Brian Albrecht Profile picture
Jan 10 12 tweets 2 min read Read on X
California is burning. The tragedy of the destruction is unfathomable.

On top of that, many homes don’t have insurance. Why?

This is because of price controls. But CA's Prop 103 system goes way beyond normal insurance price controls into total dysfunction 🧵
Let's first talk rate suppression.

If an insurer shows they need a 40% increase to cover expected costs and get a fair return, but regulators only approve 15%, that's a 25% rate suppression.
CA ranks 50th in rate suppression - approving rates 29% below what actuaries show is needed for homeowners insurance.

In plain English: regulators force insurers to sell WAY WAY below cost.
Other states with price controls still let insurers charge closer to actual risk.

A price control near the market price doesn't create much dead weight loss and can accomplish other goals (say favoring buyers)

CA forces the biggest gap between rates and risk in the nation.
The system is also uniquely rigid. CA won't let insurers:

- Use catastrophe models to project future fire risk
- Consider reinsurance costs

A state leading on climate change won't let insurers use climate science to price risk.

Make it make sense.
If it was just the ridiculous under priced price controls, that'd be one thing.

But it's slow slowest system to change as well.
How bad is CA's system?

Over the last 5 years, CA ranks 50th in speed of rate approvals. The avg delay is 236 days for homeowners and 226 days for auto insurance.

That's not a typo.
Why do delays matter?

Insurance is about matching price to risk. When a market can't adjust prices quickly to changing risks (like increasing fires), it breaks down.

Insurers pull back rather than sell at outdated prices.
And it's getting worse.

The avg delay from 2013-2019 was 157 days. More recently? 293 days. When insurers can't adjust rates to risk quickly, they pull back coverage.
The results? State Farm, Allstate, Farmers all pulling back. These homes didn't have insurance canceled on them. The policy wasn't renewed because it was bleeding money.

The state-run FAIR plan growing 90% since 2015.

And now, devastating fires with many uninsured homes.
It's an extremely tragic story but one we've known about for years.

For more info, check out the excellent white paper my @LawEconCenter colleagues @raylehmannand @IAtheTeapot put out last with Lawrence Powell

laweconcenter.org/wp-content/upl…
The catastrophe in California combined with the policy failures is simply a tragedy. There's no other word.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Brian Albrecht

Brian Albrecht Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BrianCAlbrecht

Jan 7
When you buy a product, you pay twice:

1. Money to the company
2. Time to actually use it

Most economics ignores #2.

With Tom Phelan and @nickpretnar, we show how this consumer time use changes markups, firm entry, and efficiency. 🧵 Image
The standard model says firms need constant markups for efficiency.

Once you add consumer time use, variables markups can be efficient and constant markups can be inefficient.
Our key, framing insight:

When consumers provide time to use products, posted prices aren't the whole story. We need to look at "holistic markups" that account for both the money price AND the time cost to consumers.
Read 9 tweets
Dec 26, 2024
As we close out 2024, here are the top Economic Forces newsletters ICYMI. From me:

#1 Econ 101 is wrong about tariffs

economicforces.xyz/p/econ-101-is-…
I tried a ton of newspapers for this and no one wanted it so I used it last second before the election.

It's the first piece I've converted from an oped to a newsletter. Maybe there's a lesson in there...
#2 I read the degrowth paper, so you don't have to

economicforces.xyz/p/i-read-the-d…
Read 12 tweets
Dec 12, 2024
The FTC just filed its first Robinson-Patman case in ~25 years.

And while price discrimination can be concerning, I have some questions about this one... Who exactly is it going to help? Consumers? Image
The case is about possible "price discrimination" between big chains and small retailers. The core claim is that Southern charges higher prices to mom & pop stores vs chains.
Price discrimination is in quotes because we don't know what's price discrimination vs. cost differences.

The FTC has to show this isn't justified by cost differences in serving different customers. And the complaint suggests there's more to the story... Image
Read 14 tweets
Nov 22, 2024
People were quite interested in the paper on Prospect Theory. Here is another one by Oprea you should know.

Behavioral anomalies we attribute to risk (probability weighting, loss aversion) look like responses to complexity, not risk.

Forget all the talk about lotteries.Image
Paper, Forthcoming AER:

Key evidence: When people evaluate "mirrors" - deterministic versions of lotteries paying expected value - they show the same biases. drive.google.com/file/d/10EEvCP…Image
Example: People underweight 90% chances in lotteries.

But they do the same with 90/100 deterministic boxes paying fixed amounts!
Read 8 tweets
Nov 20, 2024
Prospect theory is wrong as a theory of choice between lotteries.

And we've already had the evidence for decades!

A new paper by Bouchouicha, Oprea, Vieider, and Wu shows how 🧵 dropbox.com/scl/fi/y0spy1g…Image
Prospect Theory's "most distinctive implication" is called the "fourfold pattern".

When faced with risky choices, people were supposed to be:

- Risk-seeking for low probability gains
- Risk-averse for high probability gains
- The opposite for losses
There are two main ways researchers study risk preferences.

1. VALUATIONS: "What's the minimum amount of money you'd accept instead of a 20% chance to win $100?"

You provide one number that makes you indifferent between the sure thing and the lottery.
Read 16 tweets
Aug 26, 2024
Useful summary of the market power literature from Chad Syverson, especially helpful at the conceptual level.

- Why can we not usually identify just markups?
- Why do we need physical quantities, not just prices?
- Does any of this relate to inflation? nber.org/papers/w32871Image
Parts I liked: simple derivation of the Bond et al result that DEU markups equal 1. Image
Image
Discussing this great research federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/…Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(