(26.01.2020, 22:38)Sterling schrieb: Nein. Versicherungen sind aus einem ganzen bestimmten Grund nicht bei sowas dabei, weil die potenziellen Schadens Aufwendungen (Sach, Personen, Umwelt und Vermögensschaden) nicht quantifizierbar wären. Daher halte ich auch die 300 Mrd im Hinblick auf Folgeschäden für unzureichend. Das ist ein Risiko das sich keiner einkauft.
Hier noch ein Auszug von Berkshire bzw. WB zum Thema Underwriting:
Zitat:Principles of Insurance Underwriting
When property/casualty companies are judged by their cost of float, very few stack up as satisfactory businesses. And interestingly unlike the situation prevailing in many other industries neither size nor brand name determines an insurers profitability. Indeed, many of the biggest and best-known companies regularly deliver mediocre results. What counts in this business is underwriting discipline. The winners are those that unfailingly stick to three key principles:
1. They accept only those risks that they are able to properly evaluate (staying within their circle of competence) and that, after they have evaluated all relevant factors including remote loss scenarios, carry the expectancy of profit. These insurers ignore market-share considerations and are sanguine about losing business to competitors that are offering foolish prices or policy conditions.
2. They limit the business they accept in a manner that guarantees they will suffer no aggregation of losses from a single event or from related events that will threaten their solvency. They ceaselessly search for possible correlation among seemingly-unrelated risks.
3. They avoid business involving moral risk: No matter what the rate, trying to write good contracts with bad people doesn’t work. While most policyholders and clients are honorable and ethical, doing business with the few exceptions is usually expensive, sometimes extraordinarily so.
*zusätzliches Risiko das ich vergessen habe wäre die BU, hier entstehen je nachdem dem auch Aufwendungen in Milliarden höhe.
