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 (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • 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
  • ‘Too Big To Fail’ On The Agenda Again

    January 22, 2015 by Mary Williams Walsh

    Top financial regulators on Wednesday discussed ways to improve how so-called too-big-to-fail institutions are singled out for closer supervision, but they stopped well short of reversing any designations made so far.

    The proposals discussed by the Financial Stability Oversight Council included making earlier and fuller disclosures of information and giving companies designated as ”systemically important” more opportunities to have their names removed from the list.

    ”It’s important for us to be nimble and adjust our processes as we continue to grow and mature,” said the Treasury secretary, Jacob J. Lew, who leads the council.

    It was not clear whether such changes would mollify members of Congress who have criticized the council recently, warning that its actions could harm American competitiveness.

    Any changes would also come too late to help MetLife, the big life insurer that was designated systemically important in December, subjecting it to tougher capital and disclosure requirements and supervision by the Federal Reserve. MetLife filed suit in federal court earlier this month, seeking to have the designation rescinded as ”arbitrary and capricious.”

    Without mentioning MetLife or its lawsuit, Mr. Lew indicated that the panel would not back down.

    ”Our existing process is rigorous,” he said, noting that he thought some of the council’s critics wanted simply to roll back the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, which created the council, and to strip the panel of its powers to curb excessive risks to the financial system.

    ”That would be a grave mistake, and I’m committed to making sure it does not happen on my watch,” Mr. Lew told the council, which includes top officials from other regulators like the Fed.

    Since October, the council’s staff has been meeting with companies, congressional staff members, consumer advocates and officials from the Government Accountability Office to hear their specific complaints. Staff members reported that the companies under review wanted to be notified earlier in the process and to understand how the council’s metrics worked.

    The companies in line for a too-big-to-fail designation also wanted to know specifically which of their business activities attracted the council’s attention. Staff members said they thought the public should be able to find out how many nonbanks were under review at any given time and that such information should be included in the council’s annual report. They said the council should grant each designated company an oral hearing at the end of five years and vote on whether the designation was still valid. For one-year reviews, they said, the burden of proof should be on the designated companies to show that they were incorrectly classified.

    The council was established after it became clear during the 2008 financial crisis that while there were separate regulators for the banking, insurance, brokerage and other businesses, no one regulator could put the pieces together and monitor the safety of the overall financial system. That allowed a significant risk of contagion to build up in the system so that when a few important institutions began to teeter and fail, they threatened to take down countless other institutions with them in a cascade that could not be stopped without a huge taxpayer bailout.

    The council has the authority to identify financial institutions that pose systemic risk and to designate them ”systemically important financial institutions,” or SIFIs. Banks fall into that category based simply on their size, and they are subjected to the new capital, liquidity and other standards being phased in under the international banking agreement known as Basel III.

    But the rules are much less clear-cut for insurers and other nonbank institutions. The council has been using a broad review process for insurers, taking into account their size, their degree of connectedness with other institutions and other factors. In December, Congress enacted a clarification that systemically important insurers would not have to comply with the banking rules, but the Fed has yet to issue its rules for SIFI (pronounced SIH-fee) insurers.

    In addition to reviewing insurers and nonbank lenders, the regulators have been looking at whether any asset managers pose systemic risk.

    MetLife has argued that the process the council uses for asset managers is more rational than the one used for insurers. In its suit, it said the council’s decision would cause it ”irreparable harm” by holding it to higher standards than its competitors. MetLife also complained that the council kept information secret, making it impossible for it to learn exactly what its designation was based on.

    Other panelists at Wednesday’s meeting, including Janet L. Yellen, the Fed chairwoman, and Mary Jo White, chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, spoke in favor of the staff recommendations. The group agreed to wait till the next meeting to ratify any changes.

    This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.

     

    Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet on January 22, 2015 by Mary Williams Walsh.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency