Connect with us

Business

How the devastating Los Angeles fires could deepen California's home insurance crisis

Published

on

How the devastating Los Angeles fires could deepen California's home insurance crisis

When raging wildfires tore through Pacific Palisades and other local communities this week, they not only left a path of destruction reminiscent of a World War II bombing campaign, but threatened to deepen a crisis that has already left hundreds of thousands of Californians struggling to find and keep affordable homeowners insurance.

The multiple fires from Los Angeles to the San Gabriel Valley that have burned thousands of structures since Tuesday — leading to losses that by one early estimate are well into the tens of billions of dollars — hit Southern California as insurers have been dropping customers statewide citing the increasing number and severity of wildfire-related losses.

The Palisades fire alone, which consumed more than 5,000 homes and structures, is being called the most destructive fire ever to hit the city, while the fires across the county are likely to be one of the most expensive natural disasters in U.S. history.

“It’s just an unmitigated disaster,” said Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a consumer advocacy group. “Wildfires in January? This just proves insurers’ point that the risk is so significantly increased due to climate change.”

Advertisement

State Farm, the state’s largest home insurer, announced in March it would not renew 72,000 property insurance policies, while Chubb and its subsidiaries stopped writing new high-value homes with higher wildfire risk — just to name two insurers that pulled back from the California market.

It’s not clear how many homeowners in Pacific Palisades and elsewhere might not have had coverage, but at least some homeowners reported that insurers had not renewed their policies before the disaster struck. Actor James Woods, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, tweeted Tuesday that “one of the major insurances companies canceled all the policies in our neighborhood about four months ago.”

State Farm last year told the Department of Insurance it would not renew 1,626 policies in Pacific Palisades when they expired, starting last July.

A spokesperson for State Farm declined to comment on the decision but said: “Our number one priority right now is the safety of our customers, agents and employees impacted by the fires and assisting our customers in the midst of this tragedy.”

The situation has left many homeowners in neighborhoods at high wildfire risk with little choice but to seek relief from the California FAIR Plan, an insurer of last resort that sells policies with lesser coverage. The policies cover losses up to $3 million to a dwelling and its contents caused by certain hazards, such as fire, but do not include personal liability and other protection that are typically offered by private insurers.

Advertisement

The FAIR Plan has seen its policies grow from a little over 200,000 in September 2020 to more than 450,000 as of last September. That has roughly tripled its loss exposure to $458 billion over the same period. Pacific Palisades has one of the state’s highest concentrations of FAIR Plan policy holders, with the insurer estimating its exposure in the neighborhood at $5.89 billion.

JP Morgan analysts estimate that total L.A. County losses could be close to $50 billion, while the losses insurers will have to pay could top $20 billion. Another estimate puts the losses even higher.

Such losses could cause insurers to exit the market completely, which Tokio Marine America Insurance Co. and Trans Pacific Insurance Co. said in April they would do in not renewing 12,556 homeowners.

The losses also could prompt insurers to further raise premiums, even though some insurers already have been granted big rate hikes, such as a 34% increase Allstate received last year.

Denise Rappmund, senior analyst at Moody’s Ratings, said, “These events will continue to have widespread, negative impacts for the state’s broader insurance market — increased recovery costs will likely drive up premiums and may reduce property insurance availability.”

Advertisement

Should insurers further withdraw from the market, that would put additional pressure on the FAIR Plan, which is is backed by the state’s licensed insurers, such as State Farm, who have to pay claims if they exceed the FAIR Plans reserves, reinsurance and catastrophe bonding. The insurers also can assess their own policyholders surcharges in the billions of dollars to bail out the plan under regulations put in place last year by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara as part of his Sustainable Insurance Strategy to help the crippled market.

It’s unclear whether the plan will be able to absorb the losses like it did after the 2018 Camp fire that destroyed the town of Paradise in North California. That conflagration was the single costliest natural disaster in the world that year with $12.5 billion in covered losses and $16.5 billion in total losses, according to the reinsurance firm, Munich RE.

“This further complicates an already complicated and hardened market,” Lara said of the fires, in an interview with The Times.

Nonetheless, Lara’s reforms seek to ensure the FAIR Plan remains solvent and to make it more attractive for insurers to write policies in fire risky neighborhoods now being absorbed by the program. He said the regulations should encourage insurers to write more homeowners policies, and if not, they can be adjusted. “I feel very confident,” he said.

For the first time, California insurers can use so-called “catastrophe models” in setting their rates. Instead of largely relying on past claims data, the computer programs attempt to better refine an insurer’s risk by taking into account a multitude of variables that affect a property’s likelihood to suffer a loss.

Advertisement

The other major policy change allows insurers to charge California homeowners for the cost of reinsurance they buy from other insurers to limit their losses during huge catastrophes, such as wildfires and floods. This cost shift to policyholders is common elsewhere but a big change for California, where it will raise premiums.

In return for those concessions, insurers will have to write insurance in high-risk wildfire neighborhoods equivalent to 85% of their market share, meaning an insurer with a 10% statewide market share would have to cover 8.5% of the homes in such neighborhoods — a target they have at least two years to reach. Lara’s plan has been blasted by the Los Angeles group, Consumer Watchdog, which says the regulations lack teeth in actually requiring insurers to meet the coverage goals.

“The Sustainable Insurance Strategy is not a magic wand. It’s a set of incentives,” Bach said. “At the end of the day, insurers are always still going to analyze, ‘Are we going to make money here or not?’”

How much this week’s fires will disrupt the already troubled insurance market depends, of course, on how big a disaster they are — but all indications are that insurers will have to absorb billions of dollars of claims given the number of homes destroyed, especially in the wealthy enclave of Pacific Palisades, where the average home is valued at about $3.5 million by Zillow.

Insurance industry experts say a clearer picture on the estimated losses will only come after adjusters have time to review submitted claims.

Advertisement

“I think it’s going to be 45 days before we know what the true damage is,” said Max Gilman, president of California personal lines at the brokerage HUB International.

Whatever the final cost, Gilman noted that the fires came after a couple of relatively light fire seasons — though in November the Mountain fire in Ventura County scorched more than some 20,640 acres and destroyed more than 130 homes amid parched conditions. That made it at the time the third most destructive fire in Southern California in a decade.

“I think what’s currently transpiring is going to be of grave concern for the future,” he said. “I feel like we we took three steps forward to take five steps back.”

Denne Ritter, a vice president with the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn. trade group, said it is too early to assess the impact of the fires on Lara’s reforms, especially given how they are just being put in place. Only one catastrophe model has been submitted for review to regulators, while the reinsurance regulation released last month still awaits final approval by the Office of Administrative Law.

“What the insurance industry wants is a healthy market in California where we can compete for business, as we have historically. And the number one priority right now is helping our customers get the resources they need to rebuild their lives and restore their property,” she said.

Advertisement

However, she noted that Mercury Insurance — which recently announced it started writing insurance again in Paradise — and Farmers Insurance, which said last month it is increasing the number of new home policies it will write, have “certainly made moves indicating a more bullish approach on the market.”

Allstate also has said it will resume writing new policies once Lara’s reforms are in place and it can get rates that fully cover its costs.

But all those pronouncements came before this week’s catastrophic fires.

Advertisement

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending