We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Finally We Are on the Right Path to Addressing Potential Systemic Risk in Insurance

    February 16, 2018 by Thomas Leonardi

    Policymakers in the U.S. and around the world are re-thinking the approach to assessing and addressing potential systemic risk in the insurance sector. It’s an important evolution and offers insight into both how we got here and where we’re now headed.

    Ultimately, I think we’re finally on a more constructive path.

    Following the financial crisis, many of the regulatory tools developed to address systemic risk were simply imported from the banking sector. Although many regulators and policymakers, including me during the four years I served as the sole U.S. regulator on the IAIS’s Financial Stability Committee (FSC), acknowledged that the banking business model was quite different. Early proposals to address potential issues in the insurance industry were not sufficiently tailored to our industry.

    A key import that both the FSC and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) in the U.S. (under the Dodd-Frank Act) borrowed from the banking sector was an entity-based approach (EBA) wherein a handful of large entities deemed to pose systemic threats to the financial system were designated as ‘SIFIs’ (systemically important financial institutions). Those companies designated as SIFIs would then be  subjected to greater prudential oversight, higher capital levels, and would be required to produce recovery and resolution plans.   

    While the EBA and other reforms of the last ten years have made banking and the financial system as a whole much safer, this is a flawed approach when it comes to insurance. In particular, it does not sufficiently acknowledge that unlike banks, which by the very nature of their business model regularly engage in liquidity and maturity transformation, insurers do not pose the same risks to the broader financial system and economy. 

    It’s actually quite the opposite. Insurers are not highly interconnected with other financial companies in the financial system such that one failure would likely trigger another. We don’t supply the indispensable flow of cash and credit in the economy – we’re typically customers, not providers, of financial intermediation services. Insurance companies also avoid many other risks that banks pose. Take life insurers – their liability-driven investment approach matches assets to liabilities, which are long-duration and illiquid. For providers of natural catastrophe policies, risk exposures are uncorrelated with market risks (flood waters don’t rise because interest rates do) and this diversification of risk is a stabilizing factor. Furthermore, insurers benefit from a regular stream of premium income, which boosts liquidity. 

    In addition, there are significant technical flaws in how the EBA has been implemented. One problem is that it is an overly formulaic approach. For instance, insurers are penalized for holding illiquid assets, regardless of whether the asset is held to maturity and matched by a corresponding illiquid liability. In addition, the EBA’s focus on a handful of large insurance groups can distort competition and misdirect supervisory resources away from a broader sector-wide assessment of potentially systemic activities. 

    Attention is now shifting to a better approach for addressing potential systemic risk outside of banking. In 2016, rather than designate certain large asset management firms as systemically important, U.S. and international regulators focused on specific activities conducted by many companies that potentially pose systemic risk.

    This “activities-based approach” to systemic risk (ABA) was endorsed again last October, when the U.S. Treasury Department released a report on the asset management and insurance regulatory frameworks calling for an ABA to address systemic risk in both sectors. Importantly, in the U.S., the Dodd-Frank Act already allows for an ABA without the need for new legislation. This U.S. re-think parallels global standard-setting efforts for non-banks as the IAIS has been working to develop an ABA framework.

    I have three reasons to be optimistic about this re-think. First, it is occurring as most major jurisdictions around the world have made significant improvements to the way they regulate insurance groups. Second, I see strong potential for a right-sized approach to addressing systemic risk in insurance through an ABA. Third, the apparent alignment in local and international policymaking efforts provides the insurance regulatory community with an important opportunity to coalesce around a single, workable framework for addressing systemic risk.

    Let me take each of these points in turn.

    Insurance regulation in major jurisdictions – which was already well-established and tested – has been further enhanced in recent years to reflect the lessons of the financial crisis. We need to be mindful of these significant improvements in prudential regulation as a key factor in reducing potential causes of systemic risk. Many commentators look to enhanced capital buffers as a be-all and end-all in combating systemic risk. But it’s not all about capital. If there had been a 3% capital surcharge applied to AIG in early 2008, it would have done nothing to prevent its liquidity crisis. But enhanced and effective prudential regulation might very well have done so. 

    In the U.S., the Solvency Modernization Initiative established significant revisions to the Model Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act, giving U.S. regulators the power to access information on all aspects of a large international insurance group (including non-insurance and nonfinanical entities operating within the group). It also enacted the use of Supervisory Colleges, ORSAs, Enterprise Risk Reports and enhanced corporate governance requirements. In addition, the NAIC is working on its Macro-prudential Initiative that takes into consideration stress testing, counterparty exposure, liquidity, and resolution plans. These are valuable tools that bolster the U.S. State regulators’ ability to supervise large cross-border insurance groups and also provide a better shared understanding about group risks among supervisors from other jurisdictions.

    I see promise in an ABA for a variety of reasons. An ABA will enable a policy framework for addressing potential systemic risk that is appropriate to insurance and proportionate to the need. 

    A focus on certain activities rather than on a handful of large insurers will facilitate an effective and tailored approach to systemic risk management.

    By focusing on targeted activities, regulators will be able to hone in on select systemic risk transmission channels and adapt to new and evolving potential risks.

    A properly designed ABA will also complement local regulatory initiatives and promote alignment between local and international efforts. For example, the NAIC’s Macro-prudential Initiative, noted above, is a promising example of the type of policy construct that would make an ABA credible and effective. We think that the NAIC has focused on the most effective policy measures, in particular the importance of assessing liquidity under stress conditions. Considerable work lies ahead, including refining the scope of an ABA and designing an appropriate set of policy measures, but we are on the right track. 

    These developments emphasize the unique opportunity not only to improve the way systemic risk is addressed in insurance but also to ensure a cohesive framework. Defining the proper scope and function of an ABA will take time. But if we seize this opportunity, I am confident that the insurance sector is on the cusp of an important evolution in our thinking about systemic risk.  

    Originally Posted at LinkedIn on February 16, 2018 by Thomas Leonardi.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency