2024 Tropical Weather Thread (4 Viewers)

[Doug B]

Tampa has dodged a lot of bullets. That luck will eventually run out.

To the point that I always thought it was a geographical/meteorological aspect of the west Florida coast— that they were in some kind of a “hurricane shadow” and couldn’t really ever get hit from a storm in the Gulf (as opposed to a storm coming off the Atlantic and crossing the peninsula east to west).

 

[Doug B]

The first is intensity models. With the hurricane models (not shown) being to the high side of intensity guidance the official forecast if the models are consistent would be about 110-115mph hurricane just offshore of Bradenton. The second image is the spaghetti models showing the southern solution is now the outlier. The current satellite images of this thing looks to already be outperforming all guidance. It's too early to tell if this is a head fake or a trend. If it becomes a trend expect intensity guidance to continue to inch higher. Most models have a weakening trend at landfall but the surge wont care about the wind speed.

It takes at least 72 hours to evacuate the Tampa area and the GFS/hurricane models solution makes evacuation of damn near all of Tampa a necessity due to unsurvivable storm surge. Somebody is about to have to make some really difficult decisions without a high level of certainty.

Been following storms since the mid-1980s. Never - not once - have I seen a storm move this directly from west to east. If this track holds up, it’s essentially a hurricane moving backwards.

 

[bclemms]

Been following storms since the mid-1980s. Never - not once - have I seen a storm move this directly from west to east. If this track holds up, it’s essentially a hurricane moving backwards.

There have been others that have move East or NE at the end of a track. I've never seen one start where this one is starting and track "backwards" all the way across the gulf.

 

[bonnjer]

There have been others that have move East or NE at the end of a track. I've never seen one start where this one is starting and track "backwards" all the way across the gulf.

Ok, I'll ask. Why is it doing that? High pressure over northern Gulf coast forcing it that way?

 

[superchuck500]

I got ya. If you haven't booked a room, I would do it now. From a wind standpoint, it'll be mostly trees and power outages type of stuff on the east coast. Not sure what they do with cruise ships in this situation.

We’re scheduled to fly down Thursday evening, and then take a car over to Port Canaveral – where we have a room. We were gonna go to Kennedy Space Center Friday morning before heading to the ship. At least that was the plan.

 

[efil4stnias]

Nope not one bit.

BUT, what it will do is cause people to reassess risks. The VAST majority of those in NC have no flood insurance. They’ll either have to have a federal level bailout, pass on rebuilding, or go bankrupt, etc., etc…

One thing that I think can come out of this is a new requirement for everyone to get national flood insurance.

There is mandatory flood now...if you have a mortgage and property sits in a 100 yr flood zone (prefix A or V).

But folks in 500 yr flood (B, C and X ) aren't required. Doesn't mean you won't flood, just less likely, but the chance is still there.

The other issue is map revisions happen.

I built my home in 2019 in flood zone C. In 2023, FEMA revised the map and now I sit in an A1 zone. The ONLY reason I know this is because I went from 697/yr (Bzone premium) to $2800/yr (A1 zone premium). However had I not had coverage to begin, I would have never known of the map revision and the fact I sit in a flood plain. No notification goes out.

But requiring ALL homeowners to carry flood simply won't happen. Folks simply won't pay 800 /yr thinking they will never flood (and probably wont). Others without mortgage, in an A or V won't pay 3 to 4k a year for flood on top of the increased homeowners insurance costs.

I'd love to see it, but sadly the blowback would be tremendous for whomever proposes this.



As for folks reassessing risk...there are 3 categories of folks I have identified in my 30 years of writing insurance.
1. Those who want to protect investment no matter the cost.
2. Those who want to protect investment but will reassess risk every few years...
3. Those who simply don't want to pay for flood insurance coverage no matter the cost because "I've never flooded".

