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
  • Cry Of Protest From MetLife Signals Right Direction For Regulators

    November 6, 2014 by STEPHEN J. LUBBEN

    $214 billion. As of the middle of this year, that was the value of MetLife’s bond portfolio, according to Bloomberg.

    Nevertheless, MetLife is fighting its designation as “systemically important” under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, which subjects such institutions to additional oversight by the Federal Reserve and tougher capital requirements. Earlier this week, senior executives appeared before the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a collection of regulators that determines the designation, to make the argument that its decision was in error.

    I think we can expect that the council won’t change its mind, but the hearing was a necessary step before the designation can be challenged in court.

    The basic question is: “If not MetLife, who?”

    The argument in favor of heightened regulation of MetLife is the American International Group, the giant insurer that had to be bailed out by the taxpayers to the tune of $185 billion. The antics of A.I.G.’s London arm are well known and show the potential for insurance companies to slide into activities more commonly associated with broker-dealers or hedge funds. Or casinos.

    Indeed, since the late 19th century it has been understood that insurance companies, especially life insurance companies, are some of the biggest asset managers around, and controlling that pot of money can be really attractive.

    In short, it is not difficult to understand how the failure of an insurance behemoth like MetLife could be quite disruptive. Sure, there is room for improvement — not every financial institution should be regulated the same way depository banks are regulated — but the regulators have to work with the tools Congress has given them, and it would be of great benefit if Congresswere to provide a bit of flexibility soon.

    MetLifeis apparently responding that it held up well during the recent financial crisis. That, of course, should not be the standard.

    While this is a common argument made by not only MetLife but also hedge funds, mutual funds and derivatives traders, there is nothing that says that Congress and regulators must only address the most recent crisis. Indeed, it would be refreshing to see regulators get out ahead of a potential problem for a change.

    So it seems as if MetLife will remain “designated.” The real question is, who’s next? After all, if an insurance company can be designated for the size of its investment activities, asset managers might be next.

    The real question, of course, is where to draw the line. Presumably we don’t want all financial institutions to be subject to “extra” regulation. It would hardly be extra if it were routine.

    But is it better to extend this special regulation to new areas — like asset managers — or smaller forms of the already regulated institutions, like large regional banks and somewhat smaller broker-dealers? In part this will depend on how these institutions react to any advantage they gain by escaping extra scrutiny. If they start to do things that only the big players used to do, additional regulation should follow.

    In short, the designation of financial institutions as systemically important will by necessity be a dynamic process. But in no way should it be driven by what happened “last time.”

    Stephen J. Lubben is the Harvey Washington Wiley Chair in corporate governance and business ethics at Seton Hall Law School and an expert on bankruptcy.

     

    Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet on November 6, 2014 by STEPHEN J. LUBBEN.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency