As Prem is worried (aware?) that we are in the middle of a 100 year financial event the cost of insurance to stay fully hedged is more justifiable than one would pay to protect against the potential for a 100 year event. The storm analogies are misleading, I would assume if the worst hurricane in 100 years was approaching the shores of the US the cost to insurance with the storm on the horizon would be different than one would have paid to purchase the equivalent insurance the previous winter?