Systemic risk methodology continues to worry insurers
The insurance industry is worried that new proposals for identifying global systemically important insurers fail to distinguish them properly from the banking sector. Insurers, they argue, represent a much lower systemic threat than banks, and they are concerned that not enough care is being taken to understand the specifics of their industry. Thomas Whittaker reports
The US bailout of American International Group (AIG) in 2008 has been consistently presented as an example of why some insurers need to be considered for inclusion as global systemically important financial institutions (G-Sifis) and face closer supervision from regulators. And the argument has gathered momentum. With the group of 20 major economies (G-20) urging progress on insurance reform, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) published a proposed assessment
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Treasury clearing timeline ‘too aggressive’ says BofA rates head
Sifma gears up for extension talks with incoming SEC and Treasury officials
Rostin Behnam’s unfinished business
Next CFTC chair must finish the work Behnam started on crypto regulation and conflicts of interest
European Commission in ‘listening mode’ on potential FRTB changes
Delay or relief measures on the table after UK postpones start of Basel III to 2027
Australian FRTB projects slow down amid scheduling uncertainty
Market risk experts think Apra might soften NMRF regime to spur internal model adoption
EBA to address double-counting caused by new capital floor
Existing EU capital add-ons for model risk would duplicate new Basel floor on internal models
The Emir error reports that cost banks millions
Dealers lambast onerous EU requirement to notify clients of all errors and omissions
Basel stops short on wrong-way risk
New guidelines a step in right direction, but experts warn they won’t prevent another Archegos
Trump 2.0 bank supervision: simpler but no soft touch?
Republican FDIC vice-chair Travis Hill wants more focus on financial risk instead of process
