Insurers Want More Efficient Securities Valuation

September 30, 2002 at 08:00 PM
Share & Print

NU Online News Service, Sept. 30, 5:05 p.m. – Some insurers are complaining that state regulators are using inefficient methods to collect data about the investments in the insurers' portfolios.

But regulators at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Kansas City, Mo., say they need to collect enough information about insurance companies' portfolios to check the companies' financial strength.

The conflict over the data-collection effort came up several times during a recent meeting of the NAIC's Securities Valuation Office oversight working group .

The Securities Valuation Office is an NAIC body based in New York that monitors insurers' investments.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Indianapolis, helped focus attention on the securities valuation process by releasing a paper that calls for changes to procedures for filing securities information with the SVO.

NAMIC recommends that the SVO eliminate redundant ratings activities and redundant personnel and facilities associated with investment ratings.

NAMIC also recommends that the SVO provide complete information about SVO revenues and expenses; provide research to regulators on an as-needed basis, rather than on an unlimited basis; and allow ratings of securities that are not rated by nationally recognized securities rating organizations only to the extent that the SVO successfully competes with the nationally recognized organizations.

The SVO working group itself is looking into the possibility of creating a "subsequent exemption" rule. The rule would exempt securities that have been filed with the SVO from having to be refiled.

Another proposal would make a preliminary-exemption available for securities that meet SVO safety criteria.

The NAMIC paper supports the subsequent-exemption proposal but emphasizes the need for broader changes.

Bill Boyd, financial regulation manager with NAMIC, asks why the SVO needs to rate securities such as government agency bonds and notes. "Yes," Boyd says, "some do have risk. But how many have failed in the past and have caused problems in the past?"

The American Council of Life Insurers, Washington, also supports the subsequent-exemption proposal, says Bill Schreiner, an ACLI life actuary. The subsequent-exemption proposal complements the preliminary-exemption proposal, he adds.

Today, Schreiner says, there are about 60,000 securities that are highly rated NAIC 1 and 2 securities and meet the preliminary-exemption requirements, but there are more securities that are sent to the SVO and could be candidates for the subsequent-exemption exemptions.

When evaluating government agency securities, the SVO should look at the securities in terms of the probability of a default and not just the possibility of a default, Schreiner says.

"We don't see any reason why any security rated by [a nationally recognized securities rating organization] should have to be filed," says Steve Broadie, assistant vice president of financial legislation and regulation with the National Association of Independent Insurers, Des Plaines, Ill.

During the working group meeting, Broadie also asked why the SVO is charging $1,000 for face-to-face meetings when insurers file appeals on security ratings.

NAIC officials told Broadie that the fee is high because arranging a face-to-face meeting requires the work of at least two SVO analysts and a considerable amount of preparation time.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center