Connect with us

Business

One out of every 4 homes is at ‘severe or extreme’ climate risk, study says

Published

on



More than one in four U.S. homes—amounting to $12.7 trillion in real estate—faces at least one type of “severe or extreme climate risk,” like floods, hurricanes, and wildfires, according to a Realtor.com® Climate Risk Report. The report by economist Jiayi Xu details how these mounting climate threats are reshaping housing markets, creating major financial burdens for homeowners, and driving up the cost and complexity of insurance nationwide.

Overall, it finds that 26% of U.S. homes are at severe or extreme risk, with flood risks particularly underestimated by the federal government. Nearly 6 million homes ($3.4 trillion in value) face severe flooding in the next 30 years, about 2 million more than FEMA estimates, due to outdated flood maps. Major metro areas like Miami, New York, Tampa, Los Angeles, and Houston collectively hold hundreds of billions of dollars in at-risk property.

The number actually represents a drop from 2024’s edition of the same report, which found a whopping 44% and $22 trillion worth of homes were exposed, but Realtor.com’s chief economist Danielle Hale told Fortune the reports are not directly comparable. The 2024 edition includes five climate risks—flood, wind, fire, heat and air quality—while the 2025 edition includes only three. Even isolating the wind, flood and wildfire risks from the 2024 report yields a cumulative value of $14.1 trillion, a higher mark than the 2025 edition.

Hale also said Realtor.com partners on this report with First Street, a research firm that seeks to quantify risk for “every property in the country,” and their models may vary from year to year. Hale also noted some “pretty high-profile” climate events have occurred in between the two reports, such as the devastating LA wildfires, which Fortune reported consumed an estimated $150 billion worth of property wealth.

Flood, hurricane, and wildfire hotspots

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach leads in total property value at risk of severe flood and wind damage, with all homes in certain metros such as Miami and Houston classified as highly vulnerable. New Orleans and several Florida metros show the highest share of homes exposed to flood risk relative to overall property value. California holds nearly 40% of the nation’s total wildfire-exposed property value, some $3.4 trillion, with Los Angeles and Riverside as the hotspots of concern. Outside California, western cities such as Colorado Springs, Colo., and Tucson, Ariz., also face high wildfire-related property threats.

Insurance premiums are surging in high-risk markets, with Miami homeowners paying an average of 3.7% of a home’s value in annual premiums—the nation’s highest rate. Flood insurance is often sold separately, hurricane deductibles can be five times higher than on standard policies, and wildfire coverage is often limited or unaffordable. Difficulty securing affordable coverage is contributing to “insurance deserts,” according to the World Economic Forum. Hale noted insurance is required with most mortgages, but for the millions of Americans who own their homes outright without a mortgage, they can go without insurance legally and are therefore vulnerable.

The sharp rise in insurance premiums, increased frequency of disaster events, and growing difficulty in securing coverage are reshaping not only where people live but also whether housing remains affordable in vulnerable regions. As insurance becomes harder to secure in risk-prone areas, markets in lower-risk regions are expected to see stronger home price growth due to climate-driven migration. Hale said Realtor.com has been running this report for five years and it’s “easy to forget about the sheer magnitude or the risks” from climate, “it easy to underestimate them,” and her firm hopes to equip homebuyers with enough information as possible going into a big decision.

Lost in the flood?

The Realtor.com study explains that First Street finds a large difference in at-risk home counts between its model and FEMA zones because the latter “do not account for heavy rainfall and future climate changes.” Realtor.com’s analysis finds that roughly 2 million homes, valued at almost $1 trillion, could be facing a flood risk that current homeowners don’t know about, and therefore they may lack flood insurance.

If major flood risk areas identified by the First Street are taken into account, this gap could be even larger. New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have the biggest gaps, in dollar terms. New York has a $95.3 billion vulnerability, according to the study, LA has $65.6 billion, and San Francisco has $54.9 billion.

The insurance and housing sectors are scrambling to try to get ahead of this ticking time bomb. Fannie Mae CEO Priscilla Almodovar wrote in the pages of Fortune in May 2024 she appreciated Beyoncé for her song “YA YA” on the “Cowboy Carter” album, where she sounded the insurance-desert alarm: “Wildfire burnt his house down/Insurance ain’t gonna pay no Fannie Mae.” Each year since 2021, she added, the U.S. has averaged 22 natural disasters with damage exceeding $1 billion, a stark contrast from the 1980s, when the average was three per year.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

IWG CEO warns a 4-day week isn’t coming any time soon, despite what Bill Gates and Elon Musk say

Published

on



Billionaire Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, Nvidia’s boss Jensen Huang, and Elon Musk have all made the same prediction in recent years: The workweek is about to shrink. Automation will take over routine tasks, they argue, freeing workers’ time and pushing a four-day work week toward becoming standard. Gates has even floated the idea of a two-day workweek.

