Florida Catastrophic Storm Risk Management Center

Transcription

1 Florida Catastrophic Storm Risk Management Center

2 About the FSU Storm Center Section F.S. Creates the Center at FSU College of Business, Department of Risk Management/ Insurance. Why is the Center needed? Continuity Collins Center Report Coordination Bringing together a myriad of entities and disciplines

3 Legislative Directives, Center Action 1. Coordinate and disseminate information related to catastrophic storm risk management, including, but not limited to, research and information that would benefit business, consumers, public policy makers.

4 2. Facilitate Florida s s preparedness and responsiveness to catastrophic storms and collaborate with other public and private institutions. 3. Create and promote studies that enhance the educational options available to risk management and insurance students.

5 4. Publish and disseminate findings primarily related to risk management. 5. Organize and sponsor conferences, symposia and workshops to educate consumers and policymakers.

6 Research Cataloguing, Evaluating, and Fostering Mitigation Efforts in Florida Identifying, cataloguing, and analyzing state and federal programs/projects related to risk and mitigation Evaluating existing programs and making recommendations for integration and partnership opportunities

7 Determining How Floridians Decide Whether to Evacuate When a Hurricane Threatens Using real-time data collected from survey respondents in areas under order to evacuate ahead of a hurricane Documenting how residents make decisions about whether to evacuate by measuring their beliefs about the safety of their homes during hurricanes and the effect of those beliefs

8 Determining Whether Consumers Are Willing to Pay for Safety When Buying Homes in Areas Prone to Catastrophic Wind Loss Measures the capitalization of stricter building codes into house prices Examines whether homebuyers attach greater value to stricter building codes after the hurricane seasons

9 Developing a Computer-based Approach to Testing the Effectiveness of Alternative Approaches to Encouraging Mitigation Using the technology of Information Acceleration,, one of the emerging methods used by firms to test new- to-the the-world product innovations and promotion methods in marketing

10 Identifying and Articulating Climate Signals in Historical Insured Property Losses Proposes a way to identify and articulate climate signals in historical insured property loss data from hurricanes affecting Florida Results to inform Florida consumers, businesses, and public policy makers about the influence climate variability and climate change will have on future catastrophic losses

11 Improved Analysis and Understanding of the Meteorology Underlying Various Components of the Hurricane Risk Problem Examining role wind shear plays in the genesis stage of a hurricane Seeking breakthroughs in improved understanding and forecasting of short-term term hurricane intensity change Addressing question of how to extrapolate winds at significant altitudes above the ground to the surface where we live

12 Investigating the Issue of Rain Penetration Through the Building Envelope Water intrusion into buildings remains a critical, recurring issue during hurricane impacts This project investigates the water penetration issues for existing and new infrastructure

13 Preparing Public Libraries to Meet Catastrophe Challenges Seeking to reduce the state s s overall risk by raising the readiness level of all the state s s public libraries to meet the challenges posed by catastrophes such as hurricanes

14 Subsidies in the Florida Property Insurance Market Determining whether subsidies exist and the extent of the subsidies Providing evidence regarding whether homeowners premiums accurately reflect differences in expected losses for different geographic regions Looking at granular pricing and the effect on mitigation incentives

15 Who Mitigates Against Potential Catastrophic Storm Damage and Why? Analyzing data from the My Safe Florida Home Program to better answer the question of who participates in mitigation programs and what incentives drive their decisions Storm surge UF, FSU, NOAA, COAPS, Industry Florida Market Capacity

16 Florida Homeowners Insurance Market: Then and Now

17 Has the Insurance Industry Abandoned Florida? Broad measures of Insurance Industry Activity and Performance in FL HO market Evidence suggests: HO Insurance Industry has made major changes in business strategy in FL Not clear what the net result of those changes are regarding profitability or solvency of industry or on long-run stability of market

18 FL HO Market Changes Negatives # of Cos. decreased PHS decreased Market Share of Ind. Cos increased significantly Concentration increased Positives Reinsurance usage increased Use of non-affiliated reinsurance has increased within groups Net Result: Has the Insurance Industry Abandoned FL? Answer: Still not clear

19 FL HO Market: Insurer Entry and Exit # of com p anies year Year entries exits net entries Somewhat consistent with trends in National HO market (exc )

20 FL HO Market: Number and Type of Insurers # of Groups # of Ind Cos # of Decision Centers Consistent with National HO market (-20% in FL, -16% Nationally)

21 Changes in HO Premiums (DPW) and PHS % increase (100's) -1 Cumulative Change in PHS Cumulative Change in DPW Not Consistent with National HO market (300% increase in DPW & PHS)

22 FL HO Premium Trends 8,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 5,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 1,000,000, Group Total DPW Ind Total DPW Total DPW 600%+ increase in total DPW 500% increase in Group DPW 4700% increase in Ind DPW

23 Year Group Prem-tosurplus (DPW) Ind Prem-to-surplus (DPW) Total Prem-to-surplus (DPW)

24 LOB Concentration by FL HO Insr 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% % of prem in HO Grp % Prem in HO Ind % Prem in HO

25 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% Geographic Concentration by FL HO Insr % of prem in FL Grp % Prem in FL Ind % Prem in FL

26 Concentration in FL HO Insr 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% % of prem in FL HO Grp % Prem in FL HO Ind % Prem in FL HO

27 % of DPW Reinsured by FL HO Insurers* 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% % * - Insurers with 90% of DPW or more in FL FL Reinsured Ind Reins % Grp Reins % Increased use of reinsurance offsets other trends in the market, but by how much?

