With an odd of 1 in 170, that will result in ~$8.964 billion USD (Note that this number and the above numbers are also yearly investment). Not exactly a trillion just yet. The report states that $428.51 trillion over 5-years loss should be considered, if the mean: $85.702 trillion USD GDP loss could be averted by 8.964 billion yearly, this will result in a cost-effectiveness ratio of roughly 9,600:1.
I.e. $1 USD in investment would save ~$9,600 USD in potential economic loss yearly. Although, given my modest understanding of insurance products, if a supereruption does occur, I suspect that payout to loss will have a P<1 chance of actually materialising. I will need to do more research on this to provide a better answer...
Thanks for reading Mike.
With an odd of 1 in 170, that will result in ~$8.964 billion USD (Note that this number and the above numbers are also yearly investment). Not exactly a trillion just yet. The report states that $428.51 trillion over 5-years loss should be considered, if the mean: $85.702 trillion USD GDP loss could be averted by 8.964 billion yearly, this will result in a cost-effectiveness ratio of roughly 9,600:1.
I.e. $1 USD in investment would save ~$9,600 USD in potential economic loss yearly. Although, given my modest understanding of insurance products, if a supereruption does occur, I suspect that payout to loss will have a P<1 chance of actually materialising. I will need to do more research on this to provide a better answer...