Download Document

US Solvency Modernization
and Regulatory Process
Joe Fritsch, Deputy Superintendent
New York Insurance Department, U.S.A.
Agenda
The NAIC
New York
U.S. Regulatory
Process
U.S. Solvency
Modernization Initiative
What Does the NAIC Do?
What’s the U.S. Regulatory
Process?
NAIC
 Created in 1871 by state insurance regulators to
address the need to coordinate regulation of multi-state
insurers.
 NAIC members are the state insurance commissioners.
 NAIC members have regulatory authority, but the NAIC
organization does not. NAIC staff provide immense
support to the U.S. insurance regulators who execute
state-based insurance regulation.
 The NAIC provides a forum for the development of
uniform policy, including model laws and regulations,
financial reporting and RBC requirements.
Membership: Strength in Numbers
 56 Members Strong
 50 States, the District of Columbia
 5 U.S. territories
– American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands
NAIC Offices
KANSAS CITY – Executive Headquarters
NAIC’s service and support offices assist state insurance regulators
providing: financial, actuarial, legal, computer, research, market conduct and
economic expertise.
NEW YORK CITY – Securities Valuation Office
The Securities Valuation Office (SVO) examines the credit quality and value of
insurer’s investment portfolios for the benefit of the regulatory community.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Government Affairs Office
This office advises state regulators on policy implications of federal
legislation and other federal and international actions affecting their authority
over the business of insurance.
The NAIC at Work
Committee Structure
Financial Solvency Initiatives
Model Laws and Regulation Development
Regulator and Consumer Education
State Accreditation Program
Regulatory Insurance Databases & Computer
Systems
 IT Systems (data filing, licensing, rate/form
filings, & more)






The NAIC at Work
 Provide state insurance departments services and
support in the areas of:
- financial, actuarial, legal, technology, research,
market conduct and economic expertise.
 NAIC maintains a Technology Center that houses ten
years of history for over 5,200 insurance companies,
and 4,000,000 insurance agents accessible by over
13,000 state insurance regulators via the internet or a
high speed, dedicated frame relay network.
 Also provide information via the internet to consumers,
insurance industry and federal regulators.
Outside of the NAIC
 State legislatures and state insurance
departments create and implement state laws
and regulations.
 State insurance departments are charged with
the insurance regulatory functions.
 Deviations from NAIC
Accreditation Program
Financial Regulation Standards & Accreditation Program
• Ensures baseline financial regulatory processes and practices in
each accredited state
• Generates savings to the states and industry, through regulatory
reliance placed on accredited states
• Reduces duplication of financial regulatory processes by setting
baseline expectations
• Without the program, financial solvency regulatory processes and
costs would increase exponentially
– States might not rely on each other to regulate licensed companies
domiciled in other states
– Would result in millions of dollars in examination costs to the industry
U.S. Solvency Modernization
Evolution of the U.S. Solvency
System
 We have developed a detailed and uniform financial regulatory
system in the U.S.
 In the 1990s we created risk-based capital requirements and
have continued to improve the formula over time, including
adding stochastic modeling and trend tests.
 SAP was codified in 2001 into a comprehensive guide and has
continued to be updated & improved since.
 We are placing greater emphasis on Governance through a
Model Audit Rule.
 We are proposing to modernize Reinsurance & PrinciplesBased Reserving
Evolution of the U.S. Solvency
System
What is clear is that we have been continuously
improving U.S. insurance regulation for many
years.
What we have on our plates now is an investigation
of new ideas and an opportunity to create the
Gold Standard of Solvency Systems through the
Solvency Modernization Initiative (SMI)!
Long-term work plan – continuous evolution
SMI Work Plan
 Analyze other financial supervisory modernization initiatives, to the
extent appropriate. Analysis should include
•the Basel II international capital framework for banks and
implementation in the U.S.;
•solvency work by the International Association of Insurance
Supervisors (IAIS);
•solvency proposals under consideration in other jurisdictions,
including Australia, Canada, Japan and the EU;
•accounting standards being developed by the International
Accounting Standards Board (IASB).
 As an on-going process, and as details emerge from the EU,
complete the analysis of EU/S2.
 Identify areas for U.S. regulators to consider including in the current
NAIC programs.
SMI Work Plan – 5 Focus Areas
Capital Requirements
International Accounting
Insurance Valuation
Reinsurance
Group Regulation
SMI Work Plan –
Articulation of US solvency framework and
principles
Study other sectors and solvency and
accounting initiatives
Improve our risk focused exams
Creation of new reinsurance framework
Principle based reserving life products
Changes to group supervision
Implementation of new ideas to incorporate in
US solvency system
US Group Wide Supervision
• Role of the NAIC in US group wide supervision
– Overview of US Supervision of Insurers
– Coordinated Oversight Among State Insurance
Regulators
– Communication Among Insurance Regulators
– Communication with Other Regulators
US Supervision of Insurers
• Supervision: Entity Level
– State regulators’ legal authority and responsibility exist
at the individual entity level
• Direct responsibility for the state’s consumers/citizens
• Perform domiciliary entity (& holding company system as needed)
analysis quarterly; conduct exams a minimum of once every 5 years
• Supervision: Holding Company System
– Requires coordinated oversight with:
• Other US state insurance regulators
• Other US state and federal regulators
– Banking, Thrift, SEC, USDA, FEMA, FBIIC
• Non-US insurance regulators
Coordinated Oversight
• Coordination among State Insurance Regulators
– Financial statement disclosure of affiliated activities
(NAIC uniform format and electronic data capture)
• Holding Company Organization Chart; material affiliated transactions
• Investments in holding company entities
– Coordinated Analysis and Monitoring
• Domiciliary states perform holding company analysis and coordinate with other
states as needed
– Coordinated Examination Option
• Lead state(s) run the exam; other states rely upon this work and/or participate
• NAIC Exam Tracking Tool posts coordinated exam schedule and staff and NAIC
server hosts the online examination
– Independent Function of Financial Analysis Working Group (FAWG):
• Entity level analysis for “Nationally Significant Insurers”; advice to states
• Group level analysis for large holding company systems
• Analysis of events/situations that will materially impact the industry
Ins. Regulator Communication
• State-to-State Communication:
– Sharing of exam/analysis reports & findings
– Ad hoc discussions
• NAIC Supported Avenues of Communication:
– FAWG presentation by domiciliary regulator
– NAIC database displays state decisions on change of control
requests (e.g., purchases of insurers)
– NAIC hosts interim meetings and conference calls between
states to discuss solvency or other concerns with individual
entities or groups (FAWG recommends)
Other Communication
• Communication with Other US Regulators:
– Miscellaneous calls and meetings
– NAIC-hosted quarterly conference calls with federal
banking & thrift regulators
• Communication with Non-US Ins. Regulators:
– Individual state Memoranda of Understanding
– NAIC Multilateral Memoranda of Understanding
– Ad hoc discussions, e.g., FAWG chair discussion
with EU regulator regarding mortgage guaranty ins.
