Introduction
Mergers, acquisitions, and cooperation between financial sectors, mainly commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance, are the wave of the future. Capturing synergies from the creation of financial conglomerates will produce efficient and cost saving entities in the financial market. As time goes on, capturing these synergies will be more important in order to contend in the ever competitive global economy. These synergies are foreseeable conditioned upon smooth operations in a fully integrated financial conglomerate, but we must first find a way to transition. In order to understand the roadblocks that stand in our way as we move toward full integration, we must first look at the current financial market in each country.
Argentina’s insurance industry is controlled by the Superintendencia de Seguros de las Nacion under the pretense that the Insurance entities aim is solely insurance operations. Commercial banking and investment banking are controlled by the Argentine Central Bank. These two operations have only one common operation which is the ability of insurance companies to grant bonds or to guarantee third party liabilities that arise from regular insurance operations.[1]
The finance and insurance sector is the fourth largest in the Australian economy. The financial sector is composed of a central bank, depository corporations, insurance corporations, superannuation and pension funds, financial intermediaries, and financial auxiliaries. The Financial Service Reform Act 2001 is made up of extensive reform programs examining current regulations. Australian regulation is varied and determined according to a particular industry or product. This was seen as inefficient and gave rise to confusion. The Financial System Inquiry proposed a single licensing regime for financial sales, advice and dealings with relation to financial products, consistent disclosure and authorization procedures for financial exchanges and settlement facilities.[2] Even now, we see certain countries recognizing the benefits of integration and moving toward that goal.
One of Columbia’s banking models, the multi-bank, offers integrated financial services through its main office and other affiliates. Integration is seen through the use of joint facilities and common services such as personnel management, supervision, physical resources, and accounting services. A law created in 1999 approved establishment of credit, insurance companies, fiduciary corporations, stock exchanges and other corporations to invest in other derivative instruments.[3]
The cooperation between banks and insurance companies has always existed in Hungary. The support network between the banking and insurance industries has only been enhanced since the rebuilding of the insurance market as seen though an increase in the connection of product sales of different financial services.[4] The United States allows cross-industry consolidation between commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies since the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA). Even though most U.S. commercial banks have explored opportunities offered by GLBA, differences in each industry have prevented the anticipated level of integration.[5]
In Spain, there are three distinct financial sectors, and each sector must meet a series of access conditions specific to the respective financial activity. However, all of these requirements are conditioned on authorization by the same governing body, the Ministry of the Economy.[6]
Germany does not differentiate between commercial and investment banks. It operates under the concept of universal banking. However, there is no clear trend to combine banking and insurance activities into a larger conglomerate. Integration may still exist through the specialized operations for the development of certain products or for the development of a central data source.[7]
After a brief view of the different financial structures and regulations in a just a few countries, it is apparent that not all countries are at the same level of integration or even define integration in the same manner. As we further examine the functional and structural aspects of integration at different levels, we will observe similar trends throughout these countries and others as well as common obstacles preventing companies from reaching full integration.
Level of Integration Integration of investment banks, commercial banks, and insurance companies can be described through financial integration as well as structural integration.[8] In Russia, integration occurs when banks are major shareholders in insurance companies,[9]while in Argentina, partial integration exists because banks are allowed sell insurance but not act as underwriters[10]. Also, in Columbia, integration is apparent in the use of joint facilities and in common services used for personnel management, supervision, accounting services, and physical resources.[11]Some level of integration exists in all of the countries that completed the survey for the AIDA XI World Congress; however, the level of integration spans many levels. The majority, 63%, of the countries fell into the group that was partially integrated but moving toward full integration. However, country specific regulations as well as the supervising body hinder full integration in many countries.[12] The Republic of China-Taiwan does not allow the financial sectors to exist as a single firm, but a financial holding company can have subsidiaries in each industry. Each subsidiary can cross sell products offered by other subsidiaries.[13] In Greece, insurance is not very integrated because regulatory legislation states that insurance companies must have insurance as their exclusive business. However, many large banks have insurance companies within their groups and cross-selling does occur.[14] The investment banking and commercial banking industries are integrated into each other at a higher level than with the insurance industry due to the use of the European Union concept known as universal banking.[15]However, the integration of insurance companies with banks has increased as seen in Australia, where the largest insurers are now bank-owned or part of a financial services group.[16]Even countries, such as Spain, who in the past operated these intermediaries under the principle of separation, have moved toward a high degree of integration. Integration in Spain manifests itself structurally and financially. The structural integration is subject to supervision as an institutions solvency under laws developed by the Securities Market National Commission and from the Bank of Spain. Financial integration is seen through life insurance policies that are linked to financial activities or investment funds.[17] The movement toward integration of these industries is driven by synergies resulting from integration as well as lowering of risk due to diversification.[18]While this move toward full integration is foreseeable in certain countries, such as Hungary, where cooperation between banks and insurance companies has always existed,[19] other countries, such as Japan, feel that the complete merger of banks and insurance companies is impossible.[20] Cooperation between banks and insurance companies has existed in Hungary since before the Second World War. Since the rebuilding of the insurance industry in Hungary beginning in the 1980’s, the connection of products of different financial services has become more common in that banks and insurers are selling each other’s products.[21]
It is difficult to fully measure the level of integration in each country due to the various ways that integration occurs. There is no single benchmark as to what is considered partial or full integration. As seen by the comparisons of Australia and Switzerland to the G7 countries, each country views others’ integration at a different level. Australia thought it was at the same level of integration as Germany[22], while Switzerland determined its level of integration to be similar to that of Germany and lower than that of Australia[23]. As seen by comparing these two answers, there are no specific definitions for categorizing your level of integration. Each country focused on a certain area or certain factors when comparing their level of integration with that of the G7 countries. Integration within countries often differs due to the area considered. Italy found itself to be integrated at the same level as G7 countries when considering bank assurance, but thought it was less integrated in areas such as asset-liability management, risk management solutions, and securitization of insurance risks.[24] The Netherlands went beyond just looking at financial conglomerates composed of banks and insurance companies and looked at the move toward hybridization. This move is toward not only joint operation of insurance companies and banks but toward large pension funds setting up insurance subsidiaries, taking over banks, and engaging in other strategic associations. In the Netherlands, financial conglomerates have a share of 90% of the commercial banking market and 70% of the insurance market. The formation of these financial conglomerates was made possible by 1990 legislation.[25] Country specific development is another factor to consider when determining integration. Argentina does not have a very developed insurance industry and has only recently created entities specializing in one branch or product, covering certain risks. The laws in Argentina state that the Insurance entities sole aim must be the insurance operations and forbids these entities from covering risks which arise from operations of pure financial credit.[26]It is difficult to compare such a young market to the integration levels of developed G7 markets. In addition, while markets, such as that of Singapore, are currently described as less integrated, new laws have been created and their impact on integration will not be seen for another year or two.[27] This is similar to the situation in the United States. GLBA was only recently enacted, therefore, at the current time; the United States sees itself as less integrated than the G7 countries.[28]
Comparing the Financial Sectors
The move toward integration is possible due to certain similarities between investment banking, commercial banking, and insurance companies. The similarities may be greater between investment banking and commercial banking in certain countries because they often exist as one corporate entity.[29]All three industries are forms of intermediaries[30]who work with an “invisible” product thus demanding trust from customers and creating risk for all.[31]They all transfer, invest, and re-transfer money under specific regulations set by its supervising body.[32]While at a surface level the three industries seem similar because they each involve risk management, attracting investments, and performing intermediary activities, looking at the daily behavior of each industry proves otherwise. The way each industry handles these common activities varies greatly because of corporate culture, industry norms, and industry specific regulations.
