They don't really change my thinking as a layman who is rather annoyed at how mismanaged research has been. If you replace amyloid with scar tissue in the article I would agree fully with a lot of points, recognize that scar tissue reduction studies would be of great benefit to some, especially those with highly abnormal genetics, and still ask what the hell is wrong with financial allocation in research.
Hundred year events are now 10 year events. I'd much rather use a diverse portfolio to move outside of the scope of a disaster and chances are good that I will actually pay less than I should for the insurance component of rent because people are irrational. For raising rents it is similar, a city is usually getting too expensive all around for someone who doesn't need to live there.
My house represents less than 10% of my portfolio cost basis. It is now 25% of my total portfolio just because it has exploded in value over the past 5 years.
There are some retirees whose financial plan assumes that their house (the majority of their net worth) does not decrease in market value and that insurance will pay for hurricane damage. The recent condo market slump is the canary in the coal mine.
> financial plan assumes that their house (the majority of their net worth) does not decrease in market value
What is this plan? (Genuinely asking because it doesn't make sense to me.) If my (paid-off) house decreases in market value, I'm pretty sure I'm just happy because my property taxes are lower. It's not like I'm expecting to profit from its price going up, literally ever; I still need a place to live and if housing prices are going up everywhere, then selling my house means I now have the purchasing power to buy ~one house. At best, I have a larger credit amount in a HELOC but I still have to pay that off so it's not really a "financial plan".
I think the usual plan is to sell it and do like they are saying in this article. Rent a place in a cheap retirement area or live aboard a boat or something. Typical retirement stuff. What happened with my parents was the 2008 crash wiped out a lot of their retirement plans because all their investments were in real estate.
No rent to pay. If needed sell the house to pay for medical care or nursing home care. If the price goes up sell it and move or Florida or a LCOL area.
Disasters are just another cost (risk). You can mostly mitigate the risk by avoiding known disaster areas and buying insurance. Renting has its own risks and costs.
Overindexing on one risk or cost is not sensible.
We had an earthquake (unknown faultline so completely unpredicted) in my city Christchurch. Owning your own home had costs and insurance response here wasn't ideal. Not owning your own home would have been more costly over a decade or two.
Just after a one-off disaster is a great time to buy. Christchurch realty has really bounced back.