Other Communication
• Communication with Other US Regulators:
– Miscellaneous calls and meetings
– NAIC-hosted quarterly conference calls with federal
banking & thrift regulators
• Communication with Non-US Ins. Regulators:
– Individual state Memoranda of Understanding
– NAIC Multilateral Memoranda of Understanding
– Ad hoc discussions, e.g., FAWG chair discussion
with EU regulator regarding mortgage guaranty ins.
Other Communication
• Communication with Other US Regulators:
– Miscellaneous calls and meetings
– NAIC-hosted quarterly conference calls with federal
banking & thrift regulators
• Communication with Non-US Ins. Regulators:
– Individual state Memoranda of Understanding
– NAIC Multilateral Memoranda of Understanding
– Ad hoc discussions, e.g., FAWG chair discussion
with EU regulator regarding mortgage guaranty ins.
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
• Flexible to accommodate the rapidly changing
reinsurance environment while providing for
appropriate levels of financial stability, and
solvency
• Facilitate cross-border transactions and enhance
competition within the U.S. market while ensuring
that U.S. insurers and policyholders are
adequately protected
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
• Mutual Recognition
– Assessing regulatory effectiveness through an
“outcomes-oriented” approach, it would
determine which non-U.S. jurisdictions are
entitled to enter into mutual recognition
agreements
Facilitate cross-border transactions and
enhance competition within the U.S. market
while ensuring that U.S. insurers and
policyholders are adequately protected
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
• National Reinsurer Single State U.S. Regulator –
U.S. Reinsurers
• Reinsurers would be licensed in one jurisdiction in order
to access the U.S. market (minimum criteria established to
qualify for single state regulatory approach done by
RSRD)
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
• Port of Entry – Non-U.S. Reinsurers
• Non-U.S. reinsurers would be certified to access the U.S.
market through one jurisdiction.
• Become certified through a Port of Entry State
• Post reduced collateral for appropriately rated reinsurers
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
• Develops overarching principles to govern the
regulatory equivalence of non-U.S. jurisdictions
• Moves the U.S. towards international standards
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
• Must have minimum surplus or equivalent
equity of $ 250 million
• Establish appropriate collateral levels from zero
to 100% based on rating and other criteria on a
prospective basis.
–
–
–
–
Business practice of reinsurer
Slow pay reinsurers (file sched F or S)
Review audited financial statements
Any regulatory action against reinsurer
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ratings
Collateral Required
Secure – 1
0%
Secure – 2
10%
Secure – 3
20%
Secure – 4
75%
Vulnerable – 5
100%
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
• Reinsurance is a Financial Services Business that is
Global
• Current Model Cannot be Justified from a Risk
Perspective
• Adds Costs to the System that Exceed the Benefit
Provided
• Information Systems and Regulatory Oversight Has
Been Enhanced Since the Current Rules Were Put in
Place in NY
• Reinsurance is a Business to Business Transaction
• Collateral Rules Intended to Address Solvency – We
Can Do This w/o 100% Collateral
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
Regulators concerns
• Solvency of Ceding Insurer
• Recognition of Regulatory Equivalence
• Enforceability of Judgments Against
Reinsurers in Non-U.S. Jurisdictions
NAIC Reinsurance Regulatory
Modernization Proposal
Objections
• Not Geographically Agnostic – Cessions to
Licensed/Accredited Reinsurers Get Automatic Pass
• Response
– Department Has Regulatory Oversight over Licensed/Accredited
Reinsurers
– Proposal is Giving a Substantial Benefit for Cessions to Qualified
Unauthorized Reinsurers (i.e. Reduction in Required Collateral up
to 90%)
– Proposal Adds Principle Based Standards for Cessions to ALL
Reinsurers
Solvency Modernization Working
Group
The SMI Working Group will meet march 11 and 12
phoenix Arizona
The agenda is to discuss to papers that are out for
consultation
• Capital requirements
• Governance and risk management
Solvency Modernization Working
Group
The SMI issues
• The US solvency regime is comprehensive and
well tested however we are always looking to
improve based on international standards and
lessons learned from the financials crisis
Capital requirements
• what should safety level for solvency
• Should we introduce internal models
Solvency Modernization Working
Group
Other issues
Orsa own risk solvency assessment should U.S.
require it
Group capital and group supervision
QUESTIONS?