Trump Administration Issues Guidance on Asset Management and Insurance Regulation

by Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Contact

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

On Oct. 26, 2017, the U.S. Treasury Department (Treasury) released the latest installment in a series of reports on financial regulation required by the president’s Feb. 3 executive order on the financial system. That order lists seven “core principles” underlying all Federal regulatory efforts in the financial sector — generally, (i) empowering American customers, (ii) preventing bailouts, (iii) fostering economic growth, (iv) enabling American competitiveness, (v) advancing American interests in international negotiations, (vi) making regulation efficient and (vii) restoring accountability.

The Oct. 26 report addresses asset management and insurance. Others in the series address banking (released June 12, 2017); capital markets (Oct. 6, 2017); and nonbank financial institutions, financial methodology and financial innovation (pending). A related executive order issued in April requires additional reports on the Orderly Liquidation Authority established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 111 P.L. 203 (Dodd-Frank), which is pending, and the process set forth in Dodd-Frank for identifying so-called systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs, for regulation by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (the Fed), which was released on Nov. 17, 2017.

Some of the notable observations and recommendations of the Oct. 26 report are as follows.

In Asset Management:

  • Prudential regulation of asset management is unlikely to be effective for mitigating systemic risk, if any, arising from this sector. This is mainly due to the relatively low level of leverage and liquidity management employed by the sector as opposed to banking.
  • While the Administration agrees in principle with the historical practice of limiting a mutual fund’s (e.g., a registered investment company, or RIC) illiquid holdings to 15 percent of net assets, implementation of the “highly prescriptive” securities bucketing regime for liquidity risk management adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) in 2016 should be postponed.
  • “Swing pricing” for redemptions by a RIC (in which non-redeeming investors are protected from some of the dilutive effects of redemptions) should be studied further. The SEC’s permission of swing pricing on a voluntary basis, set to go into effect in November 2018, is noted by the report.
  • The SEC is called on to develop new rules (or reactivate an earlier proposal that stalled after 2008) to allow exchange-traded funds (ETFs) easier access to the capital markets by streamlining the process by which ETFs are cleared by the SEC for issuance and trading. Currently ETFs must obtain exemptive orders, on a case-by-case basis, from registration requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
  • Rules of the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (the CFTC) should be amended to exempt a RIC and its adviser from dual registration by the CFTC as a commodity pool operator (a CPO).
    • The CFTC and the SEC should work together in order to identify a single regulator (the SEC or the CFTC) in cases where de facto commodity pools operate without sufficient oversight.
    • The report also calls for greater cooperation between the SEC and the CFTC to share information, so that information filed by an entity with one of these bodies might satisfy the informational needs of the other body relating to the entity.
    • The CFTC should exempt private funds and their advisers from registration as a CPO if the adviser is “subject to regulatory oversight by the SEC.”
    • Regulators and self-regulatory organizations should “rationalize and harmonize” reporting regimes to minimize reliance on redundant forms and submissions.
  • Treasury supports the prospective adoption by the SEC of a derivatives risk management program for RICs, but indicates a preference for risk-adjusted measures rather than the notional calculations under the rule proposed in 2015.
  • The Report notes the Treasury’s recommendations, set forth in its Report on Banking, on relaxing some of the restrictions of the Volcker Rule (Section 619 of Dodd-Frank and the Federal agencies’ final rule thereunder[1]). The Volcker Rule generally imposes restrictions on the ability of banks and non-bank SIFIs to engage in proprietary trading and to hold “ownership interests” in certain types of private funds. The report urges further efforts to “reduce the burden” of the Volcker Rule on asset managers and investors, including continued forbearance from enforcing
    • the proprietary trading restrictions against foreign private funds that are not “covered funds” under the Rule and
    • the restriction on funds’ ability to share names with banking entities.
  • Treasury also recommends amending Dodd-Frank to limit stress testing requirements for investment companies and investment advisers, either by eliminating all such obligations or by deeming money market fund stress testing pursuant to SEC Rule 2a-7 and liquidity risk management programs pursuant to SEC Rule 22e-4 as satisfying Dodd-Frank mandates.
  • In addition, the 2016 SEC proposal requiring registered investment advisers to adopt written business continuity plans should be withdrawn as overly costly and onerous.
  • In the area of international financial regulatory negotiations, financial stability risk assessments should be tailored to industry sectors. The United States should play a leading role in international standard-setting bodies such as the Financial Stability Board and the International Organization of Securities Commissions and should work to improve the operations of these bodies.
  • The Report calls for delay in implementation of the Fiduciary Rule.
    • The rule, proposed in April 2016 by the Department of Labor (the DOL) and effective in June 2017, subject to transition relief recently extended from Jan. 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019, would generally expand the scope of persons deemed to be “fiduciaries” for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)) and Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code. This would have the effect of, among other things, prohibiting commission-based compensation from being used when providing financial advice to owners of individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, unless the adviser observes certain impartiality covenants pursuant to the so-called “best interest contract exception.”
    • Citing the risk that financial professionals might adopt different practices for accounts that “are nearly identical,” the report warns of “unintended consequences” and harm to investors if the Fiduciary Rule in its current form is put into full effect.
    • The report also calls for the SEC, the DOL and the states to work together to implement a regulatory framework appropriately tailored to both preserve investor choice and protect retirement investors in an efficient and effective manner, and to analyze the effects of different standards of care on the availability of annuities in the retirement market.

In Insurance:

  • States generally should continue as the prime engines of insurance law and regulation, with the Federal Insurance Office (the FIO) and other federal bodies consulting with the states regularly on insurance matters being addressed at the Federal level. This should mitigate the risk of duplicative mandates.
  • As with asset management, entity-based systemic risk assessments are not the best approach for mitigating sector-wide risks. The United State should support the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (the IAIS) in its focus on an activities-based approach and should take steps to improve the IAIS’s methodology for identifying global systemically important insurers, or G-SIIs. 
  • The group capital standards being developed and implemented by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (the NAIC), the states and the Fed should be harmonized to avoid unnecessary redundancy. 
  • The FIO’s mission should be confined to five “pillars” — (i) promoting the U.S. state-based regulatory system in international discussions, (ii) providing insurance expertise to the U.S. government, (iii) providing leadership and cooperation between the federal government and state regulators, (iv) protecting the financial system by advising Treasury and the Financial Stability Oversight Council on insurance-related matters that may pose threats and (v) promoting insurance products and administering the Terrorist Risk Insurance Program. 
  • The FIO should be more transparent and should engage more regularly with state regulators. 
  • The Fed is called on to leverage information received by state insurance regulators and the NAIC on savings and loan holding companies that are insurance companies, in order to avoid duplicative regulatory efforts. 
  • The report calls on Congress to clarify what is included in the “business of insurance” for purposes of Dodd-Frank’s grant of authority to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is proscribed from regulating insurance matters. 
  • The Department of Housing and Urban Development should reconsider its “disparate impact” rule, pursuant to which housing practices may be deemed discriminatory as to a protected class, regardless of intent, if the practices unevenly affect access to housing. The report explains that disparate impact could adversely affect availability of homeowner’s coverage and may be inconsistent with state, rather than federal, primacy in the regulation of insurance. 
  • On data security and cyber risks, Treasury endorses the NAIC’s model law on Insurance Data Security (formally adopted by the NAIC mere days before the report was released) and calls on states to adopt it promptly. If uniform state laws for insurance company data security are not in place in five years, Congress should adopt legislation, but this should be administered by the states. 
  • States that have not entered the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Compact should do so in order to further the use of uniform standards in regulating life insurance products. 
  • States should adopt the NAIC’s Producer Licensing Model Act and should generally try to ease compliance burdens imposed on insurance agents and brokers. 
  • Internationally:
    • The report calls for the IAIS to postpone the next version of its capital standard for internationally active insurance groups, or IAIGs, beyond its anticipated 2019 completion date in order to accommodate further discussion and refinement.
    • The IAIS should take additional steps to increase transparency and collaboration with all of the IAIS’s stakeholders (such as U.S., NAIC and state officials).
    • The FIO should coordinate the efforts of the federal government, state insurance regulators and the NAIC to speak with one voice at the IAIS and advance American interests.
    • The report notes approvingly the September 2017 completion of the Covered Agreement between the United States and the European Union (the EU) providing for reciprocal treatment in certain regulatory areas for insurers doing business across those jurisdictions, as well as the administration’s policy statement issued in conjunction therewith, affirming the state insurance regulatory system.
    • The Treasury calls for exploring whether a Covered Agreement between the U.S. and the U.K. would be mutually beneficial “should the United Kingdom (U.K.) withdraw from the EU.”
  • States should consider a more “calibrated” approach to insurance company investments in infrastructure, including revisions to risk-based capital laws, to make these investments more attractive from a regulated-capital perspective. 
  • The DOL and Treasury should pursue steps to encourage the use of annuities in defined contribution retirement plans covered by ERISA. The report cites ERISA compliance as a reason for the decline in defined-benefit pensions in the private sector.
     
  • Treasury will convene an interagency task force among interested federal agencies to develop policies to “complement reforms at the state level” in the area of long-term care insurance. The task force is called on to collaborate with the NAIC on its efforts.

 


[1] 12 CFR Parts 44, 248, and 351 17 CFR Part 255.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Contact
more
less

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.