The three businesses have different key risk areas and therefore methods of risk management vary.[33] In addition, the type of risk involved and the carrier of the risk vary from industry to industry. For example, investment banks deal with risk, but they help other people to transfer risk. The level of risk associated with each industry varies because of the mode of operation and the source of the risk. Each industry has to worry about risk and return on a daily basis, but each takes a different approach to risk management and offers different alternative risk transfer solutions.[34] There is a difference in the quality of risk, the control method, and the characteristics of each industry.[35] Also, since the liberation of the European insurance market in 1994, risk management has become a common aspect of the banking and insurance industries. In Germany, the “Act on Control and Transparency in Commercial Businesses” (KonTraG) requires all companies to implement risk management systems and enhances the similarities in the methods used by banks and insurance companies while handling their respective businesses. However, differences still exist. The customer of a bank decides where his money should be invested and bears the risk of this investment, while a policyholder cannot choose where his money is invested in an insurance company.[36] Commercial banks create liquidity and must deal with the risk of bank runs thus forcing them to have tighter regulations than insurers, who usually have a longer maturity for assets and liabilities.[37] The risk for an investment bank is less because they do most of their business off of the balance sheet and carry few liabilities and many assets. They manage assets that belong to mutual funds and unit holders and not assets that belong to them.[38] However, the risk associated with investment banks is high because it involves high expenses and is responsive to fluctuations in the economy. Investment banking is fee-driven and requires little capital and has a high Risk Adjusted Return on Capital and Return on Equity.[39] Investment banks transform risks between ultimate risk-shedders and ultimate risk-holders, but they usually do not carry the risk themselves[40] Commercial banks and insurance companies take risks on the asset side of their balance sheets[41]and manufacture claims for distribution through the liabilities side. As opposed to investment banks, they carry their own risks because the claims are claims on the institution themselves and not on those upon whom the institution holds claims.[42] They create claims that would not otherwise exist.[43] Due to the risk taken in on the balance sheet, commercial banks and insurance companies must be careful not to mismatch assets and liabilities in order to secure survival and protect investors.[44] These two industries generally work with small clients, while investment banks work with larger investors.[45]While there seem to be many similarities between commercial banks and insurance companies because of who holds the risk, they differ because the maturity of bank assets and liabilities is much shorter than that of insurers’ assets and liabilities. Commercial banks have risks in excess of insurance companies because they are very liquid and must protect against the risk of bank runs.[46] Risk caused by offering credit by commercial banks is seen through interest rates to secure against non-payment of capital. While in the case of insurance companies, the cost of risk is seen through the premiums or price of insurance often known as a coverage reserve.[47]Insurance companies will assess the insurance risk and then decide on the amount of the premium owed due to the level of risk.[48] While there seem to be large differences in the way each industry handles its risk, they must continually examine existing risks and use the best techniques to adequately manage this risk and protect investors and policyholders.[49]
Many countries stated that the three industries were competitors. Each industry is attempting to obtain funding from the same capital market and investments from the same sectors.[50] There are solvency requirements for each industry, so they each must obtain some funding in order to survive. The appropriate regulatory body or law usually specifies this requirement.[51] A high level of capitalization is necessary for all three businesses in order to protect interests of investors.[52] The importance of protection of the investors and policyholders is seen though the high level of supervision of insurance companies and commercial banks.[53]
Reasons for Integration
Even though there are several differences between these industries at a detailed level, countries are still moving toward integration as a means to obtain synergies that exist in an integrated company. The main reasons for integration focus on creating significant economies of scope and scale in operations. Eighty eight percent of the countries that completed the survey choose economies of scale in operations as one of the top reasons for integration. The combination of investment and asset management has allowed companies to achieve desired synergies.[54] Another major reason for integration was to capture cross-marketing opportunities. There also existed many other reasons for integration as seen in the chart and graph included in this section.
