Tag Archives: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Immediate Vault

FIO Releases Insurance Modernization Report

Posted on by

The Federal Insurance Office has released its long awaited report on ways to modernize United States insurance regulation has finally been released. The report, originally due January 21, 2012, was mandated as a part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

In the report, the FIO calls for a “hybrid approach to insurance regulation that provides a practical, fact-based roadmap to modernize and improve the U.S. system of insurance regulation,” said Michael McRaith, Director of the Federal Insurance Office. “Importantly, this report reflects the dynamic nature of the regulatory system for insurers and provides an explicit path for state and federal regulatory entities to calibrate involvement going forward.”

“Today’s report details strengths and weaknesses of the current insurance regulatory system, considerations for determining where and how to modernize and improve that system, and a way forward to increase the effectiveness of insurance oversight in the United States, said Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Mary Miller. “This is a significant step in understanding and strengthening the current system to better protect American consumers.”

The FIO considered several factors in putting together the report including: systemic risk regulation with respect to insurance, capital standards, consolidated supervision, consumer protection and affordability, the degree of uniformity of state insurance regulation, and international coordination. A look at the costs and benefits of federal regulation over a variety of insurance lines was also required by Dodd-Frank, in addition to issues pertaining to competitiveness. All lines of insurance, excluding health, were examined.

A full copy of the report can be found here.

Companies Ignore Whistle-blower Protections

Posted on by

Whistle-blowers are in the news more and more, but some organizations don’t seem to have caught up with the trend, or the fact that retaliation is illegal. They don’t seem to realize that negative reactions to a whistle-blower can make them look petty—and guilty.

Take two front page stories in our area newspaper on the same day this week. Both were about whistle-blowers who put their jobs on the line to come forward. One was fired, the other was suspended and later resigned.

In one case, The Journal News reported, a member of a New York town’s financial staff, the supervisor of fiscal services for more than 10 years, testified at a hearing that she notified several of her superiors that the town’s revenue projections were overestimated—on a financial statement needed for a bond application. She also reported improper money transfers—one made to the town supervisor. The woman was ignored, told to keep quiet, and eventually fired.

Not only did the town officials make no move to right the wrongs she reported to them, one official denied ever being told of potential corruption or fraud. Meanwhile, the town, which is also being investigated by the FBI, has filed perjury and other charges against this former employee.

The second newspaper article is about a former security expert at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York. Because he feared the plant was vulnerable to a terrorist attack, he voiced his concerns to supervisors. In June he was suspended.

He filed a 76-page lawsuit in the U.S. District Court alleging misconduct and retaliation against him. The Indian Point employee alleged that security was inadequate and that documents and internal reports were falsified.

Unfortunately these sound like other stories in the news over the past few years following the financial crisis. At Lehman Brothers, the company’s chief risk officer, Madelyn Antoncic warned Dick Fuld, the CEO, that their risk in mortgage-backed security bets was too great. Her warnings were ignored. Her reward was to be fired.

The knee-jerk reaction of many organizations seems to be; get rid of the employee, blame the employee and then go to court. It appears that the whistle-blower protections under the Dodd-Frank Act, such as prohibiting retaliation against whistle-blowers, is still a mystery to some organizations.

Fraud experts contend that the burden is on the organization to see that employees are comfortable in coming forward and that their concerns are addressed. They advise companies to have hotlines available for employees to provide whistle-blower tips—and to act on those tips.

Whether or not a company is guilty of fraud, firing an employee for coming forward can make the organization look guilty and cause a whole host of other problems, including risk to the company’s reputation. Public entities and corporations would do well to study Dodd-Frank and put a plan in place before an employee does come forward. Have organizations learned nothing from Watergate? The cover-up always leads to exposure of the crime.

Feds Propose New Capital Requirement Rules

Posted on by

Late yesterday, the Federal Reserve proposed rules requiring the nation’s largest banks to hold more capital and to keep it more easily accessible. This is one effort on their part to prevent another financial crisis. Tough specific details are still forthcoming, the requirements are seen as less strict than those put forth for international banks — allowing American banks to breathe a sigh of relief.

In a 173-page proposal that tied to the Dodd-Frank regulatory law passed last year, the Fed also proposed the first formal limits on the amount of credit exposure that a bank holding company can have to any major borrower be it another bank or corporation.

The goal is to prevent one bank from being susceptible to failure because of a relationship with another large institution. The lack of a cash cushion in the 2008 financial crisis caused many firms to try to rapidly unwind transactions that had troubled institutions on the other side of them, worsening a partner’s troubles and accelerating the market’s crash.

One of the more important parts of the 173-page proposal is a provision that requires large banks to have a “stand-alone risk committee of the board” that works alongside the chief risk officer to handle company-wide risk management — a big step for in the right direction for the discipline.

 

Excellence in Risk Management

Posted on by

The Great Recession is not known for inspiring great things, but it did spur the creation of the Dodd-Frank bill, which, among many things, created the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Federal Insurance Office. And the near-collapse of the U.S. economy did wonders for the discipline of risk management.

As a result, according to a new survey from Marsh and the Risk and Insurance Management Society (RIMS), executives in the C-suite are expecting much more from the risk managers at their company.

Below are a few of the key findings from the report:

  • An overwhelming majority of respondents said that senior management’s expectations of their organizations’ risk management departments have grown over the past three years. Senior management’s list of desired changes from risk managers includes integrating risk management deeper with operations, executing daily risk management activities more efficiently, providing improved analysis and quantification, and leading enterprise risk management (ERM) activities.
  • The most common focus area for 2011 is strengthening strategic risk management, which was cited by more than half of survey respondents. For the second year, this area came out on top, although barriers to doing so remain.
  • The top barrier cited to senior leadership understanding of the risk landscape was silos within the organization. This is the same answer given in prior years, and is something that organizations should begin to confront if they have not already done so. One way to tear down the silos is to create or strengthen cross-functional risk committees.
  • As the role of chief risk officer (CRO) continues to develop, we are beginning to see some differences in how they view and prioritize the issues. For example, CROs were much more likely than other risk managers to categorize senior management’s change in expectations a “very significant.” CROs said strengthening ERM capabilities and integrating ERM into strategic planning were focus areas for 2011.
  • Economic conditions ranked as the number one risk among respondents, and was also the risk that they were least comfortable with their organizations’ ability to manage. In other areas, such as business disruption, risk managers and the C-suite are not as aligned in their views of how prepared their companies are to manage the risk.
  • Nearly 60% of companies said their use of data and analytics has changed over the past three years. This is likely a reflection of leadership’s desire for there to be more transparency and quantification around risk decisions, particularly the economic implications. Despite the stated changes, however, there appears to be a need for companies to better use the available tools and analytics.

And let’s take a look at the areas in which senior management’s expectations of the risk management department have grown:

It seems the financial crisis continues to shine a light on the importance of risk management as a whole and, more specifically, enterprise risk management and strategic risk management.