Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Merry Christmas! Some Scenes of the Season

By Mark E. Ruquet

Browsing the news this morning I have one of two choices: get depressed or cheer up.

Here are a couple of stories from the New York Times I thought would bring a smile to your face as it did mine.

Merry Christmas! I hope you enjoy them as much as I did. And thank you for reading my blog.


Bill Cunningham| Red and White All Over. A photo essay of New York and the Christmas season.


Atheists, Work With Us for Peace, Pope Says on Christmas. Includes of Christmas celebrations from around the world.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Why Did FEMA Make My Wife Cry?

By Mark E. Ruquet

Why did FEMA make my wife cry?

The agency that is in the business of coming to the rescue in times of disaster is putting her dreams to an end thanks to the broken promise that government should be there to aid the public in its greatest time of need. That need is now a disaster caused by our own government as community after community along the coastline and rivers of the United States get slapped with unsustainable flood insurance increases.

For us, we received our renewal in early November with a shocking rate increase of over 151 percent to more than $3,000 a year on $100,000 of property coverage. We held off paying, hoping that Congress would realize it created a monster that will drive many middleclass Americans out of their homes and roll back the increases. Well, a small group of narrow minded legislators have held-up the bill to help middleclass America, no doubt at the behest of their deep-pocketed conservative lobbyists. The result is deepening panic in communities throughout this country.

FEMA and legislators in flood-exposed districts must be getting an earful, and the chorus is only going to get louder as more Americans are hit with these astronomical flood insurance rate increases. If our more experience with our renewal is any indication, the situation is about to get worse.

We received our 151 percent renewal quote increase before FEMA reviewed the elevation certificate they required us to obtain with the renewal. That alone was no bargain either since it required us to hire a surveyor for the certification. A few days ago, FEMA sent us a new bill after reviewing the elevation certificate, something we hoped would help us, not hurt us. Our rate increase now stands at 200 percent at well over $4,000.

This is getting close to a backbreaker, limiting our options for our future. Biggert--Waters, the law mandating these increases, requires rates to rise 25 percent over the next four years. Some quick math and that would mean our flood insurance would rise to well over $8,000 a year within four years. That is unsustainable.

My wife's tears are not just for the astronomical rate increases we are facing. We are being placed in a dire position where we have to sell the home she worked 25 years to pay off, or walk away from it because we can't afford to live here anymore.

After Sandy, we are not in a position to invest more in this house. We're working to pay off the debt we accumulated to get back in, and we can't take on more debt to remediate flood exposure issues. Even if we could do the work, could we be certain it will have a positive impact. Can we sell? With these flood rates, can we find a buyer for the house? Maybe, if the buyer plans to tear down and build the house high enough that they get the discount.

The reality is those of us in flood-exposed communities are in a bad situation placed there by an insensitive, ignorant group of legislators and a department that says its hands are tied, but is not lifting a finger to help homeowners. We know we are not alone. Our insurance agent at Norman Heil Insurance Inc., Staten Island, told my wife that she is swamped with calls from people who can't afford to obtain the elevation certification, much less the insurance. 

My wife is crying, because the government is destroying her dream, and I'm sure she is not alone in shedding tears over these increases that are unjustly striking middle Americadestroying dreams and communities.


Monday, December 16, 2013

Barney & Barney Raises $60,000 For CHOC Children's


Some of what agents do for people:

ALISO VIEJO, Calif.Dec. 16, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Barney & Barney, LLC, one of the nation's largest independent insurance brokerages, today announced that The Barney & Barney Foundation Orange County Golf Classic raised $60,000 for the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at CHOC Children's Hospital (CHOC) in Orange County, California.
The second annual tournament took place on Monday, Dec. 2 at the Dove Canyon Country Club and included 150 golfers. Proceeds from donations, golf registrations and sponsorships fund the Foundation's mission to support CHOC's NICU babies and their families. Over the past two years, Barney & Barney has raised $100,000 for CHOC. Last year, its inaugural tournament raised $40,000.
"CHOC is so thankful for Barney & Barney's commitment to improving the lives of infants and families impacted by illness or preterm birth," said Dr. Vijay Dahr, Medical Director of the NICU at CHOC. "With the incredible generosity and financial support of our community, we can provide life-saving care and make a tremendous difference in the lives of Orange County families."
CHOC operates one of the nation's most highly regarded NICUs and provides tertiary and quaternary care to premature infants and babies born with a variety of serous conditions requiring specialized care. 
"Barney & Barney is proud to support the wonderful work of CHOC," said Travis Trask , Principal and Managing Director of the firm's Aliso Viejo office. "Our sincere thanks to everyone who participated in the Foundation's Orange County Golf Classic and gave so generously. As our team continues to grow inOrange County, we look forward to making an even greater contribution to the community."
Since it was founded in 2009, the Barney & Barney Foundation has given more than $1 million to community-based, nonprofit organizations in California.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Reinsurance Competition Grows

Ex-MMC CEO Duperreault to lead
former SAC reinsurance unit. 
By Mark E. Ruquet

Two veteran insurance executives have found it hard to say good-bye to their industry connections and are launching new ventures in the reinsurance industry intensifying competition.

