Elaborate risk estimate for D & O insurance

Lawyers, brokers and insurers exert massive criticism of the new law regarding the appropriateness of executive compensation (forestay), adopted by the German parliament in mid-June this year. It's on 5 August 2009 entered into force. Through various schemes, the law is to ensure that when fixing the remuneration of directors continue to put greater incentives for sustainable corporate development. Also, it should be easier to cut salaries at the deteriorating situation of the company. In addition, through the forestay at D & O insurance companies, the agreement of a deductible for board members is mandatory. With the so-called directors 'and officers' liability (D & O) managers protect their companies against claims that may make the company itself or a third party to the manager because of a breach of duty. "Does a company is an insurance policy to hedge against risks of a board member from his professional activities for the company from a deductible of at least 10 percent of the damages provision at the rate of half times the fixed annual remuneration of board member," says the appropriate wording. For existing D & O insurance was a transitional period until 1 July 2010 granted. Until that time, these contracts to the new laws need to be adjusted. Die Anwendung des Gesetzes und dessen Interpretation ist derzeit noch mit vielen Fragezeichen versehen. "The law will pass the ultimate goal, as the board members will secure the future private. As a result, the whole leads to an insane bureaucracy," says Michael Hecker attorney specializing in insurance law from Munich. That the liability of the Board is not limited to, be harmful to the limited liability companies. "In the law it is to blind activism of the Federal Government is going to the demands of the market over," says Hecker. Obviously, the insurers do also difficult to calculate appropriate premiums for risk-and D & O insurance. "The calculation of insurance premiums is not transparent", Michael Hendricks, Düsseldorf lawyer and expert in D & O insurance. For DAX companies, the prices varied depending on the provider from 5000 to 50,000 euros. This price gouging would be detrimental to the whole market. "Some insurers have dropped quickly so-called deductible coverage on the market, without clarifying the many open questions to begin." Says Hendricks. All experts agree that a ban on self-insurance would be unconstitutional. From a "class struggle birth in the wake of the election campaign," says Mark English from the industrial insurer ACE in Frankfurt, which draws since the mid-nineties on the German market related risks. Risk-adequate premiums had been achieved in recent years, hardly more. As a consequence, ACE had withdrawn from the market, where a final price risk-taking was not possible. "This is a question of culture and the consequent risk underwriting and risk management," says Deutsch. One reason for the policy of a more conservative underwriting lies in the history of the insurer. ACE was founded in 1985 with headquarters in the Cayman Islands by a consortium of 34 companies. Since one years ACE operates as a limited company under Swiss law. The risk estimate for D & O insurance is made up of several components. The, including profitability and the level of indebtedness of the company, the maturity of debts, the liquidity situation and the quality of management. As part of a balance sheet analysis, the insurance risk managers to raise the performance of the last three years. Moreover, the assessment of an industry positioning, and possibly the inclusion of external ratings. Thus the burden on the insurer is relatively high. "There are, however, the premiums for years in the descent, there is currently no healthy competition," says Dankwart of Schultzendorff, head of the ACE for the countries Germany, Austria and Switzerland. There Schultzendorff of mind that the bottom line is the entire insurance industry must pay for it collectively, if not calculate individual account of risk insurance.

Canada - tax haven?

The newspaper La Presse tells us this morning that Mr. Bernie Ecclestone Revenue Canada requires a written assurance of a federal tax exemption on the $ 75 million to receive the three levels of government over five years for the return of Grand Prix Montreal. Mr Ecclestone does not pay tax in Canada because his company - Formula One Management - is a British company. It suggests that it must pay taxes anyway in Great Britain. What is it exactly?

