As Congress considers another healthcare bill, the conversation continues to be about insurance, even though a form of reinsurance could solve many of the problems we face as a nation. The money for what I call “transparent health reinsurance” is already even in the various bills that Congress has considered; the more than $100 billion that has been designated for stabilizing healthcare insurance in the individual states would simply have to be redirected.
Transparent health reinsurance enables more people to receive better health care at less cost. As I wrote on this site in May 2016, “Transparent reinsurance programs could emerge as significant opportunities for healthcare providers, issuers, reinsurers, technology innovators and regulators to address health insurance.”
“Sharing information generates participation and creates cross-network efficiencies to enhance quality, improve delivery and reduce costs,” remarks Constance Erlanger, Marketcore’s CEO. “For healthcare insurers and providers, there are two key value-adds. First, the technologies incorporate any and all specific features a state and insurers in its jurisdiction may or may not include in state healthcare markets. Second, risk lenses clarify quality, delivery, outcome and cost across the 56 states and territories for transparent health insurance and healthcare services. Such robust information symmetry could rationalize healthcare insurance, quality and delivery. Such technologies, created by Marketcore, are already in development for bankers and insurers in multiple markets for complex risk assessments to finance recoveries from large-scale natural disasters.”
Everyone experiences strategic and financial advantage
Transparent health reinsurance supports these innovations by providing incentives that tackle the “widespread lack of transparency about both the costs and the effectiveness of treatments,” as Dr. Brian Holzer calls for in a timely article.
Any state could create a high-claim reinsurance pool managed by a recognized reinsurance operative. With supervision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a state insurance commission or its designee could invite qualified firms to function as a recognized reinsurer. These recognized reinsurers would work with qualified, innovative health service providers that demonstrate abilities to improve health outcomes at reduced expense.
The reinsurers would be part of a matrix solution, where some firms provide health management solutions, while others provide disease- specific solutions and others provide innovations in treatment. A state could, perhaps, elect to focus on the largest drivers of healthcare costs in its jurisdiction, such as chronically ill individuals or those with acute conditions that are difficult to predict.
Due to the technology’s granularity and clarity, a state could just as readily specify participation among all issuers for any plan being offered in its jurisdiction, including every participant in every plan or defining reinsurance participation for individuals with chronic conditions in employee-sponsored or state-managed plans.
Or, states could fund a high-claim reinsurance pool with a payment per covered life, preferably covering everyone in the state, thus lowering the per-life charge.
Pending state decision-making, employers would have the right to move employees into this pool, and would want to do so if it was clear that the innovative approaches reduced costs while improving health outcomes. Clearly, the lowest per-capita contributions would occur with the widest participation.
If a state targets the largest cost drivers, reinsurer and insurers would then work together to assign “high-claim” individuals to reinsurance pools once those individuals cross a defined expense threshold. Each individual would be assigned to one or more innovators under contract to deliver better health outcomes at reduced costs. An innovative tracking mechanism would measure and rank outcomes and savings. Crowd-sourced information would drive confidence scores.
Scoring would rank service providers and eliminate failed providers.
A state insurance commission or its designee as reinsurer could manage transparent health reinsurance as states reach management decisions with stabilization funds. A single designated entity could oversee a system that would reward innovative, successful healthcare delivery and quality. To that end, participating firms would be for proposals detailing expected improved health outcomes and costs.
The technology leverages continuing achievement. Some studies indicate 40% cost reductions for some chronic conditions. By adding transparency to these achievements, the technology scales to yield much lower overall healthcare costs, healthier populations and stabilized or lower insurer premiums.
At the end of each year, a new reinsurance pool would be formulated with adjustments based on actual experiences. If the previous pool ended up in surplus, a portion of that surplus would be retained in reserve, and any remaining amount could be returned to individuals, providers or both. If the previous pool ended up in deficit, the reinsurer could choose to fund that, with contributions in the following year meant to provide for recovery.
Several states could decide to form an umbrella reinsurance pool to cover some or all of their high-claim individuals.
All activities focus on improving health outcomes at reduced costs.
No state residents are asked to fend for themselves.
States are encouraged to develop innovative firms.
Overall health of state residents should improve, which would lead to a healthier economy.
Ultimately, state-related healthcare costs would decline.
In the process, transparent health reinsurance would animate highly profitable growth for corporations with domain strengths in mobile data, operating systems, search and social media. These firms could tap data and metadata markets by creating valuable, time-sensitive risk information and metrics. (With such robust technologies, privacy matters, and all platforms are HIPAA-compliant.)
Transparent reinsurance programs could emerge as significant opportunities for healthcare providers, issuers, reinsurers, technology innovators and regulators to address health insurance.