Clients often prefer to complete financial responsibilities using a one stop shopping method. Enlarging the scale of services provided helped to increase profits in banks and insurance companies. Integration leaves a network of offices with expanded geographic coverage that will allow for offerings of multiple services efficiently at a cost savings.[55] Cooperation between banks and insurance companies allowed for the exchange of information about clients and the financial market.[56] In addition, the profit levels and outlook for each industry motivated the move toward integration in certain countries. In Hungary, low profits of banks in the 1990s encouraged the move toward integration to lower costs and capture synergies. Also, expanding the available market and services was desirable because of the increase in services of pension funds and the fullness of the life-insurance market.[57] This increase in services and overall market share has allowed smaller companies to meet international competition in the financial services sector.[58] In addition, the shift towards integration has been caused by shifts in household savings and regulatory arbitrage. Since the early 1980’s, there has been a shift in household savings away from traditional bank deposits toward other collective investments. Households lessening reliance on bank deposits has provided a strong incentive for banks to participate in life insurance and other financial activities. In the past, the Australian financial system has been regulated by institutional lines, but recently, they have made a move toward regulation based on financial lines of market failure. Under the institutional basis of regulation, conglomerates could shift financial products to subsidiaries that would bear the lowest regulatory burden. This encouraged the early formation of conglomerates. [59]
Existing Obstacles to Full Integration
Regulatory Obstacles
While synergies are a foreseeable result of integration, oftentimes obstacles such as regulations and laws stand in the way of reaching these synergies. There are few obstacles between investment banking and commercial banking in many European countries because of the use of the universal banking concept. These obstacles exist mostly between the banking industries and the insurance industry. Oftentimes regulations require separation been insurance companies and banks either structurally or through activities. For example, the German Data Protection Act restricts free flow of data between different legal entities even if they belong to the same group of companies. However, financial conglomerates can exist in Germany if they are established with separate entities that specialize in different lines of business.[60] Regulations in Greece, Norway, and the Netherlands require that insurance and banking companies exist as separate corporate entities.[61] Regulations such as this one come from European Union directives. As a result of the EU requirements, full integration can never been achieved. The concept of having separate legal entities goes even further in the Netherlands because life and non-life insurance activities must also be exercised by separate legal entities. Banks, on the other hand, may combine investment and commercial banking activities within one legal entity because of the concept of universal banking.[62] However, a financial conglomerate may consist of several legal entities each participating in various activities. These entities can cooperate on a commercial level and offer products that have banking and insurance characteristics.[63]Greece, while forbidding a single entity, will allow banks to have insurance company subsidiaries, but cross funding is not permitted. This simply means that assets held by the bank cannot be used as part of the reserves or solvency requirements for the insurance company.[64]
In France, regulatory obstacles exist through limits on functional integration in that banks are not authorized to insure risks and insurance companies are not authorized to grant loans.[65]However, regulators in France when dealing with bank assurance do allow banks to sell insurance products insured by affiliates, and allow insurance companies to conduct banking operations via banks they own.[66]These regulations exist to protect free competition and avoid the existence of a monopoly. The Superintendency of Banks in Columbia established a right to free competition thus forcing them to supervise industries to prevent abuse of a company's position in the market. Companies in Columbia must inform the Superintendency of Banks of any proposals for mergers, consolidations or integration. Under the control of the Superintendency, institutions must revise procedures and policies that do not affect market growth and efficiency and the interests of the users.[67] Limits on functional integration also exist under Polish law. Polish law limits functional integration under the Act on Banking Activity. Under this, banks may conduct only banking activities including granting loans, guarantees, and issuing bank’s securities. Insurance companies, under the Act on Insurance Activities, are limited to insurance activities and not permitted to grant any loans, credit or issue securities.[68]
In the United States, while legal barriers have been removed by GLBA, regulatory obstacles make consolidations less profitable and desirable. For example, financial holding companies are required to maintain higher overall ratings and high quality for management for each area in addition to adhering to strict capital requirements.[69]
Under Spanish law, there are limits on structural integration but it favors the functional integration of the financial intermediaries. Spanish Law does not allow the unification of one institution for commercial, investment and insuring activities. However, it allows credit institutions to perform all types of investment services in the securities market as well as act as agents of insuring institutions. [70]
Obstacles in the Australian experience result from anti-trust legislation, financial sector acquisition legislation, and nervous regulators. Anti-trust regulation in Australia states that a corporation must not directly or indirectly acquire shares in the capital of a body corporate or acquire assets of any person if it would reduce competition in the market. In addition, mergers in the financial sector will not be approved if they adversely affect the stability of any of the industries, the interests of policyholders, Australia’s foreign investment policy, or any other relevant matter.[71] Nervous regulators hold up the process of integration because often times several months of negotiation will occur before approval is given. Many regulatory authorities are not comfortable with mergers and acquisitions across financial sectors thus slowing down the process of integration.[72] Depending on the regulatory bodies and the laws, each country allows integration up to a certain point and at a certain speed. However, countries such as Singapore felt that there were no significant obstacles toward full integration, but they have not yet reached that point.[73] This view is not the norm and many countries require approval for investments in other industries.[74] A main concern of these regulatory bodies seems to be the effects of integration on free competition. Protection of free competition is not carried out in any specialized fashion by all countries. Each country is influenced by its own laws and regulations which may prevent full integration in the future.
Cultural and Economic Obstacles
In addition to regulatory obstacles blocking full integration, cultural obstacles also affect the ease with which integration will move forward. Studies have shown that these obstacles exist at the consumer and production end. In Australia, it was perceived that financial service consumers wanted one-stop financial service; however, the study further showed that consumers also wanted expertise and personalized service in relation to each service.[75] While integration may provide the convenience that consumers desire, their unwillingness to give up the personalized service that currently exists in separate, more specialized companies may stop them from making use of these convenient conglomerates. People are used to the duality of financial services and may not be willing to change.[76] It may be impossible for large conglomerates to offer the specialized attention to which people are accustomed. People need time to get used to the integration of banks and insurance companies. Banks are considered as ways to obtain money for daily support while insurance companies serve as provides of long term safety.[77]
Conflicting management philosophies and different corporate cultures may prevent conglomerates from offering the services that customers are looking for while at the same time capturing the synergies that are expected to result from integration. For example, insurance companies are usually managed using a risk adverse method while investment banking uses a risk neutral or risk loving method of management.[78] The conflicting methods may prevent new management teams from making decisions that will benefit the consumer. Different philosophies could create internal confusion that could reflect onto the consumer thus scaring them away from the use of financial conglomerates. In order to overcome this obstacle, the conglomerates must create a common corporate culture. This can be done by providing new training for all employees in various aspects of every sector. People must look beyond their own discipline and have respect for each sector in order to move past conflicting philosophies.[79] The movement toward creating a single corporate culture seems promising as seen by the recent integration of the investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in the Allianz group as a result of the merger between Alliance and Dresdner Bank. This merger will probably show that even though investment banking is often considered to be riskier than insurance companies, there exist no impenetrable obstacles to integration.[80]
Not only are there differences in management techniques in the various sectors, but differences exist in the remuneration and payment structure. Banking, in the past, has always paid employees based on fixed salaries and annual bonuses. Insurance companies normally had a remuneration system that related to transaction based commission. Employees may not be used to a different type of payment and may not be willing to switch over to a different method.[81] Commission based remuneration may act as a motivating factor for employees and without this, employees are not forced to be as aggressive when obtaining clients and selling policies. On the other side, bank employees may not be accustomed to the pressure associated with commission based employment and it would be difficult to implement in a banking situation.