There is a tax treaty between Canada and the United Kingdom under which a Canadian taxpayer, who receives income on which we made deductions at source in the UK, can reduce all the taxes it must pay in Canada. The same goes for British taxpayers like Mr. Ecclestone. It can reduce the taxes it must pay to the British Government a sum equal to the amount withheld by Revenue Canada. Why, then, requires Mr. Ecclestone does not pay Canadian tax on income that will affect here? Did he act of patriotism by paying taxes to the British government? If the British company was incorporated in a tax haven which would protect the tax, it would be in the interest of Mr Ecclestone to avoid any deduction at source since it could not deduct the tax so withheld the amount he should give the government that has jurisdiction over Formula One Management. There, within the United Kingdom, tax havens. The company Formula One Management is owned by Delta Topco, a company incorporated in Jersey, a tax haven of the British Isles. The shareholders of this company are funds managed by CVC Capital Partners (70%), by JP Morgan (20%) and the entourage of Bernie Eclestone (10%). The head office of CVC Capital Partners is in Luxembourg, another tax haven. How the Government of Canada can accept the request from Bernie Ecclestone and continue its hunt for tax havens?

ECONOMICS, FINANCE, BANKING, INSURANCE

APRIL Premium Specialist car insurance and home insurance premium, and monabanq. The new generation bank, have partnered to develop the "Exclusive Auto Pack" offer of credit and insurance for motor vehicles and lately. Distributed by insurance brokers, the "Pack Exclusive Auto" allows brokers APRIL partners to offer both the financing, insurance, assistance and a range of services. The "Pack Exclusive Auto" offers this contract a loan outstanding which is distinguished by:

 very competitive rates (from 4.75%) over periods of 1 year to 6 years

 financing 100% of the vehicle (up to 50 000 €)

 the absence of fees and penalties for early repayment

 emission free financing bank check.

In insurance, guarantees are those of the contract "Standing Models" APRIL Premium. An all-risk guarantees to meet the needs of customers with strong purchasing power as:

 replacement vehicle purchase price (nine) for 12 months

 extensive safeguards in case of theft: no deductible for theft by aggression (the practice of car-jacking is more prevalent on vehicles very coveted), support the flight, even in cases where the keys happened to be on the vehicle ... and taking care of personal effects up to 1000 €,

 high security driver up to 300 K €.

The proposed contract also guarantees high quality assistance:

 the loan of a replacement vehicle of equivalent category over 40 days in case of theft,

 support repair of the vehicle in case of accidents in the garages of the mark

 assistance without excess mileage: the insured benefits of the latter where it is and for many reasons: out of gas, battery failure, error of fuel, flat tires, lost or stolen keys ...

 APRIL Premium teams wear special attention to their policyholders to help them to prepare such a route, knowing the condition of traffic or service stations open at night.

Finally, the "Exclusive Auto Pack" comes with services such as free subscription to the Liber-T, also allowing access to parking Vinci legal protection premium, etc..

"We wanted to offer brokers the opportunity to distribute both products for insurance and banking. This is a long time player of the insurance was not interested in the credit market in the automotive field. We believe that this is a new opportunity for brokers, for Marc Lanvin, CEO OF APRIL Premium. "Monabanq. Premium and APRIL share the same values of customer service, innovation and quality. It is therefore natural that this partnership could be built. Once again we combine relational proximity, carried this time by brokers APRIL Premium partners and the quality of our service for remote management of this offer, "says Alain Colin, Managing Director of monabanq

3 keys to better understand the reform of health insurance in the United States

The reform of health insurance is currently paralyzing America: it sharply divides the U.S. population, it consumes a lot of political credit to Barack Obama, who sees his leadership questioned, and it provides a new impetus to Republicans until then barely visible on the political scene. From Europe, we consider especially the images of these American citizens showing signs in hand against the hand-up "socialist-Marxist" the U.S. government. We wonder, puzzled about what motivates Americans to fight hard against any reform that would both improve access to care and lower costs of an expensive medicine. But the debate is elsewhere. Here are some keys to understanding why the opposition to this reform is so strong, why the process is so complicated and what are the solutions to overcome the impasse. Different elements specific to the values and foundations of the United States are parasitizing the debate on health insurance.

On the one hand, Americans are afraid that their reform removes a fundamental right: the power to choose. The Republican propaganda to believe that the government require every citizen the doctor that he should see that fly in a country where freedom of choice is at the heart of its foundations. More generally, many Americans - especially the conservatives, who are, do not forget, still very numerous (1) - think the government did not decide whether an individual must be uninsured or .

