dwy000

I've said before, it's not the policies it's the ncredibly bad implementation and complete lack of competence. Nobody in their right mind objects to fiscal responsibility, smart trade pacts, smart immigration policies and global safety. But Trump deals with these like a drunk in a bar looking for a fight instead of with competent people and intelligence. So inevitably not only does he not accomplish the task but in fact makes things worse. If this was a guy who worked for your business he would have been fired very quickly.

Thanks for that. But Im hoping to get your broader view since Greenberg is saying that Chubb is taking a stand here and this time is different. As you've framed it, MGA's are similar to giving the broker "the pen" - essentially allowing them to structure and write, manage and administer policies just using the insurer as a regulated balance sheet. And they get a lot of extra fees for it. If Chubb says that the MGA is overpaid for that service relative to what they can do in house using AI, is he saying they are basically going back to the old broker/underwriter relationship and cutting out everything but the origination/sales commission? Can they do that without eliminating a large portion of the business that currently comes through MGA's? Why wouldn't MGA's just switch to another fronting insurer or balance sheet? And why can't the MGA/broker just do the AI part themselves? It doesn't appear to affect the actual risk cost so loss ratios would stay the same but the lower administration costs would be passed along in lower premiums (any savings would be competed away among underwriters).

If I read and understand it correctly, Greenberg is basically saying that AI can underwrite 85% of the activity more effectively and efficiently than the MGA's so they will bring it back in house. Which leads to 2 questions: a) how were they more profitable and efficient for Chubb than in house in the first place; and b) why can't the MGA's just do the same and use AI to automate and retain the advantage themselves and continue using the underwriters for placement?

Any sort of end game that the US can hold up as a military win (regime change, permanent end of nuke program, opening of SOH by force, etc) requires boots on the ground. There is zero appetite to put boots on ground from both parties in the US. This was Nancy Mace today. If you dont have Nancy Mace you dont have any Republicans. Gas prices are rising, the costs of the war are getting higher and the midterms are getting closer. Time is on Iran's side just by surviving. My guess would be a headline "win" and walk away for both sides pretty soon. With nothing essentially changed for the better at the end of it.

Not just them. Seemingly just another day of the insurance brokers searching for a bottom and failing to find it.

This is completely untrue. The US (and most developed nations) were built largely off the back of immigration. The idea that jobs and housing are fixed commodities that are used up by immigrants is ignorant of the most basic level of economics. Whether the population increases from immigration or births doesn't matter except for the very, very short term. Population growth drives economic expansion of all types. And as US farmers are finding out, immigrants do a lot of the jobs that locals refuse to.

If someone wants a chick who doesn't know what they're doing it's probably because they dont know what they're doing

Look what you've done @Blake Hampton. Im actually in full agreement with Greg and Reds on something. Maybe the world IS coming to an end.

What a generalization!! Who is rooting for our enemies?? Let alone 40% of the population? Just because Trump is incompetent and stupid doesn't mean people want Iran to win.

Every situation is different but the execution is the same. No plan. Changing objectives. Led by incompetence. And the cult laps it up.

So you're taking his timing claims as truth? I think we are still waiting on the Healthcare plan that was promised in 2 weeks - 7 years ago. And the original objective wasn't to destroy the nukes - after all, those were permanently obliterated 8 months ago - it was regime change. Of course that has changed many times as well. There no plan. Its just whatever he feels like saying this week. And the cult laps it up.

Nobody does humor (humour?) better than the Brits

It really says something that the President claims there are productive talks, nobody believes that and we wait for Iran to comment to get the actual story. Memories of the tariff talks with China where we had to get the actual progress news from China.

More people have been killed in history because "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" than any other reason.

Something about declaring a win and walking away....

Who said Trump wouldn't bomb Iran? He's talked about it for a long time. The only ones I ever heard making that argument were MAGA because he claimed the nuclear bomb making ability was obliterated 8 months ago so it wasn't necessary. I've never heard anyone else.make that argument.

It's like the Buffett quote that if you hire someone who lacks integrity you at least want them to be lazy.

In today's episode of "is it dementia or is he just lying through his teeth again?"

As usual, you were speaking about a nebulous group of people never to be named but always to be referenced. Its like you feel your points have no validity unless there's a "they" to argue with. But hey, keep posting about how crazy it is for people to keep posting.

You keep talking like this is some Hollywood celebrity hawking skincare. He's the President of the US. And you find it odd to follow his insane antics and comment on him? He has bombed what, 8 countries? Imposed illegal tariffs. Started trade and relationship wars with our closest allies. And continues to bury the Epstein files. But it's silly to comment on that? And the irony is that you guys are the ones posting more.than anyone here about how much everyone else is posting and commenting.

Or the fact that he is the President of the United States and not some TV host (oops, bad example)

Its a cult of epic proportions

How exactly does one separate the policy discussion from the President who is initiating the implementation of those policies? I used to be conservative and now I'm not - because the person we are discussing actually has thrown most of the conservative policies i agreed with entirely out the window. (balanced.busget, cutting costs, free trade, government removed from business, etc)

Im not talking about degrees equaling compence or suggesting Europe as a role model. Im talking about experience and background and ability. Having people with real world experience would be wonderful. We have a TV host and national guard member leading the military. We have real estate developers who have no official capacity for the govt leading our middle east negotiations. We have people who have done favors or pledged unconditional support for Trump being placed in meaningful positions. Hell, Erika Kirk was just nominated to the Board of the Air Force Academy!!! Again, things that most people agree are desirable are getting screwed up royally and made worse because of loyalty over competence.

Democracy (capitalized). It was built on the Constitution and Rule of Law. Which are being trampled on. As a lawyer you should be shocked and offended. As a cult member....maybe not so much.