In the following excerpts from a commentary for The Hill by ValuePenguin’s Maxime Rieman, one thing is clear, property owners across the United States are either shortchanged or shortsighted by flood insurance. Rieman’s perspective begs the question we’ve been posing for quite some time: Is the price homeowners forced to pay for flood insurance justified, and underscores our contention that the vast majority of flood insurance policyholders foot the bill of those whose properties are indeed at high risk of flooding.

For decades, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) met its original objectives. It provided consumers an affordable alternative for flood insurance if they lived in an area in which no private insurers offered coverage, or if the prices were unreasonable.

However, when natural disaster risks changed suddenly, beginning in 2005 with Hurricane Katrina, the program’s pricing model failed to adjust as quickly as the risks being posed to homeowners. Property owners continued to pay rates actuarially built for a much less-risky environment, even as losses from severe storms mounted year-after-year.

These changes in risk seem to have caught government actuaries off-guard, and now the program is underwater, with over $24 billion in debt, despite being forgiven $16 billion last year.

With the NFIP’s most recent extension set to expire on July 31, a lot of focus has been given to the rate increases proposed by FEMA, the government branch overseeing the NFIP. However, the current state of the program and its history of lagging behind the nation’s flood insurance needs have cast doubt on the NFIP’s purpose and reliability.

It’s less clear what our new objectives are for the National Flood Insurance Program and, therefore, whether the bill being considered by the Senate to reauthorize it contains sufficient provisions.

In fact, it’s unclear whether the Senate will move to reauthorize the program at all, or if it will allow it to expire as it has done four times since 2008.

Hazards of a program loss

All homeowners located in Special Flood Hazard Areas are required to have flood insurance if their mortgage is federally backed.

In theory, this protects many of the highest-risk homeowners from being in a financially troublesome position if a hurricane or flood event occurs. However, it nearly ensures that the properties most likely to face the greatest damages will be filing claims with the NFIP after a storm, putting a disproportionate burden on the federal program.

This also puts these properties at risk of being left without insurance in the event of a program expiration.

A program expiration could also prevent home buyers from closing on a new purchase, since coverage would likely be required by their mortgage lenders. The last time the NFIP expired, approximately 1,400 home closings were interrupted each day until the program was reinstated. Americans need a more reliable system.

The NFIP’s pricing and process have worked well for decades and continue to perform well for the majority of policyholders across the United States. The program’s losses and challenges have been primarily due to a few high-risk regions and homes that are hard to price accurately. However, this specific issue is one of the major reasons private insurers have been less interested in the flood insurance industry.

Fortunately, recent technological advancements have made determining a property’s flood risk easier to accomplish. But these advancements play both ways: if a private company can determine which properties are riskiest to insure, why would they offer coverage on those homes?

This presents one of the greatest obstacles for extending and restructuring the program — how to incentivize private insurers to cover the riskiest properties, and how the NFIP can balance pricing these homes both reasonably and sustainably.

For instance, most states currently pay premiums into the NFIP that cover the payouts they’ve received over the past four decades.

Flood insurance payouts to Texas, one of the states hardest hit by recent hurricanes, have averaged $386 million, or 96 percent of what residents currently pay into the program. California homeowners have had an average payout of $14 million per year, representing just 7 percent of premiums for in-force policies.

In fact, homeowners in 48 states are overpaying for flood insurance and footing the bill for Mississippi and Louisiana, where homeowners have received more in claim payments than they pay for in flood insurance premiums.

Mississippi and Louisiana are the only two states that have received substantially larger payouts than their pricing would reflect, according to a report my team recently published for ValuePenguin.

Policyholders in Mississippi have been paid $1.76 in NFIP claims as compared to each dollar currently paid in premiums. In Louisiana, the state with the most insured losses from repetitive loss properties, policyholders have received an average of $1.42 per dollar paid.

Similarly, properties built before the initial flood insurance rate maps, often referred to as pre-FIRM properties, are effectively subsidized by the government, as their rates were grandfathered in when the program’s pricing became responsive to flood zone risk.

Over 60 percent of claims are from pre-FIRM properties, and these claims are approximately 42 percent greater than those for post-FIRM properties relative to home value.

Though FEMA’s proposed rate changes are addressing these groups, such as raising rates for certain pre-FIRM properties by up to 25 percent per year until their risk is accurately represented, questions remain as to whether this is enough and whether the price can be paid by homeowners.

And, while many agree that private flood insurance needs to play a larger role, will those in high risk flood zones be outpriced without lower risk homeowners to help subsidize their premiums?

Click here to view original web page at thehill.com

You can avoid being shortchanged or shortsighted by flood insurance. Whether you are a policyholder by choice or by mandate, know your true flood risk to protect your real estate investment. Take advantage of a complimentary flood risk evaluation to prevent flood exposures and unnecessary expenses.  The assessment will reveal if the price you pay for coverage is too high, too low, or unwarranted.  Should your property qualify for removal from a high-risk flood zone, AFSI can help reclassify your flood zone designation.

What’s your take on flood insurance and the nation’s federal flood program? Are you shortchanged or shortsighted? Take a deeper dive into the comprehensive ValuePenguin report, Is the Rest of America Footing Flood Insurance Costs in Louisiana and Mississippi?, here.