The combination of financial sectors may be difficult because of the role that each played in the market. In France, it was noted that insurance companies relate better to consumer claims than do banks taking over insurance activities. Banks often want to avoid displeasing the client by telling them that the company refuses to pay uninsured claims.[82] In addition, banking has traditionally used a pull market approach while the insurance industry has used a push market approach.[83]
The development of strong brand names within a country may also prevent the success of financial conglomerates. Due to the past separation of financial sectors, strong brand names have resulted, and conglomerates may not be willing to give up these brands in order to form one uniform brand.[84] For example, the ING group in the Netherlands has its insurance brands Nationale-Nederlanden and RVS in the Netherlands and Reliastar in the US. It also has banks brands including Postbank in the Netherlands, BBL in Belgium, and Barings worldwide.[85] Creating one global brand may confuse consumers as well as scare them away because they think they are dealing with a new company or brand. In addition, the costs associated with combining these may be great. Full integration would require a harmonization of technologies and procedures, requiring changes in internal technologies and data base protections.[86]
Examining Major and Common Obstacles
After taking all of these obstacles into consideration and ranking them, it was found that 64% of the countries who participated in the survey found that regulations not related to anti-trust issues were the largest obstacles to integration. This deals with laws that do not permit the insurance and banking industry to co-mingle activities or exist as a single entity. Cultural obstacles and peoples’ preferences can change over time, but limits placed by laws must continually be followed unless the law is changed or repealed. Cultural, management, and remuneration obstacles result because of methods to which people are accustomed. There are major concerns about the infection of financial distress from one part of a financial conglomerate 
to another.[87] Once people get comfortable with the idea and practices of integrated financial services, these obstacles will not longer exist. This movement seems to have started when considering the recent merger in the Allianz group in Germany.[88] However, restrictions on integration at a functional as well as at a structural level are not as easily overcome. Obligatory separation between banking and insurance activities and between life insurance and non-life insurance activities will inevitably prevent full integration.[89]
to another.[87] Once people get comfortable with the idea and practices of integrated financial services, these obstacles will not longer exist. This movement seems to have started when considering the recent merger in the Allianz group in Germany.[88] However, restrictions on integration at a functional as well as at a structural level are not as easily overcome. Obligatory separation between banking and insurance activities and between life insurance and non-life insurance activities will inevitably prevent full integration.[89] Risks associated with new lines of business are also one of the top obstacles to integration. Companies are unsure how consumers will react to an integrated financial services firm and may be unwilling to put forth the time, effort, and large amount of money related to the integration of the financial sectors if they are not guaranteed a positive outcome. Certain countries, such as Russia, simply find it difficult to reach full integration because of the lack of technical knowledge concerning different industries and their practices.[90] This obstacle will be overcome once a few successful financial conglomerates exist. Once companies understand successful management methods and consumer’s preferences, they will be able to create a financial conglomerate without as much risk.
At the current moment, companies may be unwilling to take the step toward integration if they are not guaranteed successful results and if their current, stand alone financial institution is successful. Companies need a solid justification for moving toward integration. Many companies do not have this justification because they do not feel that all of the synergies associated with a conglomerate can be captured. This, however, may change in the future. For example, a justification may arise in Germany with the new business opportunities opened up by a reduction of state pensions.[91] In examining the regulatory obstacle to integration, it appears that the most difficult regulations to overcome will be found in the commercial banking and insurance industries. These two industries are generally more heavily regulated than investment banks. Commercial banking is heavily regulated because of the nature of the business. A customer can in most cases request their money at will and there are substantial costs associated with a breach of promise to a client.[92] In the United States, the commercial banking industry is regulated at both the federal and state level by their respective supervisory agencies. They are subject to strict capital requirements, restrictions on activities, reinvestment requirements, consumer information privacy, and other regulatory burdens.[93]
The insurance industry is also very heavily regulated. In Australia, the collapse of a major insurer, HIH, is under scrutiny and therefore regulations may tighten.[94] Insuring activity is technically complex and therefore access to the market and practice in the market must be regulated. In Spain, access to the insurance market must be authorized by the Minister of Economy. As for regulation for practicing in the market, Spain has a detailed regulation of the system of financial guarantees of the insurance company.[95] In Germany, even though mandatory authorization of all insurance products and premiums has been has been abolished, insurance regulation is still tighter than that of banks. Tight regulations that govern the investment and asset management of insurance companies, the requirement of authorization of certain products, and the policy that insurance supervisors can take any step to safeguard the interest of policyholders still restrict the insurance industry in Germany. While these supervisory regulations still exist in the insurance industry, there is a move toward focusing on more financial supervision, solvency and capital requirements. This would make regulations similar to that of the banking sector.[96]
The degree of regulation is not always determined based on the industry, but on the aspect of the business being regulated. When dealing with requirements for investments and participations in other financial institutions, banks are more heavily regulated. In the Netherlands, approval for participation by banks in over 10% of voting rights or capital in another company is required. Insurance companies have regulations concerning the spread of their investments and there are limits on certain categories of assets.[97] When considering solvency requirements, internal control, and administrative organization, banks are oftentimes more heavily regulated.[98]
The degree of regulation also depends on the development of the market. When dealing with young markets, stricter regulation is often necessary. This regulation can come in the form of legal acts and regulatory agencies.[99] For example, in Switzerland, the Federal Banking Commission is stronger and has more staff than the insurance regulator, thus regulation in the banking industry may be tighter.[100] In general, in most countries, each industry is highly regulated and varies only a small degree.
Costs related to Regulations
The regulations found in each industry impose great costs on companies. For example, in Argentina, the highest costs are created by compliance with legal and regulatory requirements due to inefficiencies in the bureaucratic and judicial systems.[101] In Australia, the disclosure rules represent the highest costs resulting from the imposed regulations. [102] Tax and para-tax regulations, Labor Code regulations, and commercial network regulations impose the greatest regulatory costs in France.[103] In Italy, insurance companies are forced to pay 2% of gross income premiums to the supervision agency.[104] The majority of costs imposed due to regulations stem from safeguards for clients and policyholders. This is seen through the requirement of sufficient notice for termination of policy, a change in the terms of the policy and documentation at the conclusion of the policy. These notifications and other disclosures significantly increase processing costs.[105]
In addition to processing costs, significant costs are incurred upon establishment of a company. Depending on the industry and the country specific regulations, a minimum amount of capital is required for establishment. A minimum reserve is required to protect against risks, especially for insurance businesses.[106] Capital demanded can fluctuate based on the industry and the risk involved. For example, in Spain, the creation of a bank demands capital stock of 3000 million pesetas and an investment partnership requires 750 million pesetas.[107] Indirect costs result from the maintenance of these capital reserves, solvency requirements, and compliance with regulations on administrative organization and internal control.[108] The bottom line is that the majority of costs are incurred to ensure guaranteed successful continuance of operations.[109]
