Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
85 79 91 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
78 65 89 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
72 57 85 -
Guidance
A company's own figures for its results over a period, checked against what it then reported.
Insufficient record: 1 guidance claim resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 82 (likely 76 to 87, high confidence), from 77 claims: 51 factual claims, 14 predictions, 12 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Warren Buffett's claims
51 claims
“we have been paid properly for assuming the risk that caused the loss (which on that occasion we weren't).”
Warren Buffett, chairman, in shareholder letter 28 February 2002 Chairman's Letter (2001) (Berkshire Hathaway)
Berkshire lost $2 billion to $2.5 billion in the September 11th event without having been paid properly for the risk assumed.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
The evidence is the person's or their organisation's own records.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
True: Berkshire's 2001 annual report or 10-K shows September 11 losses of $2.0–2.5 billion (any reasonable pre-tax underwriting-loss measure), and the company states, or the evidence shows, that it had not been adequately paid (had underpriced) for the risks that produced the loss. Mostly true: the loss is within about 10% of the stated range and the underpricing point holds. Mixed: only one of the two holds. Mostly false: the loss is well outside the range, though related underpricing occurred. False: the loss figure is clearly different, and the evidence shows the risk was adequately priced.
Evidence
- Terrorism Risk Insurance: A Primer The American Action Forum · 8 May 2014
“We did not price for manmade mega-cats, and we were foolish in not doing so. In effect, we, and the rest of the industry, included coverage for terrorist acts in policies covering other risks-and received no additional premium for doing so. That was a huge mistake.”
- Terrorism Risk Insurance: A Primer The American Action Forum · 8 May 2014
“As a result of not explicitly excluding or otherwise addressing acts of terrorism carried out by independent actors or cells, insurers were unexpectedly left on the hook for almost $40 billion.”
- Management's Discussion Berkshire Hathaway Inc. · 31 December 2000 Own record
“In the aggregate, Berkshire�s reinsurance businesses recorded pre-tax underwriting losses of about $2.4 billion related to the terrorist attack.”
- Management's Discussion Berkshire Hathaway Inc. · 31 December 2000 Own record
“While the potential impact of catastrophes and other large individual property losses is normally factored into reinsurance prices, past pricing did not consider the unprecedented magnitude of possible losses arising from the terrorist acts.”
- Management's Discussion Berkshire Hathaway Inc. · 31 December 2000 Own record
“The severity of the losses arising from the September 11th attack underscored that risks of this kind were not contemplated in premium rates.”
- warren-buffett-wisdom/wiki/entities/general-re.md at main · innolight/warren-buffett-wisdom GitHub (user repository innolight/warren-buffett-wisdom)
“It had been pricing property coverage from historical experience rather than current exposure, thereby assuming terrorism risk for free.”
Reasoning
Berkshire's 2001 annual report MD&A says its reinsurance businesses recorded pre-tax underwriting losses of about $2.4 billion from the September 11 attack (E3). That is inside the stated $2.0–2.5 billion range. The same filing says past pricing did not account for losses of that magnitude from terrorist acts, and that such risks were not contemplated in premium rates (E4, E5). That supports the point that Berkshire had not been adequately paid for the risk. Both criteria are met on the subject's official record.
Cite this claim
Warren Buffett, “Berkshire lost $2 billion to $2.5 billion in the September 11th event without having been paid properly for the risk assumed.” (said 28 February 2002). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_2c406d62320c, method 0.1.0+28da144b. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_2c406d62320c
Claims without a verdict
- Unresolvable 141
- Not yet due 14
- Own records only 48
- Not researched 240
- Not checkable 1,035
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Warren Buffett? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.