But Mark Dixon, CEO and founder of International Workplace Group (IWG) CEO isn’t buying it. From his vantage point, running the world’s largest flexible office provider—with more than 8 million users across 122 countries and 85% of the Fortune 500 among its customers—the math doesn’t add up.

“Everyone is focused on productivity, so no time soon,” Dixon says flatly.

“It’s about the cost of labor,” Dixon explains to Fortune. The U.S. and U.K. are experiencing significant cost-of-living crises. At the same time, he says, businesses are experiencing a “cost of operating crisis.” 

“Everyone’s having to control their labor costs because all costs have gone up so much, and you can’t get any more money from customers, so therefore you have to get more out of people.”

Essentially, companies can’t afford to pay the same wages for fewer hours, and they can’t pass the difference on to customers. So any time ‘freed’ by automation is far more likely to be filled with new tasks than handed back to workers. 

Elon Musk says work will be optional in the future—but this CEO says AI may create more work, not less

Silicon Valley’s loudest voices frame AI as a route to more leisure. The world’s richest person and the boss of Space X, Tesla and X, Elon Musk has gone as far as predicting work will be completely “optional” and more like a hobby, in as little as 10 years. 

In reality, Dixon suggests that this scenario would only happen if there’s not enough work to go around, rather than bosses suddenly becoming benevolent. But in his eyes, AI will most likely create more—not less—work. 

Every major technological shift, he argues, has followed a similar arc: fear of displacement, followed by an expansion of opportunity.

“AI will speed up companies’ development, so there’ll be more work, it’ll just be different work,” he says.

In 19th-century Britain, Dixon recalls English textile workers protesting against new automated machinery, fearing it threatened their livelihoods, lowered wages, and de-skilled their craft during the Industrial Revolution. They were called Luddites.

“They went around the country smashing up the looms to stop progress. But look, in the end, you’ve heard of the Industrial Revolution. That’s what came from those looms and factory production.” As mass production made goods more available, retail grew; more managers were needed to oversee the machines; the middle class grew, and so on. 

Likewise, there was a similar palpable fear when computers first burst on the scene in the 1980s. The 1996 book Women and Computers detailed people fearing becoming “a slave” to machines and feeling aggressive towards computers.”

But since the explosion of the PC (and then the internet, the Cloud, social media, and so on), most professions have undergone a digital rebrand—instead of disappearing altogether. 

Copywriters now use laptops instead of typewriters; designers rely on Adobe Photoshop instead of pen and paper; and a plethora of IT roles were created along the way. 

“It’s impossible to stop progress,” Dixon concludes.  

“Companies have to do what companies have to do, and it’s really important for young people coming into the marketplace to work a little bit harder on really selecting the right jobs, the right avenue, getting extra skills in things like AI. Whatever job you’re going to do, you’ve got to be good at tech.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jerome Powell to attend Supreme Court oral argument on Lisa Cook’s attempted firing from Federal Reserve

Published

on



Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will attend the Supreme Court’s oral argument Wednesday in a case involving the attempted firing of Fed governor Lisa Cook, an unusual show of support by the central bank chair.

The high court is considering whether President Donald Trump can fire Cook, as he said he would do in late August, in an unprecedented attempt to remove one of the seven members of the Fed’s governing board. Powell plans to attend the high court’s Wednesday session, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

It’s a much more public show of support than the Fed chair has previously shown Cook. But it follows Powell’s announcement last week that the Trump administration has sent subpoenas to the Fed, threatening an unprecedented criminal indictment of the Fed Chair. Powell — appointed to the position by Trump in 2018 — appears to be casting off last year’s more subdued reponse to Trump’s repeated attacks on the central bank in favor of a more public confrontation.

Powell issued a video statement Jan. 11 condemning the subpoenas as “pretexts” for Trump’s efforts to force him to sharply cut the Fed’s key interest rate. Powell oversaw three rate cuts late last year, lowering the rate to about 3.6%, but Trump has argued it should be as low as 1%, a position few economists support.

The Trump administration has accused Cook of mortgage fraud, an allegation that Cook has denied. No charges have been made against Cook. She sued to keep her job, and the Supreme Court Oct. 1 issued a brief order allowing her to stay on the board while they consider her case.

If Trump succeeds in removing Cook, he could appoint another person to fill her slot, which would give his appointees a majority on the Fed’s board and greater influence over the central bank’s decisions on interest rates and bank regulation.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



Investors are trying to remain level-headed as tensions between the U.S. and Europe escalate, with many drawing on experience from Liberation Day as a tool for how to navigate current geopolitical volatility.

Analysts are, understandably, uneasy. Their concern stems from President Trump’s claim that a bevy of European nations would face new tariffs within a matter of weeks if they did not support America’s bid to purchase Greenland, currently a territory of NATO member country Denmark, which is not putting the island up for sale.

At the time of writing, the VIX volatility index is up 27% over the past five days, its highest since April last year when the Oval Office announced sweeping tariffs on every nation on the planet. While markets in the U.S. are yet to have the opportunity to react to the news after being closed for the Martin Luther King holiday, assets in Europe are looking pale.

Germany’s DAX is down 1.57% at the time of writing, London’s FTSE is down 1.4% and France’s CAC 40 is down 1.2%. Asia is similarly queasy, Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 is down 1.11% while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index is down 0.29%. A preview for U.S. trading comes in the form of futures, with the S&P 500 trending down 1.75% at the time of writing.

Meanwhile, gold prices—a barometer for investors fleeing to safety—are climbing higher still, up 1.17% overnight.

However, the damage could have been worse: investors don’t even need to cast their minds back a year for inspiration. Markets plummeted following Trump’s Rose Garden address on April 2, his so-called Liberation Day, despite the fact many of his threatened tariffs were delayed within a matter of days. And so the ‘TACO’ trade was born: Trump Always Chickens Out.

Jim Reid of Deutsche Bank noted to clients this morning that there’s “room for bigger moves” in markets, and highlighted that Trump’s duties imposition on key trading partners is already on shaky ground. This is on account of an imminent Supreme Court ruling on whether the White House’s initial round of tariffs were carried out legally. This “might end up further constraining Trump’s room for maneuver on tariffs. However, no one knows when this will come through (apart from maybe the judges).”

“The market has been burnt before by overreacting to tariff threats,” Reid continued. “Obviously, there was Liberation Day but more recently Trump’s escalation with China in October prompted a -2.71% decline for the S&P 500 on that day, before he then met with Xi and the trade truce was extended by a year.”

Over at UBS, chief economist Paul Donovan described a rational market: “Investors and the U.S. administration are likely to keep focus on the U.S. bond market, which weakened modestly in the wake of Trump’s latest tariff threats. The implications of additional tariffs are more U.S. inflation pressures and a further erosion of the USD’s status as a reserve currency. So far, bond investors do not seem to be taking the threats too seriously.”

Markets also “dismissed” another barb from Trump aimed at French President Macron, over duties levied on champagne and Bordeaux if the European leader refuses to cough up $1 billion to join the Board of Peace for Gaza.

Unconvinced traders

Further evidence of TACO traders comes from Polymarket. At the time of writing, only 17% of betters believe all the tariffs Trump has threatened against Europe will go into effect on February 1. A further minority of 40% believe any tariffs will go into effect in a fortnight’s time.

Odds are also declining on a country-to-country basis. For example, Denmark leads Polymarket’s polls as the most likely country to face levies from the U.S., but that still sits as the outlying outcome at 40% and decreasing. Meanwhile France’s odds of tariffs are at 38%, and Norway is at 37%.

Potentially buoying the idea that the president will make another U-turn is political polling, especially with midterm elections approaching in November. Trump’s approval ratings have been declining across a number of outlets, with nine in 10 Americans telling a Quinnipiac survey they were against taking Greenland using military force. A further Reuters/Ipsos poll found just 17% of voters support Trump’s efforts to acquire Greenland.

However, if investors—or foreign governments—rely too heavily on the notion that Trump will chicken out, they could shoot themselves in the foot. After all, if the White House sees markets behaving in a fairly stable manner, then this could give him the confidence to push ahead with the very plans that investors were betting against. As Deutsche Bank’s Henry Allen framed Trump’s August 1 tariff deadline last year: “The paradox is that as markets discount the tariffs and perform strongly, that’s actually making the higher tariffs more likely as the administration grows in confidence.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.