May 2015 | CIPR Newsle er 9

T F S O C I SIFI D P : O , C R

Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Consumer Financial Pro-tec on Bureau (CFPB), U.S. Securi es and Exchange Com-mission (SEC), Commodi es Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corpora on (FDIC), Fed-eral Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and Na onal Credit Union Administra on Board (NCUA)—and one independent member with insurance exper se, appointed by the Presi-dent, also have vo ng rights on the FSOC. Five non-vo ng members also sit on the FSOC, including the directors of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and Office of Financial Re-search, a state banking supervisor, a state insurance com-missioner, and a state securi es commissioner.3 To aid in the defini on of a SIFI, the FSOC, as authorized by sec on 113 of Dodd-Frank, determines whether a non-bank financial ins tu on is a SIFI if its material financial distress, or its nature, scope, size, scale, concentra on, interconnect-edness or the mix of its ac vi es could pose a threat to the financial stability of the country. Title I of Dodd-Frank de-fines a non-bank financial company as one that is predomi-nantly engaged in financial ac vi es—including insurance, investment banking and asset management—other than bank holding companies and certain other types of firms.4 According to FSOC rules and regula ons regarding non-bank financial companies, released in April 2012, SIFIs are drawn from a popula on of non-banking financial ins tu ons with at least $50 billion in consolidated assets, $30 billion in credit default swaps where the company is the reference en ty, $3.5 billion in deriva ve liabili es, $20 billion in total debt outstanding, 15-to-1 leverage ra o and 10% short-term debt-to-asset ra o. These six quan ta ve thresholds in this first stage of the process help filter through the ini al set of companies meri ng further evalua on. A non-bank financial company will be moved on to the next stage if it meets both the total consolidated assets threshold and any one of the other thresholds.5 While these thresholds are specifically designed to be uni-form, transparent and readily calculable by all, the FSOC has clarified the universe of selected companies may go beyond

(Continued on page 10)

By Dimitris Karapiperis, CIPR Research Analyst III I Eight years have passed since the advent of the global fi-nancial crisis, and the issue of systemic risk and systemically important financial ins tu ons (SIFI) is s ll being hotly de-bated. The main controversy is centered on the iden fica-

on of SIFIs among non-bank financial ins tu ons and par-cularly insurance companies. Notwithstanding the merit of

iden fying those financial ins tu ons posing systemic risk, the suitability and wisdom of the enhanced regulatory and supervisory requirements to which non-bank SIFIs are sub-jected due to their systemic importance are s ll points of conten on. Ques ons abound regarding whether these measures ap-plied to SIFIs are targeted towards remedia ng the factors believed to contribute to systemic risk or crea ng a perma-nent regulatory infrastructure whose mission is to simply manage said systemic risk. In a crisis with the banking sec-tor at its core, the controversial inclusion of insurance com-panies among those companies whose ac vi es could be a source of systemic risk has been ques oned and challenged by state insurance regulators and the insurance industry. While all designa ons of insurers as SIFIs have elicited strong reac ons, guidance may be provided by the U.S. courts following MetLife’s decision to legally challenge the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) decision to des-ignate the insurer as a SIFI. F S O C P N -B F C To prevent a repeat of the excessive risk-taking that led to the failures of the financial system, the federal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protec on Act (Dodd-Frank) was enacted in 2010.1 The no on of broader, macro-pruden al supervision was introduced to keep systemic risk in check and protect financial stability. Central to the con-cept of macropruden al supervision is the need to recog-nize those financial ins tu ons whose failure or distress could threaten the financial stability of the United States. To that end, pursuant to Title I of Dodd-Frank, the FSOC was established to iden fy financial firms of systemic im-portance and designate them as SIFIs, as well as monitor the overall stability of the na on’s financial system and pro-mote regulatory coopera on.2 Those ins tu ons designat-ed as SIFIs would theore cally become subject to more stringent regulatory standards under the Board of Gover-nors of the Federal Reserve System. The treasury secretary, whose vote is mandatory for a SIFI designa on, chairs the FSOC. The heads of eight regulatory agencies—Board of

1 White House, 2010. “Wall Street Reform: The Dodd-Frank Act,” accessed from h ps://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/middle-class/dodd-frank-wall-street-reform.

2 United States Senate. Commi ee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. “Brief Summary the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protec on Act.”

