Life Insurance Law Blog

This morning's thoughts on regulation...

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:51:27 -0500

In a recent ( 11/18/08) column by Michael Skapinker in the Financial Times, he discusses the tension between executive management, who often have personal stakes in short term outcomes, and shareholders/employees/pensioners, the latter two in particular have longer term stakes in the financial well-being of the institution. The column is titled "Every fool knows it is a job for government." What struck me was the complete absence of any discussion of the interest of depositors, borrowers or other consumers of the services the institutions offer. Much of the discussion relates to financial institutions and it seems to be the assumption that consumers of most financial services can move from one institution to another pretty easily. Of course that ability to move from one provider to another is a basic tenet of the free market.

No other financial institution has as long-term commitments to their customers as insurers and life insurers in particular. It is often not economically rational to move between insurers: note all the replacement regulations designed to make this as clear as possible to consumers. This long-term relationship is obviously not news to anyone in the life insurance industry. But it it continues to shock me, as more and more people seem to take federal regulation of insurance as a given in the fairly near future, that the articles dealing with the direction of regulation do not make a distinction between the short-term relationships that many financial institutions have with their customers and the long term relationships that are important in life insurance and annuities.

It is likely that corporate governance will again be raised as an important component of the new financial services regulatory landscape. And corporate governance is important, but corporate boards have a duty to shareholders, and as Michael Skapinker points out in his column, shareholders are increasingly transitory and are likely to have short-term interests too. That is why for life insurers, regulation through the boardroom may not be as effective as it may be for other insititutions.

Insurance consumers will always be more difficult to protect because of the long time horizons and the nature of the guarantees involved. As we watch Insurers apply to become thrifts, the lines among financial institutions continue to become more and more blurred. The danger is that in the eyes of inexperienced insurance regulators, the lines between the consumers of financial services will also be blurred, and if insurance companies are not regulated in a way that safeguards their customers, not "just" their shareholders, employees and pensioners, insurance regulation will not be effective insurance regulation.

We're Growing.... Again

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:33:07 -0500

As many regular readers know, we have been extremely busy with a variety of state and federal compliance matters. I was recently asked by one client if the economy was impacting my business and it is not - at least not negatively! In fact, as company's leave positions unfilled and consolidate compliance areas, there seems to be much more work for outside providers of compliance services. So, I am very pleased to announce that I have hired a new senior staff person with significant experience at a life insurer and we are expanding to have a geographical presence in the Mid-West. That region is a very significant one for life insurers, and I am thrilled to have an office there. In addition, the Iowa Insurance Department has been very involved in some of the more innovative projects being undertaken by state regulators, so it is exciting to have a presence there. More will surely follow, but as of Monday, my consulting company is in business in Iowa!

Greetings from DC

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:01:56 -0500

I am presently attending the ALI-ABA CLE on Life Insurance Company Products in DC. Of course Rule 151A has been getting a lot of discussion as well as several other new and pending FINRA/SEC rules.

Yesterday there was a very interesting discussion of the federal issues involved in "synthetic" annuities, or wrap products. Since I have been involved in these filings at the state level, this was of particular interest. Most state insurance issues have been resolved - 48 jurisdictions have approved them at this point, so there was little more than a passing reference to state insurance law issues.

The discussion of member firms' FINRA exams and the process of completing the merger into that entity was also enlightening about what federal regulation of insurance could bring. My consulting company's work has moved into federal and multi-jurisdictional filings, so the additional exposure to these federal regulators has been valuable and very helpful. I look forward to the completion of the conference today and (hopefully) an easy trip home tonight.

NYSID issues Disclosure Rules for Indexed Products

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:16:46 -0500

The New York State Insurance Department recently issued "Equity index annuity contract or life insurance policy paid dividend disclosure under Section 3209(b)(2)(C)."

Section 3209(b)(2)(C) was amended in the last legislative session to require a disclosure statement "indicating whether paid dividends are included in changes in the equity index, together with a description of how such dividends, or lack thereof, would affect the changes in the equity index; the statement must provide the average dividend rate over the lesser of ten years or the calculable life of the index." The guidance issued is to assist in "calculating and communicating" the average dividend rate.