28 Affiliated vs. Non-Affiliated Reins 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Grp % Reins Ceded aff Grp % Reins Ceded non-aff Group Insurers use of non-affiliated reinsurance is a diversification tool as well

29 Summary Negatives # of Cos. decreased PHS decreased Market Share of Ind. Cos increased significantly Concentration increased Positives Reinsurance usage increased Use of non-affiliated reinsurance has increased within groups Net Result: Has the Insurance Industry Abandoned FL? Answer: Still not clear

30 Pre-Loss Granular Pricing

31 Need for Granular Pricing Political argument of: North vs. South Inland vs. Coastal Traditional rating territories not designed for wind risk Technological advances allow for more risk analysis Do expected loss costs vary enough (even the zip code level) to warrant more granular pricing Are premiums consistently commensurate with the risk presented Proper pricing leads to better mitigation incentives

32 Data Single Family Homes in Citizens HRA Wind-Only Policies 250K + observations Premiums, policy limits, AAL s,, wind mitigation credits, address, territory, county, zip, distance to coast, Age, type of roof, construction type, opening protections

33

34 Empirics Instead of measuring a subsidy,, look at relative pricing Measure: Price: premium relative to the expected loss (premium-e(l)) / E(L) Premium: HRA wind-only premiums E(L): Modeled AAL s RMS* EQE AIR

35 Descriptive Statistics MEANS Price Premium AAL Insured Value DTC Statewide ,383 1, , Bay (h) , , Broward.617 2,151 1, , Dade ,939 1, , Levy (b) , Manatee (b) ,126 2, , Monroe (b).127 3,165 3, , Pasco , , Pinellas (b) ,867 2, ,

36 Research Questions Do we see systematic difference in relative pricing of wind coverage? Do prices vary with distance to the coast?

37 Statistics Table 3 Correlations Distance to Coast (DTC) DTC Total Premium RMS v6.0a blend Model blend Model AALs decline faster than premiums as you move further inland

38 Distance to the Coast Effect on Price (Statewide) (OLS White Standard Errors) Distance to Coast 0.407*** ( ) Coverage A Building Value 3.81E-07*** (2.42E-08) Age *** ( ) Wind Mitigation Credit *** (7.72E-06) Steel Frame (D) *** ( ) Masonry Construction (D) *** ( ) Shutters (D) *** ( ) Hip Roof (D) 0.981*** ( ) Flat Roof (D) *** ( ) Constant *** ( ) # of Observations 252,391 Adjusted/Pseudo R

39 Price and DTC Positive Relationship between Price and Distance-to to-coast: Significant at the statewide level Significant in 23 of 29 counties Significant in 43 of 51 territories Significant in: 18 of 19 zip codes in Broward County 24 of 32 zip codes in Miami-Dade 4 of 4 zip codes in Pasco 2 of 3 zip codes in Manatee 0 of 6 zip codes in Pinellas

40 Pinellas County

41 Summary Premiums are not consistently commensurate with AALs Political argument of North vs. South and Inland vs. Coastal Is altered by the fact that properties are paying relatively more or less for wind coverage within the same zip code Properties further inland pay a higher price even within the narrow HRA bands Expected loss costs vary enough (even the zip code level) to warrant more granular pricing Distance-to to-coast variable exhibits most (if not all) characteristics of a valuable underwriting variable

42 Post-Loss Subsidy Analysis

43 What is a subsidy? Collecting money from one group to benefit members of another group In our study, defining a subsidy as the difference between deficit assessments on total premiums and deficit assessments that are based on wind premiums (more hurricane risk based)

44 Citizens Assessment Structure Citizens deficit assessments: Policyholder Surcharge: Citizens policyholders Quick cash (up to 15% per account) Regular Assessments: Private insurers and surplus lines policyholders Quick cash (up to 6% per account) Emergency Assessments: Policyholders in assessment base Principal and interest on debt (up to 10% per account or 10% of deficit + interest charges)

45 The Cat Fund FHCF deficit assessments: Single Year Storms Max 6% up to 30 years Multiple Year Storms FIGA Max 10% up to 30 years Ignored for now

