1 |
Reinsurance Contracting with Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard: Theory and EvidenceYan, Zhiqiang 03 September 2009 (has links)
This dissertation includes two essays on adverse selection and moral hazard problems in reinsurance markets. The first essay builds a competitive principal-agent model that considers adverse selection and moral hazard jointly, and characterizes graphically various forms of separating Nash equilibria. In the second essay, we use panel data on U.S. property liability reinsurance for the period 1995-2000 to test for the existence of adverse selection and moral hazard. We find that (1) adverse selection is present in private passenger auto liability reinsurance market and homeowners reinsurance market, but not in product liability reinsurance market; (2) residual moral hazard does not exist in all the three largest lines of reinsurance, but is present in overall reinsurance markets; and (3) moral hazard is present in the product liability reinsurance market, but not in the other two lines of reinsurance.
|
2 |
Tributação de resseguros no Brasil: discussão dos efeitos práticos após a solução de consulta n. 62/2017Deperon, Valter 28 March 2018 (has links)
Submitted by Valter Deperon (vdeperon@gmail.com) on 2018-04-26T00:45:07Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
Valter Deperon_Dissertacao Abril2018_versaofinal250418.pdf: 457197 bytes, checksum: 9d22b722941ef7a64a699e95eb5bc378 (MD5) / Rejected by Thais Oliveira (thais.oliveira@fgv.br), reason: Valter, boa tarde!
Tivemos de rejeitar a Tese novamente, pois a data da aprovação está preenchida, deve estar em branco. e também deve conter o "Campo de Conhecimento" (este deve esta preenchido) acima da Data da Aprovação.
Por gentileza, alterar e submeter novamente.
Obrigada.
Qualquer dúvida, entre em contato. on 2018-04-26T16:18:09Z (GMT) / Submitted by Valter Deperon (vdeperon@gmail.com) on 2018-04-26T21:25:09Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
Valter Deperon_Dissertacao Abril2018_versaofinal260418.pdf: 457236 bytes, checksum: 1c91df12538fe6bdb4de139789c59112 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Thais Oliveira (thais.oliveira@fgv.br) on 2018-04-26T22:00:31Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
Valter Deperon_Dissertacao Abril2018_versaofinal260418.pdf: 457236 bytes, checksum: 1c91df12538fe6bdb4de139789c59112 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Suzane Guimarães (suzane.guimaraes@fgv.br) on 2018-04-27T13:59:54Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
Valter Deperon_Dissertacao Abril2018_versaofinal260418.pdf: 457236 bytes, checksum: 1c91df12538fe6bdb4de139789c59112 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-27T13:59:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
Valter Deperon_Dissertacao Abril2018_versaofinal260418.pdf: 457236 bytes, checksum: 1c91df12538fe6bdb4de139789c59112 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2018-03-28 / Após a abertura do mercado de resseguros pela Lei Complementar nº 126/2007, três categorias de resseguradores foram criadas no Brasil: local, admitido e eventual. Os dois últimos formados por companhias estrangeiras que se instalaram no Brasil. Diante disso, houve muita incerteza a respeito do tratamento tributário que deveria ser aplicado sobre as transações de resseguros internacionais que, resumidamente, são: prêmios de resseguros, comissões de resseguros e sinistros pagos. O mercado se autorregulou e passou a praticar e a interpretar as regras fiscais, conforme a legislação securitária e tributária então vigente. Em 2017, a Receita Federal publicou a Solução de Consulta Cosit nº 62 que basicamente reafirmou o tratamento tributário que o mercado estava praticando para as categorias local e eventual, porém inovou ao equiparar o ressegurador admitido ao local, para fins fiscais. A razão da equiparação deu-se em função da exigência regulatória da Superintendência de Seguros Privados (SUSEP) de que o ressegurador admitido deva constituir um escritório de representação no Brasil, conferindo poderes a um procurador para aceitar e vincular a empresa estrangeira perante o mercado brasileiro. Com isso, concluiu-se que tal atividade equivaleria à do ressegurador local. O efeito prático de tal conclusão é um tratamento tributário semelhante ao conceito de Estabelecimento Permanente (EP), e a aplicação de regras tributárias locais ao admitido implica em um aumento significativo da carga tributária e das exigências e custos contábeis, financeiros e operacionais ao ressegurador admitido, o que inviabilizaria o mercado de seguros e resseguros, diante da potencial falta de cobertura para os riscos administrados no Brasil. A determinação de tratamento tributário equiparado a ressegurador local à empresa estrangeira não pode ser realizada por presunções formais legais, mas necessitaria de um exame concreto e fático de que, materialmente, as decisões de assunção de risco, subscrição e pagamento de indenizações está sendo feita pelo escritório de representação no Brasil, e não apenas em virtude de documentos formais. As atividades do escritório de representação não se confundem com as do ressegurado admitido estrangeiro por ele representado, existindo total independência e autonomia societária, contábil, operacional e fiscal. Embora tenha poder para assinatura de contratos, se tais poderes não são exercidos, o risco de EP é mitigado. A clara demonstração de ausência de execução de poder decisório e assinatura de contratos, bem como a revisão total dos processos internos, com a definição clara das atividades que são desempenhadas pelo escritório de representação é elemento de prova fundamental para afastar as potenciais autuações e discussões administrativas e judiciais. / After the opening of the reinsurance market under Complementary Law 126/2007, three categories of reinsurers were created in Brazil: local, admitted and occasional. The last two were formed by foreign companies that expanded into Brazil. As such, there was a lot of uncertainty regarding the tax treatment that should be applied to international reinsurance transactions, as follows: reinsurance premiums, reinsurance commissions and claims (indemnities) paid. The market was then self-regulated and began to apply and interpret the tax rules, in accordance with the regulatory insurance and tax laws applicable at that time. In 2017, the Federal Tax Authorities (RFB) issued the Cosit Advance Tax Ruling (ATR) nº 62, which basically confirmed the tax treatment that the market was practicing for the local and the occasional categories, but innovated by equating the admitted category to the local reinsurers for tax purposes. The reason for such an equation was based on SUSEP's regulatory requirement for admitted reinsurers to establish a representation office in Brazil, and to grant acceptance and binding powers to a local attorney-in-fact. As a result, it was understood that such activity would be equal to the local reinsurer business. The practical outcome of this conclusion is to consider the foreign entity with a Permanent Establishment (PE) tax treatment, therefore applying local tax rules to them, which imply in a substantial increase in the tax burden, as well as a stricter and more costly accounting, financial and operational framework. This ultimately shall result the insurance and reinsurance market to be considered unfeasible in Brazil, and might result in a potential lack of coverage for Brazilian insurance risks. The determination of tax treatment to the foreign company cannot be carried out simply by legal and formal presumptions; rather, it must require a concrete and factual examination of whether, in essence, the decision-making of risk acceptance, underwriting and claims payments are being effectively executed by the representation office in Brazil, and not merely by virtue of formal documents. The activities of the representation office must not be confused with those of the foreign admitted reinsurer, since there have full autonomy, and operational, corporate governance and tax independency in each entity. Although it has the power to sign contracts, if such powers are not executed, the risk of PE is mitigated. A clear demonstration of the absence of decision-making power of execution and signature of contracts and the overall review of internal processes, with clear definition of the activities that can be performed by the representative office is a fundamental evidence to rule out the potential tax assessments and administrative and judicial disputes.
|
Page generated in 0.0731 seconds