Several companies have posed questions to us over the last couple of months regarding the nature and timing of such disclosures. In addition to providing a sample of satisfactory disclosure, the guidance states that the communication is required "by the first of the month following the end of the latest completed calendar year (i.e., by February 1 the average dividend rate for the most recent 10 completed calendar years would be provided in the disclosure required by Section 3209(b)(2)(C))." Adding the required disclosure to these annual statements for indexed products (remember this applies to both life and annuity products) could take significant programming for some companies, so prompt attention to this guidance is strongly recommended.

Companies can be sure that the Department will be asking to see these disclosures during post-approval reviews, market conduct exams or upon receipt of a consumer complaint.

NY issues Guidance for Illustrations of Variable Annuity Contracts

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:42:37 -0500

The New York State Insurance Department recently posted Guidance for Illustrations of Variable Annuity Contracts on their website. This guidance is in response to inquiries received on Regulation 47's statement that "Except as approved by the superintendent, no hypothetical rate of investment return in excess of eight percent may be used in such illustrations." The guidance is helpful in that it does permit gross rates in excess of 8%, provided that in any year the accumulation at the gross rates used in the illustration does not exceed accumulation at 8%. A sample calculation is provided.

However, it is more troubling that the guidance also appears to be a step towards using Regulation 47 in a whole new manner: to regulate variable annuity illustrations. It concludes with the statement that "Circular Letter 6 of 2004 may be used for filings with illustrated forms that conform to the above guidance regarding variation in the eight percent rate in illustrations. The submission letter should indicated that the forms are illustrated and this Guidance should be cited."

In stating a relatively simple rule, the guidance glosses over more complex issues about how that provision applies to today's products. The primary problem is that Reg 47 is tremendously outdated, having been promulgated in 1970. In all likelihood, many people making submissions to the NYSID were not even born when this regulation was drafted! Its revision has been on the NYSID's regulatory agenda for well-over a decade. Trying to apply regulatory concepts set down almost 40 years ago to products being developed in late 2008 and beyond ends up looking like contortionism.

The discussion in this guidance ignores a number of the old regulation's definitions that are important for understanding the regulation as a whole, and section 50.8's limits on illustrations specifically: the difference between a separate account annuity contract and a variable annuity contract and the pivotal rate of investment return to name just a couple. Likewise, there is no mention of the clear exemption in section 50.8 which states: "Nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of hypothetical rates of investment return, clearly designated as such, to illustrate possible levels of variable annuity payments, if the use of such hypothetical rates is not in conflict with applicable requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission."

This guidance creates a brand new requirement for a statement regarding the illustration of annuity products. Unlike for life insurance, there is no illustration regulation that specifically requires that notification. There is no definition of an annuity illustration or what other standards may be applied to annuity illustrations once flagged in submissions. This raises concerns about the openness of the regulatory process. If NY is going to regulate annuity illustrations, something contemplated by the long-ago revisions to section 3209 of the Insurance Law, then there should be a fully vetted regulation that addresses today's products and makes sense in the modern annuity world.

Recent Department exams and post-approval reviews have focused increasingly and piecemeal on annuity illustrations. This appears to be another step down that path. While the specific statement that hypothetical rates of investment return which vary from year-to-year is welcome, only time - and Department actions - will tell if this guidance ends up being something that is helpful to companies genuinely striving for compliance.

It is time for Regulation 47 to be revised once and for all. If annuity illustrations are to be regulated, a regulation following the mandated administrative process should be promulgated. Regulation 47 should be put into the history books, not allowed to have a 40th anniversary. Let's have a regulation that fits the products, not try to fit products to an antiquated standard.

RIP Reg 47!

AICP Conference Reflections

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:53:51 -0500

Having recently attended the AICP conference in Atlanta, I was struck by how accessible state regulators, including a number of commissioners, were despite all the turmoil on Wall Street and the economic situation generally. While the national and international market turbulence was clearly on everyone's mind and was reflected in almost all of the conference sessions, the state regulators never lost their focus on insurance and how the developing economic situations impacted insurance consumers and insurance companies. I was struck by the fact that each of the commissioners brought interesting ideas on all of the issues discussed there. Of course, too many chefs can be a problem in a kitchen, but sometimes there is great value to the expertise and insights that different people bring to the table. I think now is one of those times.

