I see that Charlie Munger has come out against slicing and dicing insurance risk.
I'm going to make a simple observation based on a couple of posts from earlier this week. The problem with slicing and dicing insurance or property is not the slicing and dicing -- which respectively serve only to amplify the positive or negative externalities of ownership. The problem is that the source of price signals -- i.e., the individuals who decide whether to buy property or insurance -- are not generally forced to buy both.
Each individual within our society should be required to accept some measure of both the positive and negative consequences of her actions.
Charlie, if you're out there, don't you agree?