The message is clear. Having to factor in higher costs associated with new entrants to the healthcare system gives insurance firms license to charge higher rates. If these new people were put into a reinsurance pot for three to five years with costs spread over all insurers, no one insurer would be unnecessarily burdened. After this period, costs for these entrants could be reexamined and a decision could be made on how to proceed with them, depending upon the deviation from the remaining population.
Several factors are coming into play.
United Health Group indicates it will be leaving all but a few of the 34 states where it is offering health insurance under Obamacare.
A fresh Blue Cross Blue Shield study finds recent Obamacare entrants have higher rates of specific illnesses and used more medical services than early entrants. “Medical costs of care for the new individual market members were, on average, 19% higher than employer-based group members in 2014 and 22% higher in 2015. For example, the average monthly medical spending per member was $559 for individual enrollees versus $457 for group members in 2015,” the study found.
What emerges in conversations with economists, regulators and healthcare actuaries is a sense that properly designed, fair and transparent reinsurance could—and would—advance industry and public policy goals to continue insurance for all at affordable prices. This approach would represent tangible improvements over inefficient, incumbent systems. Information would be used by insurers and reinsurers, providers and regulators and, crucially, insureds to establish best performances for healthcare outcomes and expenses. Virtually everyone knows that state or regional reinsurance would have to be mandated, as voluntary systems could be gamed.
“The implementation of new policies, the availability of research funding, payment reform and consumer- and patient-led efforts to improve healthcare together have created an environment suitable for the successful implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice,” fresh research in Health Affairs also indicates.
Risk analysis technologies could help issuers, reinsurers, healthcare institutions and citizens rein in the healthcare system’s enormous costs. Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation projected that, “in 2016, the federal subsidies, taxes and penalties associated with health insurance coverage will result in a net subsidy from the federal government of $660 billion, or 3.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). That amount is projected to rise at an average annual rate of 5.4%, reaching $1.1 trillion (or 4.1% of GDP) in 2026. For the entire 2017–2026 period, the projected net subsidy is $8.9 trillion.”
CBO/JCT published this stunning projection amid consensus that $750 billion to $1 trillion of wasted spending occurs in healthcare in the U.S. “Approximately one in three health care dollars is waste,” Consumer Reports says.
Key metrics should focus on estimates of risk using demographics and diagnoses; risk model descriptions; calculation of plan average actuarial risk; user-specified risk revealing and detailing information; drill-down capabilities clarifying research; monitoring and control; and calculation and comparison measures to address reinsurance validation.
Several major refinements yielding and relying upon granular, risk-revealing data and metrics would support more efficient reinsurance. All would, and could, update reinsurance information and address customer experience, trust and privacy concerns.
“Advanced analytics are the key,” remarked John Wisniewski, associate vice president of actuary services at UPMC Health Plan. “Predictive capability that looks at the likelihood a patient admission may be coming is the information that we can give to doctors to deal with the matter. … Whoever develops algorithms for people who will be at risk—so providers can develop plans to mitigate risk—will create value for issuers, providers and members alike.”
Available technologies support the connecting of risk assessments with incentives for risk information.
Michael Erlanger, the founder and managing principal of Marketcore, said,“We cannot know what we cannot see. We cannot see what we cannot measure. These available technologies provide clarity for more efficient health insurance and reinsurance.”
Context: Three Rs: Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment
When Congress enacted the ACA, the legislation created reinsurance and risk corridors through 2016 and established risk adjustment transfer as a permanent element of health insurance. These three Rs—reinsurance, risk corridors and risk adjustment—were designed to moderate insurance industry risks, making the transition to ACA coverage and responsibilities. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the programs. All address adverse selection—that is, instances when insurers experience higher probabilities of losses due to risks not factored in at the times policies are issued. All also address risk selection, or industry preferences to insure healthier individuals and to avoid less healthy ones.
With the expiration of ACA reinsurance and risk corridors, along with mandatory reporting requirements this December, healthcare providers, issuers, reinsurers, technology innovators and regulators can now evaluate their futures, separate from CMS reporting.
Virtually all sources commend reinsurance and risk adjustment transfer as consistently as they deride risk corridors. Reinsurance has paid out well, while risk corridors have not. Risk adjustment transfer remains squarely with CMS.
While House Republican initiatives try and fail to repeal the ACA, and some news programs and pundits say it is unsustainable, approximately 20 million subscribers are enrolled in Obamacare: with 12.7 million as marketplace insureds, with others through Medicaid and as young adults on parent plans. President Obama, in March, remarked: “Last summer we learned that, for the first time ever, America’s uninsured rate has fallen below 10%. This is the lowest rate of uninsured that we’ve seen since we started keeping these records.” Subscription ratios are off the charts. Premium increases have been modest, approximately 6% for 2016, experts find. “I see no risk to the fundamental stability of the exchanges,” MIT economist Jonathan Gruber observed, noting “a big enough market for many insurers to remain in the fold.”
Transitional Reinsurance 2014-16: Vehicle for Innovation
One of the great benefits of the ACA is eliminating pre-existing conditions and premium or coverage variables based on individual underwriting across the board. Citizens are no longer excluded from receiving adequate healthcare, whether directly or indirectly through high premiums. Prices for various plan designs go up as coverage benefits increase and as co-pays and deductibles decrease, but the relative prices of the various plans are calculated to be actuarially equivalent.
To help issuers make the transition from an era when they prided themselves on reducing or eliminating less healthy lives from the insureds they covered, to an era where all insureds are offered similar ratings, the ACA introduced reinsurance and risk corridors to cover the first three years (2014 through 2016), in addition to risk adjustment transfer, which will remain in force.
The concept is relatively simple: Require all issuers to charge a flat per-dollar, per-month, per-“qualified” insured and create a pot of money with these “reinsurance premiums” that reimburses issuers for excess claims on unhealthy lives. Issuers would be reimbursed based on established terms outlined in the ACA.
Reinsurance reimburses issuers for individual claims in excess of the attachment point, up to a limit where existing reinsurance coverage would kick in. Individuals involved with these large claims may or may not be identified in advance as high-risk. The reimbursed claim may be an acute (non-chronic) condition or an accident. The individual may otherwise be low-risk.
The important aspect is that all health insurance issuers and self-insured plans contribute. By spreading the cost over a large number of individuals, the cost per individual of this reinsurance program is small to negligible. Non-grandfathered individual market plans are eligible for payments. A state can operate a reinsurance program, or CMS does on its behalf through this year.
As a backstop, the federal government put some money in the pot through 2016—just in case the pot proved inadequate to provide full reimbursement to the issuers. In a worst-case scenario, the sum of the reinsurance premiums and the federal contribution could still be inadequate, in which case the coinsurance refund rate would be set at less than 100%.
As it turned out, 2014 reinsurance premiums proved to be more than adequate, so the refund rate was 100%, and the excess funds in the pot after reimbursement were set aside and added to the pot for 2015, just in case that proves inadequate.
Reinsurance functions on this timetable through this year:
CMS transferred approximately $7.9 billion among 437 issuers—or 100% of filed claims for 2014, as claims were lower than expected— and it has yet to release 2015 payments. The results for 2015 are coming this summer.
From the outset, states could, and would, elect to continue reinsurance, the CMS contemplated. In 2012, the CMS indicated that “states are not prohibited from continuing a reinsurance program but may not use reinsurance contribution funds collected under the reinsurance program in calendar years 2014 through 2016 to fund the program in years after 2018.”
Subsequent clarification in 2013 did not disturb state discretion. Current regulation specifies that “a state must ensure that the applicable reinsurance entity completes all reinsurance-related activities for benefit years 2014 through 2016 and any activities required to be undertaken in subsequent periods.”
One course of action going forward from 2017 and varying from state-to-state could be mandatory reinsurance enacted through state laws. Healthcare providers, issuers, reinsurers, regulators and legislators could define the health reinsurance best suited to each state’s citizens.
Reinsurers could design and manage administration of these programs possibly at a percentage of premium cost that is less than what is charged by the federal government today. While these reinsurance programs would be mandated, they could include a component of private reinsurance. For example, reinsurers could guarantee the adequacy of per-month reinsurance premiums with provisos that if these actuarially calculated rates turned out to be inadequate in any given year or month, there will be an adjustment to account for the loss in the following year. Conversely, if those rates turn out to be too high, 90% or more is set aside in an account for use in the following year. This way, reinsurers could participate by providing a private sourced solution to adverse claims.
Risk corridors apply to issuers with Qualified Health Plans (exchange certified plans) and facilitate transfer payments. The CMS noted: “Issuers whose premiums exceed claims and other costs by more than a certain amount pay into the program, and insurers whose claims exceed premiums by a certain amount receive payments for their shortfall.” Technically, “risk corridors mean any payment adjustment system based on the ratio of allowable costs of a plan to the plan’s target amount,” as the CMS designated.
Risk corridors are politically contentious. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) likened risk corridors to bailouts. The HHS acknowledged it will “explore other sources of funding for risk corridors payments, subject to the availability of appropriations… includ[ing] working with Congress on the necessary funding for outstanding risk corridors payments.” And, a knowledgeable analyst, Dr. David Blumenthal, noted that risk corridors are not bailouts.