When I was in my room, I watched news coverage on how the federal government put mind boggling amounts of money into the hands of a single federal regulator and I realized that I felt much more confident in a regulatory system that provides for the input of many. I have seen quick action by state regulators when necessary and yet I am not asked to trust any one individual with the future of the industry. While changes to the regulatory landscape seem certain, I am hopeful that whatever the ultimate outcome is it does not add the regulation of insurance to the plate of the Secretary of the Treasury. I want the occupant of that office to be focused on spending our money wisely and monitoring the now partly nationalized, federally-regulated, banks! I want the folks I listened to and talked to in Atlanta - the state commissioners and their staffs - who focus on insurance and insurance in the context of the wider economy, to bring their expertise to bear.

We all know there are challenges with state regulation, but watching the federal regulators at work has not given me any confidence that they would do a better job: not for consumers, not for the regulated financial institutions, and not for the economy as a whole .

Comment Period extended on Rule 151A

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:32:48 -0500

The SEC announced yesterday that it would, after all, extend the comment period on proposed Rule 151A: the rule that would treat equity-indexed annuities as securities. While the original comment period closed on September 10, the new, extended period will run for 30 days after the extension notice appears in the Federal Register, expected to be sometime this week.

It appears likely that many comments in this second period will look to the protection against downside risk that equity indexed annuities offer. With recent losses to securities, it would seem to be much harder to argue that the risk posed by these products is similar. Indexed annuities seem to have been performing better under current economic conditions than the investment products regulated by the SEC now.

What will be interesting to watch is what the consumer response is to the performance of various designs during this period of tremendous volatility in the indices. Some contract owners may find that the luck of their issue date and the index account option they chose makes huge difference in how their particular contract performs. Some purchasers may not have realized how important those factors could be. But it seems quite likely that many who were previously unsure of their purchase, are today very grateful for the downside protection these products offer.

Given all that has happened since September 10, it seems certain that there will be a different emphasis in the comments that are submitted during this comment period than those that were submitted in the initial period.

3211 Filings and Approvals

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:46:32 -0500

Yesterday I posted an entry questioning how new filings for 3211 compliance would be expedited within an already expedited (CL6) process. Today I got at least part of an answer...within 3 hours an approval came back on one of these filings that had many different forms!

While not all of these conforming approvals have been approved quite so fast, expedited appears to really mean expedited!! This is encouraging!

Grace Period/Notice Circular Letter posted in NY

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:32:53 -0500

There was a change to the NY Insurance law, effective 10/5/2008. The amendment provides for a 61-day grace period for UL-type policies and it changes the grace period notice provisions as well. After the law became effective, the NYSID posted a Circular Letter on their website with guidance to the industry on required policy form changes.

Note that the Circular Letter states explicitly that a policy form containing a grace period other than as required by the new law and a policy form that contains a notice of grace period other than as set forth in the new law is not in compliance with law. This likely means every company's entire UL and VUL product line is out of compliance as of 10/5 based on the Department's interpretation.

I think this interpretation is very unfortunate given the very short time frames of this statutory change. While the 61-day grace period might, in theory, require a policy form change, 61-days has been the standard in the industry for quite some time. There are few companies that will need to revise their policies on that issue.

The notice requirement is different. The change to the notice provision was designed to bring consistency to previously inconsistent provisions of law. But due to the inconsistency, many companies had already worked their systems to reconcile the two and issue a single notice to comply with both timing requirements. A company with the previously-mandated language in their policy could clearly comply with the new law without revising the policy language because the time periods overlap. If some action was necessary, the Department could have mandated an assurance that companies would do so. But that appears to be water under the bridge at this point.

Instead, the Department has demanded a flood of policy forms to process. They have indicated that the endorsements and new forms submitted to comply with their interpretation will be given priority in the CL6 process and the Circular Letter sets forth the submission requirements. However, it is unclear how that can really be the case.