46 Post-Loss Subsidy Analysis Two Scenarios in Paper Scenario #2 1-in-100 year storm Citizens - $10 B deficit Cat Fund - $24 B deficit Sample Households (in each county) $300,000 new masonry construction $1,656 per year in auto insurance premiums no umbrella liability coverage HO thru Citizens or private insurer Assessed on HO & Auto premiums

47 Data HO premiums from OIR for sample home in each county (Top 25 co s) Includes wind, non-wind and total premiums Hurricane Premiums Non-hurricane Premiums Total Premiums All Private Citizens All Private Citizens All Private Citizens Baker ,479 1,150 1,025 1,904 Hamilton ,615 1,207 1,007 2,076 Leon , ,495 Monroe 3,841 3,091 3,998 1, ,246 4,985 3,745 5,244 Polk ,496 1,438 1,988 1,983 1,917 2,545

48 Subsidy Compare: The amount that is paid under the current assessment structure (based on total premiums) The amount that is paid under a more hurricane risk based assessment structure (based on wind premiums) The difference is the subsidy If current risk-based is positive = paying a subsidy If current risk-based is negative = receiving a subsidy

49 1-in-100 year storm: Current Structure Full Citizens Policyholder Surcharge (45%) Full Citizens Regular Assessment (18%) Citizens Emergency Assessment of 8.65% for one year Cat Fund Assessment (6%) for 23 years

50 1-in-100 year storm: Risk-Based Structure Citizens Policyholder Surcharge Instead of 45% on total premium 73.2% of wind premium Generates the same total assessment dollars from the surcharge Citizens Regular Assessment HO portion (31.8% of wind premium) Non-HO portion (18%* county relative wind risk measure) Citizens Emergency Assessment HO portion (15% of wind premium) Non-HO portion (8.65%*county relative wind risk measure) FHCF Assessment HO portion (10.24% on wind premium) Non-HO portion (6.00%*county relative wind risk measure)

51 Table 7A: Post-Loss Assessment Structure: Counties Receiving Subsidies Scenario #2- Private Insurer Policyholders (Hurricane Premium Relativities) County 1 st Year Assessment Current Structure 1 st Year Assessment Based on Hurricane Premium Subsidy ($) Subsidy (%) (% of total premiums paid) Broward $1, $2, ($628.71) % Collier $1, $1, ($277.49) -6.81% Dade $1, $2, ($788.70) % Escambia $1, $1, ($120.05) -3.24% Franklin $1, $1, ($196.56) -5.19% Indian River $1, $1, ($457.50) % Martin $1, $1, ($490.54) % Monroe $1, $3, ($1,478.80) % Okaloosa $1, $1, ($57.15) -1.52% Palm Beach $1, $2, ($738.88) % Santa Rosa $1, $1, ($28.69) -0.77% St. Lucie $1, $1, ($416.47) % Walton $1, $1, ($6.42) -0.18%

52 Table 7B : Post-Loss Assessment Structure: Counties Paying Subsidies Scenario #2- Private Insurer Policyholders (Hurricane Premium Relativities) County 1 st Year Assessment Current Structure 1 st Year Assessment Based on Hurricane Premium Subsidy ($) Subsidy (%) (% of total premiums paid) Baker $ $ $ % Hamilton $ $ $ % Leon $ $ $ % Polk $1, $ $ % Putnam $ $ $ % Seminole $ $ $ % St. Johns $ $ $ % Sumter $ $ $ % Suwannee $ $ $ % Taylor $ $ $ % Union $ $ $ % Washington $ $ $ %

53 Table 7C: Post-Loss Assessment Structure: Counties Receiving Subsidies Scenario #2- Citizens Policyholders (Hurricane Premium Relativities) St. Lucie $2, $3, ($498.42) -9.37% County 1 st Year Assessment Current Structure 1 st Year Assessment Based on Hurricane Premium Subsidy ($) Subsidy (%) (% of total premiums paid) Broward $2, $3, ($623.30) % Collier $2, $2, ($261.28) -5.38% Dade $3, $4, ($792.17) % Franklin $2, $2, ($90.04) -1.64% Indian River $2, $3, ($544.09) % Martin $2, $3, ($662.60) % Monroe $3, $5, ($1,746.34) % Palm Beach $2, $3, ($744.20) %

54 Table 7D : Post-Loss Assessment Structure: Counties Paying Subsidies Scenario #2- Citizens Policyholders (Hurricane Premium Relativities) County 1 st Year Assessment Current Structure 1 st Year Assessment Based on Hurricane Premium Subsidy ($) Subsidy (%) (% of total premiums paid) Baker $1, $ $1, % Clay $1, $ $1, % Columbia $1, $ $1, % Gilchrist $1, $ $1, % Hamilton $1, $ $1, % Leon $1, $ $ % Polk $2, $ $1, % Putnam $1, $ $ % Seminole $1, $ $1, % Sumter $1, $ $1, % Suwannee $1, $ $1, % Union $1, $ $1, % Washington $1, $ $1, %