The NAIC's original draft of proposed ORSA reporting requirements was first subject to public comment through March. More than a dozen commentaries were provided from individual state regulators and major industry organizations, including The American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI). While the value of ERM was generally recognized, opposition to the current proposed reporting mechanism has been strong. Of note:

Many concerns have been raised with the proposed specific reporting requirements of Form B, expected to be onerous and challenging for many insurers. Pure size and complexity of a formal report and the potential expense to produce it are immediate worries for hundreds of companies. As drafted, the proposal asks for extremely broad information, which may be time consuming and difficult to answer accurately. Adoption of robust technology to manage related analysis and reporting will be crucial.
Another worry raised early in the year was the frequency and timing of any filings. In particular, if an ORSA requirement is ultimately transformed into a Model Act enacted on a state-by-state basis, assessment results may have to be provided to multiple states at different times of the year. Commentators urged the NAIC to consider a uniform reporting system which will streamline provision of key data to either a home-state regulator or central dedicated repository.
Proportionality, relevance to individual company size and line of business, has also been an issue. While an insurer would be exempt from the ORSA requirement if it (a) has less than $500 million in annual direct written premium and (b) it is not a member of a group of affiliated insurers that has $1 billion or more in annual direct written premium, the draft manual, as written, applies to all companies and lines of business, regardless of nature of underwriting risk assumed. Some companies may have unique or significantly different risk exposures which may not fit adequately into the generic framework as outlined. Further comments may be considered on this issue in 2012.
Other criticisms have been received questioning the mechanics of how group reporting would be accomplished.
Concerns continue to be raised about the confidentiality of reports, which could contain material trade secrets or other sensitive or confidential information.

Overall, most critics have argued that regulatory focus should be on the effectiveness of a company's overall ERM program, and whether these are practices embedded in the company's culture and day-to-day operations. Over-emphasis on formal regulatory reporting, at the expense of the more human elements of managing risk–identification, analysis, communication, and control–may not ultimately help companies' solvency position, or preparation for future harmful events.

Special Reports /

Enacting ERM Regulation

Related Stories

Recommended For You