The NAIC declared its views in a new document discussed during the NAIC Winter National Meeting here in Washington this weekend.

The ICS for internationally active insurance groups—which are not solely global systemically important insurers, but companies doing business in multiple countries—”should be developed as something in addition to jurisdictional capital requirements,” states the NAIC document.

“For the U.S., it would be in addition to the U.S. risk-based capital (RBC) that applies at the legal-entity level; we do not intend for RBC to be replaced by any new group-capital rules but rather augment our existing approach.”

The NAIC is concerned with what it sees as an assumption that capital can be freely moved within an insurance group. It is critical, said the NAIC, that the free flow of capital across a group should not jeopardize the financial strength of any insurer in the group. Whatever is implemented at the group level should be in addition to jurisdictional capital requirements—in the U.S. in addition to the RBC that applies at the legal-entity level, the NAIC document asserts.

The request of the to the IAIS is accepted but not seen as a positive element by all.

The landmark Solvency II, with its risk-based supervision requirements, which is now going to be a reality in Europe after 13 years, also is expected to shape the ICS development by the IAIS.

To that, Gabriel Bernardino, chairman of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) spoke at the NAIC's International Insurance Relations Committee meeting Dec. 15, in what Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Tom Leonardi called a “tour de force” speech. Bernadino said it would a shame if regulators around the world did not work together to make it happen or tried to prevent a capital standard that makes sense for insurance.

If the IAIS doesn't do it, the G-20's Financial Stability Board (FSB) made clear it would move in and do so, Bernardino confirmed afterwards.

He said that the ICS will not and should not mirror Solvency II, but should have principles of risk-based regulation, consistent valuation and a clear calibration of the risk.

“We need an internationally common language,” he said. In the U.S., RBC created that trust between regulators statewide, Bernardino said. The global-capital standard will create a similar trust between country regulators, he concluded.

There may be trust developing, but between U.S. regulators and the European supervisors, at least, things are still a bit tense.

At the end of the meeting, Doug Barnert of Barnert Global Ltd., representing insurance clients, took the floor over committee objections on time. Barnert said that he took offense at Bernardino referring to a description of the IAIS meetings having a circus-like atmosphere, having worked as an observer with the IAIS for at least a decade.

The industry fears that the new restructuring proposal of the IAIS will shut out observers—both industry and consumers, as well as other non-regulatory stakeholders—during policy-decisive working meetings which would feature hand-selected experts behind closed-door meetings. They complained during the International Committee meeting that they feared a lack of transparency with the new way the IAIS will structure meetings.

The IAIS is trying to become more efficient and may be considering webinars and video calls to work on policy matters with members and observers.