Already have an account?  Log In
Thursday, March 11, 2010
US Insurers Press Case For Federal Regulation

by: Jessica Holzer
published: Jun 16, 2009
Proponents of creating an optional federal charter for the insurance industry, which is currently regulated by the states, were set to press their case Tuesday before a House panel.
The issue has split the industry, pitting life insurers and large property and casualty insurers against small and medium-sized P&C and mutually-owned companies.

It is unclear if the Obama administration will back federal regulation for insurers when it unveils its plan to rewrite financial rules Wednesday.

''[A]bsent a federal insurance regulatory agency, there will be no federal agency with the necessary expertise on insurance to either advise Congress on relevant policy matters or to implement policy with respect to life insurance companies,'' Aegon USA Chief Executive Patrick S. Baird will argue according to prepared remarks on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers. Aegon USA is a subsidiary of Aegon NV (AEG).

''We support federal regulation because insurance is a sophisticated and diverse international business involving large national and multinational conglomerates, and as such demands strong oversight,'' Travelers Companies Inc. ( TRV) Executive Vice President Kenneth F. Spence III will testify according to prepared remarks on behalf of the American Insurance Association.

Backers of an optional federal charter for insurers have seized on the federal bailout of American International Group (AIG) as an example of the need for federal oversight of the industry. However, they argue that companies should be able to chose between federal oversight or state regulation.

Legislation to create an optional federal charter was reintroduced this year after gaining little traction in past Congresses. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., the chairman of the House Financial Panel's Subcommittee on Capital Markets, has proposed legislation to create an office of insurance information within the federal government. The bill is broadly supported by the industry.

-By Jessica Holzer, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9228; jessica.holzer@ dowjones.com


Get Updates Via Email

Get monthly updates about the debate over an Optional Federal Charter.
Sign up Today! ... Click Here
National Regulatory Modernization for Insurers FAQ's
Would the proposals create a big new bureaucracy?
Would these national regulatory proposals increase compliance costs?
Would the creation of a national regulator help incumbent companies make larger profits?
Is an Office of Insurance Information a good idea as a precursor to a national insurance market?
What would the proposed national regulators affect state regulation? What about federalism?
Will states lose tax revenue under an Optional Federal Charter?
Would insurance companies withdraw from certain parts of the country under an OFC?
Would there be a ''race to the bottom''?
Would an OFC subject insurance companies to both federal and state laws, thus increasing the overall burden of regulation?
What is really wrong with the current state system?
Will an OFC help the development of new insurance products?
Is the insurance industry unified in its support of OFC?
Would local insurance agents go out of business under an OFC?
Supporters and opponents of an OFC both cite Illinois as an example of what the market would look like under an OFC. What is the Illinois market like?
What would an OFC do for America’s international competitiveness?
Do other developed countries have something like an OFC?
Would an OFC protect consumers from insurance fraud?
Will it confuse consumers?
Do government-set rates protect consumers?
J. Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America has presented a range of data showing that publicly held insurance companies are relatively safe investments and have become safer in recent years. Does this prove that the insurance industry is reaping more profits than it deserves and should not be rewarded with an Optional Federal Charter?
Does a ''revolving door'' between the industry and regulators prove that the insurance industry and the state regulatory systems are corrupt or that the insurance industry ''owns'' state regulators?
Is an OFC the only way America could liberalize its insurance markets?
What are some alternatives to an OFC?
Resources

You are Visitor #2296061 Since 2007