CL6 already is the expedited process. It is not as though the administrative folks at the NYSID are sitting on those filings or have nothing else to do. There was no indication that any new people will be brought in to handle all these filings. I know my office alone is working on close to 100 policy forms already that are impacted and either have been filed or will be filed shortly. Who will handle these at the NYSID? And if they are being expedited by the people who usually handle the CL6 filings, who will review those non-expedited CL6 filings? For those companies still working on 2001 CSO filings, will this new influx of expedited submissions bump those? How many expedited processes can really be on the table before the word "expedited" loses all meaning?

Confusion Over New Grace Period Filing Requirements

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:10:30 -0500

On this last day of September, we are 6 calendar days away from the effective date (10/5/2008) of the new laws on Grace Period notices and durations for UL and VUL products in NY, and yet the Circular Letter with promised guidance has not yet been posted on the Department website! Despite the fact that there is an interpretation of the new laws that would have made filing already approved forms unnecessary, the Department did not adopt that interpretation and has instead decided to require all these forms to be re-filed. But as of this moment, has offered no official guidance on how they want this done in the incredibly short time frames allotted.

Companies have been waiting for the Department's instructions because they obviously want to do the filings right. But most have decided that they can no longer wait and are going ahead based on the proposal that was floated but not posted. Given the number of products that many life companies have that are impacted by this change in the law, it is stunning that we are so close to the effective date with no official process in place for handling these filings. Fingers crossed...the filings are on their way!!!

NYSID Issues Press Release on AIG and replacements

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:27:44 -0500

Today the NYSID has issued a press release aimed at AIG insurance company policy holders. Specifically it warns policyholders not to make hasty decisions with respect to their AIG policies and it "reminds" producers of their obligations in replacement situations. FAQs follow the introductory discussion.

The press release also reiterates much of what has been in NAIC releases over the last few days regarding the strength of state-regulated insurers compared to federally-regulated financial institutions including, of course, the non-insurance AIG parent company. While I think much of this is likely falling on deaf ears, perhaps some will take in the message. It may end up being one of this industry's great ironies that after all these years of the ACLI and others calling for insurers to have optional federal charters as banks do because, the argument goes, that regulatory paradigm works it may be the failure, insolvencies and bailouts of federally-regulated entities that will ultimately lead to federal regulation of insurance as well.

It would be impossible to represent as many life insurers in state regulatory matters as we do here without knowing that state regulation has significant and costly inefficiencies. But right now, of all times in history, to promote federal regulation as a better answer to the industry's problems -- in the midst of this chaos and financial devastation -- leaves me questioning whether I am reading the same articles and hearing the same information that the people arguing for federal regulation are.

As I write this I remember that little boy from the fairy tale who calls out during the parade to say that the emperor has no clothes! While there is more than one "little boy" calling out in this story, it remains to be seen whether any one will listen at all.

Commissioner Burnes on Unisex Annuities at LHCA

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:20:26 -0500

Speaking at the LHCA Conference in Boston on Friday, Commissioner Burnes addressed a participant question regarding the unisex annuity legislation, discussed here previously. The commissioner wanted to make sure that all attendees realized this was not a Division initiative and that they were doing what they could to mitigate the challenges of the fast-approaching implementation date of 1/1/09, but she also advised that companies would need to go to the legislature for relief as the Division's hands are tied by the terms of the new law. She indicated that she would be meeting with LIAM Representatives tomorrow and directly with companies later in the week.

As I continue to talk to companies about this, it is clear that there are those who do not realize that this legislation differs significantly from that in Montana, in that it is extra-territorial with respect to MA residents. In this forum, I previously addressed some extra-territorial situations, but another that seems to be equally troublesome would occur when an individual has purchased an annuity in another state but then moves into MA. The law appears to require that individual get a new contract with unisex rates at that time.

With the well-known exception of NY's compensation laws, I do not think there has ever before been a state law that so directly challenged the standard provision in all life and annuity contracts, that the contract is subject to the laws of the state in which it is delivered. Even NY's compensation requirements are at least set at the time of issue, even though they are extra-territorial. Here, there is no certainty. What would happen to the person's contract described above if, after living in MA for a couple of years, s/he moves and is no longer a resident of MA? Does s/he retain the unisex rates? Does her/his contract revert to the original? Does it matter whether the original rates are more favorable or the unisex ones are? These are but a few of the questions that are likely to arise under the law scheduled to go into effect on January 1.

Rule 151A Comments Close

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:19:51 -0500

Here in Boston at the LHCA conference, one major topic of discussion has been the SEC's proposed Rule 151A and the possible federal regulation of indexed annuities as securities. At this morning's annuities session, there were several questions on this topic and the discussion closed with the hope that the comment period would be extended. Barbara Price of the ACLI indicated that the trade association had requested an extension. So did some individual companies and the National Governor's Association, in a letter signed by Gov. Jon S. Corzine and Gov. M. Michael Rounds. One LHCA speaker indicated he understood that comments were running at over 85% against the SEC's proposal.

But despite the requests for extension, the SEC closed the comment period. The process now moves to closed deliberations.

A review of the website suggests that The Hartford had the last public word of comment and that was generally in favor of proposal. That comment indicates that while the Proposed Rule is overbroad as currently drafted, federal regulation would be a welcome and valuable addition to regulation by the states.

And now we wait.....

Guidance on Illustrations formatting improved!

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:50:01 -0500

Sometime after my post on the Illustration guidance this morning, it was brought to my attention that the NYSID fixed the formatting and added columns so that the comparison between Reg 74 and the Model is much easier to follow! The link takes you to the much improved document on the NYSID website.

Kudos for that - what a great improvement!!!

Guidance on Illustrations published by NYSID

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:05:35 -0500

The NYSID recently published "Guidance for Life Insurance Policy Illustrations." It begins with the statement that "It has come to the Department's attention that there may be some confusion between the NAIC requirements for Life Insurance Policy Illustrations and those required by New York's Statutes and Regulations." The guidance goes on to indicate that some of the Department's concern is based on companies' reliance on the Q and As that were published with respect to the model illustration regulation. Much of the guidance is a "side-by-side" comparison between the model and NY's Reg 74, but because the provisions do not line up and the formatting is different, it can be a bit confusing to follow when viewed or printed from the website. I found it helpful to cut and paste the two regulations to create my own spreadsheet that lines up more clearly and has columns of equal size. The Department's points with respect to the differences they seek to highlight are more obvious to me laid out in this manner. Upon request, I would be happy to provide this document.

For those who have experienced post-approval reviews of life products, it will come as no surprise that illustration issues are the subject of Department scrutiny. Illustrations seem to now be a standard post-approval area of inquiry, and illustration issues have even been prominent in recent prior approval submissions as well. One area that this posted guidance does not address, but which has repeatedly come up on post-approval reviews, is the effort to apply the Reg 74 standards discussed in this guidance - particularly those related to illustration of non-guaranteed elements - to variable policies when the illustration is used in lieu of a preliminary information/policy summary. While this guidance is helpful, having a similar document that provides an analysis of which provisions of Reg 74 the Department has determined it has the legal authority to apply to variable policies - and under what circumstances - would be even more so!

Some specific areas are identified as problems in the Guidance:

--Computer-displayed illustrations, and the NY position that "regardless of the format or method by which the illustration was shown to the applicant, a copy of the illustration signed by both the applicant and company's authorized representatives must be furnished to the applicant at the time of application." The guidance concludes that delay to policy delivery is specifically not permitted by Reg 74.

--Illustration of non-guaranteed persistency bonuses or reductions in charges after the first policy year. Paraphrasing, the key difference is that Reg 74 states to illustrate these non-guaranteed bonuses or reductions, they must be guaranteed in the policy. By contrast, the model illustration regulation requires only that the illustration not be misleading on this point or have the capacity or tendency to mislead with respect to the non-guaranteed nature of these elements.

--Basic illustrations. The guidance advises that there are additional requirements for basic illustrations that do not appear in the model in particular situations and types of policies.

--Record retention. The guidance indicates that the periods differ in NY's regulation.

--Content of annual report. In some circumstances, the guidance reminds that the NY reg mandates noting in the annual report the option for a policy summary after policy issuance.

NYSID directed by Governor to save over $13 million

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:27:17 -0500

In the Capital Confidential blog this afternoon, Rick Karlin reports that NYS agency commissioners, including the Superintendent of the Insurance Department, have been ordered by Governor Paterson to "focus their operations on their agency's core mission." Gov. Paterson reportedly set "savings targets" for many state agencies.

