Venture Step

Dalton Anderson (00:01.496)
Welcome to Venture Step Podcast, we discuss entrepreneurship, industry trends, and the occasional book review. Everyone's felt the hardship of insurance if you live in a catastrophic prone area. That could be anywhere on the East Coast and on the West Coast, particularly California.

And if you're in those areas, you're acutely aware of the relationship or the growing relationship and imbalance of insurance in those areas. And I myself work in insurance and have a couple hypothesis that we'll discuss later on in the episode. But just throwing it out there that this is for my SUS learnings continued content series and SUS learnings.

There's quite a few of the episodes now. I think I'm on my third one, or this is my fourth one. But basically the S.U.S. stands for the Startup School, and it's a free startup mentorship program offered by Y Combinator. So it tells you, okay, this is how you create a good idea. This is how you find a co-founder, and it's how you raise money, and this is you deal with equity and arguments and all sorts of things.

and try to get you ready for all the challenges that are unknown but are somewhat common no matter which business you're in or startup you're creating. You'll have these reoccurring issues and they try to get you squared away for the reoccurring issues so you can be more prepared for the unpredictable issues.

in each person's respective industries that they're working in.

Dalton Anderson (01:52.206)
So this is an SUS episode, and this episode is more related to insurance and the growing trends of insurance and some hypothesis.

So my hypothesis are, let's see.

Okay, so starts at the bottom of the page. I'm gonna read this out loud. Extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency. And basically, if you don't know what that means is there's catastrophic events more often and they're costing us more money. So, say call it hurricanes or wildfires. Those would be the main ones that people are concerned about. Hypothesis two, they're, and I'm talking about the US market by the way.

There is a lack of appetite from the capital reinsurance markets to ensure these types of risks so insurance carriers are able to take less risk in those areas and not offer coverage. And what I mean by not offer coverage is a carrier or an MGA, and you don't have to get too specific, it's just that people that offer the coverage or create the product or manage the product, they, for the most part,

aren't comfortable taking risk as what's called net risk and taking everything 100%. So they share their risk with the reinsurance market and say you're not comfortable taking 100 because your 100 could be a one in 1,000 year storm or a one in 250 or one in 500. Whereas like the likelihood of these things occurring are low, but if it does occur,

Dalton Anderson (03:40.33)
it would be a massive loss and you need to have the appropriate capital to take on that risk. So it's easier to spread that risk with other folks. That's basically what I'm saying. What I said in hypothesis two is that there is a lack of business appetite for people to offer capital to ensure properly in those areas. And so there's a lack of supply. And then the third hypothesis is if you're offering coverage,

then there's an issue with very high deductibles. Typically, you'd see like a five to at least a 2 % deductible for a catastrophic storm and other limitations regarding roof. so your roof is, there's two perspectives, right? Like if you're an insurance person, there's so many people that roofs, especially in Florida, roofs as a, insurance policies for their roof as a,

maintenance policy, like where it's not about the usefulness of the life of the roof. It's like, okay, I had a little storm. I need a whole roof replaced. And so people have these old raggedy roofs that they were just getting replaced constantly because they also never had to buy their own roof. It was the insurance companies. But since you got a free roof, other people have to pay for your roof that you got. And

their insurance gets more expensive, so does yours, and so does everyone else's. And then if people keep doing that over and over again, then insurance, there's a lot of various other things, but that was a big thing in Florida where contractors were pushing people, like giving gift cards to people to help them put in a roof claim, like walking houses after storms, not even big storms, like a rainstorm or something, going up on their roof.

and seeing if they had any pre-existing damage, then making a claim after that storm, giving people gift cards, all sorts of weird stuff that is now illegal. But there's many issues, but that was one of them. Just providing a little background. Hypothesis four, the only time that you will really be paying and making a claim and then an insurance company paying is if it's over your deductible.

Dalton Anderson (06:01.772)
these scenarios, it's almost kind of like a total loss. If you have a 5 % deductible on 500 grand,

then your deductible is 25 grand. If you have a $25,000 claim and it's not related to your roof, then you've got big problems. You have a lot of things going on.

