The January 9th disaster killed 23 people, and destroyed or damaged more than 400 homes and businesses.
And in a notable position the insurance commissioner also said to insurance companies that they would not be able to exclude claims from people who had fire insurance, but didn’t have flood insurance. He says because the fire set the stage for the flooding and debris flows, the fire is the ultimate cause.
40 comments:
This is way too low I think.
Some places still need an escort to survey the damage. Others need auction houses to provide provenance and proof of ownership for million dollar art. Architects are swamped with replacement cost estimates for ultra custom homes. You are correct. Tip of the iceberg.
average of 1 mil per home seems low for sure.
I'd be curious what the high and low end of the are on the claims. Anything under 100k? Can't imagine what the high would be. 50 mil maybe?
I'd venture an educated guess that there will be a bunch of small claims for a lost garden shed and yard clearance or a car parked on the street, etc. For a house $100k would be a starting number. At the high end it gets tricky. A $50m estate or ten might have gotten wiped out but 2/3rds was probably the lot value which is probably enhanced.
You don't get paid for the lot. It is still there.
Sometimes the look almost ok from the outside, but are totally ruined when v. You see the inside. Mold everywhere, destroyed appliances,cabinets flooring, drywall
Anything electrical. I had one watersaving toilet, which the yanked out anyway. The landline zurvived.
You are looking at many billions, in my opinion. In many cases, policy limits.
Nite nite
Thanks Liz. I suspect you are correct. Many limit losses.
Is this just Montecito?
In Andrew, 80000 houses were destroyed.
Million dollar houses were rare in The Miami area. A really nice house was say,200, 300k$.
Policy limits are usually quite high, since the agents want to sell the highest amount possible. Afterwards they think of limiting liability.
Also, it used to be that the Lenders were required to hold the money and give chinks out as the rebuilding proceeded. I don't think they are required to do that anymore. Read your mortgages and let me know. The alternative is they
Pay themselves off
The checks are made out to both names, lender and borrower.
Good Morning!
Flood claims should be paid even if they didn't have coverage? I don't see the responsibility to pay at all. Seems reasonable but it is the responsibility of the home/business to have purchased coverage, especially with Kali's history of events. I see a law suit tying up progress for a long time. IMO.
I would think mortgages get paid off first if no rebuilding takes place. Must protect the Bankster first.
This number is for the mudslide only. A tiny fraction of the fire claims.
LBD, no. Your fire insurance is required to pay for the mudslide damage as the fire was the cause not "flooding."
True,but how can you tell?
Anyway, I'm at a loss why people don't buy insurance. It's way under priced.
LBD,
Regarding 'advanced' economic statistics. I might suggest you take a gander at the "State Coincident Index."
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/coincident
It's a single stat that combines four stats and then determines whether things are getting better or worse.
The official quick explanation:
The four state-level variables in each coincident index are nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average). The trend for each state’s index is set to the trend of its gross domestic product (GDP), so long-term growth in the state’s index matches long-term growth in its GDP.
A couple of the obvious benefits - it's done at the state level, so one can see regional patterns and bad (or good) spots cannot be masked by national averages. It focuses squarely on employment, but includes wages and manufacturing hours into the mix. The color coded map is (IMHO) a really neat way to get across the general trends WITHOUT obscuring the details.
Downsides are that it's complex enough that one has to trust the people who put it together, (or do a LOT of digging to grasp the math). The site doesn't have an animated view of the maps, but I will routinely open a series of the individual month in separate tabs and then click through them - (poor man's animation), which really helps capture the trends over time. Because these are at state level, they tend to be more volatile than national stats - as any random state can have a good or bad month outliers, so one must be cautious about reading too much into any single release.
So is Kali andFloridah getting better or worser?
CA is one of the six states with a greater than 1.0% increase in the index, (OR, WY, UT, CO, and ME are the others). (This is based on the 3-month change variant, which removes some of the volatility -- but that means this reading is for January - not March).
Only 4 states are currently negative: ND, MD, AK, LA
CA deflated by the CPI-U isn't reflective of CPI in CA . Still a very useful index.
By the same measure of volatile indexes I follow:
https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx
Thanks Dawg.
I also follow the Atlanta GDP Now, (why is it nobody seems to follow the St. Louis or NY versions?), though it's more out of curiosity than trust at the moment.
Based on my skimming the methodologies, it's really sort of GDP-WAG most of the time - as they guesstimate what all the pieces parts of what their model uses - then plug in the real numbers when they get released by the various reporting agencies.
I actually started my own personal economic tracking document just for my own amusement at the beginning of this year, and am inserting my monthly analysis and that month's major economic reports, (GDPNow is included). At some point, I'll probably migrate it to an excel sheet, but I'm still in the hunter/gatherer phase of my economics education (beyond employment, which I feel I have a solid foundation on).
I'm still convinced there is a recession looming (late '18 or maybe early '19), based on economic behavior as the unemployed labor pool gets too shallow.
Since 1975, the total number of unemployed has never dropped below 5.5 million, (the very bottom of the Clinton Dot Com expansion). We're currently at 6.7M, which is as low as the total unemployed reached back in 2007 before the expansion ground to a halt. My best guess at this point is unemployed will never drop below 6M again before triggering a recession. So, at best we soak up another 700k employees before the fighting over scraps leads to job cuts and recession.
I don't understand. What would the number of unemployed dropping to 5 millions cause a recession? Seems like they would spend more money, which would be good. Or are you saying the.mightneed some training which the poor to h companies would have to pay for. Or wages would go up
. . Horrors.
Or,.if it fell to 4 million.the rest would be essentially unemployable so we had no more people? Wouldn't that cause investment in labor saving machines and software? Isn't this stuff good?
FWIW, we're expecting winter weather this week and possibly next. Agw ftw
We expect winter weather as well. Mid 70s and 50 at night with a chance of rain next Saturday.
Yeah, it was in the mid 80s and may be higher tomorrow. Sweat.
Talking heads on TV said that we may get meaningful rain this weekend, chances improving as time goes by. April showers bring May flowers?
Employment is like the skyscraper index... everything looks best right before the fall.
---
Meaningful rain not a problem here. ;-)
Good
Morning gloomsters
ADP sez 240k more people were employed. Isn't that terrible and or meaningless?
?
(Still needs error bars.)
Good morning!
On the run again this AM. GB on the way out in the next week or so. More Fun. :(
367 off last I checked.
Apple and Ford were supposed to get whacked by Chinese retaliation yet both stocks are higher midday. This is a Tariff Tantrum, not market action.
Yep back up again.
Profits are supposed to be up.
New post.
Well, now we have a nutso female shooter.
Post a Comment