Ok, so I do feel like I get what you’re saying about reinsurance and retrocession policies (aka reinsuring reinsurers).
But, in my tiny little meat computer I have to oversimplify by making it all about replacing or repairing “structure/asset equivalents”.
For example, if a boat insurer insures 10,000 boats, but pays FFH to accept risk for 2,000 boats in the event more than 20% of their insured 10,000 boats have been damaged, then I have to think about how many boats FFH is on the hook for.
Yes, it’s vast oversimplification, but my monkey brain would stroke out if I didn’t oversimplify.
By oversimplifying I’m basically telling myself that if a fictional super-hurricane wiped out every single home in Florida that FFH would be on the hook for roughly 90,000 residential policy equivalents for homes with values averaging $400,000.
I know I’m wrong but I’m just trying broadly frame this risk, while also eliciting excellent feedback from more evolved monkeys who also contribute to this forum.
(After all this typing I’m really starting to crave a banana.)