the Bandar Log take over the whole jungle, and reduce all to Cold Lairs?
Time to sell my shares in Allianz.
Couldn’t agree more. Allianz is burning shareholder’s money. Get the CEOs tarred and feathered.
yeah if the people who DONT want the green idiocy to take over the companies they also hold shares in dont stand up and yell it going to keep going
theres quite a few protest groups sending mails out for people to then forward TO companies like adani n the banks to try n make it look like if they dont kowtow theyll lose business
thing is?
theres sh*tloads LESS real shareholders using those spammy mails than there are others who DO own shares
about time you called the companies people.
I would do so if I owned any of them.
Ditto.
What a wonderful opportunity for Allianz’ competitors!
They are abandoning successful companies.
Leaving lots of profit making opportunities for Allianz’s competitors.
The question is “Did they have any coal companies as clients”?. Or is it an empty gesture?
They claim they have, and I reluctantly believe it, though I can’t name them – yet. They are big insurance business in Europe.
It is also possible that they received encouragements (threats) behind closed doors. If the EU, or German government (or even a very large customer) quietly lets a large company based in Germany know that future favors depend on them signing up against coal, then they may possibly make a decision to go along with it if they think it serves their interests. The size of Allianz doesn’t make them immune to the prevailing zeitgeist.
A lot of corporate decisions that claim to be based on some higher morals/ethics often still have a financial imperative if you scratch the surface. And the money at stake in the the renewables game is also now large enough that simple bribery cannot be ruled out. I’m not accusing any individuals or corporations, but it’s the same energy industry as that populated by “big oil”, dictatorial governments, Saudi Princes, and Russian Oligarchs. And sometimes the CEO has simply caught green disease, possibly even from a spouse, like the Governor of the bank of England. An otherwise successful person at the top can do a lot of damage with their pet projects before they get rumbled.
@Michael hart;
That’s a heck of a big stick someone must be wielding, depending on the business at risk. If they get double-crossed, what recourse will they have?
I just looked it up, and apparently they are giving the finger to companies that make up 30% of their revenue! I wonder what the margin rules are in the EU?
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/allianz-to-stop-insuring-coal-plants-phase-out-investments/
Ai! No more sponsored canoeing to the North Pole. Pity.
Off piste but fun-
“Steven Schneider 1978: Melt The Polar Ice Caps To Stop The Coming Ice Age”
Dr. Steven Schneider says towards the end, in this 1978 clip:
Can we do these things, yes, but will they make things better? I am not sure. We cannot predict what is happening to our own climatic future, how can we come along and intervene in that ignorance?
You can melt the ice caps, what would that do to the coastal cities, the cure could be worse than the decease, would that be better or worse than the risk of an ice age?
He has a doctorate, yet he doesn’t know that when you melt ice that is already floating, you don’t affect sea levels.
“He has a doctorate, yet he doesn’t know that when you melt ice that is already floating, you don’t affect sea levels.”
Except that 90% of the world’s ice is in Antarctica, and most of it is not floating.
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/icecaps_icesheets
Sure, Chris but it is below freezing year around in about 97% of the continent. The air temperature is never warm enough to matter with the massive ice fields.
By the time the world has warmed up enough to melt Antarctica’s ice caps, life on this planet would have long since ended.
MarkW dances around the main point, which is that he was completely wrong in his implication that most ice is floating. Another fail.
Mark W
Yes so funny, I remember having to explain the sea ice causing sea level rise risk years ago to a PHD Professor of Engineering at a top Engineering University.
After sending him a few WUWT articles he came to realize the exaggerations in the media re global warming now climate change.
…Murray said “the climate problem is severely was overstated” and, when asked what it would take to convince him of the science, he replied: “when I see some evidence of integrity among the scientists themselves”…
Love it!
This is exactly what Steve McIntyre has been calling for, and the only way that we will get this fraud put to bed…
ALL OF THIS. The whole “green” movement. Is based on a lie. That base lie that supports all this insane religious fantasy is: “Global overpopulation”. It is the basis for ALL the environmental lies. We are bombarded with the message that there are “7 BILLION PEOPLE” on earth. That this is “UNSUSTAINABLE”! , causing “CIMATE CHANGE!” and that we “HAVE TO DO SOMETHING”. What we are never told is that in the only parts of the world where humans are actually counted (“The First world”) there are fewer than 2.5 billion, living humans. When THAT “inconvenient truth” is brought up, we are told by our academic and government “betters” that the remaining 4.6 BILLION humans all live in the “developing world” and can’t be counted. We just have to trust that the same folks that sell us global warming, peak oil, and all the other known lies of the “green communist” party, are telling us the truth. Even though the countable global human population has been dropping since the 1970’s, with ASIA showing the lowest known rate of live birth. (you know the place the UN says that that they have 4.5 BILLION people are hiding in the jungle). In fact the actual number of humans is a closely guarded secret. It is the lie that all others grow from. It is one of the main reasons that the UN is sponsoring global mass migration. To hide the true number of humans and sew disorder. All of this is A PLAN. It is administered by a central authority. It has gone on for many years.
As the late George Carlin reminded us, 25 species a day go extinct. In theory, they go extinct. In reality…?
Well, what are their classifications? To what genus do they belong? What are their species specific names?
Nothing like fake statistics to create an episode of panic attack, right? Pictures! I want pictures!!!
It appears that the tornado season is sort of “clustering” in the USA’s southeast. It may have to do with the weather being so chilly this Spring. N.B.: Temperature at 4:45AM (my time) was 43F outdoors, and the house was chilly, so I indulged myself and turned the furnace on to bump up the indoor temperature just a tad. At least there are dandelions and violets on my lawn and the trees are finally leafing out, nearly a full month late. Glad I decided to keep records now.
CAGW is bunk but insurance claims will still go up. People insist on building stuff where they shouldn’t.
There’s this comment about superstorm Sandy:
Interesting … I googled to find out the insurance payout for Sandy. Instead the first hits were about people being ripped off by their insurance companies. link
There are always stories about people getting ripped off by insurance companies. I think it is far more common for people to rip off insurance companies.
Then there is the other story. I just recently had a house fire. A rental house was completely destroyed. I was treated very fairly by the insurance company and the adjusters. A negotiated settlement was reached in a reasonable time with little stress or effort on my part. No lawyers involved.
Needless to say, I have become a booster of that particular insurance company and look with less suspicion on the rest.
In my experience, it is in the interests of insurance companies to treat their customers fairly. The reason being, lawyers are expensive, even when you win.
Secondly, if the companies can show the court that they made a good faith offer up front, they rarely lose.
“…climate change has not produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance…”
-Warren E. Buffett
Chairman
Berkshire Hathaway Corporation
Letter To Shareholders
2015 Annual Report
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2015ltr.pdf
February 27, 2016
p. 26
I’ll believe it when the insurance companies start to refuse property in Miami Beach, Manhattan and other beach front buildings “below ocean level”.
As soon as the “people that matter” get inconvenienced, the CACA estimates will be “adjusted” back to realistic levels.
How is “beach front” any different than tornado front, flood front, forest fire front, earthquake front…etc etc?
Well, ” beach front” usually means there is an entire ocean right next to you 100% of the time 24/7/365 (whatever).
Let’s get realistic – anyone who thinks that global warming has any connection with hurricanes, tornadoes, storms can be certified as a “climate denier.”
The guy can deny climate change all he likes but his company AMP will be making more insurance payouts as a result of its impact, his customers’ premiums will rise and he will be fired for not attempting to take precautionary measures to mitigate its effects.
You should read Warren Buffett’s explanation of why this isn’t a problem for insurance companies.
Read more: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/28/warren-buffet-climate-change-and-pascals-wager/
Ok. The scientific evidence is that climare change exacerbates extreme weather events so the massuve hurricane damage, wildfire damage and drought all resulted in insurance payouts in the US and Europe. I would not take Warren’s words as gospel on this issue.
may, might, coulda, woulda, shoulda
Why is Warren’s explanation so difficult for you guys to understand?
Warren’s point is, it doesn’t matter to the success of his company whether “massuve hurricane damage, wildfire damage and drought” occur, he’ll simply adjust the premiums to match the payouts.
Climate change is not a threat to the financial viability of insurance companies.
You alarmists have been claiming that global warming (praise be it’s name) is going to increase violent weather.
Yet when actual scientists study actual weather, they find that not only is violent weather not increasing, in many areas, it’s decreasing.
Eric, most liberals take great pride in not understanding financial matters.
Yes, so Warren’s statements neither prove of disprove AGW. Of course, if losses get to be too great, such as in coastal areas subject to increased flooding, then they will just stop offering insurance.
Here’s the real problem that Ivanskinsman does not grasp at all.
In the USA, NO insurance company will sell you flood coverage. PERIOD. If you want that kind of coverage, you get it through the US government under the national flood insurance program. And whether or not you need it, it is the ONLY thing that will cover your house for flood damage. You can’t even get it as a rider to your Homeowners policy. It is an extra coverage, separate and apart from any other coverage you may have.
However, if you have a homeowners policy, you should have an umbrella liability policy for the odd chance that your home, when it is swept away by flood waters, may slam into and damage someone else’s home.
A storm surge from a hurricane is a flood, not covered by your homeowners policy. However, wind damage caused by a tornado or a hurricane IS covered, but you have to prove that the force of the hurricane’s windstream caused the damage. That was the controversy with Hurricane Andrew: how were so many houses damaged so badly? Well, it was actually tornadoes within that hurricane’s wind stream that caused the damage.
Here’s your coverage: WHARVES: Windstorm, Hail, Arson, Riot, Vandalism, Explosions, Steam. I was a licensed P&C broker for 7 years.
No, your property is NOT covered if a meteor falls out of the sky and plunges through your roof.Acts of God are not covered. Ditto for asteroids impacting your car. Sell the pieces and your car to meteor hunters. They like that stuff and will pay well for it.
No, your property is not covered if the painters used cheap paint on the siding and it peels off after 3 months. The painters themselves are liable for that. The shockwave of the Chelyabinsk meteor created enormous damage in passing, including explosions, e.g., windows blowing out, brick walls blowing out and collapsing. Those things were covered if they were insured. The bolide’s point of impact was NOT covered.
Ivanskinsman knows too little about climate and how it damages things.
The biggest reason why no insurance company sells flood insurance, is that you can buy it subsidized from the federal government.
It’s hard to compete with someone who can use tax dollars in order to sell at a loss.
He’s not going to live that long
IvanKinsman ……WHY are you even on this site ?
ARE YOU a scientist of note whose opinion carries great weight ?
.
You have posted TWO STATEMENTS :
“The guy can deny climate change all he likes……”
“Ok. The scientific evidence is that climare(sic) change exacerbates extreme weather events…..”
No ! You are WRONG ! TWICE !
1). David Murray does not deny climate change ! He denies that CO2 is a pollutant and he denies that
the “climate catastrophists cataclysmic predictions ” have occurred , or even come close to occurring !
2). That whole statement is THE EXACT REVERSE of what the OBSERVATIONS have been. If anything ,
there have been FAR FEWER “extreme weather events” recently as the CO2 levels have risen slowly and
the temperature imperceptibly !
IT IS NOT GOING TO SCRIPT IS IT ?
So…….go and flap your gums elsewhere please !
ps. Perhaps you could spend some time consulting a dictionary…….your spelling ( or perhaps your typing ? )
needs improving ! On the other hand……..perhaps it’s a symptom of this dreadful CO2 buildup
that is stifling your creativity !?
“Ok. The scientific evidence is that climare(sic) change exacerbates extreme weather events so the
massuve (sic) hurricane damage,……………”
OK, so like the truth is Vladdy is a nice guy. He doesn’t even really want the job. He is forced to do it by the disastrous effects of climate change. Obviously! He wants to shut down the oil industry completely! But for reasons too complex to elaborate here on this anti-science type site that we frequent, he must start by attacking the oil industry everywhere except Russia.
Da! Dat is ticket!