Going forward, evaluations of risk corridors will demand due diligence. Several health exchanges failed from any number of factors—from too little capital for growth experienced, inadequate pricing, mismanagement or risk corridor payments.
Whether innovation can yield effective risk corridors or whether risk corridors will simply fade out as transitional 2014-2016 regulation will depend on institutional and industry participants. Risk corridors did not score unalloyed approbation among sources.
Risk Adjustment: Permanent Element of ACA
Risk adjustment remains in force and impels issuers with healthier enrollees to offset some costs of issuers with sicker ones in specific states and markets and of markets as a means toward promoting affordable health care choices by discouraging cherry picking healthier enrollees.
The HHS transferred approximately $4.6 billion for risk adjustment among issuers for 2014.
At first blush, one might postulate that risk adjustment does the job and that reinsurance and risk corridors could just as reasonably fade out. There is some logic to that argument.
On the other hand, state or regional level reinsurance could make up for risk adjustment shortfalls. In some instances, risk adjustment seems to be less friendly to issuers that take on higher-risk individuals, rather than rewarding high tech issuers and providers with back office capabilities coding claims in such a way as to tactically game risk adjustment.
Evaluating and cultivating these opportunities are timely amid the uncertainties of the presidential and congressional elections that may yield executive and legislative lawmakers intent on undoing ACA provisions, starting with risk corridors. Such legislation could produce losses for issuers and reinsurers.
Nelson A. Rockefeller Precedent
In 1954, then-Undersecretary of Health Education and Welfare Nelson A. Rockefeller proposed reinsurance as an incentive for insurers to offer more health insurance. S 3114, A Bill to Improve the Public Health by Encouraging More Extensive Use of the Voluntary Prepayment Method in the Provision of Personal Health Services, emerged in the first Eisenhower administration to enact a federally funded health reinsurance pool. Rockefeller intended the reinsurance as a means toward an end, what would eventually be dubbed a “third way” among proponents of national health insurance. President Truman and organized labor championed the approach into the mid-’50s. So did the Chamber of Commerce and congressional Republican adversaries of the New Deal and Fair Deal, who were chaffing to undo Social Security as quickly as they could. The American Medical Association also supported this third way because it opposed federal healthcare reinsurance as an opening wedge for socialized medicine. Despite limiting risk and offering new products, insurers demurred because of comfort zones with state regulators and trepidation about a federal role.
Nelson A. Rockefeller, then-undersecretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, presenting a federally funded health reinsurance plan, 1954.
Source: Department of Health Education and Welfare—now Health and Human Services
Rockefeller’s health reinsurance plan would “achieve a better understanding of the nation’s medical care problem, of the techniques for meeting it through voluntary means, and of the actuarial risks involved,” HEW Secretary Oveta Culp Hobby testified to a Senate subcommittee in 1954.
Rockefeller’s health reinsurance plan did not make it through the House. Organized labor decried it as too little, the AMA said it was too intrusive. Upon hearing news of the House vote, a frustrated Dwight Eisenhower blistered to reporters, “The people that voted against this bill just don’t understand what are the facts of American life,” according to Cary Reich in The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller 1908-1958. “Ingenuity was no match for inertia,” Rockefeller biographer Richard Norton Smith remarked of industry and labor interests in those hard-wired, central-switched, mainframe times.
“’It’s déjà vu all over again’ like Yogi Berra,” said one insurance commissioner immersed in the ACA on hearing Ike’s quote.
The idea of national health insurance went nowhere despite initiatives by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) in the late ’70s and President Bill and First Lady Hillary Clinton roughly 20 years ago, until Congress legislated Obamacare.
Innovative, Transparent Technologies Can Deliver Results
Nowadays, more than 60 years after Rockefeller’s attempt, innovative information technologies can get beyond these legislative and regulatory hurdles. Much of the data and networking is at hand. Enrollee actuarial risks, coverage actuarial values, utilization, local area costs of business and cost-sharing impacts on utilization are knowable in current systems. Broadband deployment and information technology innovations drive customer acquisition and information management costs ever lower each succeeding day. Long-term efficiencies for reinsurers, insurers, carriers, regulators, technology innovators and state regulators await evaluation and development.
Reinsurance Going Forward From 2017
So, if state reinsurance programs can provide benefits, what should they look like, and how should they be delivered?
For issuers, state-of-the-art transparent solutions improve the current system by enabling issuers to offer more products and services and becalm more ferocious industry adversaries while lowering risks and extending markets. Smaller, nimbler issuers may provide more innovative solutions and gain market share by providing the dual objectives of better health outcomes with lower costs.