The Americans also fear that increasing taxes and the federal deficit worse. Using the argument of the 46 million uninsured Americans to defend his plan, Barack Obama has raised many concerns about the cost of this reform. If he had started by putting forward the objective of cost reduction (which may ultimately make health care more affordable), the project would have generated less resistance.

The fear that the government acquires too much power also has the disadvantage of the reform. In general, Americans are reluctant to the idea of a law that would give the federal government the power to regulate an issue related to privacy.

It should be noted that the opposition comes not only from Republican ranks. Democrats are also opposed to this reform, particularly in southern states, more conservative and in favor of fiscal discipline (called Blue Dog Democrats). The elected Democrats in the South have indeed a conservative electorate and can not pass laws "too liberal" or risk losing their seats in the forthcoming elections. Having already supported a liberal reform, the energy (cap-and-trade), they probably do not support the Health Insurance.

Opposition to the reform of health insurance is very strong in the Republican Party and the South, where racial issues are still very pregnant. This can lead to wonder, as indeed is Jimmy Carter, if the arguments of opponents of this reform are primarily political or ideological.

During the election campaign, Barack Obama said he wanted to pursue an ambitious reform of health insurance, among other things, establish a mandatory public option. But it is the Congress that it is now drafting a law that will both please the voters and the president.

Each chamber of Congress has in its committees in charge of studying specific reform proposals and amend if necessary before the plenary vote. In the U.S., these committees are particularly powerful.

For a reform as complex as health insurance, several committees were mobilized three committees of the House of Representatives (Energy & Commerce, Ways and Means and Education and Labor) have begun to develop three different versions in spring 2009. On July 14, 2009, they proposed a joint text, subject to amendments. The text must be approved by a simple majority.

In the Senate, two committees are in charge of reform. The first (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, more known as HELP) has announced its version of the law July 15, 2009. The second (Senate Finance Committee) has proposed a more conservative version September 16, 2009 (the Baucus Bill) version currently under discussion. The debate could last as more than 500 amendments were tabled. Both versions of the Senate must then merge into a final text that the Senators should approve by a simple majority.

The final text of the House of Representatives and the Senate's final version will then be merged by a bicameral committee on a bill, which must be approved by all members of each chamber and then by the President.

It is understood, it is a race against time that is now underway in Congress since the President would see the law adopted before the end of the year and that the Republicans will do everything to delay the vote. One of the rules governing the work of parliamentarians would allow to close the debate quickly and move on. In the House of Representatives, he need to do is get a simple majority. In the Senate, however, must obtain the majority of 3 / 5, the famous 60 votes that the Democrats are desperate to get to prevent the debate drags on. It is therefore to invoke "cloture" to end the filibuster, the filibuster by the opposition used to delay a vote on a law.

The majority in the House of Representatives can be obtained with the support of Democrats Blue Dogs, who hold 45 seats (2). In the Senate, besides the weight of the Blue Dogs, the seat of Ted Kennedy has still not been replaced, thus denying the Democrats the 60 votes. Without those 60 votes, Republicans may continue to prolong the debate for a long time. The time is for them because it allows them to consolidate the opposition to reform, to disrupt Barack Obama and to challenge the parliamentarians will have to appear before voters in fall 2010.

Ultimately, October 10th Congress opens next procedure "budget reconciliation" (budget reconciliation process): this date, the rule of 3 / 5 (and thus the filibuster) is suspended in the Senate so that all laws that impact on the budget (acts involving or affecting federal spending to taxes) are passed in time before the budget vote (in this case, the 2010 budget). With this procedure, the number of amendments and limited debate ended after 20 hours. For Democrats, this would be a way out, certainly not glorious, but practical.However, this procedure is not without risk. It could raise one hand the ire of opponents of reform, private discussion. On the other hand, if the reform goes through this procedure, it would have to be revotée each year (the budget). One can understand the opponents of reform do their utmost to ensure that the health insurance plan is not renewed next year. In addition, it will not be a radical reform, because enough not to vote again for it to clear.

