There are two significant areas which will demand comments from three stake-holders. One is the aspect of providing hierarchal right of refusal to different players. The second one is the aspect of limiting the retrocession for the players.
The first stakeholder who should offer his comments to the exposure draft is the government. The Prime Minister's Office, the ministry of finance and perhaps the law ministry could offer their comment on both these aspects. On one side the government is promoting India Inc and inviting investors and know-how and several road shows are being organised to this effect. The concept of creating a non-level playing field may be difficult for the government to digest. And from the aspect of promoting competition and avoiding restrictive practices, the law ministry could also comment on its tenability. A quota system would result in promoting inefficiency for which the insurance industry will pay a price. Then again the concept of retrocession is an extreme swing from the policy stance articulated both in the preamble to the amendment and also the report offered by a select committee to Parliament. The policy formation is the prerogative of the government and Parliament and hence the need for a comment to the exposure draft from this stakeholder.
The second stakeholder who could offer his comments to the exposure draft are the customers of reinsurance, namely the insurers. The quota system as proposed in the exposure draft would be a restrictive practice and promote inefficiency. The larger question is whether the insurers were better off in the prevailing regulatory conditions where they could cede their premium and risks to global reinsurers, after complying with ceding it to the national reinsurer, in offshore locations or go through the rigour of different quotas for different players.
The third stakeholder is the global reinsurance industry itself. Both the players and the regulators and reinsurance associations from various global markets should share with the regulator their views on the subject. If they have past experience of working in markets with differential rights to write business or where retrocession is limited then they could provide it to the regulator. It should avoid responding to the reform by creating such barriers for Indian reinsurers in their jurisdictions.
The regulations are in their state of drafting. One would conclude that comments from these stakeholders and others would assist the regulator in making the guidelines congruent with the reforms proposed by the new government.
The author is Managing Partner, Ashvin Parekh Advisory Services LLP. Views are personal
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)