It's the 2 category that make up a majority of folks I run across. Memories are short. If one goes 3 to 5 years with no flood, and premium is around 2k/yr, they start to move toward category 3. They sit and tell me "I've paid 10k now and not one flood and my rates keep going up, never down". So they talk themselves out of renewal. They figure another 5 years of no claim, they save 10k and if flood happens, they simply get an SBA loan at 1.2% for repairs and move on.

The last category of folk are the second largest pool.

I'd say % of clients I deal with it's 10%, 50% and 40% respectively. Seriously.

Folks love to find out their property is worth $500,000. They will tell you all about. I say well then, we need to increase your limits...first reply every time "we'll how MUCH will that cost me??" Well HO will be about 7k and flood max 250, about 3k. "What ? 10k for insurance? Nah this is a rip off man...I'm not paying 10k. Keep it where I am."

Then a loss happens. Guess who they blame for not having enough coverage? Me. So since Katrina, if you walk into my office and tell me your home is worth 500k but want to insure for only 300k, find another agent. I'm not writing it. Even with all the disclaimers I'll have you sign, I don't even want the headache.

Unfortunately not enough agents do that. So someone will write it and hope nothing ever happens or rely on laws and precedents to absolve them. Not me jack. Too old for that shirt. Lol.

 

[bclemms]

There is mandatory flood now...if you have a mortgage and property sits in a 100 yr flood zone (prefix A or V).

But folks in 500 yr flood (B, C and X ) aren't required. Doesn't mean you won't flood, just less likely, but the chance is still there.

The other issue is map revisions happen.

I built my home in 2019 in flood zone C. In 2023, FEMA revised the map and now I sit in an A1 zone. The ONLY reason I know this is because I went from 697/yr (Bzone premium) to $2800/yr (A1 zone premium). However had I not had coverage to begin, I would have never known of the map revision and the fact I sit in a flood plain. No notification goes out.

But requiring ALL homeowners to carry flood simply won't happen. Folks simply won't pay 800 /yr thinking they will never flood (and probably wont). Others without mortgage, in an A or V won't pay 3 to 4k a year for flood on top of the increased homeowners insurance costs.

I'd love to see it, but sadly the blowback would be tremendous for whomever proposes this.



As for folks reassessing risk...there are 3 categories of folks I have identified in my 30 years of writing insurance.
1. Those who want to protect investment no matter the cost.
2. Those who want to protect investment but will reassess risk every few years...
3. Those who simply don't want to pay for flood insurance coverage no matter the cost because "I've never flooded".

It's the 2 category that make up a majority of folks I run across. Memories are short. If one goes 3 to 5 years with no flood, and premium is around 2k/yr, they start to move toward category 3. They sit and tell me "I've paid 10k now and not one flood and my rates keep going up, never down". So they talk themselves out of renewal. They figure another 5 years of no claim, they save 10k and if flood happens, they simply get an SBA loan at 1.2% for repairs and move on.

The last category of folk are the second largest pool.

I'd say % of clients I deal with it's 10%, 50% and 40% respectively. Seriously.

Folks love to find out their property is worth $500,000. They will tell you all about. I say well then, we need to increase your limits...first reply every time "we'll how MUCH will that cost me??" Well HO will be about 7k and flood max 250, about 3k. "What ? 10k for insurance? Nah this is a rip off man...I'm not paying 10k. Keep it where I am."

Then a loss happens. Guess who they blame for not having enough coverage? Me. So since Katrina, if you walk into my office and tell me your home is worth 500k but want to insure for only 300k, find another agent. I'm not writing it. Even with all the disclaimers I'll have you sign, I don't even want the headache.

Unfortunately not enough agents do that. So someone will write it and hope nothing ever happens or rely on laws and precedents to absolve them. Not me jack. Too old for that shirt. Lol.

I posted Jonathan's latest video in here for everyone but more for you than anyone. Homes that were going for millions 2 years ago are selling for lot value now in Tampa. That's before this next storm.

 

[bclemms]

Ok, I'll ask. Why is it doing that? High pressure over northern Gulf coast forcing it that way?

It's getting picked up by a trough. It's not necessarily an unusual movement, just unusual starting point for this to take place.

 

[efil4stnias]

I think what we need is National Disaster Insurance subsidized by the feds that covers all sorts of natural disasters from flooding, wind, mud slides, landslides, tornados, blizzards, bomb cyclones, etc. That way there is no issue regarding what is or is not covered. Then Homeowners insurance can go back to being for premises liability and things like regular house fires. This should lower the price associate with both.

This also would spread the risk of these things across society which is the point of government and to some extent tort law and insurance.

Ok so I get the premise here. However, how do you develop rates for this product? (Pricing)
Obviously if I live in Kansas (tornado), my insurance will be much higher than Wisconsin ( blizzard). But by how much?

And another aspect to keep in mind. Insurers take in premium, invest it, and make a return to build their loss reserves. Premium taken in ALONE will never cover a cat loss. So they have to let that money (premium in) work and make more money (investment return ) to go toward thier reserves ( money set aside for losses). Normally they have a formula to calculate expected losses for a geographic area. Folks in a higher risk area, pay more. Folks in lesser risk area pay less.
Does the Feds go into investing the premiums to build up reserves? Think about the sheer magnitude of premium they would need to pay, in one year, 2 wildfires, 4 Hurricane, 3 flood events and 20 Torandic events affecting 5 million homes and businesses. The losses would be in the 500 billion range. They would need to insure 20 million at 25k per just to have liquidity. ( ability to meet the loss costs)
And that's assuming you can get 20mm to sign up at 25k in yr 1. Because we are in a peak cycle of weather events that are much more devastating than 20 years ago.

Then you get to risk rating.

So how do they assess tornado risk vs flood risk vs wind risk vs blizzard risk etc etc and develop rates ? Folks along coast will birch about cost vs someone in Kentucky. Or Ohio. And someone in California (quake/wildfire) will birch about cost vs coastal.


The idea I would put forth is that the Fed create a "superfund" that acts as REINSURANCE for private insurers that have to pay into fund (along with Congressional funding ) to cap private insurer losses at a number and then remaining loss payment comes from superfund.
But it HAS TO BE UNTOUCHABLE. Even if it builds up to 1 trillion in reserve, can't be accesses for anything other than cat loss weather events.

But now as I read that, what denotes a cat loss? Any weather event? Are they there for even 2 houses flooding after a heavy rain in Uptown ? Now you have 50 states worth of THAT EXPOSURE And Cat claim risk...whew that's a ton of premium needed.

 

[St. Widge]

Ok so I get the premise here. However, how do you develop rates for this product? (Pricing)
Obviously if I live in Kansas (tornado), my insurance will be much higher than Wisconsin ( blizzard). But by how much?

And another aspect to keep in mind. Insurers take in premium, invest it, and make a return to build their loss reserves. Premium taken in ALONE will never cover a cat loss. So they have to let that money (premium in) work and make more money (investment return ) to go toward thier reserves ( money set aside for losses). Normally they have a formula to calculate expected losses for a geographic area. Folks in a higher risk area, pay more. Folks in lesser risk area pay less.
Does the Feds go into investing the premiums to build up reserves? Think about the sheer magnitude of premium they would need to pay, in one year, 2 wildfires, 4 Hurricane, 3 flood events and 20 Torandic events affecting 5 million homes and businesses. The losses would be in the 500 billion range. They would need to insure 20 million at 25k per just to have liquidity. ( ability to meet the loss costs)
And that's assuming you can get 20mm to sign up at 25k in yr 1. Because we are in a peak cycle of weather events that are much more devastating than 20 years ago.

Then you get to risk rating.

So how do they assess tornado risk vs flood risk vs wind risk vs blizzard risk etc etc and develop rates ? Folks along coast will birch about cost vs someone in Kentucky. Or Ohio. And someone in California (quake/wildfire) will birch about cost vs coastal.


The idea I would put forth is that the Fed create a "superfund" that acts as REINSURANCE for private insurers that have to pay into fund (along with Congressional funding ) to cap private insurer losses at a number and then remaining loss payment comes from superfund.
But it HAS TO BE UNTOUCHABLE. Even if it builds up to 1 trillion in reserve, can't be accesses for anything other than cat loss weather events.

But now as I read that, what denotes a cat loss? Any weather event? Are they there for even 2 houses flooding after a heavy rain in Uptown ? Now you have 50 states worth of THAT EXPOSURE And Cat claim risk...whew that's a ton of premium needed.

I don't have the details and I'm sure you know more about the specific issues than I do since I'm on the end of what happens when it all goes wrong and you are on the end of how do we stop it from going wrong, but it would take serious government contribution/subsidy to make it worthwhile for insurers much like flood insurance. The advantage would be that they would mostly know their risk because there wouldn't be huge fees for attorneys to litigate was it flood or wind driven rain, was it mudslide or landslide, etc. But this is an issue for everyone in this country whether it's because they live is an area that has natural disaster or because they count on products from those area, or they would be hurt by the downturn in the economy if say the ports on the Gulf Coast can't operate due to workers with no place to live. It's also a problem created by all of us so the risk should be spread to all of us.

No doubt there were be lot of issue to work out. But I don't see much of an alternative. The point would be to spread the risk as wide as possible to keep rates down while also providing coverage based on the idea that the larger the risk pool, the lower the risk on any individual policy. The rates would need to be set similarly to how the access flood risk, you just add in all the other risks which of course has it's issues but I don't think they are insurmountable.

As always the devil is in the details, but something like this seems to be the only alternative. Otherwise soon nobody will be able to get a mortgage or own a home because of homeowners insurance rates. And areas of the country will become unlivable because the risk of disaster without insurance coverage will make it impossible.

That all being said, we more than likely lack the political will to do anything like this because people living in places with no recent natural disasters won't want to have to pay for it despite the fact that they count on those areas for necessities and benefit from the economy that that those place form the base for.

But I am curious since you are in the insurance industry, what do you think is the solution to the ever rising cost of homeowners' insurance?

 

[efil4stnias]

At 4:55 ...he says what I have known for 20 years...folks have short attention spans and even shorter memories.

I deal with this "cycle" of thought every day. 3 years removed from Ida and folks now thinking "yeah that was bad, but what are chances THAT will happen again".

Ugh.

 

[efil4stnias]

Oh look it's TS Milton already

 

[bclemms]

At 4:55 ...he says what I have known for 20 years...folks have short attention spans and even shorter memories.

I deal with this "cycle" of thought every day. 3 years removed from Ida and folks now thinking "yeah that was bad, but what are chances THAT will happen again".

Ugh.

I figured you would relate. The stuff we see daily on the coast just blows our mind. The amount of naive people that have enough money to buy high value property is probably the most confusing part.

 

[superchuck500]

It's getting picked up by a trough. It's not necessarily an unusual movement, just unusual starting point for this to take place.

Right - it might be unusual but isn’t free will or voodoo, it’s the steering systems. Some JA in a thread elsewhere was suggesting that Helene’s movement NE up into the southeast before a left curve to the west was “suspicious”. No, it was because there was a high pressure ridge off the SE Atlantic coast - and it was always supposed to be there from the earliest tracks of that storm.

 

[bclemms]

Right - it might be unusual but isn’t free will or voodoo, it’s the steering systems. Some JA in a thread elsewhere was suggesting that Helene’s movement NE up into the southeast before a left curve to the west was “suspicious”. No, it was because there was a high pressure ridge off the SE Atlantic coast - and it was always supposed to be there from the earliest tracks of that storm.

Blocking pattern and low occlusion. Guess what those patterns are known for? Flooding.