For regulators, innovative, timely information sustains the indispensability of state regulators ensuring financial soundness and legal compliance—while allowing innovators to upgrade marketplace and regulatory systems, key regulatory goals that Iowa’s insurance commissioner, Nick Gerhart, pointed out recently. Commissioner Gerhart envisions regulators as orchestra conductors, acknowledging that most insurance regulatory entities are woefully understaffed to design or operate such reinsurance programs themselves, but they will, and they can lead if the participants can provide turnkey capabilities.
Think of health insurance and reinsurance as generational opportunities for significant innovation rather like the Internet and email. When the Department of Defense permitted the Internet and email to evolve to civilian markets from military capabilities in the 1980s, the DOD initially approached the U.S. Postal Service. Senior Post Office management said it welcomed the opportunity to support email: All users need do is email correspondence to recipients’ local post offices by nine p.m. for printing, enveloping, sorting and letter-carrier delivery the following day.
Similarly, considerable opportunities chart innovative pathways for state and regional health reinsurance for 2017 and beyond.
One path, emulating the post office in the ’80s, keeps on coding and bemoans a zero sum; it would allow the existing programs to fade away and will respond to whatever the president and Congress might do.
Another path lumps issuer health reinsurance as an incumbent reinsurer service without addressing the sustainability of state health exchanges or, indeed, any private health insurers in the absences of risk spreading with readily available information technologies.
The approach suggested here—mandated state health reinsurance—innovates to build sustainable futures. Enabling technologies empower all stakeholders to advance private and public interests through industry solutions advancing affordable healthcare.
Baltimore Ravens Coach John Harbaugh complained that Patriots Coach Bill Belichick used deceptive tactics in a playoff game last weekend, after a novel, efficiently executed series of third-quarter plays disoriented the Ravens defense and helped power the Patriots to AFC championship game. But the complaint is short on Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Ralph Waldo Emerson and overlarded with Edgar Allan Poe.
Everything about the Patriots resounds with innovation, resourcefulness and the persistence celebrated by Longfellow and Emerson.
In “Paul Revere’s Ride,” Longfellow expressly celebrates those virtues achieving independence against a stronger adversary:
“In the books you have read,
How the British Regulars fired and fled,
–How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard-wall,
Chasing the red-coats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.”
Individual and organization, player and team, succeed when all embrace innovation, as Emerson says in “Self-Reliance”: “Power…resides in the moment of transition from a past to a new state…. This one fact the world hates, that the soul becomes; for that forever degrades the past…. [A] man or a company of men, plastic and permeable to principles, by the law of nature must overpower and ride all cities, nations, kings, rich men, poets, who are not.”
The Patriots’ clever disguise of which players were eligible receivers and which ineligible presented a new way of reading, a fresh legibility executing so quickly that the Ravens could not read the play until it had transpired.
The play was simply another of Belichick’s irrepressible innovations. A decade or so ago, in two Super Bowls, linebacker Mike Vrabel deployed on offense and caught touchdown passes in both games.
Ravens Coach John Harbaugh’s choice of words after last week’s deception captures his frustration. “It’s a substitution type of a trick type of thing,” Harbaugh told journalists. “They don’t give you a chance to make the proper substitutions…. It’s not something that anybody’s ever done before…. They…announce the ineligible player, and then Tom Brady would take them to the line right away and snap the ball before we had a chance to figure out who was lined up where. That was the deception part of it.” A complaint got nowhere with the league. Celerity trumped incumbent legibility.
In effect, Coach Harbaugh is perseverating Poe.
Poe portends as much in the team’s namesake, the poem “The Raven”:
“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!-prophet still, if bird or devil!-
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted-
On this home by Horror haunted-tell me truly, I implore-
Is there—is there balm in Gilead?-tell me-tell me, I implore!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”
Of course, no one is saying “nevermore” about the Ravens or the coach, whose team did well in a competitive game and won a Super Bowl but two years ago.
But immersive reading in Emerson and Longfellow charts the Colts’ best shot prepping for the AFC championship game against the Patriots. Colts coaches and players would find few other drills as efficient or effective as they get ready to challenge New England champs.
Comprehension of Emerson’s and Longfellow’s insights shows how to innovate in a highly competitive game.
“This American Life” teamed up with ProPublica for a blockbuster story that Federal Reserve regulators defer to mega bank Goldman Sachs on compliance issues. Thanks to whistleblower Carmen Segarra, the report about the culture at the Fed was so explosive that Sen. Elizabeth Warren called for an investigation within 24 hours.