3 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Stability Oversight Council, Non-Bank Designa ons. Accessed from www.treasury.gov/ini a ves/fsoc/designa ons/Pages/nonbank-faq.aspx.

4 United States Senate. Commi ee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. “Brief Summary the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protec on Act.”

5 Federal Register, 2012. “FSOC: Authority To Require Supervision and Regula on of Certain Nonbank Financial Companies,” Vol. 77, No. 70, Wed., April 11, 2012.

10 May 2015 | CIPR Newsle er

T FSOC I SIFI D P : O , C R (C )

those mee ng the quan ta ve thresholds. The FSOC has reasoned the thresholds may not adequately measure unique risks posed by par cular companies, and, therefore, it has retained the discre on to consider companies not captured in Stage 1 for any reason. The companies captured in the first stage, and any others subsequently added by the FSOC, are then analyzed in the next stage of the process, based on six overarching frame-work categories to determine a company’s poten al sys-temicness.6 The company-specific factors in the second stage include both quan ta ve and qualita ve measures such as size, interconnectedness, subs tutability, leverage, liquidity risk and maturity mismatch, and exis ng regulatory scru ny. The first three factors are oriented towards as-sessing the likely impact of companies’ financial distress on financial stability, while the remaining three focus on the degree of vulnerability of the companies to possible finan-cial distress.7 When evalua ng a non-bank financial company using the six measures in Stage 2, the FSOC is examining a number of statutory considera ons, including the amount and nature of the company’s financial assets; the amount and nature of the company’s liabili es, including the degree of reliance in short-term funding; the extent of the company’s leverage; the extent and nature of the transac ons and rela onships with other significant financial ins tu ons; the importance of the company as a source of credit for households (with an addi onal emphasis on low-income, minority communi-

es) and businesses, as well as a source of liquidity for the financial system; the extent to which assets are managed rather than owned by the company; and the degree to which the company is already regulated by one or more primary financial regulatory agencies. During the public comment period regarding these rules, the FSOC acknowledged a number of commenters pointed to the differences between insurance companies and other types of non-bank financial ins tu ons, sugges ng the focus should be on the unregulated, non-tradi onal ac vi es un-dertaken by insurers instead of their well-regulated core ac vi es, which do not pose any systemic risk. Furthermore, it was stressed products and services of regulated, tradi on-al insurance companies are highly subs tutable, adding in-surers operate without significant leverage or reliance on short-term debt and, even more importantly, are subject to high levels of exis ng regulatory scru ny. In Stage 2 of the process, the FSOC analyzes companies that have triggered the Stage 2 thresholds using addi onal pub-lic informa on and regulatory informa on. During this stage

of the process, the FSOC also begins the consulta on with the company’s primary financial regulatory agencies. At the conclusion of Stage 2 of the process, the FSOC votes on whether to move the company to Stage 3 of the process. If the FSOC votes to move the company to Stage 3 of the pro-cess, then it informs the company it has entered Stage 3 and can request informa on directly from the company. During that me, the FSOC may request addi onal material and informa on concerning the companies’ enterprise risk man-agement (ERM) framework and procedures, strategic plans, counterparty exposures, resolvability, poten al acquisi ons or disposals, and any planned or an cipated changes in their business model or orienta on that may affect the country’s financial stability.8

Stage 3 builds on Stage 2 analysis using the addi onal quan-

ta ve and qualita ve informa on submi ed by the com-panies under considera on. Among the qualita ve factors are considera ons that could mi gate or aggravate the po-ten al of the non-bank financial company to pose a threat to the country’s financial stability, such as the company’s resolvability, the opacity of its opera ons, its complexity and, once again, the extent and nature of its exis ng regula-tory scru ny.9 Once the three-stage review process is com-pleted, the FSOC decides, by a two-thirds vote of its mem-bers, whether a company should be designated as a SIFI and subject to Board of Governors supervision. At that me, the FSOC provides the company with a wri en no ce of pro-posed determina on and explana on of the status basis. The FSOC also no fies the company’s exis ng regulators and its subsidiaries. The SIFI designa on is then revisited on an annual basis, with the decision whether to renew or rescind put to a vote again.10 A company disagreeing with the FSOC determina on may request a hearing to contest the proposed designa on in accordance with sec on 113(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act and § 1310.21(c) of the rule.11 I SIFI D American Interna onal Group In July 2013, the FSOC for the first me exercised its authori-ty under Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act and designated Ameri-can Interna onal Group (AIG) as a SIFI in a 9-0 vote (one

(Continued on page 11) 6 Federal Register, 2012. “FSOC: Authority to Require Supervision and Regula on of Certain Nonbank Financial Companies,” Vol. 77, No. 70. Wed., April 11, 2012. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 United States Senate. Commi ee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. “Brief Sum-mary the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protec on Act.”

May 2015 | CIPR Newsle er 11

T FSOC I SIFI D P : O , C R (C )

member recused) subjec ng the insurer to consolidated supervision and enhanced pruden al standards.12 Although the FSOC’s designa on of AIG as a SIFI was not unexpected by state regulators, given the company’s role in the finan-cial crisis, the NAIC objected to the language and the ra-

onale offered by the FSOC for this decision.13 The ra onale provided by the FSOC pointed to the poten al for a run-like scenario for certain withdrawable insurance products and a possible broader loss of public confidence in the insurance industry as a result. However, as the NAIC contended, the insurance industry proved very resilient during the crisis, and no insurer, including AIG, suffered a run or the same loss of confidence experienced by the banking sector.14 The FSOC also noted the size of AIG’s market presence in certain P/C and surplus lines, and fears about the ability of AIG’s policyholders to find similar coverage in the event AIG exits the market.15 State insurance regulators countered that while it may be true the exit of a major insurer could be dis-rup ve, there is a proven history in the insurance market of a robust, compe ve market with the capacity to absorb the business of failing insurers and a rac ng new capital. Pruden al Financial In September 2013, the FSOC designated Pruden al Finan-cial, Inc. as the second non-bank financial ins tu on SIFI in a 7-2 vote, with S. Roy Woodall Jr., independent member having insurance exper se, and Edward J. DeMarco, ac ng director of the FHFA, vo ng against, and contrary to the advice of John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance (DOI) and the state regulator FSOC representa-

ve.16 The dissen ng independent member of the FSOC with insurance experience argued the FSOC’s underlying analysis used scenarios an the cal to a fundamental and expert understanding of the insurance business, the insur-ance state regulatory framework, and the state insurance company resolu on and guaranty fund systems.17 The non-vo ng commissioner’s dissent was based on the FSOC’s misapplica on of bank-like concepts to insurance products and their regula on.18 The NAIC voiced again state regulators’ concerns about the unknown consequenc-es of such designa on and the poten al disrup on in the insurance marketplace. The NAIC also reiterated its convic-

on that tradi onal, core insurance ac vi es do not pose a systemic threat to the financial system, and encouraged the FSOC to instead focus on highly leveraged, thinly capi-talized, or unregulated ac vi es of non-banks as it exercis-es its authority.19

MetLife In December 2014, the FSOC, in a 9-1 vote, decided to desig-nate MetLife as a SIFI, the third insurer and fourth non-bank financial company to be designated. In its decision, the FSOC explained MetLife is such a significant par cipant in the U.S. economy and in financial markets, and it is interconnected to other financial firms through its insurance products and capital markets ac vi es. The FSOC also explained that a substan al por on of MetLife’s liabili es included the op on of surrendering in exchange for cash, and some policies also let policyholders borrow against the accumulated cash val-ue. In the event of mass surrenders, MetLife would be forced to liquidate its rela vely illiquid asset por olio dis-rup ng trading or funding markets. Therefore, the FSOC reasoned, material financial distress at MetLife could be damaging to the economy by severely impairing financial intermedia on or financial market func oning.20 The sole dissen ng vote in FSOC’s decision was cast by the independent member with insurance experience who ar-gued the decision to designate MetLife was flawed. The FSOC used the event of material financial distress as the sole jus fica on for its determina on without fully consid-ering other factors to assess the insurer’s systemicness in the absence of distress.21 Furthermore, the independent member pointed to the implausible and contrived scenario of mass surrenders and forced asset liquida on charging the FSOC failed to appreciate fundamental aspects of insur-ance and annuity products and, more importantly, the exist-ence of robust state insurance regula on.22 The non-vo ng state insurance regulator representa ve, North Dakota Insurance Department Commissioner Adam Hamm, also expressed his dissent, taking issue with the FSOC’s persistent a empt to diminish the state insurance regulatory framework and its effec veness in reducing the

(Continued on page 12)

12American Ac on Forum, 2014. “Primer: FSOC’s SIFI Designa on Process for Nonbank Financial Companies.” Research, Sept. 3, 2014. 13 FSOC Press Release, July 9, 2013. 14 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Stability Oversight Council, 2013. “Basis of the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s Final Determina on Regarding American Interna onal Group, Inc.,” July 8, 2013. 15 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Stability Oversight Council. 2013. “Basis of the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s Final Determina on Regarding American Interna onal Group, Inc.,” July 8, 2013. 16 FSOC Press Release, September 20, 2013. 17 American Enterprise Ins tute for Public Policy Research, 2014. “What the FSOC’s Pruden al Decision Tells Us about SIFI Designa on,” Financial Services Outlook, March 2014. 18 NAIC Statement on FSOC's Pruden al Designa on, September 19, 2013. 19 Ibid. 20 Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), 2014. “Basis for the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s Final Determina on Regarding MetLife, Inc.,” Dec. 18, 2014. 21 Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), 2014. “Dissen ng and Minority Views.” 22 Ibid.

12 May 2015 | CIPR Newsle er

T FSOC I SIFI D P : O , C R (C )

likelihood of failure, as well as the impact on the financial system from an insurer’s material financial distress. The commissioner also objected to the FSOC’s unfounded cri -cism of risk-based capital (RBC) considered in isola on from all other regulatory tools and the purely specula ve out-comes related to the liquida on of assets based in large part on hypothe cal and highly implausible claims of signifi-cant policyholder surrenders. He stressed the tools current-ly at the disposal of state insurance regulators are either equally or more effec ve than the Fed’s enhanced pruden-

al standards would be in addressing many of the risks iden fied by the FSOC.23

R D Following their designa ons as SIFIs by the FSOC, AIG made no a empt to fight it, while Pruden al unsuccessfully chal-lenged its designa on in an eviden ary hearing. Pruden al appealed the designa on and asked for a hearing as it was en tled under Dodd-Frank guidelines. When the FSOC re-affirmed its original decision following the closed door hear-ing Pruden al had requested, the insurance company decid-ed not to pursue a legal challenge. MetLife also launched an appeal, becoming the second in-surer to exercise its right to challenge the proposed SIFI designa on in a hearing before the FSOC. A er losing the appeal, despite presen ng what MetLife called substan al and compelling evidence, the insurer, in January 2015, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, charging it would be irreparably harmed if the designa on was allowed to stand.24 The CEO of MetLife stated the company had hoped to avoid li ga on, poin ng to the fact the company has always been a big supporter of robust regula on, and it has operated under a stringent state regulatory system for decades without any prob-lems.25 MetLife’s lawsuit marked the first me a SIFI desig-na on has been challenged before a federal judge.26 M L ’ L C MetLife’s legal challenge contests both the specifics of the SIFI designa on and the general approach in the process followed by the FSOC for insurance companies. The insurer rejected the idea it could pose a threat to the country’s fi-nancial stability and argued the conclusion reached by the FSOC was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, MetLife charged the FSOC’s process effec vely denied the company its due process rights and violated the cons tu onal sepa-ra on of powers because FSOC members acted and func-

oned interchangeably as lawmakers, prosecutors, inves -gators and judges at the same me.27

MetLife also charges the FSOC made a series of cri cal errors fatally undermining the reasoning in its designa on of Met-Life as a SIFI. First and most important of the errors was the FSOC’s failure to understand, or give meaningful weight to, the comprehensive state insurance regulatory regime that supervises every aspect of MetLife’s U.S. insurance business, despite statutory and regulatory requirements that specifi-cally direct the FSOC consider exis ng regulatory scru ny. The second error, according to MetLife’s lawsuit, was the FSOC fixa on on the company’s size and so-called intercon-nectedness—two factors when considered alone would most certainly lead to the designa on of virtually any large financial company—while ignoring other statutorily mandat-ed considera ons that weighed sharply against designa on. The third error was the FSOC’s reliance on vague standards and asser ons, unsubstan ated specula on, and unreason-able assump ons inconsistent with historical experience and accepted principles of risk analysis. At the same me, the FSOC ignored tools used by federal regulators to assess the poten al impact of severely adverse economic condi-

ons in other contexts, including the Fed stress tests. The fourth error, according to MetLife, was the FSOC refusal to give the company access to data and materials used by the FSOC in its determina on, depriving MetLife of a meaning-ful opportunity to refute the assump ons made, in viola on of due process rights.28 MetLife also contended in the lawsuit it is not predominant-ly engaged in financial ac vi es, and the FSOC designa on authority is limited in Sec on 113(a)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act to U.S. non-bank financial companies. MetLife derives more than 15% of its revenues from, and more than 15% of its assets are related to, insurance ac vi es in foreign mar-kets. Also, MetLife notes despite the FSOC having an obliga-

on to consider reasonable alterna ves to the SIFI designa-on such as following an ac vi es-based approach, it elect-

ed not do it. In a more general cri cism, MetLife argued the FSOC designa on process was opaque.

(Continued on page 13)

23 Na onal Associa on of Insurance Commissioners, 2014. “FSOC DISSENT: NAIC Presi-dent, FSOC Designate and North Dakota Insurance Commissioner Adam Hamm.” NAIC Newsroom, Dec. 19, 2014. Retrieved from www.naic.org/documents/newsroom_2014_fsoc_metlife_sifi_dissent_hamm.pdf. 24 The New York Times, 2015. “MetLife Sues Over Being Named Too Big to Fail,” Jan. 13, 2015. 25 Ibid. 26 Compliance Week, 2015. “MetLife Makes a Federal Case of its SIFI Designa on,” Jan. 13, 2015. 27 The New York Times, 2015. “MetLife Sues Over Being Named Too Big to Fail,” Jan. 13, 2015. 28 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. MetLife Inc. v. FSOC, Civil Ac on No. 15-45, Jan. 13, 2015.

May 2015 | CIPR Newsle er 13

T FSOC I SIFI D P : O , C R (C )

I SIFI D If a non-bank financial company is designated as a SIFI, it is subject to consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve (Fed) and enhanced pruden al standards as spelled out by the Fed in its regulatory rulemakings. The enhanced regula-

on expected by the Fed may include a combina on of measures including, but not limited to, increased capital requirements, increased repor ng, stress tes ng, debt-to-equity ra o requirements, stricter credit exposure limits, early remedia on requirements, and “living wills” docu-men ng resolu on and liquida on plans. In the bank-centric world of federal financial regula on, state insurance regulators considered calls for bank-style oversight of insurers par cularly misplaced and ironic con-sidering the state-regulated insurance industry served as a model of stability in 2008 when the federal banking and mortgage system nearly collapsed. While Dodd-Frank gives the Fed the authority to subject insurance companies designated as SIFIs to the same regu-latory capital rules banks have to follow, the recogni on of the cri cal differences between banks and insurers mo vat-ed the Fed to work towards adap ng the rules to insurers’ unique business model and risk profile. The Fed has reached out to the large insurance holding companies under its reg-ulatory charge to get their assistance in crea ng a more appropriate capital regulatory framework. In order to be er tailor capital requirements for insurance companies, the Fed sent out a quan ta ve impact survey (QIS) in October 2014 to collect data from insurers in order to get a baseline understanding of the insurance industry’s capital levels. The Fed had asked insurance companies to submit all the informa on to the agency by the end of 2014.29 FSOC E R The cri cisms to insurer SIFI designa ons submi ed by the dissen ng vo ng and non-vo ng members of the FSOC, as well as those outlined in MetLife’s legal complaint, are widely shared by the insurance industry, state insurance regulators and members of Congress. In addi on, the FSOC has been subject to cri cism rela ng to its lack of transpar-ency, a concern that has been shared by Congress, public interest groups, the industry and state insurance regulators. In an effort to respond to some of these cri cisms, the FSOC announced in January 2015 its intent to change the SIFI designa on process. In February, FSOC members voted to

implement a series of changes and formalize certain prac c-es rela ng to its process for reviewing non-bank financial companies for poten al designa on.30 The chairperson of the FSOC, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, said the newly adopted changes will help increase the transparency of the designa on process and strengthen the work of the FSOC in general. He stressed the fact the FSOC is a new organiza on and as it grows and matures, it must con nue to be flexible and adjust its processes as needed to fulfill its mandate.31

