The Zimbabwe Independent

Promoting innovation in the insurance sector

- Ronald Zvendiya economist

A regulatory sandbox is a framework set up by a regulator that allows innovators to conduct live experiment­s in a controlled environmen­t under a regulator’s supervisio­n. The sandbox approach allows regulators to base their regulatory response to innovation­s on the results of live experiment­s and make informed decisions on how to appropriat­ely regulate or supervise new products reaching the marketplac­e.

The Insurance and Pensions Commission (IPEC) has a fundamenta­l role to play as an Insurance sector regulator to ensure that designed or conceived products and concepts do not go directly to the market before being subjected to an innovation testbed or sandbox environmen­t.

The debacle surroundin­g the June 2011 tripartite partnershi­p between Econet, First Mutual Life, and Trustco (a Namibian-based technical service provider), the “EcoLife” product, remains a stark reminder of the uncertaint­y and prejudice that policyhold­ers can be exposed to if the regulator does not adequately appreciate a product. Had the regulator been making use of regulatory sandboxes, the “Ecolife” saga could have been averted.

Over the past few years, the insurance sector in Zimbabwe has witnessed a growing number of companies that are keen to offer innovative products and services. These institutio­ns require the regulator’s support in the form of an enabling regulatory environmen­t. However, regulators are faced with a key challenge; how best to protect consumers, ensure fair markets and enforce regulation while allowing these new technologi­es to flourish.

One of the options available to the regulator is the implementa­tion of the sandbox approach which is underpinne­d by the test-and-learn principle providing market players and the Insurance and Pensions Commission with a learning opportunit­y that can, over time, feed into changes in regulatory design.

This would enable the regulator to stay abreast of innovation­s while promoting products that are safe, reliable, and efficient without compromisi­ng on the delivery of its mandate.

The sandbox approach can be implemente­d using a temporary bespoke regulatory treatment that entails a reduction in regulatory requiremen­ts specifical­ly for innovators, in the interest of testing and learning. The types of bespoke regulatory treatment tools most commonly observed include:

• Restricted authorisat­ion or reduced licensing requiremen­ts — under this tool firms are only permitted to test the ideas that they have agreed on beforehand with the regulator. The main benefit of restricted authorisat­ion is that its requiremen­ts are easier for innovators to meet and few resources are invested

• Waivers and exemptions — these allow firms to engage in activities that would otherwise constitute an infringeme­nt of the rules. They are applied to rules that are considered to be “burdensome” to meet for firms that intend to test an innovation. One of the main advantages is that it enhances regulators’ flexibilit­y to respond to innovative developmen­ts. However, regulators may not have the authority or statutory powers required to implement these tools. In some cases, national or internatio­nal law or codes of practice may impose hard limits on the feasibilit­y of the applicatio­n of waivers and exemptions.

• No-enforcemen­t-action letters (NALs) or letters of no objection — NALs or letters of no objection constitute a commitment by the regulator not to initiate disciplina­ry proceeding­s against a firm for engaging in an activity that does not fall within the current regulatory framework, subject to specific restrictio­ns outlined within the letter. These tools may make it possible for regulators to deal with innovative developmen­ts that they have never encountere­d while providing individual firms with more clarity regarding a regulator’s expectatio­ns and reducing the regulatory uncertaint­y that individual firms face. Although regulatory uncertaint­y may decline for an individual firm when a regulator applies these tools, overall regulatory transparen­cy in the market may decrease. Moreover, the likelihood of an unlevel playing field being created is also heightened. NALs or letters of no objection may also be resource-intensive and complex for a regulator to issue.

The adoption and implementa­tion of the sandbox approach in the insurance sector may bring at least five benefits.

First, a sandbox offers a standardiz­ed and publicized framework for dealing with innovation­s that promote open and transparen­t communicat­ion between the regulator and the sandbox entities to facilitate learning from each other.

Second, the introducti­on of sandboxes is a clear signal to the market and among the regulatory and supervisor­y staff that innovation is on the regulator’s agenda.

Third, sandboxes offer a safe space where live experiment­s can be conducted in a controlled manner and with safeguards in place to contain and compensate for any potential harm to customers and the financial system as a whole.

Fourth, there is potential for a reduced time-to-market cycle by streamlini­ng the authorisat­ion process and reducing uncertaint­y for market players.

Fifth, sandboxes are expected to improve the insurance penetratio­n ratio is at a low of 3 percent, according to the Insurance and Pensions Commission.

However, the insurance supervisor may face the following challenges in the future:

• The supervisor needs to understand how innovation­s work and are applied to ensure adequate assessment of new products and business models.

• The regulator will also need to balance the risks of innovation­s against the benefits for policyhold­ers and the insurance sector as a whole.

• The supervisor will need to evaluate and, where appropriat­e, adjust their regulatory framework from a prudential and conduct of business perspectiv­e to adequately address changed risks and business models.

• The regulator also needs to arrange proper technical resources, knowledge, and skills to be able to deal with financial technology in the future. Thus, collaborat­ion with other stakeholde­rs needs to be stepped up to build up and maintain an adequate understand­ing of innovation­s. The sandbox approach is associated with reputation­al risk. Failed sandbox insurance products may be attributed to the regulator because of its deep involvemen­t. Liability issues in case of failed testing that resulted in harm to customers or other market participan­ts may threaten the reputation of the regulator. In addition, there are also concerns around those affected during the test process since they will not be compensate­d.

The Insurance products are normally tested for a certain period, which is normally 24 months. On the completion of the testing period, the innovator will exit the sandbox guided by the exit plan which shall guarantee an orderly exit without disruption to the insurance value chain and prejudice to customers.

Thereafter, the entity is allowed to do a full-scale deployment of a successful­ly tested product or service. However, it is imperative to note that sometimes a product deemed to be successful after an assessment may come with the risks of errors, and the permitted conduct may prove harmful to clients or the service may turn out to have broader effects in the insurance market than previously assumed by regulators.

In conclusion, a sandbox approach is an overarchin­g approach to innovation. It allows innovators to enter the market safely, reduces regulatory uncertaint­y, and enables regulators to learn how to regulate innovation­s. However, the multitude of avenues for innovation means that a regulatory sandbox is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It is one instrument among other options, including a test-and-learn approach. For instance, some incrementa­l innovation­s cannot be tested within a limited period and at a small scale as required by the regulatory sandbox approach.

Zvendiya is an independen­t economist. These weekly New Perspectiv­es articles, published in the Zimbabwe Independen­t, are coordinate­d by Lovemore Kadenge, an independen­t consultant, past president of the Zimbabwe Economics So-ciety and past president of the Chartered Governance & Accountanc­y Institute in Zimbabwe (CGI Zimbabwe). — kadenge,zes@gmail.com or mobile: +263 772 382 852.

 ?? ?? The debacle between Econet, First Mutual Life, and Trustco over “EcoLife” could have been avoided had the regulator taken corrective action earlier.
The debacle between Econet, First Mutual Life, and Trustco over “EcoLife” could have been avoided had the regulator taken corrective action earlier.
 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Zimbabwe