So there's that and 25,000 is a lot to pay out. That's a lot of money. I don't know very many people that have 25 grand on hand ready to pay out when they have an insurance claim for a weather like event. I don't know anyone who has some kind of.

money set aside for insurance that they have in the S &P and they just leave it there for a rainy day. mean, people have emergency funds, but the emergency funds are built for a lot of other things, not necessarily for like a $25,000 payment for your deductible to even get coverage. So that's kind of the issue. $5,000 is five. There's a lot of supply and

demand, but there's a lack of capital. So there's always factors that are pushing things from being a less competitive and less customer friendly market to basically dictating the terms. So I mean by that is that there was a period where reinsurance kind of pulled back from these areas because of all the risk and how the market has been changing and all those things. And we'll talk about that. share my screen and look at some graphs with you.

Dalton Anderson (07:57.432)
But the main thing is that there's not a lack of capital. There's just a lack of interest applying that capital in those areas. And so the people that are offering coverage in these catastrophically prone areas basically dictate the terms of the market. And that's good and bad. Like for an insurance company, that's great. For an insured, that's bad. So you don't want that. You want to have options and...

You want to be able to have various coverages and prices and different perspectives on your risk because each company will have special specializations in different areas and will be more comfortable and price you in a certain way that you may like, but other insurance companies may not.

Dalton Anderson (08:45.458)
Hypothesis six is insurance is increasingly becoming more complicated and with all these factors being pushed onto the customer. Puts people that are getting insurance, getting these insurance policies into thinking it's a scam. They don't think highly of it. So those are my six hypothesis. So now the next thing that we'll be talking about is

kind of just going through what's going on in the market. And I'm thinking about all these things because I had conversations with a couple co-founders over the last couple weeks or leaders in the parametrics market. And they had varying perspectives, but then their varying perspectives gave me a different insight on potential directions of which I could build a company from. And the first item,

is that insurance is becoming very expensive and also the deductibles are very high. So insurance is going up, costs are, or insurance is going up, deductibles are going up. So overall, you're getting...

less coverage for the money and your money has to pay for more of the coverage.

Dalton Anderson (10:05.902)
So there's that. And then the core problem of all of this and the reason why we're going through this whole rebalancing is whatever you want to call it, I'll call it climate change. If you want to call it some other thing with just random occurrences of storms, whatever you want to do. But with this climate change model, with storms, with their frequency and severity increasing, it is

a problem. We've got to figure it out because things are getting out of control, very expensive. And I have some suggestions on things to do and not to do at the end of the episode. But that was another thing that I'm going to be discussing in this episode.

And yeah, and then also discuss my perspective and my conversations with the co-founders. the first thing, we'll discuss the increase of frequency and severity in the world for catastrophic events. I'm going to be discussing the US market, because I live in the US and I'm most familiar with the US, but the same premise applies to the other markets, like the European market, Africa, everywhere.

Okay, so let's go over here and I'll share my screen.

Dalton Anderson (11:31.628)
Screen screen. Yeah, I always wonder what people think when I am trying to see on my screen, I'm struggling and they're not watching the video. Like, what are you talking about?

Okay, so this is from the National Centers of Environmental Information.

And they have a graph. And basically it's a graph from 1980 to 2025 as of April 8th, 2025. There has been 403 confirmed weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding one billion, each to affect the United States. These events included 32 drought events, 45 flood events, nine freeze events, and 203 severe storm events.

67 tropical cyclone events, 23 wildfire events, and lastly, 24 winter storm events. From 1980 to 2024, the annual average is nine events.

The annual average for the most recent five years is 2023, or sorry, 2024 is 23 events. And you can look at this graph, and if you're not looking, I'll describe it. It's a graph of the total disaster costs, the amount of events, what type of event it was.

Dalton Anderson (13:07.95)
And it's very colorful. There's a lot going on. It's very informationally dense, I would say. But if you look at, if you look at the last couple of years, like just 2023 and 2024 were massive years, like it's just off the charts. Like it literally, it's literally at the top of the box. And you can see that from 1980 all the way over to 2025,

There's a slow, slow hockey stick like.

slope to the graph where in 1980, and this might be an issue with the data collection, I'm not sure, but in 1980, they had one tropical cyclone event, one flood event, and one drought event. So they had three events that year. And it seemed that like every three to four years, there was an event spike. So then the next event spike was in 1983. There was one cyclone, one freeze, three flood events, and one drought event.

And then if you scroll again, there was a spike in 1985. That was only a year later, like one full fiscal year. And then three years after that, there's a spike that's lower than the previous. But it typically has some ups and some downs, and it's not very consistent. But if I look at 2023 and 2025,

and what is predicted to be 2025, they seem to be very consistent, whereas like 2023 had, let me add these up mentally.

