Optional Federal Charter - Yea or Nay?

SurplusFuss · Post by **SurplusFuss** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:02 pm

Any of you been watching the Senate Banking Committee hearings online regarding the optional federal charter for insurance regulatory reform?

Just curious of your opinions.

So far witnesses from both sides of the table have made good points for and against it.

I'm undecided but I will lean in any direction that actually delivers uniformity as opposed to just making a promise of it somewhere in the future.

Interested to hear what you folks think about it...

Hope everyone had a great holiday.

Cheers,
-Fussy

SurplusFuss · Post by **SurplusFuss** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:14 pm

No one? Really? Too dreadful of an idea to discuss, eh? I don't disagree with ya there.

INTLXS · Post by **INTLXS** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:53 am

Haven't watched the hearings but both national agent associations are against it.... and without the support of agents there is no way it will pass. No need for another federal bureaucracy. Its kind of like the IRS... I am from the IRS and I am here to help you.

It will put pressure on the states to get their act together. I have been through the nightmare of getting licenses in ever state. Our state has a great insurance department and they let the market correct itself and we have a competitive market because of it.

miinsguy · Post by **miinsguy** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:40 pm

The NAIC should be the continued mechanism for uniformity in insurance regulation in the United States of America. Federalism will only create more problems than solve.

SurplusFuss · Post by **SurplusFuss** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:32 pm

I wish the NAIC would try harder for uniformity. However, looking back, the NAIC has been making promises of uniformity in licensing and regulatory arenas for as long as I can remember.

Having watched President Walter Bell in the hearings, he seems awfully set in the current way of doing things and wasn't too open-minded toward the criticism of the NAIC for not lighting a brighter fire under the butts of the slow-to-conform states.

I hope just the threat of an OFC puts pressure on the states to get on board with uniformity sooner as opposed to later.

For the record, I don't think an OFC is the answer we want. It will simply replace old problems with new ones.

Some of the hoops we jump through for surplus lines... pure insanity. There are times when I've wondered if it was worth all the hassle to keep writing surplus lines because the reporting requirements are so varied and irregular.

Anyone have any idea why some states seem to drag their feet when it comes to adopting some of the uniform model acts?

wlunday · Post by **wlunday** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:38 pm

The commissioners have been working dilligently on creating the structure for policy & rate review on a national basis. They have already formalized the process for life ad annuity contracts, but this does take time. There are lots of different interests to contend with, one being a company's ability to remain competitive...

The Federal Charter would really change this, allowing the carriers to file their policy & rates one time... with one set of rules. It's attractive to carriers. However, the NAIC could do the same thing, and by doing so better take care of the buying public.

I think INTLXS is correct in saying that the agents won't go for it... Plus, the states all get a huge portion of their $$$ from premium taxes. If the Fed changes this, the states will be even more dependant on the Fed for operating money... which always comes with strings attached!

Let's all back the commissioners and help them get organized!

Swymmer