The costs associated with regulation in each country vary because the general structure of the regulations depends on the laws and make up of the financial sector. In Australia, all the major banks have investment banking and insurance subsidiaries and all the insurers have fund management arms but do not sell a full range of investment banking services. The ability of each business to further integrate depends on the nature of the regulation going forward and the regulatory body. When looking at regulations, the Australian financial sector will continue to develop and create an integrated financial services business.[110] In recent reforms, a single licensing system for financial sales and dealings was proposed. This would benefit businesses by providing a uniform regulation and give consumers constant consumer protection.[111]
Regulatory Structures
Integration is further seen through the regulatory structure in Columbia in which the Superintendency of Banks is linked to the Public Finance Ministry and is in charge of supervising the financial institutions. With a reform in 1991, the government control of insurance institutions has increased as to ensure compliance with minimum solvency requirements.[112]
Many of the regulations that do exist are necessary to assure fair competition and check solvency of the insurance industry. In Italy, insurance regulation is based on three levels, conditions of admission to the market, solvency rules, and winding up proceedings.[113] The supervision of the insurance industry in the Netherlands is geared toward ensuring that insurance companies are able to fulfill their financial commitments toward policyholders. This is seen through the requirement of sufficient technical reserves, internal control, information provided to policyholders, and financial reporting as stated in the Insurance Business Act.[114]
Separate regulatory agencies as well as separate codes or laws regulate each industry depending on the country. In Hungry, the different sectors are supervised by the same agency; however, the insurance industry is regulated by the Insurance Act. The Insurance Act establishes rules for an insurance company coming into the market, leaving the market and other executive orders.[115] The Insurance Business Act regulates the insurance industry in Japan.[116] Poland’s insurance industry is regulated through the Act on Insurance Activity which regulates the procedure of incorporation, the activities of insurance intermediaries, financial investment policy, supervision of companies, and mergers and liquidation of insurance companies. Other legal acts issued by the Minister of Finance also regulate corporate issues of insurance companies.[117] Russia also has the Ministry of Finance issuing legal acts to supervise the insurance industry.[118] In France, Insurance Code exists that regulates insurance and related activity. However, the separation of regulations of the insurance industry is slightly offset by the Monetary and Financial Codes that have industry specific regulations as well as some common regulations for banking, investment, and insurance.[119]
Regulatory Agencies
The differences in regulations exist between the industries because 63% of the countries who participated in this survey have a different regulatory agency for the insurance industry than for either commercial or investment banking. This could be the result of past customs to separate the industries because of different management styles and to secure free competition and prevent monopolies from forming. In addition, supervision of banks is more detailed and can be characterized as supervision in advance. Insurance supervision, on the other hand, is less normative and comprises a framework of regulations on the financial position of the insurance company. This is considered to be supervision after the fact.[120] The majority of countries have the commercial and investment banking industries supervised by the same regulatory agency, but not the insurance industry. Germany has one regulator for investment and commercial banks and a different regulator for the insurance industry; however, there were plans to merge the two regulatory agencies. This plan was put on hold for political reasons, but, even with a joint regulatory agency, the authority would continue to apply the two different sets of rules that currently govern each industry.[121] This is similar to the system in France where there is one common regulatory body with distinct divisions for banking and insurance.[122] The countries that had one regulatory agency for all three industries are also partially integrated or fully integrated. As there is an increase in the integration of the industries, more countries may change the regulatory system to create one central agency. In the Netherlands, the banking operations are regulated by the Dutch Central Bank. The Securities Board of the Netherlands supervises banks with respect to conduct and integrity as well as supervising the services of brokers and portfolio managers. The Pensions & Insurance Supervisory Authority supervises the insurance companies and pension funds. Even though the different sectors have their own regulator, the Council of Financial Services was established as a place where all the financial supervisors could cooperate on common supervisory issues. This Council also is in charge of regulations governing financial conglomerates.[123] Systems such as this one point out the need for a single regulatory agency as we move further toward integration of the financial sector. The only trade-off when creating one regulatory agency is that the flexibility that exists in separate agencies may be lost with consolidation of the agencies.
Completely separate regulatory agencies, such as is seen in Poland, may create more confusion among the industries and conglomerates as the degree of integration increases. Poland not only has different regulatory agencies for insurance and banking activities, but also has two regulatory agencies for insurance companies. The Banking Supervisory Commission is responsible for supervision of banking activity. The Minister of Finance issues permits for conducting activity in the insurance industry and the Supervisory Insurance Office supervises overall activity of insurance companies. The Supervisory Insurance Office collects quarterly financial reports and must apply to the Minister of Finance concerning withdrawal of an insurance company’s permit or to impose financial penalties. Combining these regulatory agencies will prevent excessive processing costs and other problems that could arise when two bodies are trying to regulate the same entity. Confusion and inefficiencies that result from having two agencies governing supervision of insurance companies will only be multiplied as the degree of integration and the complexity of the institution increases.[124]
While many countries do have separate regulatory agencies for the banking and insurance industries, the regulatory agencies are equal in the areas of efficiency, technical competence, sophistication, transparency, and level of corruption in most countries with the exception of Russia, Switzerland, the United States and France. France stated that the insurance regulator was more efficient, more technically competent and more sophisticated than the banking regulator.[125] . On the other extreme, Russia considered the Central Bank to be better than the insurance regulator in all of the given categories.[126] The United States stated that the federal banking agencies and the Securities and Exchange Commission are regarded as more efficient, technically competent and sophisticated than the state banking and insurance agencies.[127]
The differences in the competency of the regulators may relate to the development of the agency and the industry. For example, in the Netherlands, while the competencies of the regulators are relatively equal, the Dutch Central Bank has a longer history and more experience than the Securities Board of the Netherlands. This experience may increase the efficiency of the Dutch Central Bank, but all the regulatory bodies fulfill the overall objective of supervision and use many of the same instruments to carry out these tasks.[128] The same is true in Switzerland. The strength of the Federal Banking Commission of Switzerland stems from the strong position of banks in Switzerland. The Federal Banking Commission is stronger and has more staff than the insurance regulator.[129]
In addition, the regulatory agencies for both the insurance industry and the banking industry in Argentina are inefficient, incompetent and likely to be corrupted. The Argentine Central Bank has been accused of not restricting money laundering and tax fraud. The Superintendencia de Seguros has not efficiently controlled insurance companies as seen because 120 insurance entities have undergone forced liquidation. Due to this corruption and inefficient regulation, many injured parties do not receive valid claims.[130] A new and possibly consolidated regulatory agency is necessary because corruption of the regulatory agency that governs a financial conglomerate will hinder any attempts to capture the synergies of integration.
