The Journal reports that state regulators are considering lowering the reserve requirements for life-insurance companies to ease the financial pressures on them. But that just transfers risk to the consumers the policies are supposed to be covering.
Ms. Voss says NAIC’s leadership generally agrees with the American Council of Life Insurers, which submitted the proposals this week, that the conservative accounting used for regulatory purposes contains reserve redundancies, and some could be eliminated without hurting policyholders.“This isn’t a change in the rules in the middle of the game” but “carburetor adjustments” needed because of the market collapse and which would be “prudent from a regulatory standpoint,” said ACLI Senior Vice President Bruce Ferguson.
Scott Robinson, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service, estimated that insurers in the U.S. may need “in excess of $10 billion” in additional capital if they aim to maintain current risk-based-capital levels, a key measure of financial stability, though the total depends on market levels and other variables.
If the industry’s capital requirements were good enough when times were good, they ought to be good enough when times are bad.


Recent Comments
-
AnneBean20 on
Why Aren’t More Arab Americans Working in Mainstream Journalism?
(2)
-
Charles Gill S.F.O. on
What Mitt Really Believes About Entitlements
(2)
-
David Reno on
Three Thoughts on Mitt Romney's 'Very Poor' Day
(11)
-
Tom T. on
Rooting for the Race
(1)
-
Thimbles on
Audit Notes: CDO Charges, Facebook's Board, Deficits
(1)
-
Mark Richard on
Super PAC Reporting: Recommended Reading
(1)
-
Carly EngageAmerica on
Medicare Versus Obamacare
(1)
-
swoosie on
Bloomberg's Big Miss in Silicon Valley Hiring Story
(2)
More