Already have an account?  Log In
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wisconsin Commissioner: NAIC Opposed to Federal Insurance Regulator Despite OII Support

by: BestWire Services
published: Oct 22, 2008
As the American Council of Life Insurers pushes for a federal insurance regulator, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners remains steadfastly opposed despite its support for a federal Office of Insurance Information, according to the insurance commissioner of Wisconsin.
When it comes to an optional federal charter, the NAIC is ''very much opposed,'' said Commissioner Sean Dilweg.
When looking at the near-collapse of American International Group Inc., what survived were its insurance businesses, he said. ''That shows you just how strong state regulation is as it relates to the insurance side,'' said Dilweg, who met with BestWire at the ACLI''s annual conference in Boston.

What got AIG into trouble were the credit default swaps within its financial-services business, he said.

The NAIC is concerned about a centralized federal regulator because that ''pulls them away from consumers, who are first and foremost,'' said Dilweg, who serves as vice chairman of the NAIC's life insurance and annuities committee.

''I look at the history of federal regulation as it relates to the savings-and-loan crisis, and frankly, as it relates to this crisis, and it's somewhat absent, he said.

Federal legislation proposing a federal Office of Insurance Information within the Treasury Department cleared a House subcommittee earlier this year, but became stalled on the House floor in the wake of the Federal Reserve's $85 billion loan package to AIG (BestWire, Oct. 17, 2008).

Copyright: A.M. Best Company, Inc.
Source: BestWire Services
Wordcount: 452


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 #2295970 Since 2007