RiskProf

A Little Friday Levity

Not to be confused with the new little Leverty.  Riskprof’s Ty Leverty had a little boy earlier this spring.  I won’t disclose his name out of respect to his privacy, but it is a real strong Irish name.  I am particularly fond of Finbarr as a name, but my wife (who was probably thinking of the then wee one’s future) repulsed with significant gusto my attempts to name any of my little sigmas Finbarr.  Just so you know -- I did stop moping about this years ago.

Here is the real Friday levity.  Evidently, someone sued Pepsi (the owners of Cap’n Crunch) for false advertising for $5 billion because there were no crunchberries in the cereal.  I realize $5 billion is much anymore, but I think the fact that the word “crunchberry” is not in a real dictionary or even MS Word’s might have been a clue.

boingboing has a short story, but the comments are hilarious.. some of my favorites so far..

• #7. I heard that Crunch [had] to stop using his formal title when it was exposed that he never actually served in the military.
• #3. What!? Next thing you'll be telling me is that Froot Loops aren't made from real fruit, and that there's no nuts in Grape Nuts!
• #37. Don't be silly. Froot Loops are made from froot.
• #9. I love that she's suing on behalf of, not just herself, but the "other people" who have been similarly misled. […]Don't kid yourself, lady, you are an island in this belief system.
• #33 Follow up suit: Lucky Charms are not "magically delicious." They are merely "delicious."
• #48. So... that bowl I just had of Rice Chex didn't really have any Czecks (sic) in it, right?

Quote of the day....

"We're one large hurricane away from a major threat to the economy of this state [Florida]," said Proctor, R-St. Augustine.

via www2.tbo.com.

Nice Biliography on The Future of Insurance Regulation

Martha Henn McCormik at the Networks Financial Institute has produced a nice biography of regulatory reform.

My Congressional Testimony Part I (The Back Story)

I have been teaching a special three week term.  Each class meets about 3 hours per day and I am teaching two. (I just finished yesterday.)  At the beginning of the term I was asked to testify before Congress regarding my opinion about the future of insurance regulation.  I was teaching intensively six hours a day and I was getting a little brain fried, so I said yes.  That is when the trouble started.

I received the official invitation from the subcommittee at 5:00pm on Friday. I didn’t read the fine print until Sunday.  I had to have 100 copies of my testimony to the subcommittee 48 hours prior to the hearing on Wednesday.  That was not a big deal—it just meant I had to finish writing up my testimony by Sunday night and then I would overnight a package to DC.  Well, thanks to the anthrax scare of late 2001 --

Anti-Life Insurance

A Buckinghamshire man diagnosed with terminal cancer is to collect a second winning payout of £5,000 after betting he would stay alive.

Jon Matthews, 59, from Milton Keynes, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos, in 2006 and told he had months to live.

He placed two bets, each with a £100 stake at odds of 50/1, that he would be alive in June 2008 and in June 2009.

A third wager will earn him a further £10,000 if he lives until 1 June 2010.

The widower will collect his second lot of £5,000 winnings on Monday.

via marginal revolution

Perhaps an actuary could comment on the pricing of this contract. 

Note that traditional life insurance is really death insurance (i.e. one insures one’s self against a premature death).  So this contract is true life insurance?

Book Update

Thanks to Mike the Actuary for noting that Amazon now has a copy of our book, The Future of Insurance Regulation for order.   It is a new improved version of papers presented last July at the AEI.

A New Treasury Blueprint?

It seems similar to the last, according to this Reuters report, but it looks like insurance consumer protection might be regulated at the federal level. 

"The Fed could also lose some of its consumer protection responsibilities, which would move to a new agency that would supervise financial products, such as credit cards, mortgage-related products and insurance."

Or does it mean that the whole industry ball of wax gets the federal treatment?