Dalton Anderson (15:00.59)
28 events and I don't know why that took me so long but I was like, oh man, people are viewing my screen and they're seeing me count and I'm like, ah. So that's 28 and then.

Dalton Anderson (15:18.222)
27, 28, 27. And I could also look to the left and look at the number of events. So that's my bad. I'm just sharing live. So it's very clear that the number of events are increasing. And if you look at the other chart to the, mean, the other axis to the right on the Y, within that Y axis, then the cost is increasing substantially too. So in 2022, we had quite a few events. The total cost was just under

see if it tells me the exact cost.

Dalton Anderson (15:54.286)
They're saying within a 95 % confidence, they're saying in 2022, it was 135 billion to 232 billion. If you fast forward to a couple years from now, it's saying, oh wait.

Sorry, I messed up, my bad. Erase what I said, erase what I said. The cost in billions is just under $348 billion. And you fast forward a couple of years, 2023 was a record, the type of record that you don't want. And that was $521 billion. And then 2024 was just under. And we're predicted to have another strong 2025. And so,

The costs are consistently increasing and the frequency is consistently increasing. That's been validated. The next thing that has to be validated in this statement, series of statements, is the amount of capital. So the next thing is, okay, well, what if there's not enough capital because the reinsurance group is being hurt by these events and costs are increasing and...

there's not enough capital to put at play to offer enough coverage. There's not enough supply of capital or interest. That is just fundamentally not true. So in year 2021, I'm reading off my notes. In year 2021, the dedicated total reinsurance capital, this includes traditional capital and alternative capital. And I'll explain what that difference is in one second, but.

Total was 530 billion to 575 and then go to 2023 or 2022 there was a dip and it went from 490 to 530, 2023 came back strong, 470 to 700 and 2024, 715 to 770 billion. And in 2025, we are apparently recording a

Dalton Anderson (18:10.316)
record in reinsurance capital. And so I can share that. is from, this information that I'm getting is from Gallagher Re. Gallagher Re puts out a reinsurance report, a yearly reinsurance report.

And this is what they are predicting. I 2025 is not over. Sorry. I meant to say 2024. My bad. I messed up twice here recently. I want to share my screen. Look at this.

Dalton Anderson (18:58.062)
I'm not sure if it lets me share this. Let me just go over here. Share this tab instead. Okay, so in 2024, it was a record year. 2024 was the highest. They're saying that the capital at play, dedicated capital, was at 769 billion. Okay? So there's not a decrease in the amount of capital available.

there's just a lack of interest. There's a fundamental lack of interest to offer capital in these catastrophic prone areas. And if they are offering capital, I wouldn't say there's a lack of interest. What I'll say is there's a lack of interest to lower the terms of the attachment points of when the capital, sorry, when the reinsurance would get triggered. So,

Reinsurance is similar to insurance to where they would have kind of this kind of deductible and say, all right, like for an event, your deductible would be $5 million or $25 million. And then we'll take everything above the 25 up to 100 million and then the carrier needs to take the rest or something like that.

So there is this kind of play at hand where there's plenty of capital, but there is not interest to provide enough coverage for an MGA or a carrier to feel comfortable offering lower deductibles on these.

these homes or properties that they're insuring. So it leads to a higher attachment point demand from the reinsurers, which then flows down to the insured, the person like you getting home insurance or getting insurance for your property. It forces carrier MGU to

Dalton Anderson (21:08.834)
have higher deductibles because they've got to reduce their risk because they've got less coverage for this catastrophic or these other type of coverages. So the general sense is that reinsurers are less comfortable with frequency events, like would say like hail or these other things, and they're more interested in like catastrophic events. And I know my leading up to this conversation, like you might be like, wait, I thought that was the other way around.

It is and it isn't. The piece about using...

using the capital excuse where there's not enough capital to cover. That's what I was getting at. And now that I've unfolded this story for you, it's really not about that. It's about don't...