Former Marsh & McLennan Companies Chief Executive Officer Brian Duperreault is leading a group of investors to purchase the Bermuda-based operations of SAC Capitol Advisors LP, SAC Re. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Bloomberg said the sale by SAC comes in the wake of an agreement with federal prosecutors to pay $1.8 billion in fines to avoid criminal charges over allegations of insider trading.

Duperreault was quoted saying he looked forward to working with hedge fund partner Two Sigma Investments LLC.

On the reinsurance brokering side of the business, Grahame Chilton, the co-founder of Benfield, now owned by Aon, and renamed Aon Benfield, has severed ties and will launch a new reinsurance brokerage firm with rival broker Arthur J. Gallagher. The Telegraph says Chilton will reveal the new venture Thursday.

The competitive nature of the reinsurance market is highlighted by the continued growth in capacity fueled by catastrophe bonds and other alternative risk retention vehicles, according to Guy Carpenter's mid-year market report. Obviously, there are some well experienced executives out there who believe this end of the industry continues to be a good bet.
    

Friday, December 6, 2013

Ignorance is Bliss – As it Ruins Middle America

Conservative thinkers fail to comprehend the pain middle-class
homeowners are facing over increasing flood insurance rates.
By Mark E. Ruquet

If anyone thought that rolling back the astronomical flood insurance premium increases middle-class homeowners are suffering under Biggert-Waters would be an easy task—think again. Common sense should rule the day, but a look at two influential conservative publications should have many middle-class homeowners worried.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying flood insurance increases should not be delayed. The author reasons that the only homeowners demanding this change are millionaires with beachfront properties seeking cheap insurance.   The Times-Picayune, which reported on the editorial, called it “a setback” for supporters of the rollback because of the papers influence with Republican legislators.

Another publication, The American Press, notes that R Street, an influential non-profit conservative think tank, published its own thought piece objecting to plans to delay increases. Like the Wall Street Journal, they say only a few homeowners are affected by rate increases—they say 90 percent are unaffected—and the only real losers are the members of the “1 percent club.”

R Street pointedly criticizes Rep. Michael Grimm (R-New York) for proposing a four-year moratorium on rate increases. They imply that the Congressman is working to subsidize the wealthy. Obviously, the writers of this piece have no idea who the Congressman represents otherwise they would be printing retractions.

Both publications point out the $25 billion deficit the Flood insurance program is in and worry about taxpayers footing the bill. They go back to their neo-conservative positions that no government program is a good program, and only the private market model can solve the ills society faces today.

People in the worst hit communities of New York and New Jersey who suffered through Superstorm Sandy, and those in Louisiana still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, know full well two blaring realities these publication ignore: most of us don’t have million dollar homes and we continue to struggle to put our lives back together after these disasters. I personally can testify to the fact that the modest rate increases these publications speak of are not modest in the least. We saw a renewal increase of 151 percent, and there was nothing cheap about what we were paying initially. On top of that, we’re to get 25 percent increases for the next several years under the current law. Guess what? The rich are not paying for the $25 billion flood insurance deficit. It’s the middle-class.

The writers of these editorials need to get out into the real world and understand the plight of the majority of Americans. The rich can afford to pay more. Real middle-class Americans, continually under pressure to make ends meet, do not have ready access to liquid commodities to afford these increases.

Both the Wall Street Journal and R Street editorials also fail to come to grips with who is calling for these changes. Flood insurance coverage is limited to $250,000 property. That’s only a quarter of the coverage needed to replace a million dollar home. What does that mean? Those in the high-end income bracket are purchasing excess insurance coverage for the value of their high-value homes. An individual who can afford to go out and buy excess coverage is not going to be overly concerned when their primary coverage increasing by a few thousand-dollars. They have the money.

The people crying for change and hurting from these flood insurance increases are those who can afford it least and live in homes that are not luxury villas. Ignorance is a beautiful thing when individuals want to disregard the realities of the pain shortsighted planning causes average Americans.