The whole mechanics of the story highlight the problems with our current system. But for a whistleblower coming forward, no one would likely learn of the big bank’s conduct or of regulators’ deference to it. Once she provided authentic, unimpeachable audio, a compelling broadcast led a legislator to call for an investigation, but any probe may or may not yield findings of wrongdoing. The main result seems likely to be publicity for lawmakers, regulators and bankers. All pretty much par for the course, underscoring the concern I expressed in an earlier piece that a lack of control by the Fed could leave banks and markets in the same sort of condition that led to disaster in 2008.
These issues are consequential for insurers not least because the industry holds $120 billion in mortgage-backed securities for commercial and multifamily real estate, $336 billion in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBSs) and asset-backed securities (ABSs) and $365 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association and Federal Reserve. The insurance industry relies on these investments for significant portions of its operating profits, so it needs a safe and efficient financial system.
A solution is at hand. “Interactive finance” addresses the insurance industry’s transparency needs with large banks by powering real-time monitoring and compliance as it creates efficient markets and reduces regulatory costs.
Marketcore, a firm I advise, is pioneering interactive finance to generate liquidity by rewarding individuals and institutions for revealing information that details risks.
Interactive finance crowd-sources market participation by rewarding individuals, organizations and institutions seeking loans, lines of credit or mortgages or negotiating contracts with monetary or strategic incentives. These rewards are offered in exchange for risk-detailing, confidence-building disclosures that increase trading volumes. Whether risk takers are a bank, insurance company or counter party, all granters define rewards. A reward can constitute a financial advantage — say, a discount on the cost of information or transaction. The sale of the information more than makes up for the discounted fee. The time-sensitive grant of advantage can actually be directed to specific products, benefiting traders.
All this transpires on currently existing electronic displays broadband, multimedia, mobile and interactive information networks and grids. Interactive finance realizes a neutral risk identification and mitigation system with a system architecture that scans and values risks, even down to individual risk elements and their aggregations. As parties and counter parties crowd markets, each revealing specific risk information in return for equally precise and narrowly tailored rewards and incentives, their trading generates fresh data and meta data on risk tolerances in real time and near real time. This data and meta data can then be deployed to provide real-time confidence scoring of risk in dynamic markets. Every element is dynamic, like so many Internet activities and transactions.
Interactive finance constantly authenticates risks with constantly refreshing feedback loops. Risk determination permits insureds, brokers and carriers to update risks through “a transparency index. . . based. . . on the quality and quantity of the risk data records.”
Through these capabilities, Marketcore technologies connect the specific, individual risk vehicle with macro market data to present the current monetary value of the risk instrument, a transparency index documenting all the risk information about it and information on the comparative financial instruments. Anyone participating receives a comprehensive depiction of certainty, risk, disclosures and value.
There will be vastly more efficiency once interactive finance provides timely information that allows for easy monitoring by regulators and lawmakers, provides incentives for compliance by big banks and stimulates efficient markets.
There will be no more need for whistleblowers if interactive finance provides timely information that allows for easy monitoring by regulators and lawmakers that forces compliance by big banks and markets.
In a Senate Banking Committee hearing earlier this summer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen played their parts brilliantly. They acted out a time-tried political science convention, that legislators and journalists are judged on results while bureaucrats and professors are judged on rules.
At issue is Federal Reserve Board enforcement of its statutory obligations under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, to see to it that JP Morgan has orderly resolution plans in the event of failure. Broadly stated, that section of the Dodd-Frank Act empowered the Fed to impose “prudential standards” on bank holding companies with assets of at least $50 billion if an institution’s failure could affect “the financial stability of the United States.” The section also required the Fed to report its determinations annually to Congress.
The hearing demonstrated the limits of our current system and the need for interactive finance, by which I mean rewarding institutions and individuals with financial or strategic advantage for revealing information that details risk. Interactive finance will provide indispensable liquidity to crucial markets that currently see little trading. More importantly, interactive finance addresses the core challenges of concentrated market power in banking and of sclerotic market administration — of which Fed efforts to manage orderly resolution of JP Morgan are but a single, frightening circumstance.
The issues are crucial not just for our economy as a whole but for insurers, in particular, because they are such large investors in securities offered by major financial institutions. The investments generate a high percentage of the insurance industry’s operating profits but expose it to catastrophic losses. For instance, in mortgage-backed securities, insurers hold more than $900 billion in commercial and multifamily real estate mortgages, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s Q4 2013 report. (That’s $343 billion in commercial and multifamily mortgage debt plus $567 billion in commercial mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and asset-backed securities.) The Federal Reserve tallies life insurance companies’ holdings of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) at $365 billion as of the end of the first quarter, 2014.
In that wonderfully well-acted hearing, Sen. Warren asked Chairwoman Yellen if JPMorgan could sell its assets without disrupting the economy and impelling a taxpayer bailout. Warren also asked: Where are those reports the Fed is to provide annually?
Warren was raising a key question: Is the Fed forbearing, being lenient on JPMorgan and other huge financial institutions?
Congress enacted Dodd-Frank in July 2010, and this March the Federal Reserve Board published 100 pages of rules and regulations implementing Section 165. That is a gap of 33 months. Congress has yet to see any Federal Reserve reports, but for a wholly lacking 35-page document, Warren asserts.
It’s possible that market administration is so complicated that it simply takes inordinately long to articulate and implement regulation and to report outcomes to Congress and the public. But the Warren-Yellen exchange revealed vastly more, specifically what appears to be a Federal Reserve policy to forbear on implementing its statutory obligations under Dodd Frank 165 in connection with JP Morgan and orderly resolution.
In the hearing, Sen. Warren expressly asked Chairman Yellen, “Can you honestly say that JPMorgan can be resolved in a rapid and orderly fashion…with no threats to the economy and no need for a taxpayer bailout?” And, “Are you saying the plans [for resolution] are not credible, and you’re asking them to change their plans?”
Yellen never really indicated that JPMorgan has any credible plan in place for its orderly resolution or has submitted any since 2012. Instead, she articulated process, iteration and feedback. Dodging Warren’s direct questions, Yellen essentially said that complexity drives inconclusiveness and explains the lack of annual reports to Congress. Yellen used the word, “feedback,” five times in her replies.
Both Yellen’s circumlocution on JPMorgan resolution and its outsized concentration are but symptoms of market and market administration sclerosis, which Warren is trying desperately to treat.
Absolutely brilliant performances by each woman. No question about it. As a legislator, Warren underscored that she wants results. As a regulator, Yellen adhered to processes and rules and the Federal Reserve Board’s traditional discretion in so weighty and complex a matter.
Requests for clarification from the Federal Reserve Board for this article elicited no further information about the important question: Is the Federal Reserve forbearing on implementation of Dodd-Frank 165 bank resolution?
End of story?
No. Two problems remain.
First, what of the JPMorgan resolution elephant in the room?
Why couldn’t Yellen assert simply to Sen. Warren that JPMorgan — with its $2.5 trillion in assets and 3,391 subsidiaries — has credible plans in place for rapid, orderly resolution without triggering a systemic threat or taxpayer bailout?
Could it be “the economy, stupid,” in James Carville’s bald turn of phrase? Monetary policy regulators repeatedly assert they have a very small palette of choices. At a conference of central bankers in Jackson Hole on Aug. 22, Yellen acknowledged that monetary policy makers are grappling with how to determine the best mechanisms to foster growth and to maintain price stability. “While these assessments have always been imprecise and subject to revision, the task has become especially challenging in the aftermath of the Great Recession, which brought nearly unprecedented cyclical dislocations and may have been associated with similarly unprecedented structural changes in the labor market — changes that have yet to be fully understood,” she said. Eleven days earlier, in a speech to a finance conference in Sweden, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer cautioned of protracted economic slowdown well over a dozen times as he articulated policy-making constraints. “In the United States, three major aggregate demand headwinds appear to have kept a more vigorous recovery from taking hold: the unusual weakness of the housing sector during the recovery period; the significant drag — now waning — from fiscal policy; and the negative impact from the growth slowdown abroad — particularly in Europe,” he said.
In such weak economies, the last thing Yellen or any senior regulator with any sense of self-preservation would do is to acknowledge that JPMorgan cannot credibly assert that it can resolve itself. Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s analysis (1963) that regulators — and not a spending crisis — triggered the Great Depression through monetary policy yet resounds in economic thinking. Hence all of Yellen’s process talk, for it would be incautious to respond negatively to Sen. Warren’s unambiguous questions whether JPMorgan can resolve itself without wreckage or bailout.
In the pantheon of Federal Reserve Board chairs, if one thinks of Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin (1951-1970) for probity, Arthur Burns (1970-1978) for concision, G. William Miller for brevity (1978-1979), Paul Volcker for decency (1979-1987), Alan Greenspan for obscurity (1987-2006) and Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) for agility, Yellen may be laying claim as the Fed’s Rocky Balboa. In winter and early spring, she said weather was the economy’s problem. In mid-summer, she gamely parried Warren’s Ted Kennedy, who was insisting government can do better.
Second, what of sclerotic market administration? This represents the graver challenge. Warren got no answers or reports. Yellen advertised she cannot or will not enforce Fed rules. All they achieved is good video. Both came up empty.
Citizens voted for change six years and again two years ago. Certainly, voluminous regulation — the rules and regulations on Section 165 fill 100 pages with single-spaced, eight-point type — is a change in a very narrow sense from Bush-Cheney deregulation, outsourcing and selling of public resources and lands. However, such extensive regulation raises regulatory costs and seems to mainly benefit practitioners of crafting and evading the regulations rather than providing broader economic benefits.
