Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Scooter

  1. First question makes no sense. Legal killing cannot be murder as murder is by definition unlawful killing but I guess by your minor rant you were not looking for a proper answer. Second, yep, heard that one a few thousand times. I am long since an ex-lawyer so not too fussed either way... S.
  2. At last a Doggy post vaguely aimed in my direction? I really only ask because I am bored, as Lloyds is dead in August but how is insurance legalised theft? As I said to Marko in previous posts, the intangible but very genuine product is risk transfer sold in return for premium, no compulsion to buy if you do not like the cover or the price and no theft involved legal or otherwise. Actually as an ex-barrister, I might also take issue with your concept of legalised theft since theft is defined in the Theft Act (from memory) as dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another. If it is legal, it is not dishonest at law hence cannot be theft never mind whether there is any appropriation, meaning roughly taking something from someone against their will... S.
  3. I have read too many accounts of NuLab parasites, sorry socialists, with their own BTL empires for this to happen, not to mention specifically large country homes I am aware of owned by Hain, Prescott and one or two similar slime. Turkeys won't vote for Xmas...
  4. Thanks for that-I think I work quite hard but mostly I just make good underwriting decisions, broadly trying to insure the people who do not have claims very often, so that premium in exceeds claims out but easier said than done. I was not involved in the names scandal and I do not know Brian Branch. Many underwriters in and outside Lloyds are not very bright and there are a large number of wastrels who enjoy the kind of days you describe. I am sympathetic to people doing useful jobs and not getting much/enough for it and living in London I am very well aware of what things cost, hence my addiction to HPC.co.uk. I reserve my contempt for scroungers (saw my tube exit local panhandler on his mobile phone last week, he looked a bit embarrassed) but just because I work in the City please don't assume I automatically look down on people who do other things. Most of my friends do not work in the City and my partner is an astrophysicist so I get plenty of grief at home for being a fat (metaphorically)capitalist pig. I do not really have many banker friends but I will pass on your kind words to those I do know when I see them. Unfortunately you cannot imply that I agree with you on FRB. Banking not my business and I am only just understanding the concept. S.
  5. If insurance is a big scam, then most of the scammers are not too good at it because as an industry here, in the US and elsewhere commercial insurers barely make an underwriting profit over ten or twenty year periods. In the US, longterm property insurance claims run at between 97% and 105% of premium never mind expenses. Most profit has been made on investment earnings on premium but the risk transfer product itself is often priced at cost. Luckily my own results are far better than that but it is rare. You seem to have made your mind up that insurance is like banking and you are very keen to work backwards from there. In my mind, I price difficult products that facilitate many kinds of industry and commerce , sell the insurance with a profit margin (I already know you do not expect me to do it for free thankfully), pay all my claims on time. What do you want from me. blood? S.
  6. This is about to change according to today's press. Another loophole closed... S.
  7. I thought I was out of this argument...oh well. I am not sure why you think I have some issue with my conscience-I really don't. Actually I am often angry about how much I put into the public purse relative to what I take out (nil). All I see is my taxes going to pay for other people's benefits, healthcare, kids schooling. Do people taking massively disproportionately from the state have troubled consciences? I doubt it but maybe they should sometimes. "Typical"-not quite sure what that means but I am sure you will enlighten me, just as a temporary distraction from my evil day job eating babies and selling insurance. Earnings differences are outrageous? Hmm, this seems to smack of New Labour making everybody appear equal plus an unhealthy dose of jealousy and envy. Why should my earnings be in any way proportional or related to yours? I reckon I should be paid relative to how good I am at my job. The easiest way to judge my work-but not necessarily other kinds of work-is how much profit I make for my employer/shareholders. How is that related in any way to what you do (no idea what you do anyway ) and why on earth should it be? If you feel you should be better paid for what you do, get another job or negotiate within the one you have. But going to your boss and saying you should get more just because some bloke doing a completely different job gets more may appear to him a bit of a silly argument, although this is what you seem to be suggesting by calling for less earnings disparity. Whatever you are doing, have a good day. S.
  8. They should come down especially in Brighton as many people seem to have moved there to avoid London where they were priced out a couple of years ago, inadvertently taking the bubble with them. The connection is clearer than in many places....but still nice for the odd visit. S.
  9. Then my job here is done and I can go back to underwriting. Have a good one... S.
  10. This could go on forever. I am not convinced that the banking transactions that you describe are analogous to what we do. The "manufacturing cost" of a book of insurance policies is the claims cost plus admin/staff/office expenses. We then try to build a profit margin on top of that into the premium paid by the buyer. We take the premium and sell risk transfer as a "product". If for example we sell 100 policies knowing historically/statistically only ten will have a claim in a normal year but we reserve for say 30 policies having claims in a freak year and we are sufficiently reserved and capitalised to pay 30 claims, then I do not see how we are making a profit on borrowed or non-existent capital. We sell risk transfer and we deliver to everybody who buys since risk is transferred to us regardless of whether the insured makes a claim or not and we can honour all claims made, assuming that the catstrophic worst case scenarios set for us by the regulators-30 claims out of 100 policies in the example above-are correct. S.
  11. Thanks for the lesson on fractional reserve banking, not that I ever remember asking about it. As for being able to pay claims, what I was trying to say was that since only a small percentage of insurance policies sold ever actually have claims, it would be preposterous to suggest that an insurer should hold reserves for the more or less impossible situation where they have to pay on every single policy or even most of them. In practice, FSA and other regulators who determine capital adequacy ratios (assets to exposures) set levels which are anyway deliberately extreme and way beyond normal loss frequency and amounts. If these were increased to contemplate the unlikely scenario you suggest, what do you think would happen to your premiums? That is correct, so we would sit on piles of premium never used to actually pay claims, earning us interest. I am guessing you would fire off an angry email or three if your insurers did this... S.
  12. Who are "you people" that I am supposed to be one of? I am not a number etc. I am glad you are not tormented. Yes, there are some serious questions about some past practices in Lloyds but more to do with how some people for drawn into providing capital when it was inappropriate for them and also possibly being used to bail out the reinsurance spiral on some syndicates. Asbestos and pollution was more about Lloyds being screwed by the US courts using ancient insurance policies to pay claims for what were, at the time of underwriting, standard manufacturing industry practices (eg unrestrained dumping of byproducts in rivers/landfills) . The US needed someone to pay for cleanup/industrial disease and that meant current syndicates who had inherited old synidcates with policies assumed to be long expired. Can we honour all the claims? If every policy had a claim, no, as there is no more unlimited liability, largely because of the issues you raised regarding private capital (names) and even if we did, you would bankrupt everyone before the claims were all paid. But the idea of every policy having a claim is no more likely than every single loan a bank makes having a default. There is very ample money to pay even very severe and unusual loss frequency/amounts vis WTC, 4 large hurricanes last year, large aircraft losses occasionally. Loss trends are very closely monitored as well as so called Realistic Disaster Scenarios (RDS) most likely seen only in Hollywood disaster films, so there is massive margin for error on the downside. Can we honour all of the current outstandings meaning current known claims against Lloyds insurers as opposed to policies issued? Yes, without a doubt. Fractional reserve banking? Only heard of it yesterday so not a clue. S.
  13. Marko, Lloyds was a big insurer of satellite launch/in orbit in the 1980's/early 1990's (me included sometimes) and it was a profitable if volatile class. After that, sniffing the profit, many new syndicates piled in, insurance prices dropped by around 70%, losses were made, as there was not enough premium to meet claims over an extended period and the market reduced as a reaction. Like any other seller of a product, if the production costs, here claims, are higher than the selling price, here insurance premium, then a sensible business stops selling the product. You seem to think that insurers have a duty of some kind to offer you cover at a loss. Why? Is that what you expect when you do your shopping at Tesco? Get the brain you boast about around the concept of the economics of intangible products and you will find they are not that different from tangibles. As for "parasite", sorry but you sound like a thoroughly unhappy guy, tormented by jealousy and disatisfaction with your own choices. Tough but not my fault or the fault of insurers, bankers or whoever. I note that someone harsher than me was not that impressed by your career "playing with spaceships" on the public purse, so who is the parasite? I never took a fiver from the public coffers either personally or professionally but I surely fill them. S.
  14. I agree you do a useful and no doubt interesting job...but so do I. We do not all snort coke in Lloyds and some of us have a lot of postgraduate qualifications as well and are economically beneficial to society in many ways. I just take very mild offence to your broadbrush attack on an industry and environment I work in and enjoy. Yes, there are a lot of tossers but that is true of many places and there are also a lot of decent, hardworking people. Cue your cynical response no doubt... S.
  15. Cracking response! And 20 years or so in answer to theoriginal question... S.
  16. So go on, what is your contribution to society? What do you do for a living just as a comparison to those thousands unknown to you that you have been attacking?
  17. I'll echo that sentiment. Taxes on my aarnings and on the profits I make for my company are sufficient in their own right to pay for a school and hospital or two. I know of very few people whose jobs so directly contribute to the economic welfare of others. S.
  18. I suggest a pickaxe handle, wrapped in a hanky if you want to be nice...
  19. Surely the many lending banks-as opposed to the BoE-are not in a position to affect general inflation in a concerted way, although they are collectively responsible in part for house price inflation? Faced with mounting mortgage default, they will have to repossess sooner rather than later and sell off repo'd properties, which is unlikely to raise inflation. S. S
  20. Sadly yes he could change the target or the method of inflation calculation, as he has done before. Having been pilloried widely over the golden rule change though, I am not sure how often he can do this and get away with it. S.
  21. Wow-the system automatically replaced ******** with ********. hush my potty mails!
  22. True, of course. I should be more tolerant of EAs I suppose...but sorry, I can't. Virtually every one I ever met in a social or professional context was a tosser. Also, I sell for a living in a manner of speaking but I do not ******** routinely about my market (insurance). S.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.