The dilemma is as great to spend the Democrats will have to make some concessions, including the famous "public option". On 29 September the Senate Finance Commitee moreover rejected amendments to include an option in public law, so that the project supports the greatest possible senators and quickly put an end to the filibuster (3). But without this public option, the reform of health insurance Obama is not revolutionary. The most progressive aspects of the reform are likely to disappear for it to be passed by Congress.

The question is whether Barack Obama, resolutely decided to include a "public option" in its reform, will agree to sign a bill whose ambitions would be downgraded?

A draft public health insurance in the U.S. Senate rejected

The Committee on Finance U.S. Senate rejected, Tuesday, September 29, a bill introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) aimed at establishing a public health insurance available to all Americans, as part of the establishment of health protection "universal", a central element of the program on which Barack Obama was elected. The committee rejected this proposal by 15 votes against 8. Its 10 members are all Republicans opposed it. They were joined by 5 of the 13 Democrats, including Sen. Max Baucus, Montana and elected chairman of the committee. He had recently seen its own project of "bipartisan compromise" unanimously rejected by the Republicans. All opponents of the project cited the fact that such public health insurance by offering lower prices, competition would be "unfair" to the private sector.

France-Insurance - Caution must remain strict -

If the insurance industry has managed to maintain solvency levels "sufficient" although decreasing in 2008, the crisis is not over and the industry must remain vigilant, says the Authority control and mutual insurance (CAMA). "We must remain vigilant. The behavior of insurers are not always careful and the crisis is not over," warned Monday Philippe Jurgensen, President of the CMAA, at a conference organized by body sector control. "There is no question of being worried. But we have every reason to be cautious," he added. The solvency margin of insurance has certainly suffered from the decline in assets in 2008 but has remained under Acam at levels "sufficient". "Finally, the results in 2008 (which fell by 18.5% on average) were not so bad, thanks to smoothing techniques allowed by the use of previously established margins," said Antoine Mantel, Secretary General CAMA.

CAMA, which has strengthened throughout the crisis testing his strength on the players insurance, also established a weekly survey on monitoring flows into life insurance, intended to eventually be able to anticipate a wave of Massive redemptions contracts. "In October 2008, the redemption rate was nearly double what it is on average (4% -5%), which was not really a wave of takeovers per se. And the movement has fallen very quickly, "said Marie-Laure Dreyfuss, Director of Cabinet of Secretary General of the CMAA. In early 2009, this rate had returned to average levels and it is now below the 2007 level, she said. The gross weekly collection, meanwhile, now well above that of 2008. The regulatory body also said to have estimated at 1.0 billion euros in total exposure to direct and indirect business to Lehman Brothers (only 0.1% of assets), to 1.5 billion exposure to AIG (0.3% of assets) and 550 million exposure to UCITS impacted by case Madoff.

Pay as you drive auto insurance or tailor-made

Unlike traditional car insurance, the PAYD or "pay as you drive" insurance is highly personalized. Instead of a plan year, the insured pays only for the miles he has done.
Pay As You Drive "* This expression is English because the offer has been designed in the United States in 1996. The objective was to reduce the auto insurance customers by not making them pay the actual use of their vehicle. This new type of tailor-made insurance was particularly developed in England and Italy between 2004 and 2006. In France, the Maaf tried placing on the market in 2005. But she ran into the Computing and Freedom Commission (CNIL), the latter believing that the data transmitted by the electronic box installed on the car of the insured were too intrusive. Insurance companies therefore improve the procedure and in 2007, Axa obtains authorization from the CNIL development of PAYD in France. Today the number of insurers offer, including Amaguiz (Groupama), Axa, the Maaf, Solly Azar broker or Aviva. Pay as you drive allows the insured to pay only for the miles he has done. It may well benefit from a reduction in the rate of its auto insurance 20 to 50%. In some countries, insurers set their prices according to various parameters (miles driven, type of road used, speed ...). In France, the CNIL has imposed restrictions: most insurance companies do not take into account the distance and sometimes time of day during which the vehicle was used. The broker Solly Azar offering insurance for young drivers, for example, included in its offer for a limited night driving. Each vehicle use between one and six o'clock in the morning, the insured must pay 20 euros extra. In case of collections of data traffic over large operators, they must "not be associated with a particular driver," says the Cni