UK regulator will not shoe-horn insurers into banking regime
UK financial supervisors do not intend to 'shoe-horn' insurance companies into a regulatory regime designed for banks, a senior regulator said today.
He told a conference on reforming the regulatory regime for insurance that the FSA wants a risk-based regime for both insurance companies and banks that recognised the difference between the two industries.
That task also required the aligning of the regulatory system with uniform accounting standards, particularly in the direction of fair-value accounting.
Risk-based regulation of insurance companies would, however, embody the underlying purpose of Basel II, namely to ensure that insurers were cushioned against the risks they actually faced as measured by the firms’ own internal systems. The regime would require stress and scenario testing, and would reward good risk management with a lighter hand from the regulator and lower capital charges. Insurance regulation would rest on a Basel-II type three-pillar structure of reserves, supervision and market discipline achieved through greater disclosure of information.
Tiner is leading a team reviewing insurance regulation in the UK. He expects to issue an interim report in September.
The Basel II Accord is designed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the body that in effect regulates international banking. It will determine how much of their assets major banks will have to set aside as protection against the risks of banking. It is currently due to come into force in late 2006.
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
NBFI oversight ‘no longer adequate’, say BdF economists
Researchers call for stronger supervision of non-bank sector ‘before risks actually materialise’
Why Brexit still stirs up trouble for cross-border business
As EU erects another obstacle, banks consider ways around it – or exit strategies
Can US regulators keep Collins happy with one capital stack?
Legal experts say Basel III endgame redraft retains spirit if not letter of the floor
EU states take the slow road to new cross-border services ban
Late national transposition hampers foreign banks’ decisions on location of affected activities
Don’t mention the rules: the fight against prediction market abuse
For the CFTC to regulate new venues effectively, it must first redefine insider trading
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports