https://www.holeinoneinsurance.com/how-much-does-it-cost.htm...
For example, they might insure a standard insurance company for automobile accidents, with a $1,000,000 deductible. So the retail insurance company handles payouts up to a million dollars, but when there's a really wild claim, the reinsurance company pays the insurance company for anything over a million.
They end up specializing in rare events that involve large payouts, so they also did things like the hole-in-one insurance you mention above, very common with charity gold tournaments.
They had many stories to tell, including the fellow who played a lot of golf and collected three hole-in-one payouts, and another story about a truck that went off a mountain road, slid down and blocked train tracks, causing a train derailment, with a town below the train that needed to be evacuated.
Per https://www.reuters.com/article/us-berkshire-buffett-insuran..., they are planning for handling a potential $400 billion catastrophe.
Hurricane Katrina (2005) was up at 160 Billion and Harvey (2017) hit 125 billion. So 400 Billion is just at the upper end of the expected range.
wouldn't actually giving out the $11mi to the consumer, or picking 10 consumers, create more brand awareness than promising $1bi that nobody can get?
Insurance policies require you to pay a certain amount guaranteed, then pay back a much larger amount if something unlikely happens. So Pepsi had to pay $10 million. If the right thing happened during the game then Berkshire Hathaway would have paid a billion, and some lucky consumer would have walked away a newly minted billionaire.
Berkshire's General Re does reinsurance, not re-"reinsurance". Is there a recursive step -- Could General Re face a claim that it needs to leans on the rest of Berkshire to pay?
The article says its insurance companies face a 2 percent chance of being "$12 billion" insolvent, which Berkshire could cover from non-insurance profits. But would that still be true if the claims came in, or would the non-insurance companies also have correlated down years? I suppose Berkshire Hathaway is big enough that if it came down to it, it could liquidate equity ($500B minus devaluation due to whatever catastrophe) to make good on claims.
I work for an insurer and got talking with one of our pricing guys who told me about a case where one of the big multinationals had one division which was way under it’s predicted claims volume for the year, and another that was over. To rebalance the risk the US division ended up insuring the EU division.
Another story that night was about a reinsurer that through several departments taking on different risks ended up on the hook for a dockyard which caught fire catastrophically. And all the goods in that dockyard. And the boat which started the fire.
That evening led to my drunken catchphrase: “fucking insurance”, said ever more enthusiastically.
The only alternative to the "government backstop" is that insurers will refuse to write policies or will exclude earthquake risk (in which case the government may need to set up it's own scheme, e.g. in CEA insurance in California).
But if they have reinsurance, the payouts are 'clipped' at their deductible. This means that they have an incentive to take on clients that are less likely to have any sort of accident, even if when they do have an accident, it has catastrophic consequences.
This means that a reinsurance company cannot rely on the overall statistics for claims, because the insurance companies that buy reinsurance price their products with reinsurance in mind. The people unlikely to run into massive claims will end up in pools where the retail insurance company doesn't buy reinsurance.
So they have to carefully price the reinsurance to account for the fact that the insurance company is packaging their most reinsurance-sensitive pool of customers together.
You can save yourself a lot of adjectives by saying "dirty".
Anyone who got a hole in one was to receive $10,000. All I had to do was hang out in the shade and not get killed from golf balls while watching everyone's attempts.
I asked the tournament official where that 10k comes from, and he said from an insurance agency. They paid $200 insurance. No one ended up getting a hole in one that day.
https://priceonomics.com/why-golfers-buy-hole-in-one-insuran...
It took a few seconds to travel through the air, and from the moment he released the ball the crowd was silent - we could all see it was looking on-target. It went through the hoop! It barely nicked the rim on its way down, so after it went through it ricocheted hard to one side, in my memory it was a near 90-degree turn.
The crowd went wild. Everyone was thrilled to finally see someone win that prize. I don't remember how much it was, but I do remember it was a very large cash prize.
And then, like you said, the next day the prize company said they wouldn't pay because there was some stipulation that participants could not have played any pro or college basketball. Public sentiment turned harshly on the team - you see, to take away his prize would be to invalidate the joyful moment we all shared watching that shot. If he didn't win, what the heck did we just see?
