![]() |
|
|
|||||||
| FlashChat | Actuarial Discussion | Preliminary Exams | CAS/SOA Exams | Cyberchat | Around the World | Suggestions |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Last edited by DW Simpson; 03-31-2006 at 01:03 PM.. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin...pl?newsId=7508
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
At least for those of us on the P&C side of the house, another way to think of federal charters -- will the whole country be like (say) Illinois....or Massachusetts? And, if one or the other...how might that change come the next time control of Washington changes hands?
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't have a link but I recall reading that there's no rate regulation in the bill. My sense is that with federal regulation there isn't as much political pressure on the day-to-day regulators. Generally speaking, the political appointees are smart enough to let the non-partisan civil servants with industry knowledge do their jobs. If you look at the morning after pill, career scientists aren't necessarily upset about it not being sold over the counter but that the political appointees aren't heeding their scientific opinion.
For companies operating in Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and other regulatory hell holes, I can't see why they'd want to stay with state regulation. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|