The Black Box
Three private companies, almost none of it disclosed, decide what your home is worth to a fire that hasn't happened yet.
Somewhere in California or Florida right now, an insurance company is deciding whether to renew, raise the premium on, or simply decline to cover a house it has covered for years. That decision is not really being made by the insurance company. It is being made, several steps upstream, by one of three private firms whose names almost no policyholder has ever heard, using methodology that almost no regulator is allowed to fully see.
This series begins here, with the foundation everything else in it sits on, because the entire architecture of modern property insurance — who can get covered, what it costs, what happens when an insurer leaves a state entirely — now runs through a layer of private risk modeling that operates with less public disclosure than the weather forecast it's partly built from.
Three companies dominate global catastrophe modeling: Moody's RMS, which Moody's Corporation acquired for roughly $2 billion in 2021; Verisk's AIR Worldwide; and CoreLogic. Between them, they model more than 100 perils — hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, floods, and increasingly war, political violence, and pandemic risk — across more than 100 countries. When an insurer prices a homeowner's policy, when a reinsurer prices a treaty covering an entire insurer's book, when a state regulator tries to determine whether a proposed rate increase is justified, the number nearly everyone in that chain is actually working from originated inside one of these three companies' proprietary software.
"Proprietary" is the operative word, and it is worth sitting with exactly what it means in practice rather than treating it as an abstract business term. These models are built on assumptions about storm frequency, wildfire spread, soil composition, building codes, and climate trends that the companies do not publish in a form regulators, academics, or the public can independently audit. A regulator reviewing an insurer's proposed rate increase is, in many cases, being asked to bless a number whose actual derivation neither the regulator nor the public is allowed to fully inspect.
Modeling Firm
or Reinsurer
Regulator
Policyholder
What gets converted here is judgment into proprietary code. A century ago, an insurance company's rate was set by an actuary working from publicly available loss history — imperfect, slow to update, but in principle inspectable by anyone with the patience to dig through the same records. Today, the rate is set by software whose internal logic belongs to a company with no regulatory obligation to publish it, reviewed by a regulator who agreed, as a condition of seeing it at all, not to disclose what they saw.
The model is not wrong because it's private. It might be the most accurate risk assessment available anywhere on earth. The problem is structural: an entire public system of insurance regulation now depends on a number that the public, and often the regulator, is contractually barred from examining.
The Underwriting of Everything · Series AnalysisThis is not a uniquely American failure, and it is not a story of obvious villainy. The modeling firms did not seize this position by deception — they earned it by building genuinely sophisticated tools that insurers, reinsurers, and increasingly investors and even national governments have come to rely on because the alternative, less rigorous models, performed worse. The architecture's danger isn't competence. It's concentration: when three firms' proprietary assumptions effectively become the de facto public standard for pricing catastrophic risk everywhere, with no equivalent public model to check them against, "proprietary" stops being a normal trade secret and starts functioning closer to unaccountable infrastructure.
The insulation here is almost elegant in its simplicity: trade secret law was built to protect a company's competitive formula from a competitor, not to shield a de facto public pricing standard from the public it prices. Nobody designed catastrophe modeling to end up functioning as critical infrastructure. It got there gradually, the same way every concentration this archive has documented gets there — not through a single decision, but through years of insurers, reinsurers, and regulators all independently concluding that relying on these three firms' models was more rational than building or maintaining anything else.
That rationality, multiplied across an entire industry, is what makes this layer durable. There is no obvious villain to indict and no single decision to reverse. There is only a structural fact: the price of risk on your house, this year, traces back through your insurer, through its reinsurer, to a piece of proprietary software whose actual assumptions you are not allowed to see — and very possibly, neither is the regulator who approved the rate.
Sub Verbis · Vera.
The three-firm catastrophe modeling market structure (Moody's RMS, Verisk's AIR Worldwide, CoreLogic), the $2 billion 2021 RMS acquisition by Moody's, and the characterization of limited public disclosure and independent validation of model methodology are drawn from industry and academic analysis of the catastrophe modeling sector. The description of California's regulatory access framework — full model review available to regulators only under non-disclosure agreement, with a state representative empowered to limit what proprietary information even an intervening consumer advocate may review — is drawn from reporting on California's 2024-25 Sustainable Insurance Strategy reforms, examined in greater detail in Posts III and IV of this series. This post's characterization of the "100+ perils, 100+ countries" modeling scope reflects industry-standard descriptions of these firms' combined market coverage; exact figures vary by source and year and should be treated as an order-of-magnitude characterization rather than a single audited figure.

No comments:
Post a Comment