The increased frequency of extreme weather events, rising sea levels and shifts in temperature patterns, are just some of the climate-related issues directly affecting the risks Tower Insurance underwrites, as well as the insurance claims it manages.
Tower Insurance released a climate report alongside its full-year financial results on Thursday where the insurer reported $595 million in annual insurance premiums and $83.5 million in underlying net profit after tax (NPAT).
In the report, Tower Chairman Michael Stiassny and Audit Committee Chairman Graham Stuart said insurance, more than any other industry, is particularly exposed to the direct financial and operational consequences of climate change.
“This increasingly necessitates that climate-related issues are not peripheral concerns, but integral to
our day-to-day business operations,” they said.
Tower was the first general insurer in New Zealand to introduce risk-based pricing back in 2021 and NZ’s other general insurers have followed suit.
Risk-based pricing boils down to insurers charging a person or policyholder a higher premium if the insurer thinks their insurance policy has more risk than average.
This means someone who lives in a flood-affected area would pay more for their house insurance because of the flood risks attached to that house.
Risk-based pricing has helped insurers buffer themselves during a period where climate-related events have increased. But it has also raised questions about insurance becoming unaffordable for some people in the future.
The Reserve Bank warned in its latest Financial Stability Report in early November that while insurance premium growth for residential dwellings is likely to soften in the future, high-risk properties may see further insurance premium increases.
'Deceptive calm'
Stiassny and Stuart said Tower’s reinsurance programme has been designed to shield the insurer from the volatility of large events, with the company describing the reinsurance programme as “robust” in its results presentation to analysts on Thursday.
Tower has catastrophe reinsurance of up to $800 million for two events in the 2025-year, up from $750 million in the 2024-year.
The insurer also has additional prepaid third event catastrophe cover for up to $85 million with $20 million retention.
Tower’s Chief Financial Officer Johnston told interest.co.nz on Thursday that it was an “interesting time” for the reinsurance market.
“There was a lot of rate increases going through, particularly in 2022, 2023 and 2024. Since then, we are starting to see prices flatten or even come down a little bit. And so we saw that reflected in our renewal for next year,” he said.
The insurer has “prudently” set out a large events allowance of $50 million – $5 million higher than its large events allowance in the September 2024 year, which will be rolled into Tower’s underlying NPAT for the September 2025 year if unused.
More than half of Tower’s NPAT in the 2024-year came from its large events allowance of $45 million, which went unused due to the lack of natural disasters. The unused allowance increased underlying NPAT by $32 million after tax.
Stiassny and Stuart describe Tower’s 2024-year as “unusual” because Tower hadn’t faced large weather events during the September year.
“[...] we understand that a future shaped by climate change will bring a range of extremes, including periods of deceptive calm. Tower remains steadfast in our conservative approach to managing these risks,” they said.
Tower's full year guidance for the 2025 year is for underlying NPAT to be between $50 million and $60 million, assuming full utilisation of its $50 million large events allowance.
29 Comments
Its going to get very expensive for those even remotely in a flood prone area or pretty much anything coastal or perched on a cliff edge. People are going to have to start taking a pass on insurance due to cost and just be prepared to walk away if it turns to custard. I certainly would be selling the place if it doesn't have a decent elevation above sea level.
For the 60 years between 1962 and 2022, Aucklands average annual rainfall has been 1.12m. For the 10 years to 2022, it averaged 1.09m per annum, for the 10 years 1962 to 1972 it averaged 1.2m . The SD is 16.7cm.
There is no statistical evidence whatsoever that Auckland is experiencing higher rainfall. If anything, there is less. I'm sure if I could be bothered trawling theough every weather station I could find somewhere with a 2 SD variance.
Its not the total annual rainfall that is important though is it ? Its long dry periods and then massive amounts of rainfall in a short period and you have flooding. Incidents where you suddenly get a whole months rainfall in one hit is what is causing the problems all over the world. Climate change is about the extremes changing and not the averages.
Play ecotard games, win ecotard prizes.
"Spain removed the most number of dams for the second year in a row. Image: Dam Removal Europe"
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/08/removing-dams-europe-river-rest…
"Dam Removal Europe, a remarkable 487 barriers were removed in 15 European countries in 2023 – a 50% increase on last year’s record number. These initiatives led to the reconnection of over 4300 kilometres of rivers, boosting biodiversity, restoring ecosystems and enhancing climate resilience, which is critical for communities, economies and nature.
Spain, which had been crowned the trailblazer of barrier removal for two years in a row, was dethroned by France and now occupies second place, followed by Sweden and Denmark.
“It is amazing to witness another record-breaking year for dam removals in European rivers."
https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?11125441/Record-year-for-dam-removals-i…
And next time people complain about climate change causing massive forest fires check this article out - California millions of acres behind in wild fire preventing controlled burn programme. Why isn’t California using more prescribed burns to reduce fire risk? - Ars Technica
Still clipping the ticket Profile.
I have family in Spain and grew up there as a kid. You can throw out your bullshit paid propaganda but the people who actually live in Spain, even the suckers who used to think climate change was alarmist are now understanding the consequences. Every time I go back more of the science ignorants are accepting and talking about the consequences as they see it play out almost exactly as the science said it would.
Take your climate change denial paid employment and shove it up your arse.
we understand that a future shaped by climate change will bring a range of extremes, including periods of deceptive calm.
When the weather is extreme, it's due to climate change, when the weather is calm, it's due to climate change. After disaster years the insurance companies have to raise premiums due to climate change. After peaceful years the insurance companies also have to raise premiums due to climate change.
It seems obvious that the insurance companies have now figured out that they have a general societal pass (called "climate change") to keep raising premiums and to keep raising their profitability.
LapisLazuli,
when the weather is calm, it's due to climate change. Really, and your evidence for this claim is?
What you appear to be stating is that all insurance are using climate change(real or otherwise) to raise premiums simply to increase their profits.I think that the insurance market is sufficiently competitive to make that hard to do.
The reinsurance market loves climate cry babies.
"...the broad benchmark index for insurance-linked securities (ILS) funds, the Eurekahedge ILS Advisers Index, delivered a positive 0.81% return for the month of October 2024.
Every ILS fund tracked by the Index delivered a positive return for the month, which is quite remarkable when you consider the loss event hurricane Milton had been feared to be.
...The year-to-date return for this ILS fund Index now stands at 10.5% after October.
This Index is still on track for its third, or perhaps second best annual performance on-record, depending on how strong the last two month’s of the year are."
https://www.artemis.bm/news/ils-fund-index-returns-0-81-for-october-202…
Are you sure there was mammalian life?
Earth obviously changed, came into balance to support human life, and we've affected that balance.
That argument is just ignorance, arrogance and denial to justify our current behaviour. We've had an attitude of dominance over, rather than living with Nature.
Removing dams may alleviate some of the effects. Does it make any difference if the neighbours are continuing with weather modification?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.