Insurance and replacement policies, compared posts 61–90

Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.

The arithmetic on insurance and replacement policies is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.

Everything in post #73 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Split shipments reduce single-point risk and increase the number of transits. Which trade is right depends on what you are protecting against.

The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.

Narrowing post #77, because the general version has more than one answer.

Insurance and carrier liability: most parcel carriers limit liability. Understanding the limits before choosing a carrier matters if you are shipping expensive material.

The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.

On insurance and replacement policies I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.

Adding the measurement that post #77 says would settle it.

Anyone deciding whether a delay is a problem should ask what would change if they waited another week. Usually the answer is nothing.

That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.

Import restrictions by jurisdiction: what is legal to import for personal use varies enormously by country. Some jurisdictions are quite permissive; others are not. Checking your own country's rules before ordering is prudent.

Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.

Building on post #82 rather than restating it.

Source for the insurance and replacement policies figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.

Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.

Post #80 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Practical note on insurance and replacement policies: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.

Peak periods and public holidays affect this more than any other factor and are entirely predictable in advance.

I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about insurance and replacement policies than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.

Reading back through, this was answered upthread and I missed it. My fault.

Post #84 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Two claims get bundled together under insurance and replacement policies and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.

Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.

Adding the measurement that post #86 says would settle it.

Document outcomes rather than forecasting them. A forecast in this category reads as reassurance and is not one.

Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.

Post #88 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

I keep a log for insurance and replacement policies specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.