The article is missing some key points about insurance. An ideal book balances mortality and longevity risks. This cancels out the risk GLP-1s or many other act

The article is missing some key points about insurance. An ideal book balances mortality and longevity risks. This cancels out the risk GLP-1s or many other actuarial shifts in mortality. Insurers swap risks, reinsure risks etc to move towards an ideal book. Nice products to balance are pensions and longevity. Problem is that the scale is quite different on a per policy basis, and also very location specific. The article also misses regarding slippage is that Swiss Re in the link calls it a modest increase And that is mainly due to insurers Not performing the same level of medical intake (accelerated versus full underwriting). Increased competition leads to less profits. That’s pretty straightforward and not per se GLP-1s related. And then the kicker. For not diversified portfolios of mortality risks. Those have been massively profitable for decades, in line with the general increase in age and health. GLP-1s just expands on that profitable aspect. Did I mention that the long term expected rate of return on an insurers book is quite good? Insurers can weather a bit of slippage. Reinsurers will kick the worst offenders back in line with their AUC performance, because without diversification Or reinsurance it’s hard to stay in the market. (Capital requirements strongly favor diversification. Mono line is very hard.) That’s why Swiss Re is bringing out such rigorous studies of detailed policy events. Signaling to the reinsurance markets and the insurance companies and their actuaries!