Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

Captive Regulators Disappointed in New FHFA Rule

A final rule released by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) amended its regulation on Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) membership to specify that captive insurance companies can no longer be used as a conduit to membership of the organization. Membership offers entities access to low-cost FHLB funding and other benefits. Because insurers may become FHLB members, along with credit unions and savings and loans, the Federal Home Loan Bank Act has been revised to specify that the term “insurance company” excludes captives.

Housing regulators have viewed captive insurers as a loophole used to access low-cost, government-backed financing. “Real-estate investment trusts that invest in mortgages are normally ineligible for home-loan-bank membership, but over the past few years have created captive insurers to gain indirect access to cheap federal funding,” The Wall Street Journal wrote.

As a result of captives being admitted as members, “25 are owned by entities that are not themselves eligible for membership.” The FHFA said it is “concerned that this practice will continue to grow and there is no reason to believe it will not grow to include entities other than REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), such as hedge funds, investment banks and finance companies, some of which have already inquired about establishing captives to gain access to the FHLB System.”

FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt said in a statement, “FHFA has the authority and the duty to implement the statutory membership provisions of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and by adopting the proposal to exclude captives from the definition of insurance company we are making sure that institutions can’t frustrate the intent of Congress.” He added, “Congress has amended the Federal Home Loan Bank Act in the past to allow additional entities to become members of a Federal Home Loan Bank and it can certainly do so again if it wants some of these entities to be eligible for membership.”

Captive regulators of Vermont and Delaware expressed disappointment in the decision. David Provost, deputy commissioner of captive insurance of the Vermont Department of photo_provostFinancial Regulation, said, “Vermont’s response to the proposed rule was pretty straightforward: Don’t ban captives from FHLB membership just because they are captives. Captive insurance companies are regulated insurance companies, licensed for a particular purpose, and regulated in a manner commensurate with their risk,” he said.

online pharmacy estrace with best prices today in the USA

Steve Kinion, director of the Bureau of Captive and Financial Insurance Products for the Delaware Insurance Department said, “The Delaware Insurance Department is disappointed that the Federal Housing FinancSteve Kinion (2)e Agency made the decision it made. In at least two comment letters, one in 2012 and the other in 2015, we have made attempts to work with the Federal Housing Finance Agency to help it understand captive insurers.” He added that what has been disappointing is that “our offers were never accepted. Delaware Insurance Commissioner Stewart continues to believe that captive insurers that are members of the FHLB system are well regulated and contribute to the FHLB’s mission of fostering housing in the United States.”

Kinion explained that that REITs have long sought membership in the Federal Home Loan Bank system, which was formed in 1932 to provide liquidity for the housing market. Because current law states that only certain types of institutions may become Home Loan Bank members, “captives have been a portal for membership. It’s unfortunate when well-regulated captive insurers are excluded from membership.

online pharmacy cipro with best prices today in the USA

 I only wish that, before it issued its regulation, the FHFA would have allowed me the opportunity to show what Delaware does at the state level to regulate captive insurers.”

Delaware had been seeing increased interest in REITs. The domicile has one such captive and others were in the pipeline. One reason Delaware likes them is the revenue they bring in. “Our regional Home Loan Bank is in Pittsburgh and 10% of the profits generated have to be designated for affordable housing programs,” Kinion said. “In Delaware, there are a number of organizations that receive grants from the bank to promote affordable housing, and that benefits the state.”

The REITs captive program was fostered by Delaware Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart. Her rationale was that, through the program she could “help with affordable housing in Delaware, which she can’t do directly as insurance commissioner,” Kinion said. “This was an indirect means of helping Delaware’s affordable housing programs.

online pharmacy tadalista with best prices today in the USA

Provost said that while he supports REITs captives, the new rule will have a negligible impact on Vermont. “We have studiously avoided jumping on bandwagons of forming captives that have no apparent insurance purpose solely for some ancillary advantage,” he said. “We have allowed captives to apply for membership to the FHLB, and so far five have joined. They will have one year or five years to leave the FHLB system, depending on when they joined.”

Kinion noted, “I wish the FHFA would have at least talked to us, so they could have seen how we regulate captive insurance companies. If regulation is a concern, they should have at least taken a step to find out what we do at the state level. But that didn’t happen.”

Captives under Scrutiny

A mere decade ago, captive insurers were viewed by most regulators as a small, even exotic part of the insurance industry. Most were assumed to be offshore and aroused little attention. Now, captives have gone mainstream. A sizable, but undetermined, portion of the property casualty coverage is placed through, or issued by, captives. A good guess is 30% to 40%, but no one has been able to establish an accurate number. Thirty-nine states have some form of captive or self-insurance law. Captives are now part of everyday life for regulators and the result is more scrutiny.

The issues now on the agenda for captives are significant:

• XXX and AXXX Reinsurance Captives

According to Superintendent Joseph Torti (Rhode Island), 80% to 85% of life and annuity insurance is ceded to reinsurers. Much of the so-called “excess reserves” required by Rules XXX and AXXX are ceded to captive reinsurers or special purpose vehicles owned by the same licensed life and annuity companies which cede the risk. Because the amount of this risk is so large, any trouble collecting this reinsurance could have a major effect on the industry. Some regulators, even a few who approved these cessions, have criticized these arrangements. In some cases, the collateral for the reserves has been subject to parental guarantees, which tends to undermine the confidence which can be placed in the transaction. The NAIC is continuing its examination and has met some stiff resistance from the industry.

• Multistate Insurers 

The proposal to amend the preamble to the NAIC Accreditation Standards to treat captive reinsurers as “multistate insurers” (with some limited exceptions) was withdrawn at the last NAIC meeting in Louisville. A new proposal should be forthcoming (and may have already been issued by the date of publication of this Newsletter). The premise of this proposed change is that non-domiciliary regulators need to know how insurance issued in another state may affect the citizens of their state. The opposite point of view is that the regulators of the domicile have done their job and should be trusted by their regulator colleagues and that the transaction should not affect third parties, anyway. Some say the risk to the domestic captive industry is existential. If enacted and enforced, the proposed change could, ironically, drive much of the industry offshore and therefore beyond the authority of the regulators promoting it.

• Nonadmitted Risk and Reinsurance Act

Captives have been inadvertently drawn into the regulatory structure imposed by this federal legislation intended to streamline the reporting and payment of surplus lines taxes. It has shined a spotlight on the payment (or non-payment) of state self-procurement taxes, but, ironically, does not in any way alter either the application of them or their payment. While risk retention groups (RRGs) were able to get an exemption from the law during its formative phase, captives, because they are (generally) single state entities and therefore not doing business as a “non-admitted” insurer, did not even attempt to get an exemption. Now there is a group, the Coalition for Captive Insurance Clarity, which is seeking a legislative exemption on Capitol Hill.

• Insurance Company Income Taxation

The Internal Revenue Service is investigating several insurance pooling mechanisms and, in some cases, the captives that have utilized them to establish third party risk—which is essential for an insurer to get the benefit of insurance tax treatment. This investigation is presumably a response to the rapid growth of “micro-captives” as mechanisms to assist with avoidance of taxation in estate planning and wealth transfer. This process is in its early stages, but is likely to produce some dramatic results.

• Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB)

Who would have thought that the FHLB would have anything to do with captives?  It appears that some captives, and at least one risk retention group, are members of the FHLB, which allows them to obtain federal funds at advantageous rates. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates the twelve FHLBs, has proposed a rule that would exclude all captives from membership by defining “insurance company” to mean an entity which “has as its primary business the underwriting of risk for nonaffiliated persons.”

Why is this happening now? While there are numerous reasons for these kinds of actions, there are two primary motivators. First, regulation is always subject to the problem of “what’s worth doing is worth overdoing.” Reasonable minds can differ on the interpretation of statutes and regulations. Each of the above includes an element of “pushing the envelope,” which can be significant or insignificant issues depending on your point of view. Second, captives have been caught in the vortex of regulatory competition. As we have discussed before in this column, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the Federal Insurance Office (FIO), and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) are jockeying for position and power. Add to the mix the position of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that captives may be used as a device to avoid taxation (“base erosion” in OECD parlance), and you have a tumult of regulatory action which at the same time can be challenging and conflicting in its goals and implementation.

What does this bode for the future of captives? Once you have been seen on the radar, it is hard to drop off. Captives can expect more of the same for the foreseeable future.

This blog was previously published on the Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP website.