Why US Insurance Agents Support State Regulations (Analyst Opinion)
Datamonitor, February 2009, Pages: 3
President Barak Obamas new mailbox at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is overflowing with letters from special interest groups. One letter that has been recently added to the heap comes from the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America (IIABA). The President should read this letter with a healthy level of skepticism.
Scope
- This Analyst Opinion focuses on the regulatory structure of the United States insurance market.
- This Analyst Opinion is most relevent to non-life, also known as general or property & casualty, insurers.
Highlights of this title
The IIABAs argument is tenuous. The fact that state-regulated insurers are more stable than federal-regulated banks does not simply mean that state-based regulation is superior to federal regulation.
By moving to a federal regulator, insurers would be able to expand into new territories with greater ease. Such expansion would make a direct-to-consumer offering more viable, mainly because direct sales require a national branding effort.
A move from state to federal regulations would tip the balance of investment in favor of the online channel. This has happened in Europe, where less disparate national regulations have enabled greater direct sales.
Key reasons to purchase this title
- Gain insight into the regulatory debate currently taking place in the United States.
- Understand how regulatory changes could alter investment plans within the United States marketplace.
Catalyst 1
Summary 1
Comment 2
Ask the analyst 3
Disclaimer 3
Customers who bought this item also bought
All rights reserved. © Copyright 2013 Research and Markets WWW5
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Publishers Employment Opportunities Site Map Link to us Webmaster Affiliate Network