I don't know if the insurance company changed their minds or if the team just ate the cost of the prize, but it didn't take long for the Bulls to realize what was the right thing to do, and do it.
Thanks for bringing back these fun memories.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/04/18/Chicago-Bulls-Millio...
"It takes time to make up a hit like this . . . but I know this will generate enough business to cover the loss."
[1] https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4165888.html
[2] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-04-16/news/930518041...
Anyone that thought he could quit his job needs some math lessons and financial education. $1M isn't enough to retire if you're under 30, especially when taxes come out.
He could easily have paid for someone to attend Harvard on the prize money (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1990/3/20/ivy-tuition-rat...).
Not sure why it's worded so formally; must be a legal thing.
The Indians ended up with a 22-game winning streak during that period, resulting in around $2 million in refunds. The insurance for that was $75,000. I remember calculating the probability of winning 15 games in a row any time over a ~55 game period and the insurance company seemed like they were getting a great deal!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
Maybe I have to learn more about this doctrine.
https://www.thedsmgroup.com/super-bowl-trademark-copyright-2...
person A buys mattress. sells it to person B for 1 cent
person B (or A, not disclosed in ad) gets mattress for less then 1c
A&B split total cost
That's also exactly why Casper and a half dozen other upstarts have come out with the memory-foam mailed-to-you-in-a-vacuum-tube online mattress sales.
People would be better off investing in some HIIT cardio excercise if they're looking for a good night's sleep. And eating less / more nutritious food.
(And enjoy the rest of your night in the hotel)
It replaced a 10-year-old Tempurpedic that cost around $4K.
The Casper is a better mattress in EVERY WAY so far (had it since 2015).
Mattress sellers love the value based sales pitch: how much would you pay for 1 hour extra sleep per night? Maybe paying $10/hour for extra sleep for one year is a bargain in some contexts, then you have a payback period of < 1 year, even for a ridiculously overpriced mattress.
The mattress is by no means the only way to get a complete and restful night of sleep, and past a certain materials threshold, you can't get longer or better quality sleep with any amount of upgrades to your mattress. The marginal cost is likely better spent by buying light bulbs that phase out blue light in your evenings, or by taking melatonin supplements, or with a therapy device for sleep apnea, or blackout curtains, or any number of other supposedly sleep-improving products. At a certain cost point, you might as well climb into a spa-grade float tank, or dangle from your back-piercings, or sleep in a bounce castle.
I think that there is probably a bigger difference in sleep quality between a $300 mattress and a $500 mattress than between the $500 mattress and a $3000 mattress. Once the specific concerns that typically interrupt sleep are addressed, the returns diminish fast. There is no way I am losing an hour of sleep every night just because my mattress isn't good enough.
That seems awfully likely to me, too. I paid around $650 for a full-sized Sealy pillowtop something-or-other, apparently aimed at the hotel market, from an online mattress store some years ago, and it's been fine -- at least as comfortable as the ($800 in the early 1990s) Stearns & Foster it replaced. It's possible the Sealy won't last as long as the S&F did -- at least back then, the latter had a reputation for top-notch build quality -- but I have a lot of trouble envisioning any mattress in that size class being worth over $1000, let alone $3000.
Not for everyone though, but I bet if I could get them sleeping similarly from a young age, it would be.
1.3billion Chinese sleep on essentially padded wood just fine, for example.
Sex is a big plus for a mattress, though. On a padded wood Chinese "bed" it's just fucking horrible for whoever's on top's knees/elbows/wrists/contact points.
I know my mattress has low ratings online -- this is meaningless, all the review sites are just commissioned salespeople for the online brands (Casper, Purple, etc), so of course those sites discourage you from buying from IKEA.
I spend the majority of my life using these bits so I buy quality.
The value proposition for me doesn't really exist enough to spend out-of-pocket though. Mostly due to not reaping the benefits from increased efficiency.
The guy said "$150 for a keyboard and mouse of someone's choice, amortized over a year or two, is a tiny price to pay to keep our people happy."
I ended up with a Das 4C board at work (with browns) and a custom double-shot keycap set (bought out of my own pocket).