Profitability of Each Industry
Profitability from 1990-1999
The regulations, corruption, and efficiency of each regulatory board can influence the profitability of each industry. There was overwhelming agreement that the Investment banking industry was the most profitable globally over the last decade. However, when looking at country specific answers, while more of the countries felt that investment banking was most profitable, a larger percentage thought that commercial banking was most profitable. Thirty one percent of the countries said that commercial banking was the most profitable and 50% of the countries stating that investment banking was the most profitable financial industry over the past decade. Investment banking is considered the most profitable globally by many countries because it greatly profited from the stock market Bull Run and high rates of return, while commercial banking has had a decline in profit margin. This is seen in Australia though the strength of the stock market and large issues led by investment bankers. .[131] In addition, over the past decade, there have been numerous mergers and several integrated financial groups have been established. Investment banks have played a significant role in this market and its activity was profitable.[132]
The most profitable industry at a country specific level often depends on events that affect a particular country’s market. The Polish insurance market is more profitable than commercial banks because of a fast growing interest in life insurance products.[133] Greece stated that the insurance market had significant losses due to catastrophes and remaining asbestosis claims.[134] The difference in the results when looking at profitability at a global level and at a country specific level prove that each country may lack knowledge concerning specific events that effected the industries in other countries. The actual profitability of mergers and other investment banking activity may appear more profitable globally than they are in reality, thus causing a discrepancy concerning profitability globally and at a country specific level. Profitability does not necessarily come from one industry, but can be seen in operations were multifunctional financial groups use information they have due to coordination though different industries.[135]
Expected profitability in 2000-2010
The same trends concerning the profitability of investment and commercial banks and insurance companies globally are similar for 2000-2010 as they were for the prior decade. This prediction is questionable due to the recent dislocation of equity markets and hardening insurance markets.[136] However, when examining the industries at a country specific level, the commercial banking industry appears that it will be more profitable than investment banks over the coming decade. Fifty percent of the countries who participated in this survey found that commercial banking will be the most profitable over the coming decade while only twenty five percent felt that investment banking will be the most profitable. Commercial banking may make a comeback if there continues to be a decade of slow gains in the stock market worldwide.[137] However, experts are having difficulty predicting how these industries respond in the long run due to recent events and other possible terrorist activity.[138] A cautious prediction may be that commercial banks may prove to be more profitable than investment banks due to the current state of the economy.[139] People are less willing to take certain risks when the economy is so uncertain. Investment banks are very sensitive to economic fluctuations, therefore, in a time of confusion as to where the economy will stand in the future companies are less willing to place their money and trust in the investment banks. However, certain countries, such as Poland, disagree with this prediction and feel that globally this will be a decade for mergers and the establishment of financial groups.[140]
The complete change in results concerning profitability at a country specific level and a global level may be caused by the uncertainty as to the future economy of other countries. Experts may be well versed in the possible future economic fluctuations in their own country and are willing to predict the direction of each of the financial sectors. However, they may not be as clear on the effect of recent events on the economies of other countries and will therefore simply make predictions based on past profitability without full understanding of the current situation and the effects of recent events. If this is the case, it would explain why, globally, the prediction is that investment banking will be the most profitable industry in the coming decade.
The insurance industry was not a contender for the most profitable industry in many countries. As seen in Poland, there has been a decrease in interest in insurance products due to the poor financial conditions of its citizens. A few insurance companies have been recently liquidated thus causing a decrease in confidence in the insurance industry.[141]
Switzerland has a more positive outlook concerning the profitability of the financial sectors. They stated that all three areas are expected to increase in profitability over the coming decade due to trends in demographic evolution, conversion of the commercial banks and insurance companies, disintermediation of investment banks, and optimization of capital.[142]
The uncertainty of the current economy makes predictions of the future difficult. Profitability depends on the development of each country as well as the world economy as a whole. In addition, future political actions such as those against terrorism will effect where the global economy stands in the future. Finally, as always, we have no warning of any changes in the global climate due to natural disasters which always have a huge impact on the insurance industry.[143]
Risk Related to Each IndustryRisk seen from 1990-1999
Risk associated with the insurance industry and the investment banking industry has been seen to be higher than that of the commercial banking industry over the past decade at a country specific level as well as globally. This could be the result of the tight regulations that exist in the commercial banking industry. In addition, investment banks have always been seen as risky due to their sensitivity to fluctuations in the market. Insurance industries may be considered risky due to the uncertainty in relation to when a disaster will occur and when an insurance company will need to increase its capital reserve to meet all claims. In certain countries, such as Australia, losses in insurance companies over the past decade have increased the risk associated with the industry.[144] In addition, natural disasters and pollution have caused people to associate risk with the insurance industry.[145]
Risk as associated with each industry also depends on how you define risk. When considering earnings volatility, investment banking is probably the riskiest activity over the past decade. Due to the volatility of the world financial markets, such as that of Russia and Asia, investment banking has been unpredictable. Investment banking is also risky when considering operational risks. This sort of risk is seen through litigation claims due to activities such as fraud.[146]
The way in which a business is managed also directly affects the risk associated with each company. Companies must have appropriate risk management and control techniques available. In the Netherlands, over the past decade, there has been a few examples of poor risk management structures that have led people to equate risk with certain industries. Poor risk control structures are evident in constant litigation as well as bankruptcy of certain companies.[147] This prospective would not be available in other countries, such as Germany, where no company in any of the three major financial sectors has filed for bankruptcy.[148]
Expected Risk from 2000-2010
The risk associated with the insurance industry is expected to be the highest of the three financial sectors when considering risk at a country specific level. However, when considering views of the industries globally, there is a spread of opinions concerning the risk associated with each industry. Investment banking and the insurance industry were seen as more risky than the commercial banking industry over the coming decade. The investment banking industry is expected to be risky over the next decade due to a slow stock market worldwide. The insurance industry is also considered risky globally because heightened political tension makes predictions concerning losses in the industry indeterminable.[149] The financial consequences of September 11thand other risks of terrorism also make the insurance industry very risky in the coming decade.[150] The volatility of the current economy will hopefully force companies to concentrate on proper risk management to alleviate risk associated with all financial sectors.[151]
Risks Associated with Integrated Financial Services Firms
Integrated Financial Services Firms versus Insurance Companies
An insurance company is perceived to be riskier than an integrated financial services firm at a country specific level as well as from a global perspective. Seventy eight percent of the countries that participated in the World Congress integration survey felt that at a global level, a separate insurance company would be riskier than an integrated firm. A stand alone insurance company lacks diversification across sectors.[152] A company that offered only insurance activities is exposed to excessive risks because it could not allocate the risks among a spread of activities as is possible in an integrated firm.[153]
A recent study done by Oliver, Wyman & Company on the risk profile of financial conglomerates concluded that conglomerates have diversification effects across businesses of 5% to 10% resulting from a correlation between risk factors of the different sectors.[154] Other experts believe that the benefit resulting from diversification is much higher. For example, insurance companies issue long term liabilities creating an exposure to long term interest rate risks. Insurance companies have protected against this risk by hedging the risk by matching assets and liabilities. Banks on the other hand deal with short term interest rate risk and often have a mismatched position. Banks and insurance companies can provide each other with a partial hedge of their mismatch positions and the combined risk management techniques can be turned into profit.[155] While the creation of a conglomerate and diversification appear to be beneficial in all aspects, we must be careful because higher complexity within an institution often creates other risks in management and operational strategy.[156]
The countries that considered the integrated financial services firm to be riskier than an insurance company probably based their answers on the increased risk that the insurance industry would be subjected to based on the high risk associated with investment banks and their sensitivity to fluctuations in the market.[157]
Integrated Financial Services Firms versus Commercial Banks
The risk associated with an integrated financial services firm is slightly greater when compared to that of a commercial bank. However, there was no overwhelming opinion that created a definite trend as to which was riskier. Fifty three percent of the countries thought that an integrated financial services firm created greater risk and forty six percent felt that a commercial bank was riskier. Due to the small number of countries that presented a clear opinion on this topic, the difference in percentages varies only by one country. It seems that many countries had no opinion concerning the difference in risk involved or simply could not determine which institution is riskier.
