Yes.
I was reminded that I’m glad that my current assignment is not one where I need to work too much with regulators, and that while a past life working with government relations was interesting at the time, it was an experience I’m not in a hurry to repeat.
If I have one actuarial skill that’s probably my strongest, it’s at getting difficult regulators to approve rate action we want to take.
But god do I hate it. I don’t like to advertise it because I really don’t want that to become my niche.
Step one: be attractive
Step two: get rate filing approved
Step three: profit
Step four: ???
Actuaries have to be subject not only to actuarial principles but also state and federal laws. So if California decides it needs to be a certain way that takes priority
Until the insurers pull out that is
To add to what @Klaymen posted, CA also has the added “joy” that a consumer watchdog group has authority to intervene in any personal lines filing (auto or homeowners). And the cost of that intervention is borne by the insurer making the filing.
And the filing cannot proceed (regardless of what the DOI would like to do) until that intervening group “signs off” on the filing.
and, based on what was said in the CAS webinar, the consumer advocates’ actuary has a workload and vacation schedule such that it takes them forever to act.
Is it only personal lines? I know of some peers who have had their commercial lines filings flagged by the watchdog.
I wonder if they’re related to apartments and/or condominium/HOA policies; which might fall under the commercial filing regulations but are viewed as personal lines since they impact private consumers directly.
This was ~6+ years ago now but was related to a commercial auto filing.
Extra bureaucracy with a side of red watchdog tape. California jokes write themselves
Can’t correct the bureaucratic redtapes because…of other bureaucratic redtapes.
It’s the checks and balances for me! Everyone is blameless.
The label is premium cuts, not rate cuts.
So rates are going up 20% but exposures are going down 18.333% so the premium is down a net 2% (1.2-.81667=.98)
Helps to have the actual source (not your fault – that’s Klaymen’s) so we can read for ourselves what the person meant.
I read it as “premium rate cuts,” else why bother mentioning it? I also see that it is not a huge rate cut and not worthy of mention. Fricken’ error rate in reserves estimates IMO.
I don’t know the source, but this article discussed FL Peninsula:
Wow, so “collapsing” is not the proper word mat all. Again, Klaymen’s fault.
Unless he was being sarcastic, which was how I read it.
what does that word mean?
We have a winner!
So many articles are nonsense like
Insurance companies are trying to rape customers and thwart Ricardo Lara’s plan to make everything better!
A simple google search would have gotten you a source for the article, lazy bums. (Although to be fair I guess I was also being lazy in the first place)