News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by ericbarrett on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @07:55AM (#27760033)
There is "commercial crime insurance" (separate from general business insurance) but I can't imagine an underwriter staying in the San Francisco market. And a large retailer like CVS, Walgreens, or Target would almost certainly be self-insured.
Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by jkhdigital on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @08:17AM (#27760223)
Are you using “self-insured” as a euphemism for “just eats the losses”? Because it’s not really insurance if there’s no risk pooling, and a large retailer is a single entity—who are they pooling risk from? Individual stores? That would make sense only if they are franchises.
Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by refurb on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @08:48AM (#27760484)
That’s basically what self-insured is. Large employers offer health insurance but they aren’t pooling risk with other companies, they just pay all expenses.

Insurance is meant to protect against catastrophic loss. If a loss isn’t catastrophic, it’s often cheaper to just pay for the loss yourself.

Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by ericbarrett on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @09:02AM (#27760625)
Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by mbg721 on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @08:47AM (#27760470)
They may not be pooling risk, but they may be hiring actuaries to look at their past losses compared to similar businesses, and setting aside a reserve to cover expected future risk.
Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by jkhdigital on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @09:32AM (#27760915)
I’m sure that’s exactly what they do, but that’s not insurance—just prudent risk management.