If that is a big ticket item I would wonder if they are in serious trouble or it's just a shitty place to work for. A managers response to a request like that should be "here's the corporate card" or "submit the receipt for reimbursement"
Motorcycle gear
Tires
Boots
Climbing gear
And then I got into hammocking, and nothing seems to beat my first, a Bear Butt I got for 50$. Seems the more expensive they get, they lose out on just being big nice expansive hammocks with silky smooth material. So not a hard rule I guess!
I paid close to $3000 for a sleep number matress with adjustable firmness for each side. Still use it every day fifteen years later and think it was well worth the money.
Almost everyone here in India uses custom-made mattresses. Foam-based products are of recent launches and not many people use that. Only younger generations.
"Buy anything at Jordan’s Furniture starting today and it will all be FREE, if the Red Sox pitch a No Hitter, home or away, after July 17th during the regular season. That is 64 games! There is an average of 3 ½ No Hitters pitched each year."[0]
[0] http://www.furnituretoday.com/article/551925-if-red-sox-pitc...
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/PersonalFinance/story?id=377...
Funny enough, Jordans Furniture is owned by Berkshire Hathaway.
Last year Cleveland was treated to $1.7 million in free windows from Universal Windows Direct when the Cleveland Indians went on a 15 game winning streak.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/20623379/local-window-com...
If you're wondering about premiums, the first article quotes a guy in the business who say the premiums are usually around 30% of the value of the prize. That means the $75,000 premium paid by Universal Windows Direct was a steal. Of course, the odds of a 15 game winning steak in baseball are very small.
https://gleam.io/guides/no-purchase-necessary
>A contest is a type of promotion you can run in which an element of skill is involved. For a promotion to be considered a contest, entries must be skill-based and winners must be chosen based on merit. Meaning they cannot be drawn randomly.
>Examples of contests include:
>"Best Photo" Competition
>Voting Contest
>Sports-Based Contest
>Essay Competition
>"Tell us in less than 20 words..." Competition
>When you run a skill-based contest, winners are not randomly drawn, hence removing one of the three defining features of a lottery. As a result, contests are not impeded by No Purchase Necessary laws.
>...entries must be skill-based and winners must be chosen based on merit.
In the scenario above, it takes skill but not the participants' skill, so it is essentially as out of the control of the participants as which number is drawn by a ball machine.
Now, if the skill in question is that of picking a winning sports team, then were talking about gambling which, of course, has its own set of rules and would be a stretch to apply here in any case.
Overall, it seems this contest would be on shaky legal ground one way or another.
That's not a factor WRT the law in question.
The law states that if you take money or some financial consideration for a chance (that is not based on your skill) of receiving something of value, then it is effectively an illegal lottery. It doesn't matter whether everyone wins or loses.
This is usually addressed by allowing people to enter without making a purchase (entry form, postcard, etc). But, here, that obviously would be an insane offer, so doesn't really apply.
Which meant as an oil and gas recruiter, not only was I juggling a shitload of candidates whose rent payments depended on us finding them employment (which depended on prices getting above 75$), they also had huge credit card debts that they'd have to keep paying off of the price didn't go up.
Great fun.
And as others have posted, he's fairly beloved here in Houston due to his charity work. Heck one of the local rappers remixed his commercials Houston style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74UnjzKJOU
> They walked away with the car.
Hopefully they did walk.
"this place has got everything!"
Thanks for linking to that -- I've always gotten a kick out that scene.
:-D
I'd bet that a suburban mall couldn't got a gambling license, but a paper airplane throwing competition is something else. It may seem silly but that small requirement does negate many of the evils associated with gambling. You aren't going to see someone dropping thousands on lotto tickets if they have to throw a paper airplane each time.
1) Being Australia, the laws required it to be actually a competition and not a "chance for a chance for a chance".
2) Being 30 years ago, there is a less of a chance that people were simply trying to rip you off.
The chance involved folding a paper plane, and then trying to get it into the car through the sunroof. Which was only open a small crack.
A friend of the family tried about 5 times over the day and never got close.
They came back quite drunk at the end of the day to have one last go. Threw the plane and instead of going over the top of the car, it accidentally slammed directly into the front windscreen. It then rebounded straight up in the air and then dropped straight down through the sunroof.
They walked away with the car.