Want to scan your crypto wallet for risks? Check: AML crypto BTC, USDT, ETH. Checking cryptocurrency wallets for dirty money.

FSB Suggests More Federal Oversight of U.S. Insurance System

Posted on by

On August 27, 2013, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) released an interim update on the progress the United States has made in implementing recommendations made during its 2010 Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP).

While the FSB does acknowledge that the United States has taken steps toward meeting recommendations through creation of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO), modernizing of solvency requirements, and increased coordination between U.S. state regulators and federal authorities, it concludes that “significant work is required to fully address the FSAP recommendations” in the area of insurance.

In a press release the FSB states that, “The architecture for insurance supervision in the U.S., characterized by the multiplicity of state regulators, the absence of federal regulatory powers to promote greater regulatory uniformity and the limited rights to pre-empt state law, constrains the ability of the U.S. to ensure regulatory uniformity in the insurance sector.”

Based on its perceived “drawbacks of the current regulatory set-up,” the FSB laid out several recommendations to enhance the U.S. insurance system: (1) further strengthening of the FIO; (2) further enhancement of insurance group supervision by establishing requirements for consolidated financial reporting for all insurance groups and by giving supervisors additional authority to fully assess the entire insurance group’s financial condition; and (3) implementation of FSAP recommendations concerning terms of state insurance commissioner appointments, rule-making powers of state insurance departments, and funding and staffing of insurance departments in order to strengthen specialist skills.

The FSB’s recommendations have been met with pushback from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). In a June 27, 2013 letter in response to an earlier draft of the FSB’s recommendations, the NAIC argued the report “focuses almost exclusively on the perceived cost of having a state-based system, but spends no time examining the benefits of this approach.” The letter goes on to argue that state commissioners are able to “act more quickly and in closer proximity to consumers,” which has led to an industry that is “competitive, profitable, solvent” while consumers “benefit from choice, security, and a local regulatory response that is second to none.”

Ben Nelson, Chief Executive Officer of the NAIC, went further in a September 17 interview with Bloomberg: “There is, I think, a philosophical difference about government here. We come from the Jeffersonian idea of the states.

buy propecia online haveagreatsmile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/propecia.html no prescription pharmacy

” He went on to say that “there is value in regulation that is closest to the people, because New York is different than Nebraska.

buy metformin online haveagreatsmile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/metformin.html no prescription pharmacy

”

The Financial Stability Board was established to coordinate the work of national financial authorities and international standard setting bodies at the international level. FSAP evaluations are conducted every five years and look at how a country’s financial sector compare to accepted regulatory international standards. For insurance, the study is based on the Insurance Core Principles (ICPs) developed by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS). Recommendations from the FSB are advisory only and each country decides if and how to implement them.

This report was prepared by representatives from Deutche Bundesbank, Swiss National Bank, Japan Financial Services Agency, European Commission, European Systemic Risk Board Secretariat, Bank of Canada and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. The FSB secretariat also provided support and contributed to the preparation of the report.

buy stendra online haveagreatsmile.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/stendra.html no prescription pharmacy

New Rules for Stadium Security

Posted on by

With the NFL season in full swing, many fans attending their first games of the year are encountering a new bag policy that only permits clear bags of a specific size to enter NFL stadiums. The policy has not met with universal approval by fans, but the enhanced security measures at such large public sporting events are certainly understandable, especially in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing in April. And as outlined in the infographic below from SecurityCompanies.

buy tobradex online iddocs.net/images/photoalbum/gif/tobradex.html no prescription pharmacy

com, the NFL is not alone in increasing security measures at its stadiums.

Sports Security Sees New Game-Changing Rules

RMORSA Part 5: Risk Reporting & Communication

Posted on by

Having standardized risk assessments and well documented mitigation and monitoring activities will equip your organization with a lot of risk intelligence. The question becomes: how do you report all of this information to your board and communicate it to your commissioner in a way that demonstrates the value of your ERM program? First, risk managers must be able to demonstrate how risks across the organization roll-up to impact the board’s strategic objectives; and second, ERM functions must track key metrics to validate the effectiveness of a formalized risk management approach.

Reporting on Critical Risks

Due to the limitations of spreadsheets, risk managers often have to choose between presenting actionable data that is too granular for the board, or presenting a high level summary, such as a top 10 risk report, which lacks the context of how risk within business process activities relate to the objectives that senior leadership and the board require.  However, a common risk taxonomy allows organizations to gather risk intelligence at the business process level, and aggregate it to a high level for senior leadership.

For the top risks across the organization, often risk managers must provide the more detailed underlying data, such as which business areas are involved, their individual profile of the risk, their mitigation strategy and how the risk is being monitored.

The most commonly used method to determine top key risks is to rank risks based on the score from their assessment. This aggregate will depict which risks pose the most immediate danger to the enterprise, and should be reported on regularly. The second method uses your common language, root cause library to identify systemic risks. These are risks that have been identified by multiple departments, and may be more easily addressed with corporate wide policies or procedures rather than point solutions. And now that you have a complete and transparent mitigation library, you can publish effective controls from one department to another, reducing overlapping activities in your organization and leveraging the practices in departments that are the most effective in managing risk.

The State of ERM

When demonstrating the value of your ERM program, take a step back to evaluate just how many risks have been identified, and how well risks are being evaluated and mitigated. The common standards established by an ERM program will significantly enhance your risk identification process by allowing you to prioritize efforts to the most important risks that have the least assurance of control effectiveness.

You might find that over the past several quarters, the gap between the number of risks identified and those that have been addressed has grown. This isn’t a concern, but rather a sign that your organization has a clear path forward and is beginning to understand its entire risk universe.

You can also track your progress with the ERM guidelines outlined in the RIMS Risk Maturity Model. Providing your executives, board or commissioner with a bi-annual report on the maturity of your ERM program will show which areas you’ve improved upon and what areas need focus going forward. The model provides a repeatable process that enables internal audit to validate its quality and effectiveness. This same model also has the benefit of enabling you to benchmark your program against others in your industry, providing a transparent, third party evaluation of where your organization stands.

This concludes Steven’s series on ORSA Compliance. Looking for more ERM best practices and the latest industry trends? Subscribe to Steve’s Blog or visit www.logicmanager.com.

Greenberg: Insurers Should Step Up to TRIA—With Caution

Posted on by

Risks for businesses are constantly changing, but they should be seen as opportunities and not shied away from. This was the message from Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg last week.

Greenberg, chairman and CEO of C.V. Starr and CEO of AIG until 2005 spoke at a KPMG insurance industry conference in Midtown Manhattan.

“We are living and have been, in a changing world. Whether it’s terrorism, regulation, technology, for some they lead to opportunity and for others, to nothing,” he told insurers.

Looking back in time, he noted, a number of insurance companies with “household recognition” no longer exist because they resisted change. How does a company insure against cyberattack, for example? “With great difficulty, yet it has to be conquered,” he said.

Greenberg pointed out, “We’ve dealt with environmental, but there is a lot more coming down the pike.

buy stendra online meadfamilydental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/stendra.html no prescription pharmacy

Fracking is a new risk, every day you read something new—whether it’s causing minor earthquakes or polluting water and so on. But we have to deal with these things. You can’t hold progress back because there’s a new risk and you don’t want to take it on.”

He added, “We’re living in a world where terrorism is a growth business in many countries. We have to deal with that and that will be an increasing problem for the industry to deal with.”

The insurance industry has to step up to risks such as terrorism, he said. If not, “government takes over and industry disappears—so many times you partner with government if you have to. Take TRIA for example, it’s up for renewal in 2014, and the industry is resisting government pulling out of TRIA.”

Initially after Sept. 11, 2001, Greenberg said he had hoped “we would get something like TRIA in place, but we’ve learned a lot about terrorism since then. We’re more secure. Yes, there are exceptions, but we’re more alert as a nation than we had been.”

Those who believe in the private sector, he said, believe government “should only do things the private sector can’t do.” And so, renewing TRIA as-is may not be the right course of action, he said.

buy zantac online meadfamilydental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/zantac.html no prescription pharmacy

“The industry could take more risks than when it was confronted with 9/11. There are some parts of TRIA that I think the government has to continue to be involved with.” For example, he explained, underwriters fear accumulation of risk. “So take a large building in New York, like a hotel.

buy albenza online meadfamilydental.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/albenza.html no prescription pharmacy

If there was a terrorist attack with thousands of people in the building, the loss would be monumental. Particularly if they are employees and you have workers compensation coverage—it could possibly break the strongest company.”

He advised insurers to use common sense in their belief that the private sector has the financial capability of providing insurance. “Otherwise all the solvency funds in the industry on the regulatory side would be depleted. So it must be balanced. You can take more risk where the industry can afford to assume it, but there are parts that you have to say are beyond our capability. That’s where government does and should step in.”