As the World Congress survey shows, the commercial banking industry is seen as the least risky of the three financial sectors. While a stand alone commercial bank may be less risky because it would not be exposed to the risks that exist in insurance companies and investment banks; it will also be less profitable. Stand alone insurance companies will not have the opportunity to take advantage of the profits that accompany cross-selling and diversification that is available in a conglomerate.[158] Even though a stand alone commercial bank may be less risky than an integrated financial services firm, this does not mean that an integrated firm should not be formed. Countries must consider all external costs and benefits associated with the formation of an integrated firm before deciding against its establishment. When performing a cost-benefit analysis, a company may realize that the gains of an integrated firm outweigh the excess risk that will be assumed. A firm composed of high risk and low risk industries may balance out the risk in each industry resulting in an integrated firm that is equally risky or less risky than a stand alone firm. Countries may not have compared the resulting balance of risk across industries that would result from the formation of an integrated firm and only looked at the low level of risk of a commercial bank when deciding which institution was riskier. To maximize profit and lower risk, companies often have to internalize externalities and not look at each institution separately.
Integrated Financial Services Firms versus Investment Banks
Sixty four percent of the countries in our sample felt that an investment bank was riskier than an integrated financial services firm. Investment banks are known to be risky due to their sensitivity to fluctuations in the market. The integration of investment banks with less risky financial sectors will probably balance out and lower the risk associated with the investment banking industry by using various risk management controls and hedging.
Investment banks have always been thought of as risky and offered the highest return to shareholders. However, due to the unpredictable global economy, the returns from investment banking may not justify the additional risk associated with a stand alone firm. The integrated financial services firm will diversify the institution and prevent, to a certain degree, extreme impacts of market fluctuations.[159] It seems that a stand alone investment banking firm is riskier than an integrated financial services firm due to diversification and hedging, but it is difficult to make such a blanket statement. A modern economy is very complex and companies do not really know if an integrated firm will lower risk or crate such a large corporate structure as to increase risk due to difficulties in organizing and maintaining risk controls. The risk associated with an integrated firm will depend on the product portfolio, areas of major activity, the global economic situation, and other legal framework.[160]
National Identities
Many countries have close ties with certain industries that they associate with their national identities. The flagship industry varies depending on the country. Switzerland is commonly associated with banking, while Germany is known for precision engineering.[161] Other flagship industries include aircraft industries and energy industries,[162]car manufacturers,[163]electric industry,[164]and the steel and mining industries.[165]
Australia associates itself with media outlets and to protect this interest, they prohibit foreign acquisition of Australian media outlets. The Australian Government also has the right to stop any foreign acquisition of an industry that it thinks is in the national interest, as seen recently with the offshore oil and gas exploration industry.[166]
The insurance industry is not a flagship industry for many countries; however, they do associate the insurance industry with Lloyd’s of London and England.[167] Lloyd’s plays a large role in the insurance market worldwide.[168] The non-existence of the insurance industry as a flagship industry may be because insurance brands are generally linked to one country and a single insurance company may use different brands in each country.[169]
While many countries believe that industries are tied to national identity, others, such as Columbia, hold that there are no flagship industries restricted to domestic investment. In Columbia, foreign capital can be invested in all sectors except national security and defense and the disposal of toxic waste not produced in Columbia. These investments only require companies to follow certain registration and activity requirements.[170] Also, flagship industries are not prevalent in under-developed countries. For example, the Polish economy is in the course of transformation and current ties to industries, such as agriculture and mining, are not that strong and may change as development continues.[171] In addition, countries with flagship industries may find these industries becoming less important as globalization and international transactions become more important.[172] The tie to flagship industries still exists to some extent, but not to the level it did in the past.[173] The association by a country with certain industries will weaken as companies in the industry begin merging and cooperating with other foreign and domestic countries in the same and different industries.
Certain countries, such as Australia, are attempting to prevent the end of flagship industries by allowing governments to prohibit acquisition of a company in the flagship industry. In addition, regulators can delay the acquisitions to protect a company, but this delay may not be indefinite.[174] However, more countries are willing to allow cross-border mergers of companies involved in flagship industries, especially if both countries are EU member states.[175] Cross-border mergers may even strengthen the industry and may be the only way to meet intense competition as more mergers take place.[176] Regulations should only be enacted for value creation and only exist to prevent risk, not growth in the industry.[177] The market, rather than political decisions, should drive consolidations.[178] The allowance of cross-border mergers should not depend on national identity, but should be viewed based on economic terms and anti-trust aspects.[179]
Solvency Regulations
Insurance Company Solvency Regulations
Regulations exist, with the exception of Argentina, to protect against liquidation and to protect policyholders. Argentina has no regulations to prevent insolvency in insurance companies, even though it has been seen as a very serious problem. Firms, such as Reasegurador Estatal Monopolico, were dissolved and liquidated, but no funds were granted to the company. Assignors have not yet been paid and over a decade has passed since the liquidation. The only insurance coverage with a Guarantee fund has to do with labor risks and this fund is supported by the state. [180]
The regulations that exist in other countries vary depending on who can start solvency proceedings, what laws control them, the position of the country, and the method of carrying out regulatory procedures. Australian regulators under the Corporations Act have the power to dismiss directors and manage companies in the interests of policy holders and creditors. However, large insurance companies have still collapsed thus signaling that the regulations are not tight enough.[181]
In countries, such as France and Germany, the regulator has sole authority to initiate liquidation proceedings. As a general rule, there is no guarantee fund for insurance companies except for motor vehicle insurance who have to contribute to a national guarantee fund to protect victims who have no other recourse.[182] Other countries, such as Greece and Italy, allow both regulators and creditors to ask for declaration for solvency proceedings.[183] Once proceedings have been initiated, a supervisor in charge of the liquidation will be appointed by the Minister of Trade.[184]
In the United States, state insurance departments determine whether an insurer is insolvent and they will decide whether it is necessary to intervene to protect policyholders and creditors. States hold guaranty funds that are available for payment to policyholders and creditors in the event of insolvency. Insolvency proceedings may be initiated only by regulators. In addition, guaranty funds do not pay any claim that the insurance company would not have paid.[185]
In Poland, if an insurance company goes bankrupt, the Guarantee Insurance Fund, established through the Act on Insurance Activity, satisfies claims made by persons with respect to insurance compulsory contracts and life insurance claims.[186] In the Republic of China-Taiwan, insurance companies are required to contribute a fixed portion of premiums to a guarantee fund for use by companies having solvency issues.[187] Colombia does not have mechanisms similar to guarantee funds; however, mechanisms for protection of policyholders do exist in case of an equity shortage. The law establishes figures for taking possession of an institution and mandatory liquidation.[188] Swiss regulation is changing from product regulation to financial regulation, but different regulations apply for life insurance. There is a special guarantee fund in life insurance and regulations concerning solvency capital. Solvency of each legal company in a conglomerate is considered separately.[189]
Under Spanish Law, there are preventative as well as curative measures in place concerning insolvency to protect clients’ and investors’ rights. In the insurance market, when dangers concerning solvency exist, the DGSFP will adopt measures to limit its capacity to dispose of goods, demand plans of short term financing, intervene in management or substitute administrative organs.[190]
Swiss regulation is changing from product regulation to financial regulation, but different regulations apply for life insurance. There is a special guarantee fund for life insurance and regulations concerning solvency capital. Solvency of each legal company in a conglomerate is considered separately.[191]
Various regulatory methods exist for protecting against insolvency of insurance companies, but each, as long as effectively monitored and exercised, should help protect policyholders. As seen in the case of Argentina and Australia, non-existence of or lack of effective enforcement of solvency regulations can lead to the liquation of insurance companies at a cost to the policyholders. Effective regulations must exist as a means of risk control and protection of policyholders.
Regulations relating to the solvency of the banking industry
The banking industry has regulations different from the insurance industry, but they were created with the same goal, protecting creditors and investors, in mind. In the Polish market, if a bank’s assets do not satisfy its obligations, under the Act on Banking Activity, the Banking Supervision Commission may submit an application for declaration of bankruptcy. The court shall appoint an official receiver of the bank. At this time, all obligations will become outstanding, contacts shall be terminated, and the Banking Guarantee Fund shall participate in the bankruptcy proceeding.[192]
In the banking market in Spain, there exist measures of intervention and substitution of administrators of credit institutions by the Bank of Spain when there are serious dangers involving solvency. There are Deposit Guarantee Funds that act when the credit institution has been declared bankrupt. There is also an Investment Guarantee Fund to ensure coverage of the money or securities belonging to investors in the possession of an investment bank that has declared bankruptcy or suspension of payments.[193]
The solvency of commercial banks in the United States is subject to regulation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The solvency of investment banks is mainly regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These regulatory bodies may take action to restrict the activities of the institution, compel change in management, or close the institution.[194]
Banking regulations exist in many other countries, and may be seen as more prevalent than those for the insurance industry due to the development and strength of each industry. However, other countries have the same solvency regulations for both insurance and the banking industry as they are both regulated by similar agencies. Whatever the method of regulation in these two industries, they must be effectively carried out in order to protect all parties involved.
Regulations concerning solvency and cross-border mergers
Regulations concerning solvency of cross-border companies depends on the status of the country. EU Insurance Directives have introduced a single license system for insurance companies established in the EU. To establish a branch in another EU Member State, a member state only needs to notify the supervisory authority and to fulfill certain administrative requirements. Supervision is performed on the basis of the home country supervision (where the company was established.) The host country has only a limited ability to impose measures on parties that do not comply with local regulations. If a country outside of the EU wants to provide insurance services, it must comply with local regulations and must apply for a license in the host country.[195]
The EU is currently working on a directive for heterogeneous financial conglomerates, combining financial institutions from different sectors to ensure the stability of European financial markets and establish common standards for supervision.[196]
In the United States, each state has specific financial requirements for foreign insurance providers. If a company does not meet certain financial minimums on a quarterly basis, the state can decide whether that insurance provider continues to operate in that state. U.S. insurer solvency regulations are stricter on non-U.S. insurers the solvency regulations imposed on U.S. insurers making cross-border mergers less attractive to non-U.S. insurers.[197]
Regulations concerning cross-border mergers in other countries are slightly different, but still are in place for the protection of involved parties. The same regulations apply for foreign insurance companies as do for Swiss insurance companies. However, foreign insurance companies need a license in their state of origin and have to establish a branch for their Swiss business. The CEO has to be approved by the Swiss authorities. Concerning cross-border mergers in the insurance industry, solvency regulation will be reflected in the pricing. Also, rigorous solvency regulation can be considered a market entry barrier. Swiss law, as do the laws of many other countries, forbids the integration of non-insurance activities into an insurance company thus hindering integration.[198]
Conclusion
As seen through the various markets, the level and definition of integration has a wide spread across the world. However, a common trend toward integration of the financial sectors exists. The synergies that will be captured once financial conglomerates are formed will force all companies to integrate in order to keep up with worldwide competition. Companies must examine the markets and regulation in order to figure out how to remove obstacles to integration in order to transition smoothly into an integrated financial market. While the financial sectors may be similar because they all involve risk management and are all attempting to capture the same capital market, there are many differences at a detail level that must be understood and combined to create a smooth running institution. In addition, the industries must work together to understand the corporate cultures and philosophies that exist outside the boundaries of their single industry. Without the understanding of other industry cultures, integration will not be successful and synergies will not be captured.
The road toward full integration will not be an easy one because of people’s unwillingness to give up the dual systems that they are accustomed to and the unwillingness of employees to change their everyday workday and remuneration systems. However, over time, as people get used to the idea of a financial conglomerate, more companies will be willing to step forward and move toward integration. Companies need to feel comfortable with the idea of a financial conglomerate and need to be assured that synergies will be captured and success will ensue. At a time of complete uncertainty concerning the success of a financial conglomerate and the direction of the global economy as a whole, many people are unwilling to take the risk. Regulations concerning solvency must be tightened and creditors and policyholders must be protected. Over time, a single regulatory agency for all financial sectors must emerge to decrease the complexity of regulations that will exist with the creation of a financial conglomerate.
All we need is one company to prove to the rest of the world that benefits to integration do exist and synergies can be captured. Until then, the move toward integration will be a slow one, but mergers and integration are the wave of the future. Financial conglomerates with universal integration of commercial banking, investment banking and insurance will emerge.
No comments:
Post a Comment