2. 职称英语
  3. (1)Of all the catastrophes mat could befall America in coming years, a big t

(1)Of all the catastrophes mat could befall America in coming years, a big t

游客2023-11-27  17
问题     (1)Of all the catastrophes mat could befall America in coming years, a big terrorist attack, perhaps even bigger than those on September 11th 2001, may be more likely than others. Who would pay for the millions in property damage, business losses and other claims from such an attack?
    (2)This is the question with which America’s Congress is currently wrestling. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act(TRIA)was passed as a temporary measure after September 11th to provide a government back-stop for the insurance industry in me event of a catastrophic attack. It now says government can step in when insured losses from a terrorist event top $5m. TRIA has helped to stabilize the market, and enabled insurers to continue offering terrorism-risk cover even after swallowing the big losses imposed by September 11th. But unless Congress acts fast, TRIA will expire at the end of the year. One likely result is the loss of terrorism-risk cover for thousands of firms and property owners. This, in turn, could disrupt businesses and make some commercial activity impossible. With modifications, TRIA should be extended.
    (3)The government has been opposed to extension. It has always seen TRIA as a short-term measure, and has argued that the private sector should assume sole responsibility for terrorism insurance. This is the right goal. A purely private solution would be best, lifting any future burden from the taxpayer and relying on the industry to price and spread risks more accurately than any government can do. But relying entirely on the private sector immediately does not look feasible. With TRIA’s expiration looming, insurers and reinsurers have not rushed to write new contracts for next year offering to fall gaps in terrorism cover.
    (4)Why the hesitation? Unlike other risks, the threat of terrorism cannot be forecast in time or scope, making a mockery of insurers’ underwriting models. A big chemical, biological or nuclear attack is a prospect few can price, or afford to cover. Insurers are already being threatened with downgrades by rating agencies for the terrorism cover they have sold.
    (5)One reason is that insurance, far from being a free market, is already one of the most heavily regulated of industries. Operating in a highly distorted marketplace, with 50 state regulators, the insurance industry seems to be having trouble pricing the largest of terrorism risks in a way that is credible and can still offer insurers a profit. Letting TRIA expire, and abruptly withdrawing the government role in insuring the largest losses, would just exacerbate this problem.
    (6)Any renewal of TRIA should, once again, be limited to two years, say. Its extension must also shift more of the burden, and the business, to the private sector. If an extension is agreed and TRIA’s threshold for government intervention is raised substantially, work should begin now to find better longer-term solutions. One place to look is abroad, where governments have dealt with terrorism risk for years. In Britain, for instance, insurers have created a pool of capital that is backed by the government and, over time, shifts a greater share of risk on to thee private sector. Other options to consider include tax changes that reduce the cost of holding capital by insurers and reinsurers, and facilitating the use of catastrophe bonds.
    (7)With fewer regulatory distortions of insurance markets, a solely private solution maybe attainable in the long run. In the current environment, though, the government that regularly warns of terrorist threats must still have a role to play in a solution that safeguards America’s financial security. It would be better to plan ahead than wait for a rushed, Katrina-style bail-out after a big attack. Amid all the uncertainties, one thing seems clear; any such bail-out would be more costly and lead to also greater market distortions without an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act today. [br] The private sector is hesitant in taking sole responsibility for terrorism insurance because _____.
选项 A、their current pricing models cannot estimate terrorism attacks properly
B、they do not often insure things they cannot forecast
C、they are threatened by loss of other insurance takers
D、they do not have regulator-approved contracts that cover terrorism attacks
答案 A
解析 文章第4段Why the hesitation之后的内容为查找点。后面几句话指出，和其他的风险不同，恐怖主义的威胁在时间和规模上都无法预测，因此使得保险公司的赔偿模式无法施展。这些袭击发生后，赔偿数额很难界定或者无力偿付。评分机构对保险公司已出售的恐怖事件类保险的打分降低，A与该意思吻合。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3223490.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)