Risky Science Podcast

A year ago, I sat down with Carmi Margalit, Managing Director and the Life Insurance Sector Lead at Standard & Poor’s Annual Insurance Conference to talk about private credit on insurance balance sheets . So when I caught up with him again this year,I figured it was time for a check-in.And here's the thing that struck me: Carmi says not much has actually changed. The allocations have been growing for years. What's changed is everyone watching — the headlines, the regulators, the questions. So a lot of this conversation is about separating the perception from the mechanics.We get into why the redemption gates you've been reading about are a private-credit-fund story and why this is a liquidity question and not an asset-liability question. We also get into issues like the growing role of offshore reinsurance and what it does to transparency. And what's actually on an analyst's radar for mortality and longevity — GLP-1s included.

In this episode of the podcast, we speak with geopolitical risk expert Samuel Wilkin of Willis Towers Watson about why political risk is moving from a background concern to a front-line business problem. Sam breaks down the rise of “gray zone” attacks in the space between war and peace—from covert sabotage to infrastructure disruption—and explains why these threats are so difficult to model and insure. He also argues that the future of political risk management is less about perfect forecasts and more about scenario discipline, exposure mapping, and governance structures that can keep up with a faster, messier geopolitical cycle.

In the last episode of Risky Science, we examined skepticism around climate-conditioned catastrophe models with Roger Pielke Jr.—questioning how much weight long-range climate assumptions should carry in near-term insurance and capital decisions.Today’s discussion is a direct counterpoint.My guest is Dave Jones, former California Insurance Commissioner and now director of the Climate Risk Initiative at UC Berkeley Law. His recent article argues that insurance itself has become the clearest early-warning signal of climate risk—describing property insurance as the “canary in the coal mine,” and warning that the canary is already dying.This conversation is timely because the stress is no longer theoretical. Catastrophe losses are accelerating, insurers are pulling back from high-risk regions, and residual markets are expanding rapidly. Jones argues that neither deregulation nor rate increases will be enough if the underlying drivers of loss continue to intensify.We’ll examine California and Florida as live case studies, what mitigation and modeling can realistically achieve in the near term, and where the practical limits of insurance may already be coming into view.

Register here for the January 8 Risky Science Podcast LiveThis week on the Risky Science Podcast, I’m joined by Dr. Phillip Mulder of the University of Wisconsin, co-author of a newly released research paper examining how these insurance pressures are influencing who buys, who moves, and who can no longer afford to stay.The research has drawn significant attention, including coverage in The New York Times. Dr. Mulder explains how one of the primary underlying forces in this emerging economic crisis is a series of “reinsurance shocks” — repricing events driven in part by catastrophe model estimates that are reverberating throughout the U.S. economy.

On today’s episode of the Risky Science Podcast, we’re stepping outside the usual finance lens and into a conversation that will push many of your assumptions about how risk, capital, and human health actually interact. Dr. Susan Erikson: medical anthropologist and author of Investable!, brings a perspective that most risk and financial professionals rarely engage with, but absolutely need to hear. Her work on pandemic bonds and the financialization of global health doesn’t just critique the structures we use; it forces us to rethink what “risk transfer” can and can’t solve when the underlying asset is human wellbeing.Investable! When Pandemic Risk Meets Speculative Finance