Dalton Anderson (22:05.198)
It's about not being interested in lowering the terms and meeting halfway. Like being very solid in having high attachment points and protecting their bottom line, which is fair. But that also affects the insured, so it flows all the way down. And then the higher attachment points means that there's less coverage for like a frequency claim. And they're really only

covering these massive catastrophic claims. So the carrier and the MGA is need to figure out this frequency thing and the solution for that is higher deductible. So if you do have some kind of thing that happens, one you may or may not have roof coverage because your roof is actual cast volume, which means it depreciates over time. And if you have a shingle roof, it typically lasts 15 years. And then the other thing is that once you get to that point,

and you have these high deductibles, if you are submitting a claim, most likely your claim is gonna be under your deductible because have a claim over 25 grand, 25 grand for a normal size place, that's a roof, that's a brand new roof. unless you had severe structural damage or something like that, there typically would be

in this scenario that I'm talking about would be no coverage. You would have to pay out of pocket. And yes, it's, I guess, good for the insurance company, but not good for the insured. And I don't know if people explain it properly or people don't understand, but I don't think the person purchasing the insurance should have to.

have somebody sit them down and really go through all the legal documentation and the contract language and all sorts of stuff for them to be like, wow, so if I have a claim it's gonna be this much money or if I have a claim about this, the value of my roof is $3,000.

Dalton Anderson (24:18.072)
I don't think all that stuff is clear and the insurance industry has to do better with providing clarity to the people that are paying them. And that would probably avoid the last hypothesis that people don't understand insurance, it's becoming more complicated and people think of it as a scam. But insurance is really important, it helps the world go around. So it's a critical function, it's just that people just don't understand it. So the next thing is,

How do home insurers, home buyers feel or people that own homes? They don't like the situation, especially in Florida and in California. They're in a bad spot. They don't understand why insurance is so expensive. They don't understand why the deductibles that they're able to obtain are so much. They don't understand why they typically won't have coverage for their roof if their roof is older.

All of these things just don't make any sense. And then for someone to tell you, well, if you want coverage, you have to get a new roof. And in their mind, they're like, okay, well, what about the roof I have now? Well, that one doesn't have coverage because it's old. And you're like, well, I have a roof and it works, but it's not worth anything.

I the perspective needs to get explained a little bit more. Like from the insurance side, it's pretty clear. Like people were using insurance policies as maintenance policies for their roofs and that gets very expensive for everybody else if everyone's getting a free roof. And the other perspective is, wow, like I have a roof, like why is my roof have no coverage? And so I don't, I'm not in those conversations because I'm not an agent, but yeah, I'd be curious on how they explain that.

and how that conversation goes. Because I assume it wouldn't be pleasant because I'd be like, what do you mean? What are you talking about? Like I need a new roof. I have got a roof. You're saying I don't have coverage because I don't. My roof is old. Or like I can't obtain coverage from someone else because my roof is too old. Like there's just such a lack of supply that people can completely dictate the terms of which they will offer coverage. And you were able to do that before. But the problem is now that

Dalton Anderson (26:38.2)
there isn't enough supply for coverage. And so a lot of people are going to an insurer of last resort. And that is not good. Like Florida's is Citizens, and Citizens is the insurer of last resort. And when you're getting coverage from the insurer of last resort, you have substantially less coverage. You have worse service.

you will have all sorts of issues. And the main issue is that the Florida government is not supposed to be holding this much risk on their balance sheet because you gotta think about it like insurance is a risk, not a risk, it's a liability, sorry. It's a risk as well, but it's a liability. So when you get a policy and say your policy is for $100,000 worth of coverage and

you paid out a thousand bucks or let's call it 1200 because it's easier math. So you start your first month, pay your hundred and then we have what's called earned premium. And so there's the earned premium asset. So the money that you paid us, it's not really ours until it's earned. So you could request a cancellation at any time and we'd pay you back the money. Rightfully so, because the contract was for 12 months. And if you don't fulfill the 12 months and you want to leave,

then you get your money back. There is some concepts like pro rata or 25 % minimum earned, but it's not necessary for this conversation. Basically, so that's a liability. The premiums is a liability. And then the other piece is the catastrophic risk associated with your property is a massive liability on the balance sheet. The Florida, their balance sheet is not equipped to have

this much risk and if something came through like a one, I don't even know how their account models but if something came through and was the equivalent of over probably a 250 storm, then that would cause like massive, massive damage. Florida would not have enough money and they would have to get the, not the reinsurance bar.

Dalton Anderson (29:03.694)
they would have to get the insurance carriers or people offering insurance in the whole state to do a special assessment. And then everyone has to pay out and hopefully make things right. it's not a good situation for your government to be having to step in that deeply to help out and help the market, the private market, simply because it's very complicated and

we shouldn't have that much risk on our Florida government balance sheet or any of these balance sheets. It's to help out why the market adjusts, right? Like the market needs to adjust and then stuff comes off the insurer of last resort. But the issue with states like Florida and California is that things aren't coming off of these insurers of last resort. What's happening is that people just keep getting added on to the insurer of last resort. And that creates some really bad downstream problems.