Trevor,
Ivan is a “Freelance proofreader/editor and quality controller/manager”.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivan-kinsman-27460a75
However, Ivan doesn’t bother proofreading his own writing which tells you a lot about his abilities. He’s Polish and probably comes from a former communist background which made it easy to transition to green. A true watermelon.
ivan: Actually, the opposite is more likely to be true. As CEO’s of other insurance companies abandon some of their customers, coal producers in the present example, AMP will be able raise premiums due to the reduced competition, and the insured will pay the premiums because a business generally has no choice but to obtain insurance.
In fact, to the extent that the CEO’s of the companies being insured believe that global warming is an onrushing catastrophe they will be more than willing to pay an excessive premium to obtain insurance.
Well let’s see how it plays out. If the sceptics are right premiums remain stable. And AGW advocates – then we can expect premiums to start factoring in climate change. I would have thought they have already risen in places like Houston, the Caribbean Islands, California, the Philippines and other higher risk zones.
No, premiums to NOT remain stable. They rise every time a policy is renewed. As private and commercial property prices increase, likewise do insurance premiums. Each occurrence also raises premium levels.
Obviously, Ivankinsman has never had to pay for any kind of insurance coverage or ever had to bear the responsibility of being an owner of anything at all.
ivankinsman
You’re either massively ignorant or willfully ignorant regarding property insurance.
USA retail property insurance is re-priced annually (don’t know about commercial; I’d guess it’s about the same), incorporating changes due to inflation, building codes and other risks, including (if there is such a thing) risk due to climate change.
If “climate change” was real, it won’t happen in an instant – it would happen over time. What ever climate risk there might be is constantly re-evaluated and re-priced annually. In the mean time, CAGW dudes keep changing the definition and moving the goalposts on “climate disaster” (it’s now some 75 years in the future…).
Either way, it’s ok to ignorant on this one – whatever is going to happen (if anything happens), will happen after you are dead.
Thanks DCA.
THAT WAS ENLIGHTENING ! A PROOF-READER !
Who would have guessed THAT from the TWO (2) stunning comments above ?
His previous experience in teaching ENGLISH (commendable….. not bad for a Pole )
was to Saudi’s . FUNNY THAT ! I had some idea that THEY were involved with OIL !?
Obviously not !!!!
A person with such a high moral calibre WOULD NEVER COMPROMISE
THEIR GOOD NAME by being associated with a nasty oil producer !!
LOOK : While he is off consulting a DICTIONARY
I will duck off and consult an ATLAS !!
ps. I was SURE that Saudi Arabia’s MAIN EXPORT was oil ! I know it’s NOT WHEAT !
Perhaps it’s proof-readers ??? ( NOW THAT was Sarcasm !! Sorry !! )
“So, apart from casting runes, what other hobbies do you have? Forbidden rituals, human sacrifices, torturing? –”
― Simona Panova, Nightmarish Sacrifice
I read the article and all comments at RenewEconomy and it seems to be a solar panel punting site. The content was the usual back-biting and sneers.
The ‘argument’ about ‘risk’ boils down to: if the insurance company doesn’t assess risk properly the shareholders will suffer. Since when does an insurance company not consider risk? Some shareholders were commenters too. They sound clueless. It seems they have not heard of reinsurance, and have no suggestions about how a ‘loss’ might be encountered. Insurance companies don’t give a hoot about losses – they simply charge more to the saps who build on flood plains. Payouts are profits in the long run.
The objections to this new guy sound ideological and in consequence, hateful. None of the comments made any financial sense. They just can’t stand second opinions.
I read two articles this morning on Drudge. In one article it mentioned that California is losing population. One of the biggest factors is housing prices.
The second article mentions that California has adjusted it’s housing code to make solar panels mandatory for all new housing.
The lunacy not only continues, it’s accelerating.
California is not losing population, that statement is false. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-each-us-states-population-grew-or-shrank-in-a-year-2017-12/?IR=T
And the economy is doing quite well. Is expensive housing an issue in parts of the state? Sure, just like it is in NYC, or Seattle, or Washington, DC. But the economy is still doing very well. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-10/california-leads-u-s-economy-away-from-trump
@chris May 7, 2018 at 7:58 am
California is not losing population, that statement is false. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-each-us-states-population-grew-or-shrank-in-a-year-2017-12/?IR=T
——–
The article is about population change, not population migration. If you look at the actual US Census data you will see that 164,867 more people left California and moved to other states than moved to CA from other states. Of the 240,177 net population incresase, 213k was the increase of births over deaths, with the balance being “International” migration.
