We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,131)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (413)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (799)
  • Wink's Articles (352)
  • Wink's Inside Story (273)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • U.S. may soon regulate Indexed Annuities as insurance products

    July 12, 2010 by Alan Prochoroff

    Alan Prochoroff / June 29, 2010

    It will take an act of Congress but insurers could be very close to getting what they’ve been seeking for the last two years — a declaration that equity indexed annuities will be regulated as insurance products, and not as securities.

    A House-Senate conference committee working on the nearly 2,000-page financial services reform legislation, approved an amendment proposed by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, on separate votes. Senators on the committee approved the measure 8-4, and House conferees also gave it a thumbs-up.

    H.R. 4173 now moves to each chamber for a final yes-or-no vote. Supporters are hoping to have it ready to be signed by President Obama by the first week in July, but the death of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and concerns from other senators about changes that have been made to the bill could delay a vote (see related article elsewhere in this edition).

    “We are pleased that Senator Harkin’s amendment passed the Senate and was accepted by the House and will clarify the status of these products,” said Nick Gerhart, vice president of compliance communications at American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company. “The amendment encourages the adoption of the NAIC model suitability rule and further enhances the consumer protections the industry has in place. We support final passage.”

    The Harkin Amendment is a response to the SEC’s vote in December 2008 to adopt Rule 151a and regulate indexed annuities as securities starting in 2011. Indexed annuities provide a base, guaranteed return and could pay more, depending on the performance of a stock-market index. The rule was intended to apply to indexed annuities in which the payout “is more likely than not” to exceed the amount guaranteed under the contract.

    The Harkin Amendment would give insurance departments regulatory authority when indexed annuities satisfy standard nonforfeiture laws or one of two NAIC nonforfeiture model laws. They would also have to be issued by a company domiciled in a state that has suitability requirements that meet or exceed the NAIC’s Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation. Further, the company would have to have nationwide suitability standards that meet or exceed the requirements of the suitability model.

    But the amendment almost died several times before it was finally approved. First, it faced significant opposition from the beginning from Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and others who opposed it. Reed said Harkin had misinterpreted a federal appeals court ruling by saying it meant the SEC had no jurisdiction over indexed products. Reed also said “there have been repeated abuses of this product.”

    That opposition, though ultimately unsuccessful, was significant because Reed chairs the securities subcommittee of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

    Insurance supporters also had to get over a major hurdle just to have the amendment considered. Typically, amendments can deal only with existing language and Harkin’s Amendment wasn’t part of either the House or Senate versions of the legislation that was being reconciled.

    Reed objected once again, saying, “This is a major amendment of securities law without any hearings or debate. I don’t think this is the proper place to make such a change.”

    But Senate conferees were given the go-ahead to vote on it after the Senate parliamentarian said it was relevant to the issues before the conference committee.

    That in itself was a master stroke, but the amendment almost died again during the all-night negotiations that continued after the Senate conferees had approved it, but before the House members had acted. In those critical hours, the Congressional Budget Office responded to a request from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, who had asked about the cost.

    “About $1.0 billion over 10 years,” CBO said in its memo to the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

    You read that right. The CBO said it would cost a billion dollars for an amendment would prevent the federal government from spending a single dime to regulate an insurance product.

    Here’s the logic from Mark Booth, CBO’s unit chief of revenue estimating: “We estimate that the amendment would result to some degree in a shift in economic activity out of immediately taxable investments and into tax-deferred equity annuities, with an estimated revenue [read that to mean “tax”] loss of about $1.0 billion over 10 years.”

    “That logic is so backward it’s unbelievable,” said Jim Poolman, a lobbyist for the 151a insurance coalition. Even so, he said he wasn’t surprised to hear that one of Harkin’s staffers told others on the coalition, “You guys are screwed.”

    Which left Frank, who hasn’t exactly been on the insurance side of this issue, with all the ammunition he needed to derail it if he chose to do so.

    Poolman said discussions continued until 3 or 4 in the morning, when, “in the end, Frank let it go. Under the rules, Congress has to find ways to pay for programs without adding to the budget deficit, and we think Frank was more worried about finding the other $19 billion to pay for the rest of the bill.”

    Poolman, a former North Dakota insurance commissioner, said that, in the end, “We’re pleased that Congress saw the value of state insurance regulation and saw the SEC’s action as a pure overreach of its authority. Fixed indexed annuities haven’t lost a dime. That’s because they’re insurance products and are guaranteed.”

    That’s not how the Consumer Federation of America saw things. It was generally pleased with a bill that “marks the biggest transformation of financial regulation in this country since the Great Depression.” But it wasn’t pleased at all with the Harkin Amendment, which it said would defer regulation of indexed annuities to “weaker insurance rules” and “open a gaping hole in investor protections without any assurance that the insurance regulation relied on in its place is adequate or effective.”

    Said CFA director of investor protection Barbara Roper: “It is dispiriting to see members of the conference committee vote to weaken investor protections and undermine SEC authority in the very bill that is supposed to restore investor confidence and market integrity.

    “It sends a sobering message to those who are counting on Congress and regulators to stand up to self-interested industry pleadings and insist on tough enforcement of the reforms it is preparing to adopt,” she added.

    That view doesn’t square with insurers and insurance regulators, who have insisted all along that indexed annuities are insurance products because they offer a fixed and guaranteed rate of return first and an additional benefit if a specified index or indices surpassed certain benchmarks.

    The NAIC said as much in a June 22 letter to the top leadership of the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee. “Indexed annuities are fundamentally insurance products and should be regulated by state insurance regulators who can approve annuities contracts before they can be introduced to the market, monitor individuals involved with the sales and marketing of the annuities, and regulate the investments and financial strength of the issuing company,” said the letter signed by the NAIC’s officers.

    “The language offered by Senator Harkin, combined with the continued activities of the NAIC, will ensure continued strong protection of consumers investing in these products,” the letter concluded.

    Pending passage of the legislation and the president’s signature, that insurance-or-securities debate should now be moot. “This is an insurance product,” Harkin said after conferees voted. “It always has been and still is today. The SEC’s got a lot of other things to do than regulate what is now an insurance market.”

    He’ll get no argument from Eric Marhoun, general counsel for the Old Mutual Financial Network. “We are pleased the Senate and House conferees have taken an important step in clarifying the status of these guaranteed insurance products and we support final passage of the measure.”

    Old Mutual joined with American Equity Investment Life and others in a lawsuit to overturn Rule 151a and a federal appeals court ruled last summer that the SEC had the authority to regulate indexed products, but hadn’t proved its case that it should. The court said the SEC hadn’t considered the impact the rule would have on efficiency, competition and capital formation.

    “Our company, with many good allies, has been working steadfastly for two years to overturn Rule 151a and it is our intention to see this through,” Marhoun told ICI. “Given these developments, we hope and anticipate the rule will be either formally vacated by the D.C. Court of Appeals or set aside by the SEC so the SEC can focus on its core jurisdiction.”

    Alan Prochoroff is the editor and publisher Insurance Compliance Insight.

    Used by permission of Insurance Compliance Insight. To subscribe, click here.

    (06/29/10)

    –>

    Originally Posted at The Advisor's Edge on June 29, 2010 by Alan Prochoroff.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency