Stating that the insurance float is fundamentally contradictory between capital and liability ignores the managed nature of this asset.
If we hadn't already spent time debating this binary opposition, would we reconsider its status?
The float is a strategic resource that requires careful management of its contingent liability nature, not a mutually exclusive contradiction.
For example, entities like GIC in Singapore manage enormous floats by understanding both their investment potential and their underlying obligations, transforming the liability into a strategic leverage rather than an opposition.
One should not dismiss the idea of capital simply because it has liability constraints.