Link to US Census data:
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2017/state/totals/nst-est2017-05.xlsx
So, as is often the case, both MarkW and Chris are correct, just commenting on a different statistic.
Reg Nelson, how much of the increased birth is due to illegal immigration?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/with-no-letup-in-home-prices-the-california-exodus-surges-2018-05-03
California just became the 5th largest economy in the world, passing up the UK – even though the UK has a population that is 50% greater. Because a lot of the growth is happening in the big urban metros of LA and SF/Silicon Valley, housing prices are high. Generally housing prices become high because a lot of people want to live in a place, so I don’t see how you can use that to call out CA as a failed state.
Low tax, low housing cost conservative states of WY, ND, LA and MS all had negative population growth rates last year. So do we conclude that those policies are a disaster?
Liberals understand everything more than others. At least that’s what they keep telling us.
The less they have studied it, the more of an expert they are.
+1
But when they are right 1 out of 20 times, they feel justified and vendicated.
Yeah, and they manage to cover so much ground by skimming over the facts at 30,000 feet and 500 MPH>
You could do worse than to pick stocks for your portfolio by simply getting the CEO’s opinion on climate change. I’ll leave it to readers to infer how to interpret their answers.
Here’s the latest from Buffett and Munger on climate change insurance risk—“that’s not really an insurance risk.”
https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/climate-change-wont-hurt-the-insurance-industry–or-at-least-berkshire-hathaway-buffett-says-31258.aspx
“We’re asked as a corporation to take a stance on very complex issues,” Buffett’s partner and Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman Charlie Munger said. “We have crime in the cities. We have 100, 1,000 complicated issues that are very material to our civilization. If we spend all our time in the meeting taking public stands on all of them, I think it would be quite counter-productive.”
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-surging-cost-natural-disasters-isnt-just-climate-change-193658102.html
“Every business we’re in has certain things that can happen over time,” he told Yahoo Finance Editor-in-chief Andy Serwer. “I don’t know how the internet will develop. There’s all kinds of things that can change. And climate change — that’s not really an insurance risk.”
With all due respect, there are very few people on this planet with Warren Edward Buffett’s understanding of the property and casualty insurance business.
Berkshire Hathaway’s property and casualty companies are some of the few companies with consistently profitable underwriting and combined ratios.
When he says,
“…climate change has not produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance…”,
you may rely on it.
As noted in my comment above, that statement was made (in writing) in the 2015 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report’s Letter To Shareholders (I am one).
Absolutely, that is why the greens are so annoyed when he disputes their insurance narrative.
More expensive properties and higher risk locations. However, better construction and better forecasts are mitigating factors. Insurance payouts are a poor indicator of anthropogenic weather extreme changes.
Yup! Everybody has had at least 60 years to bet against Warren if they think he’s a fool. Lol! Try it. What’s the worst that could happen?
When will [any business] Executives Realise [Warmunists] Understand [any business] Better than They Do?
Insignificant trend compared to $/mile^2 at risk.
Another one who denies the prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling… Warming… Climate Change… over 30 years, 60 years?
The Maldives need the MONEY to build their new Airport. Simple.
Why aren’t they investing in flying boats? That’s the question.
Or floating planes.
As a miserable AMP policy holder (thankfully not a shareholder) I am seriously dismayed at the appointment of David Murray. (Sarc)
I think we need to develop a method whereby all the insurance risks can be shifted to the climate change lobby by requiring them to underwrite the insurance rather than someone that knows what they are doing like for example reinsurance companies. This will allow them to put their money where their mouths are and like the Lloyds names failures of a few years back now, effectively shut them up forever when faced with the consequences of their stupidity ie going personally broke. If they are not prepared to do this then is says everything about the depths of their convictions.
Meanwhile David, please get on with oversighting the Board and the company and if you decide that you have to have any women on the Board to meet the luvvie diversity requirements, could you please choose women that actually know what they are doing as opposed to just having tokenistic unqualified women.