News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by octoberfranklin on Monday December 07, 2020 @01:13AM (#25329774)
> sort of like a post-hoc insurance plan

Actually a mutual insurance policy, since the insurers and insured are the same group of people.

Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by andylynch on Monday December 07, 2020 @09:47AM (#25332558)
P&I clubs. Just learned about these a few days ago. Interesting part of the shipping industry I hadn’t heard about.
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by timeeater on Monday December 07, 2020 @02:35AM (#25330109)
Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the insurance up front, though? Or at least reserve money for it up front?
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by arcticbull on Monday December 07, 2020 @02:53AM (#25330173)
Depends on how well it's averaged. If you want to create a proper ex-ante insurance policy, you need underwriters, you need lawyers, you need adjusters, you need to determine premiums, collect premiums, pool the money, and then distribute it. These people all need to be paid, and so you must charge a premium over the actual cost.

Or, you can take the total lost cargo, divide it by the total value shipped, and send a QuickBooks invoice to everyone.

So long as the risk pool is large enough, and everyone involved is fairly trustworthy, it makes sense. Definitely unparalleled on land, to my knowledge!

Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by timeeater on Monday December 07, 2020 @02:58AM (#25330198)
Why does doing it upfront require so many people, and doing it afterwards doesn't? You could just have a standard formula for upfront insurance?
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by arcticbull on Monday December 07, 2020 @03:07AM (#25330237)
Who's going to figure out how much to charge? :)
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by timeeater on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @04:04AM (#25343305)
The standard formula?
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by arcticbull on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @02:58AM (#25356373)
Got a link? ;) Actuaries hate him!
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by timeeater on Thursday December 10, 2020 @05:50AM (#25372289)
Well the industry would have to make a one-time investment to determine the formula.
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by croon on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:12AM (#25330809)
Upfront you don't know how much, if anything, will be lost.
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by timeeater on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @03:53AM (#25343242)
But everybody knows the value of their goods?
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by croon on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @04:41AM (#25343488)
Do you have a point? Because it sounds like you're suggesting regular insurance, which answers your original question.
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by timeeater on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:24AM (#25343960)
But to take regular insurance, you don't need all those complicated things. I have for example a travel health insurance that only requires me to send a fixed amount of money to their bank account, instant insurance.

Yeah my point is/was that you can just use regular insurance. That's my point. Or at least I don't see why not. Presumably the shipping industry has a reason.

Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by croon on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:43AM (#25344073)
> But to take regular insurance, you don't need all those complicated things. I have for example a travel health insurance that only requires me to send a fixed amount of money to their bank account, instant insurance.

Long story short: your travel insurance has all those complicated things, and you pay for it. And you also pay for the convenience of not seeing that complexity.

The cost of explicitly covering only costs incurred on accidents, like in the shipping industry OP case, would give you a much much lower cost on your travel insurance (technically no longer an insurance). But then you would have to pay irregular amounts on irregular occasions. You also pay a premium to get a fixed budgetable amount.

Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by timeeater on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @07:33AM (#25344359)
Why does it have to be a premium for getting a fixed budgetable amount?

If they ship millions of containers, surely they can work out an efficient solution.

Yes, at some point they need a lawyer and what not. But not every single time somebody wants to ship a container. They work it out once and that's it. Even if the lawyer costs 100 million dollars, if they ship millions of containers every year, they can scale the cost down to one dollar per container in the end.

The system to only ask for money in case of accidents doesn't actually make it cheaper or less complicated. There simply is the inherent "cost" (a ka expected loss) of accidents, that you have to pay one way or another. There may also be people who don't want to pay, and then you still need your lawyer.

My travel insurance is very cheap, by the way.

Insurance is an old and established business, many learnings already exists. The industry presumably is quite good at estimating and pricing risks.

Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by croon on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @08:03AM (#25344540)
> Insurance is an old and established business, many learnings already exists. The industry presumably is quite good at estimating and pricing risks.

This discussion is going circular. The "estimating and pricing risks" IS the premium. Which is all anyone in this thread has been saying.

I agree that insurance is cheap for the piece of mind. Which is why I have all kinds of insurance. Still most people get nothing out of an insurance, and some people get more than they've paid.

I'll try to summarize it in another way:

For regular insurance, what is paid in by buyers is X. And what is paid out is X - premiums (overhead, risks, estimates, etc etc etc). That is much less than 100%.

In the case of the shipping scenario, ~100% of what is paid in, is paid out to affected parties.

That seems pretty effective, albeit all participants now own the risk, but save on all other premiums.

If you think there's a better way, I'm sure you can take a smaller premium than the alternatives and make a lot of money.

Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by eru on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @02:29AM (#25342816)
Not everyone involved needs to be trustworthy.

Eg the shipping operator doesn't have to trust the customers: possession in nine tenths of the law, and the former already possess the latter's cargo.

Similar, the declaration of value is somewhat self-enforcing: if you declare a high value, you get paid out more if your stuff drops into the ocean. But you also pay a bigger share, if someone else's containers drop in the ocean.

Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by andy_ppp on Monday December 07, 2020 @03:04AM (#25330228)
If you have a million containers you’ll be transporting every year insuring all of them is pointless you may as well just be your own insurer and take the hit when things go wrong. It largely will work out cheaper as there is no middle man and you have loads of money from your successful business to dip into should you lose a few.
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by timeeater on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:35AM (#25344026)
Doesn't matter who does the insuring (external company or shipping company itself), the point is still that it would be better to have the insurance up front, instead of this risk of additional costs of arbitrary height?
Re:A container ship lost a record 1,800 containers by eru on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @02:30AM (#25342821)
And you can reach out to a (re-)insurer to cover losses that exceed some threshold.