The list that accompanied the post indicates that the Insurance Department has been directed to save $13,377,000.

That does not bode well for filling the staff positions necessary to get CL6 submissions moving quickly again!

Gender Equity in MA Annuities

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:06:08 -0500

The Massachusetts legislature recently prohibited, as of January 1, 2009, the use of sex-distinct mortality tables for individual or group annuities or pure endowment contracts. Several sections of the Mass Insurance Law were revised to state that "a mortality table shall only be applied to an individual or group annuity or pure endowment contract on a gender-neutral or gender-blended so-called basis in accordance with regulations promulgated by the commissioner." In addition, recognition of a difference in life expectancy in the terms or conditions of a group or individual annuity, pure endowment contract or certificate covering residents of the commonwealth which is issued or delivered within or without the commonwealth on or after January 1, 2009, including but not limited to the amount or method of payment of premiums, rate charges or in the benefits payable, is considered to be an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act under the new law. (Emphasis mine).

Note that the italicized text appears to expand the usual exercise of jurisdiction. This unfair practices section applies, on its face, to annuity contracts issued anywhere, if a resident is covered by the contract. For some companies this might mean that they need to have unisex annuity contracts approved in several states so that a unisex contract could be issued to a MA resident who legitimately applies for an annuity in another state, e.g. one who is employed in neighboring CT. If a CT application is completed, a CT annuity contract must be issued. However, if the applicant is a MA resident, even if the annuity contract is issued in CT, under the new law it must have unisex purchase rates. Therefore, the company needs an approved unisex contract for use in CT. After January 1, 2009, issuing a contract with sex-specific purchase rates to that MA resident would appear to be a violation of the new provisions of the unfair practices law in MA, even though the sale occurred in CT.

Proposed Reg on Buyer's Guides

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:54:35 -0500

In a move reflecting state insurance departments' commitment to standardization, the Illinois DOI has issued a proposed regulation that will allow the use of the NAIC life Buyer's Guide in addition to the Illinois-specific one. An interesting part of this proposal is that it is expressly based on company requests as acknowledged in the proposed regulation: "This Part is being amended to allow insurers to use the National Association of Insurance Commissioner's (NAIC) Life Insurance Buyer's Guide as a substitute for the buyer's guide created by the Division of Insurance. Companies have asked to use the NAIC's Guide in order to maintain uniformity across states in which companies sell life insurance. Allowing for the use of either Guide in Illinois will improve the efficiency for the life insurer industry while maintaining consumer protections..." It is always welcome to see actions based on regulators' recognition that this type of requirement for state-specific documents adds significantly to the cost of doing business and inefficiency in product delivery. Kudos to the Illinois DOI!!

NYSID Posts more Filing Guidance for Variable Material

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:04:15 -0500

The NY Insurance Department has posted updated Filing Guidance on the use of Variable Material for Individual Annuity Contracts and Life Insurance Policies. While some of the guidance is duplicative of previously posted documents, the new rules for List of Fund filings are now included here, not just in the revised SERFF general instructions. This is helpful. In addition, there is guidance on informational filings.

The Department indicates that informational filings will be acknowledged. Companies are advised that they must wait for this "placed on file" acknowledgment prior to use of the new material. While we generally prefer to receive something from the Department in order to have complete files documenting the filing, the recent slowdowns in processing submissions makes this requirement more onerous and something to plan around. If recent List of Funds filings are any indication, receipt of this acknowledgment of informational filings could take a few weeks.

Noticed a slow down in NY?

greenwich (Cailie Currin) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:20:02 -0500

We have certainly noticed a big change in the turn around time for certified filings! While we used to be able to count on getting approvals back within a few days, our office now has some that have been pending for a couple of weeks and it is unclear just when they might be looked at. I was recently advised that half (2) of the staff that used to review these certified filings have left the Department for promotions in other state agencies! No matter how hard the 2 remaining staff members work, they can't pick up a doubled work load!

While the state's financial situation has an impact, I'm sure, let's hope those administrative positions are filled quickly because their loss is being directly felt in the longer approval times!! With new laws, 2001 CSO filings and major product development efforts keeping us all busy, we need to be able to count on full staffing at the Department to get the industry's new products to market in a timely manner!