Tuesday, December 3, 2013

MMC Names New Chief Execs at Oliver Wyman and Marsh

Scott McDonald, to become CEO
of Oliver Wyman Group Jan. 1.
Scott McDonald, currently President of Oliver Wyman, was named Chief Executive Officer of Oliver Wyman Group, effective Jan. 1, the parent company, Marsh & McLennan Companies, said today. As CEO of Oliver Wyman Group, McDonald will have responsibility for managing Oliver Wyman, NERA and Lippincott. He will report to Dan Glaser, President and CEO of MMC and will become a member of the MMC executive committee.
John Drzik, the current Chairman and CEO of Oliver Wyman Group, will move to Marsh, Inc., the insurance brokerage partner of MMC, becoming president of Global Risk and Specialties. In this role, he will report to Peter Zaffino, President and CEO of Marsh, and will oversee a number of businesses, including Marsh’s Global Industries, Global Practices, Risk Solutions, Global Analytics and Technologies, and the Insurer Consulting Group. Drzik was also named chairman of the newly formed MMCs Global Risk Center.
John Drzik, named President of Marsh
Global Risk and Specialties. 
“The changes we are announcing today will strengthen Marsh & McLennan Companies,” said Dan Glaser, President and CEO of MMC. “Scott is a proven leader at Oliver Wyman and will be a great addition to the senior management team at Marsh & McLennan Companies.
"Similarly, John has distinguished himself at Oliver Wyman Group as a thoughtful and effective leader. He will bring a new perspective to Marsh as it looks to accelerate growth in key areas of its business. The ability to move senior business leaders across our organization is a validation of the depth of our management team,” said Glaser.
McDonald was named president of Oliver Wyman since 2012. Previously, he was the managing partner of Oliver Wyman’s Financial Services practice. Prior to that role, he was the Global Head of the Corporate & Institutional Banking Practice within Financial Services, which includes the firm’s activities in the areas of Corporate Banking, Investment Banking, Capital Markets, Asset Management, Exchanges, and other related businesses. McDonald joined Oliver, Wyman in 1995 and was elected a partner in 2000 and managing partner in 2007.
Drzik joined Oliver, Wyman in 1984 and was named chairman in 2000. He played a key role in establishing the firm’s leadership position in financial services strategy and risk management consulting. In 2003, MMC acquired Oliver, Wyman. In 2006, he was named chairman of Oliver Wyman. Drzik is the author of numerous articles on strategy, risk management, and financial services, and is also the founder of the Oliver Wyman Institute, a cooperative academic forum designed to accelerate knowledge transfer between the academic community and the financial services industry.


Insurance Exposure Limited for MTA

Overhead view of Sunday's Metro-North Railroad train
accident in the Bronx (ABC News). Latest news here.
By Mark E. Ruquet

Sunday’s disaster of the Metro-North Railroad train in the Bronx, N.Y., would typically raise serious concerns among insurers in terms of property damage and liability issues, especially where there is loss of life.

Four people died and more than 70 injured when the train derailed while going around a curve at excessive speed, the National Transportation Safety Board said yesterday. The train hit the curve at 82 mph, far above the 30 mph speed limit for that section of the track. Why this happened is still under investigation, but officials appeared to indicate that, right now, there is no evidence of mechanical failure.

Whether the fault is with the engineer, William Rockefeller, or mechanical, liability will be limited for both the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which oversees operation of the rail line, and the insurance industry.

A captive (self-insurance) program, First Mutual Transportation Assurance Co., provides the MTA’s insurance. The program buys reinsurance on the private market at different layers, depending on the exposure, limiting its exposure. According to the MTA’s budget report, the agency is experiencing 10 percent increase on its entire program due to the hardening market. The exception is All Agency Excess Liability (Primary and Excess) that is increasing at 20 percent because it was underpriced and has been the subject of large losses since 2007.

Sunday’s accident will no doubt subject the program to another large loss, but unlike the private sector, there are limits to its loss. Under federal law, railroad liability losses are limited to $200 million per occurrence. 
Further, the award can be made “only if the plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the harm that is the subject of the action was the result of conduct carried out by the defendant with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of others.”

Now there are reports that the engineer is saying he zoned out before the accident. There’s still a long way to go in this investigation, and before it is through, more than a few from the plaintiff's side may be questioning if $200 million limit is enough.

Update: 5 p.m. EST -- NTSB says no brake malfunction, no alcohol or drugs involved. The investigation continues.