Beebus, saw your post and thought "hmm, wonder how SABR is doing?". Just absolute destruction! What the hell happened here?!

(Deja vu? Feel like we might have had a similar discussion a few years back?)

Be still my beating heart!

Ta, much obliged!

The topic (and content) doesn’t matter. It’s keywords “top”, “best”, “strong”, “fight”, “costs down”. No one cares about making sense of the sentences. Isn‘t just MAGA - just peruse the nonsense under the original post on this site. Everyone hears what they want to hear.

I just started almost exactly 1 year ago (from zero). Goal is to get to 2000m sub 8 mins. But that feels nigh impossible at the moment. I have to really work on my form. Started with pretty strong shoulders/back (decades of climbing), but relatively weak legs and moderate aerobic capacity.

Honestly, I don't see much to "hate". She started pretty low on the pay scale. Moved up over time. Spent less than she earned. Didn't do anything completely idiotic throughout. Seems to enjoy life. Don't think the amount is "embarrassing" and dont really understand some of the hate she is getting.

Added later: it's a bit like an illiquid derivative/options contract that is being marked at different values by party-counterparty. Yes, could be nefarious behavior, but also could be completely benign.

IMO, this commenter on the substack has the right attitude/

I also want to know where these public statements of Hannover Re are where "hundreds of reinsurance contracts" are listed. This is not the sort of information you can usually find for property/casualty contracts. So maybe has something to do with rules for life (which I am a bit oblivious of).

Right, this is the offending part of the article. It makes no sense to me as a smoking gun.

Now yes, there can be all sorts of fake risk transfer that has happened. This is what Gen Re and AIG got caught up in long time ago. Could this be happening? Sure.

...legal battles and contract wording where the loss has actually already incurred (as opposed to "actuarially booked") and the insurer and reinsurer disagree on whether it's covered by the contract (eg. Ukraine war, air lessor losses went to a court battle due to disagreement).

...reinsurance recoverable will on the other (liability) side have an associated incurred loss. So if you *do* want to argue that Hannover is right and the reinsurance wont need to pay out, then that means that loss on the liability side is also overstated. Now there can be funny things like...

...the Brookfield stance is more conservative. Now ofc, you should take this with the caveat that we are relying on a non-specialist journalist's second hand versions of what is going on. However, I stick by my point that the article is confused.

* - the other point to note is that the...

...Roughly: based on their analysis they think they will have to make some payouts that will trigger reinsurance. OTOH, their reinsurer has some other analysis (and possibly different accounting conventions) where they don't think the reinsurance will trigger. If anything you could argue that...

Nah, the whole Hannover thing is probably a non-issue. In fact, the fact that the end of the line in the reinsurance chain is Hannover (unaffiliated and otherwise well know entity) is a good sign. See, in the accounting the Brookfield entities have something booked as a reinsurance recoverable*...