Mixed bag here:

1) Glad it was removed b/c they were using data that isn't property-specific and made a lot of generalizations about the risk

2) Sad that this will lead to the housing industry backing away from more transparency in hazard risk disclosures, b/c that's something we desperately need.

"For a long time, people have been asking, ‘Could we monetize the savings from mitigation efforts to pay for the mitigation efforts?’"

North Carolina proving that it's possible.

And yes, we already have data to support this strategy:

"fortified homes had 60% fewer claims than code-compliant homes during regular storms, and 20% to 30% fewer claims with lower severity during named storms."

+

"NCIUA says...it will recoup $72 million over 10 years on the investment in roofs"

And no, this isn't "just another cat bond".

This has two unique features:

💸 if no major losses occur, $2M returns to NC to be used exclusively for the installation of wind-resistant 'super' roofs.

📉 as more roofs are installed, the bond's annual pricing resets to reflect the decreased exposure.

If I were Mamdani, I wouldn't give two sh*ts about either of their endorsements.