Spitzer Calls For End To Antitrust Exemption

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Originally Posted by campbell

For crying out loud, will no one talk about what the article was originally about?

It's about antitrust, not replacing state regulation with federal regulation. That doesn't seem to be on the plate, alas.

They are the same thing in this case.

P&C insurers exchange marginal cost data, that would be anti-trust per se for an industry without the exemption.

[Take 2]

Creation of 2001 CSO via sharing of proprietary mortality data could raise antintrust issues, esp. if a co wanted to use its own q's for reserves.

[campbell]

Originally Posted by Colymbosathon ecplecticos

They are the same thing in this case.

P&C insurers exchange marginal cost data, that would be anti-trust per se for an industry without the exemption.

Okay, then how does this end up with sole federal regulation, as opposed to state + federal regulation? It sounds to me like this is asking for 51 departments of insurance to file with, not just 1.

[Brad Gile]

Originally Posted by campbell

Okay, then how does this end up with sole federal regulation, as opposed to state + federal regulation? It sounds to me like this is asking for 51 departments of insurance to file with, not just 1.

That is, IMO, the most likely result if we get federal regulation. The states are very unlikely to dismantle their regulatory agencies without a fight. This has been discussed in the industry for decades.

Brad

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

There are several exceptions. One covers laws that Congress passes that explicitly cover insurance, so if the Congress wanted to regulate insurance, they could.

[Rockhound]

Originally Posted by Funktuary

There is good and bad on both sides, but overall, national oversight would be a GREAT thing, particularly when it comes to the product approval process.

National oversight is great for the national companies, and will help them consolidate their market share. The local, regional companies are better able to serve their local markets, (and by extension deal with local regualtory bodies).

[Morrison]

Insurance industry needs a regulatory structure similar to banking with an optional federal charter. National Insurers could be regulated by federal regulator, regional insurers could stick with regional regulators.

[twig93]

Originally Posted by Morrison

Insurance industry needs a regulatory structure similar to banking with an optional federal charter. National Insurers could be regulated by federal regulator, regional insurers could stick with regional regulators.

This is what I've heard discussed the most: insurance companies could opt to comply with federal regulators OR the state regulators in the states in which they do business. But they wouldn't have to do both (so for the big guys, it theoretically would not be simply adding an additional regulator, and for the small regional guys, it wouldn't change much if they chose to stay with state regulation).

[joeorez]

It would be hard enough for the billion dollar insurers to make rates without the rating bureaus.

It would be ridiculous for the tiny insurers.

(That old CAS Part 8 stuff on anti-trust - anyone remember Mertz- "The First Twenty Years" ? - was awfully dull, but I think as actuaries we are a little uneducated on anti-trust nowadays. Don't ask me in the men's room at a CAS meeting, "What do you think of those new ISO commercial auto increased limits factors ... ?")

[MountainHawk]

If the anti-trust exemption goes away, and ISO/NCCI/et all go away as rating orgs, I think there is a good chance that insurance prices would skyrocket, as the barrier of entry would become much much higher than it is today.

I would think that 'me-too' filings might also be considered anti-trust violations, so exactly how are the small companies supposed to price their product?