Already have an account?  Log In
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Life insurance groups unite to support optional federal charter

by: Keith L. Martin
published: Jun 19, 2009
Five of the nation’s largest organizations representing the life insurance industry are voicing their support for optional federal insurance regulation to legislators.
In a statement issued June 15, the American Council of Life Insurers, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the National Association of Independent Life Brokerage Agencies, the Life Insurers Council and the National Fraternal Congress Association issued a joint statement in support of an optional federal charter.

The statement says that life insurance carriers ''of all sizes and structures'' are united in the cause for several reasons, including the reduction of regulatory inefficiencies, streamlining consumer protections for life insurance products sold through a national insurers, and creating more efficient rules and licensing requirements for nationally licensed agents.

The statement reminds those on Capitol Hill that 75 million American families, nearly 70% of all households, depend on life insurance industry products to protect their financial and retirement security.

''We play a crucial and growing role in the stability and strength of the American economy and remain committed to the financial protection and retirement security of millions of American families,'' the statement concludes.

The day after the statement was issued, Patrick S. Baird, ACLI chairman, testified in a hearing on systemic risk and insurance before the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Baird again echoed the call for a federal regulator for the life insurance industry.

''Absent 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,'' Baird said, according to a transcript of his testimony. ''Understanding and implementing critical federal policy solely through reliance on hoped for cooperation on the part of 51 state regulators rather than through enforceable federal statute is not a model Congress should embrace.''

Both the hearing and statement came prior to he unveiling of President Barack Obama's proposal to overhaul the nation's financial system, including his plan for a national insurance office within the U.S. Treasury.

Obama's plan did not rule out the creation of a federal charter as one option to increased national uniformity of insurance regulation, with ''effective action by the states'' being another mechanism for change.


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 #2295867 Since 2007