If you have a massive catastrophic claim in like these states, you're having these things happen all the time. And in California, luckily enough, those two fires were were counted as.

as two events versus one event. And the way that that's derived in a reinsurance contract, typically it would be the distance in the time of occurrence. So if the distance is close enough and it occurred close enough, or the times occurred close to each other, then it would be counted as one event. Whereas a hurricane, if it's a hurricane, that's one event. So any of the tornadoes that a hurricane creates or hail storms, that's all one event.

Wildfires a little different, but luckily that was classified as two events instead of one because if it was one event, then it would have probably resulted in not full coverage simply because you have a cap that would be paid out for one event. But they definitely probably exhausted their treaty and had to.

Dalton Anderson (31:14.466)
re-up on their coverage.

Dalton Anderson (31:19.416)
So all of those factors at play have created this very aggressive environment for homeowners and for people who own commercial buildings like an apartment or condo. Condos are owned by a group of people, but you know what I mean, it's owned by the board.

So these pressures at play.

I think that these are all true. These hypothesis are true. I mean, there might be a little nuanced, but very close to true or true. And that leads me into an idea that I discussed with my mom when my mom is a crazy smart. So, and she's an insurance too. So she, she's, it's, it's great to have her around and hope she stays around for a while. But yeah, she's very intelligent and also knowledgeable.

and has, not knowledgeable, has knowledge in insurance. And that leads to sometimes interesting discussions about different ideas and discussing the parametrics. And I don't think she was ever too, too open, not open, too optimistic about the parametrics. There's always issues with regulations and other things, market adoption.

There's companies have been trying to do that for years and it hasn't worked out. But one thing I think is curious and that we talked about was a deductible replacement coverage where is you would offer coverage for people that had frequency. It'd be a frequency play, not a severity play. And basically what that means is like the company would offer coverage for everything under the deductible up to the deductible. So say you're deductible.

Dalton Anderson (33:13.198)
in this instance was 25 grand. I would start in commercial, so the deductibles would be pretty big. It would be like 500 grand or a million dollars, depending on where I'm playing. It could be more, but yeah, it'd be a lot. Anyways, so if you started with this house example, so $500,000 house, you have a 5 % deductible, your deductible is 25 grand, that

deductible or like that claim that you'd have. Say something happens to your house, you have a hail storm, whatever. It costs $10,000 or some kind of lightning storm. The wiring got messed up. I don't know. Just throwing things out here.

That happens, you would typically have to pay out the 15 grand yourself. I think I said 15. You'd have to pay out the 15 grand yourself. Whereas if you had deductible replacement coverage, you would pay, say, I mean, for $25,000 worth of coverage, you wouldn't pay that much. Like you would pay, I don't know, a couple hundred bucks. And in that scenario, we would pay you the money and then you would

make things right with yourself. So you'd file a claim and then the money would be paid out. But we wouldn't pay anything over your claim. say that you had, because then that would mean that you have double coverage and then you'd be better off than what you should have been, which goes against the right of, sorry, the rule of indemnity, which is basically making the insured no better than they were before with like materials or modern, or it depends on how the...

policy languages. Like for an older building there might be some rules in there that if you're building super old like we can't use horsehair for the ceiling or something like that.

Dalton Anderson (35:11.31)
But all that put together, it provides an opportunity for someone to come into this market and

create a product that makes insurance a little bit easier to understand and makes things easier for people to.

Dalton Anderson (35:36.28)
people to feel comfortable with insurance. I don't know, I don't feel that people are comfortable. I think that's a business opportunity itself, like creating a company and then the company's whole goal is to make insurance easy, where it's very customer centric and trying to find interesting ways to either package up policies to where the deductible is kind of taken care of with a separate coverage. They have a

process of providing coverage from ground up all the way and being able to play all the layers and start with the first layer but then play with each layer of the insurance policy. You may not know what I'm talking about but that's fine. Play each layer and start at the beginning because deductibles are increasing. You could scale that to many products as long as you get the model in place. The coverage amount is really what matters.

Dalton Anderson (36:37.454)
I think that's very interesting and appreciate my mom having that conversation with me. The next section is demystifying the parametrics insurance market. So I had previous episodes about parametrics and if you're not familiar, it is basically a contract that has predefined data sources and trigger points. And so these would be called the data oracles and contract execution thresholds.

With all that playing out...

Dalton Anderson (37:14.548)
I had some deep interest in some ideas related to parametrics that after interviewing some co-founders or leaders in that space, I came with different feelings. I came around to having different feelings is what I'll say. So one, I met with someone very optimistic about parametrics and wanting to bring it down a notch where

they're working in a very sophisticated space for large companies. And then I spoke with another founder who was less optimistic and they were playing in multiple spaces within parametrics, but had

mentioned some, I wouldn't say mentioned it, but had some undertones of regret. And so those are the two people that I spoke with. So let me talk about the first one who was very optimistic.

They think that bringing the sophistication downward, starting at the top, starting at the coveted international businesses, big business, oil, energy, all that stuff.

I guess I just reminded myself that I didn't talk about the alternative capital. I got distracted. All right, whatever.

Dalton Anderson (38:54.318)
regardless, starting big and then moving downward. And they're thinking about long-term vision of parametrics, within 15 years. And their perspective is, I'm in on everything. I'm in on homeowners, I'm in on commercial, I'm in on sophisticated multinational businesses, I'm in with everything. And he's like, I'm not sold or married to one idea.

I am bullish about the market of parametrics in general and that's how I position myself, which requires a lot of capital and sophistication and backing and networking to do all those things. And that's not possible for a single founder. It's just not. If you have stupid money or connections, that would be possible, but starting out and getting started, starting out, getting started, that's ridiculous.

But all of that...

very positive about parametrics. And then I spoke with somebody else that was closer to the space that I wanted to operate in. they, they weren't very, I wouldn't say they weren't positive, but they definitely had undertones of regret of their decision of like insurance or parametrics in general. And,

Apparently that their competitors and themselves like trying to divest or divest their products into other areas and the things that they've launched that I'm not saying they didn't go well, but they were less less revenue than anticipated either from brokers telling them one thing doing another or from

Dalton Anderson (40:57.432)
just changes in the market or just lack of market appetite after the product was made. And that really stuck out to me because it seems like such a good idea on the surface, right? Like everything is coming together. It looks like there's the infrastructure required to build something like that. There is the interest from...

capital markets, is notations of interest with accelerators where this is like insurance accelerators or this is what they're looking for. And so all these things seem good on the surface, but then when you pull back the covers or open up the sandwich, it seems it might be bologna. I don't know. I was trying to talk about the sandwich there, but.

Let me backtrack on that one. If you...

pull back the covers, there might be some monster or ghost. that's what it's kind of appearing like to be, is that on the surface it seemed like a great idea. And then once I dug a little deeper, it doesn't seem as promising as it used to be. And that's disappointing because it seemed very cool. And it's okay to pivot your idea and keep evolving the idea as long as you're not jumping from space to space.

it's more at the angle of progressing the idea and getting closer to the source of truth and the problem at hand. And I have completely reevaluated how I was thinking about it. And I thought about what do I know that is true or can be verified quickly? And so coming back to the hypothesis, I had said,

Dalton Anderson (42:58.274)
Extreme leather events are increasing in severity and frequency. There is lack of appetite from reinsurance markets to take on this frequency risk, but they're willing to take on the severity risk simply because

there is plenty of capital, but not interest in lower attachment points. If someone is getting deductibles offered in these catastrophically prone areas, they're typically higher on the higher end, and them being high would notate that people probably can't afford it, or if they do have a claim, they probably don't have coverage, unless it's a large claim.

then the next piece is insurance is becoming increasingly more complicated and makes less sense. So I think there's an opportunity, long term, long term opportunity to make insurance products that are simple, easy to use and are understandable to say a 15 year old. think that's reasonable.

And if you could do that, I think you could have a preference and maybe you don't even care. Maybe they're like, you know what, whatever the cheapest price is, that's fine. But price is a big determinant. But also at the same time, understanding what coverage you legitimately have and don't have easily could be a value proposition that doesn't seem that too hard to execute on. But that was my overview of my ideas and my progression of my ideas.

I am going to let everyone go. I appreciate your time today. And of course, as always, wherever you are in this world, good afternoon, good evening, good morning. I said that backwards. Thanks for listening in. I hope you tune in next week. Until then, bye.