Technology now affords near-real-time or even real-time market administration, providing the kind of protection that the Fed can’t and removing the JPMorgans of the world as existential threats to the economy. Interactive finance animates the next step to create wealth with the data and meta data. There’s everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Prudential valuation based on credit ratings has had its run. In terms of evaluating securities, the system is so laden with conflicts of interest between the rating agencies and the offering firms that it is amazing it has persisted after having such catastrophic effects in the 2008 asset crisis.
But the most promising possibility is interactive finance, which administers markets more efficiently than the incumbent regulatory system, so frustrating to Warren and Yellen alike, and more effectively than the compromised prudential valuation system.
Let’s begin with a shared orientation that information and data are the crucial wealth generation engines of the 21st century. Large search firms like Google and online retailers like Amazon or news and information content providers like Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters necessarily seek to exploit first-mover advantages and deep domain competencies by controlling as much of the data associated with their online businesses as possible. The new wealth in information is no less hoarded than pre-Internet wealth in fiat currencies, art, precious metals, insurance and real estate.
But remember: The markets are liberalized. Better mousetraps beat the world to innovators’ enterprises.
Airbnb is using an overlay of information to disintermediate hospitality and accommodations incumbents, and Uber is throwing hackney licensing for a loop. New entrants Datacoup and Meeco are enabling users to sell their data, even challenging the largest Internet firms in the world. And, because of liberalized markets, more and more innovation and individual and institutional wealth creation with data and meta data will take place.
Marketcore, a firm I advise, is pioneering interactive finance to generate liquidity by rewarding individuals and institutions for sharing information with financial or strategic advantage for revealing information that details risks.
Think of it this way: Interactive finance crowd-sources market participation by rewarding individuals, organizations and institutions seeking loans, lines of credit or mortgages or negotiating contracts with monetary or strategic incentives and rewards. Whether risk takers are a bank, insurance company or counter party, granters define rewards. A reward can constitute a financial advantage — say, a discount on the next interval of a policy for individuals purchasing retail products. The reward can express a strategic advantage — say, foreknowledge of risk exposure for institutions dealing in structured risks like residential mortgage-backed securities or bonds, contracts, insurance policies, lines of credit, loans or securities.
As crucially, transaction credits empower any and all market participants to act as granters of rewards. Individuals, organizations and institutions grant strategic or monetary incentives to counter parties seeking to acquire risks, too.
All this transpires on currently existing broadband, multimedia, mobile and interactive information networks and grids. Interactive finance realizes a neutral risk identification and mitigation system with a system architecture that scans and values risks, even down to individual risk elements and their aggregations. As parties and counter parties crowd markets, each revealing specific risk information in return for equally precise and narrowly tailored rewards and incentives, their trading generates fresh data and meta data on risk tolerances in real time and near real time. This data and meta data can then be deployed to provide real-time confidence scoring of risk in dynamic markets. Every element is dynamic, like so many Internet activities and transactions.
Talk about efficiency!
Crucially, interactive finance constantly authenticates risks with constantly refreshing feedback loops. Risk determination permits insureds, brokers and carriers to update risks through “a transparency index. . . based. . . on the quality and quantity of the risk data records.” Component analysis of pooled securities facilitates drilling down in structured risk vehicles so risk takers, including insurers and reinsurers, can address complex contracts and special pool arrangements with foreknowledge of risk. Real-time revaluation of contracts clarifies “the risk factors and valuation of [an] instrument” and, in so doing, “increases liquidity and tracks risks’ associated values even as derivative instruments are created.”
Through these capabilities, Marketcore technologies connect the specific, individual risk vehicle with macro market data to present the current monetary value of the risk instrument, a transparency index documenting all the risk information about it and information on the comparative financial instruments. Anyone participating receives a complete, comprehensive depiction of certainty, risk, disclosures and value.
Think how readily Chairwoman Yellen could respond to Sen. Warren with information replenished constantly and willingly by market participants and verified by constantly updating feedback loops.
Think how much Sen. Warren could ask regarding transparency. She’d receive a verifiable response, with great confidence.
Interactive finance allows for transparent markets capable of clearing and self-correcting. With interactive finance, legislator and regulator can get results and adhere to rules. Sen. Warren could administer vibrant, efficient, self-stimulating and self-correcting markets powered by information and data-verifying risks and clarifying confidence. Chairwoman Yellen could enforce Fed rules.
Both could get well beyond JPMorgan’s compliance issues to apply their appreciable talents administering information economies, the wellsprings of 21st century commerce and economic growth.