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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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)
It is a well-defined term: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/self-insure.asp
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.