The FSOC changes meant to supplement its rule and inter-pre ve guidance regarding non-bank financial company de-termina ons fall in three main categories:32 1) Engagement with companies under considera on. The FSOC will inform companies earlier when they come under review, and pro-vide addi onal opportuni es for companies under considera-

on and their regulators to produc vely engage with the members of the FSOC. 2) Transparency to the broader public regarding the designa ons process. The FSOC will make more informa on available to the public about its designa-

on work, while ensuring sensi ve, nonpublic informa on remains protected. 3) Engagement during the FSOC’s annual reevalua ons of designa ons. The FSOC will create a clearer and more robust process for the annual reviews of its desig-na ons. This new process is designed to enable more en-gagement between designated companies and the FSOC, with ample opportunity for companies to present infor-ma on and to understand the FSOC analysis.33 Commissioner Hamm has indicated the changes are a good first step. However, he remains concerned the FSOC has not fully addressed the concept of an “exit ramp” to designa on nor has it made fully clear to the public or regulators the specific ac vi es of such firms that have led to the designa-

on of these companies. The NAIC, in wri en tes mony to the Senate Banking Commi ee, indicated the failure to pro-vide an “exit ramp” contributes to, rather than reduces risks to, the financial system.

(Continued on page 14)

29 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2014. “Policy Impact Survey—FR 3075.” 30 Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), 2015. “New and Formalized Prac ces Increase Transparency and Strengthen Process,” Feb. 4, 2015. 31 Ibid. 32 Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), 2015. “Supplemental Procedures Rela ng to Nonbank Financial Company Determina ons,” Feb. 4, 2015. 33 Ibid.

14 May 2015 | CIPR Newsle er

T FSOC I SIFI D P : O , C R (C )

C Given the experience during the financial crisis, iden fying which ac vi es could threaten the stability of the U.S. econ-omy is profoundly important. At the same me, it would be judicious to be cau ous about presuming non-bank finan-cial companies as systemically risky and par cularly insur-ance companies, which have enjoyed a less turbulent histo-ry than their banking counterparts. The proposed reforms of FSOC’s designa on process, if im-plemented, are expected to enhance transparency and ac-countability allowing for increased considera on of the rel-evant views of the affected insurance companies and their primary regulators. However, establishing a clear path to-wards de-designa on via an exit ramp should help insur-ance companies and their primary regulators understand be er the changes they need to make in their opera ons and ac vi es to eliminate any poten al for posing a threat to the financial stability of the country.

A A

Dimitris Karapiperis joined the NAIC in 2001 and he is a researcher with the NAIC Center for Insurance Policy and Research. He has worked for more than 15 years as an economist and analyst in the financial services industry, focusing on economic, financial market and

insurance industry trends and developments. Karapiperis studied economics and finance at Rutgers University and the New School for Social Research, and he developed an extensive research background while working in the public and private sector.

May 2015 | CIPR Newsle er 25

© Copyright 2015 Na onal Associa on of Insurance Commissioners, all rights reserved. The Na onal Associa on of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is the U.S. standard-se ng and regulatory support organiza on created and gov-erned by the chief insurance regulators from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories. Through the NAIC, state insurance regulators establish standards and best prac ces, conduct peer review, and coordinate their regulatory oversight. NAIC staff supports these efforts and represents the collec ve views of state regulators domes cally and interna onally. NAIC members, together with the central re-sources of the NAIC, form the na onal system of state-based insurance regula on in the U.S. For more informa on, visit www.naic.org. The views expressed in this publica on do not necessarily represent the views of NAIC, its officers or members. All informa on contained in this document is obtained from sources believed by the NAIC to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, such informa on is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind. NO WARRANTY IS MADE, EXPRESS OR IM-PLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY OPINION OR INFORMATION GIVEN OR MADE IN THIS PUBLICATION. This publica on is provided solely to subscribers and then solely in connec on with and in furtherance of the regulatory purposes and objec ves of the NAIC and state insurance regula on. Data or informa on discussed or shown may be confiden al and or proprietary. Further distribu on of this publica on by the recipient to anyone is strictly prohibited. Anyone desiring to become a subscriber should contact the Center for Insur-ance Policy and Research Department directly.

NAIC Central Office Center for Insurance Policy and Research 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1500 Kansas City, MO 64106-2197 Phone: 816-842-3600 Fax: 816-783-8175

http://www.naic.org http://cipr.naic.org To subscribe to the CIPR mailing list, please email CIPRNEWS@NAIC.org or SHALL@NAIC.ORG