According to the group’s conference, Chinare’s income before tax in the third quarter reached 4.652 billion yuan (US$698 million). Although the number is 3.469 billion yuan less than in the same period of last year, all of its subsidiaries made a profit.

The overall positive profit is mainly contributed by the growth of accepting insurance. Tightened control over operating expenditure also effectively reduced cost, a senior officer of the group said.

By the end of September, the group’s revenue from insurance business amounted to 29.202 billion yuan and insurance premium stood at 10.333 billion yuan.

Due to the improvement of operating situation, the group’s total asset arrived at 102.57 billion yuan, rising 8.61 percent from the beginning of the year.

Insurance company

Premiums for January-August, 2010 in million manats

Payments for January-August , 2010 in million manats

Premiums for January-August, 2009 in million manats

Payments for January-August , 2009 in million manats

Azersigorta

17,00

7,02

18,89

9,03

Azalsigorta

10,87

0,41

12,80

0,006

AzSigorta

9,49

0,79

7,48

2,97

“Atesgah” Sigorta

8,42

3,27

9,06

2,99

Beynelxalq Sigorta Sirketi

7,08

3,48

9,22

2,44

PASA Sigorta

7,08

1,59

7,81

1,30

Standard Insurance

5,37

1,23

5,66

2,23

MBASK Sigorta

5,20

2,36

4,74

4,36

A-Qroup Sigorta

5,19

3,82

5,12

2,82

Xalq Sigorta

5,02

1,17

22,61

0,84

Total

80,72

25,14

103,39

28,98

Structure of the top five on insurance charges remained unchanged.

The PASA Sigorta insurance company rose to the sixth position, increasing amount of insurance charges by over 2.5 million manat (in January-July PASA Sigorta collected 4.52 million manat). A-Qroup Sigorta and Xalq Sigorta fell from the sixth to the ninth position and from the eighth to the tenth position. MBASK rose from the last (tenth) to the eight position.

The amount of charges of the ten leading insurance companies in January-August 2010 decreased by 22.67 million manat or 21.92 percent compared to the same period of 2009.

The total premiums fell by 15.98 percent (the figure was 122.67 million in January-August 2009) and payments — by 8.89 percent (33.94 million manat).

The report of the Azerbaijani Ministry of Finance in January- August has not indicated the results of the only reinsurance company Az RE.

The official exchange rate is 0.8038 manat to $1 Sept. 24.

Gail Tucker, a partner in the London office of consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, said the IASB proposals represent “a big change, particularly for life insurers.”

The new rules will affect any organization that issues insurance contracts under International financial Reporting Standard. In addition to insurance companies, the change will involve Banks that offer financial guarantee products.

The proposals will bring in a single IFRS standard “that all insurers, in all jurisdictions, could apply to all contract types on a consistent basis,” the IASB said.

“The publication of this exposure draft marks an important milestone in this review process,” IASB Chairman David Tweedie said in a statement. “The proposed standard better reflects the economics of insurance contracts, and would result in more relevant, understandable and comparable information being available to investors.”

The biggest effect will be felt in territories that currently use cost-based accounting in insurance contracts, Tucker said. For these territories, she said, “It may well be quite a fundamental change.”

Technically, the new structure will involve an updating of IFRS 4, the existing accounting standard for insurers. Life insurers, with their long-tail business, are more likely to feel the change than shorter-tail nonlife insurers, Tucker said, adding that one possible result of the new approach could be more income statement volatility than some insurers are accustomed to.

Catherine Drummond, a consultant at actuary Lane Clark & Peacock LLP in London, said the “IASB proposals are effectively changing the way the expected return on assets is to be calculated. And what they’re suggesting is that instead of using the expected return on assets they actually use the discount rate.”

Businesses that have large pension programs may feel a particular effect from this, Drummond said at a recent briefing by Lane Clark & Peacock on the U.K. pension sector.

The IASB is expected to produce a final standard in 2011, with a possible implementation date in 2013 or 2014, Tucker said. She predicted a “mixed reception” for the IASB proposals, with much of the criticism coming from nonlife insurers, who are happy with existing structures.

There are likely to be no surprises in the IASB proposals for people who have followed the discussion, Tucker said. The matter has been under consideration, starting with the IASB’s predecessor, since as far back as the 1990s.

The IASB, which was established in 2001, described IFRS 4 as “an interim standard that permitted many existing international accounting practices to be retained, whilst beginning a more comprehensive review of insurance accounting as a second phase of the project.” The latest proposals “are the result of that review,” the IASB statement said.

Tucker said she suspects that some insurers will question a planned change to the presentation of income statements, which, for some companies will mean that premium will no longer be shown as a revenue line. She was reluctant to estimate either savings or costs that might result from the change. Both are likely to “vary hugely” by company and territory, she said.

European companies that are preparing for Solvency II may have an advantage, Tucker said. “They may be able to use the underlying building blocks in their systems design to come up with the numbers. In other territories that don’t have Solvency II there is likely to be more of a change.”

Solvency II is a regulatory regime designed to bring a uniform capital adequacy structure for insurance and reinsurance in the 27-nation European Union. It is to be in place at the end of 2012.

Tucker believes some life insurers would prefer to apply an asset-backed accounting formula in order to minimize income statement volatility when discounting their reserves. “I suspect a number of insurers will want all their acquisition costs to be able to either be deferred or recognized revenue to avoid a day one profit,” she said.

The IASB is aware of the preparations that are being made for Solvency II and has been in contact with regulators in the European Union, Tucker said. But the IASB is also alert to the difference between its own work and the planners of Solvency II, she said.

Putting the IASB proposals into effect as late as 2014 might seem to be a long way off, Tucker said, but the IASB knows it needs “time to gather the data and build the systems to implement this change.”

Pat Regan, chief financial officer at Aviva, said Aviva has “sought to actively engage with the IASB” in its work on accounting standards.

“We welcome the ongoing commitment of the IASB to address the financial reporting for insurance contracts,” Regan said in an e-mail. “The industry is seeking a global, consistent and transparent basis for reporting. We look forward to responding to the exposure draft in due course.”

Zurich Financial Services also responded with an e-mailed statement. “We welcome the IASB having put forth a proposal, the statement said. “We will analyze it in detail and comment on [it] in due time.”

The adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1929 on June 9, 2010 expanded significantly the breadth and depth of international sanctions in place against the Islamic Republic of Iran, establishing a strong, targeted, and comprehensive multilateral sanctions regime. It demonstrated the determination not only of the United States, but of the international community, to hold Iran to its international obligations regarding its nuclear program, and to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. We are working with the international community to vigorously implement UNSCR 1929.

A nuclear-armed Iran would severely threaten the security and stability of a part of the world crucial to our interests and to the health of the global economy. It would seriously undermine the credibility of the United Nations and other international institutions, and would undercut the nuclear non- proliferation regime at precisely the moment we are seeking to strengthen it.

In the face of this challenge, American policy is straightforward. The United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Over the past 18 months, we have pursued our broad policy goals that have been principally focused on tough-minded diplomacy – including both engagement and pressure. We have sought to sharpen the choices now before the Iranian leadership. We have sought to demonstrate the benefits to Iran and the Iranian people if Iran adheres to its international obligations. And we have sought to intensify the costs of continued defiance, and to show Iran that pursuit of nuclear weapons will make it less secure, not more. Last year, we embarked on an unprecedented effort to engage with Iran. We did so without any illusions about whom we were dealing with, or the scope of our differences over the past thirty years. Engagement is both a test of Iranian intentions, and an investment in a partnership with a growing coalition of countries deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We have sought, and continue to seek, opportunities for Iran to demonstrate convincingly that its nuclear program is intended entirely for peaceful purposes. These opportunities have not been embraced by Iran. In Geneva last October, we supported a creative proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to provide fuel for the production of medical isotopes at the Tehran Research Reactor. Unfortunately, what appeared to be a constructive beginning in Geneva was later spurned by the Iranian leadership. Instead, since October, Iran has failed to cooperate fully with the IAEA regarding the previously covert enrichment facility near Qom; announced plans for ten new enrichment facilities; refused to continue discussions with the P5+1 regarding international concerns about its nuclear program; provocatively announced that it would boost enrichment to 20 percent, in further violation of UN Security Council resolutions; and continued its refusal to cooperate with the IAEA’s investigation into its nuclear program, drawing new rebukes from the IAEA Director General in his most recent reports.

Iran’s intransigence has left the international community no choice but to employ a second tool of diplomacy: pressure. The adoption of UNSCR 1929 was an essential first step in that effort, building upon and strengthening previous sanctions resolutions:

* It bans transfers of major conventional weapon systems to Iran;

* It bans all Iranian activities related to ballistic missiles that could deliver a nuclear weapon;

* It establishes a framework for cargo inspections to detect and stop Iran’s smuggling and acquisition of illicit items;

* It prohibits Iran from investing abroad in sensitive nuclear activities, such as uranium mining;

* It creates important new tools to help block Iran’s use of the international financial system to fund and facilitate its nuclear and other destabilizing weapons programs;

* It targets directly the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Iran’s proliferation efforts, adding fifteen specific IRGC entities to the list of designations for asset freeze;

* And for the first time, the Security Council highlighted formally in UNSCR 1929 the potential links between Iran’s energy sector and its nuclear ambitions.

Our goal now is to ensure the most aggressive implementation of these sanctions as possible. We are not alone. The European Union has acted strongly to follow up by endorsing a series of significant steps, including a prohibition on new investment in Iran’s energy sector, bans on the transfer of key technology, and tough measures against Iranian Banks and correspondent banking relationships, including closer monitoring of Iranian Banks operating in the EU. On July 26, Canada announced its supplement to UNSCR 1929, the Special Economic Measures Act, which incorporates restrictions similar to those in recent U.S. and EU sanctions.

These sanctions would bar dealings with designated individuals and entities involved in nuclear or WMD proliferation, including key members of the IRGC; prohibit new investments in Iran’s oil and gas sector and new exports to Iran of goods that could contribute to its nuclear program; and prevent Iranian financial institutions from establishing a presence in Canada and vice versa. We understand Australia is currently considering sanctions legislation, which will greatly empower it to implement new sanctions and expand the Australian government’s existing ability to impose asset freezes. Australia is not waiting for this legislation, however, to enforce sanctions: it has already demonstrated this capability in its designation of Bank Mellat, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), and the head of the IRGC’s main construction firm, Khatam al-Anbiya, in June. We have called on states around the world to follow suit and will continue to engage with these and new partners. We are also working with states that are developing export control laws to ensure that those laws include the authority to implement UNSCR 1929 and other key resolutions concerning Iran. Furthermore, we continue to have success in persuading a variety of foreign companies that the risks of further involvement with Iran far outweigh the benefits.

Our efforts to implement and enforce multilateral sanctions are supplemented by a number of our important national sanctions tools, in particular the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) and the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, which was signed by the President on July 1. As was the case with the original Iran Sanctions Act, the obligations of the new legislation are already a regular part of our dialogue with foreign governments and the private sector. We believe it is important for all members of the international community to work together to ensure that we prevent Iran from further developing its prohibited missile, nuclear, and other weapons programs.

Our efforts have yielded significant results:

1) At least $50-60 billion in oil and gas development deals have either been put on hold or have been discontinued in the last few years – due in part to our conversations with companies about the threat of ISA sanctions; and

2) Our pressure has contributed to the decisions by major international oil companies such as Total, Statoil, ENI, Lukoil, and Repsol not to undertake any new activities in Iran. In addition, major fuel suppliers such as Vitol, Shell, Reliance, IPG, Glencore, and Trafigura have announced that they will no longer sell refined petroleum products to Iran.

The net result is that Iran faces profound challenges in securing the foreign investment in its energy sector that it desperately needs.

This Administration has also undertaken to review past activity that could trigger sanctions under the ISA to ensure that we are appropriately implementing the Act. In this review, we identified a number of cases, dating from before the Obama Administration, which appeared problematic and warranted more thorough consideration. We have been in contact with these firms and relevant governments in order to establish the precise nature of their economic activity in Iran. Under the President’s delegation of the 1996 Act, the State Department is now required to consult with other agencies about our review of these cases.

The Administration is also working to implement a series of Executive Orders targeting entities and individuals engaged in proliferation and support for terrorism. These Executive Orders impose procurement and assistance bans toward, freeze assets of, and prohibit transactions by U.S. persons with persons who are designated for being involved with or for contributing to Iran’s proliferation efforts, or for providing support for terrorism or WMD- proliferators and supporters. Additionally, we are fully implementing Executive Orders 12957, 12959, and 13059, which impose comprehensive trade and financial sanctions on Iran and, with limited exceptions, prohibit trade between Iran and the United States. Since the beginning of the Administration, Treasury has designated 35 entities and 7 individuals under E.O. 13382, and there will be more under this and other authorities. Within these authorities, we are working on ensuring that sanctions do not harm the people of Iran. And as part of our global effort in support of Internet freedom, we are working on countering attempts by the Iranian government to restrict communication and persecute activists who use information tools to speak out for greater freedom and transparency. In this regard, I would also note that we are in the process of collecting the information and developing the tools to implement the new provision in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act that imposes sanctions on those Iranian officials who are responsible for serious human rights abuses against the Iranian people since June of last year.

We have already seen that pressure, in combination with other tools, can have an impact on Iran. For instance, while some Western observers have suggested that sanctions imposed by UNSCR 1929 are insufficient, we know both from Iran’s attempts to prevent the adoption of the resolution and from its efforts to mitigate its effects that Iran’s leadership feels differently. Iran engaged in a systematic scare campaign to deter states that were considering supporting UNSCR 1929 from doing so, offering incentives and threatening their economic ties in order to convince those who may have been sitting on the fence to change their positions. Neither these efforts nor Iran’s last minute Tehran Declaration deflected the UNSC from its course. Pressure, the expanding reach of sanctions, and increasing international isolation are having an impact on the government of Iran, notwithstanding its bluster to the contrary.

Through rigorous trade restrictions and active work to interdict illicit WMD trade, we have denied Iran access to many of the items that it needs for its nuclear program. Its ability to procure these items prior to the implementation of multilateral sanctions may have protected Iran’s nuclear program for some time, but we do believe that — as the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization noted on July 8 — sanctions are having a significant and negative impact on the ability of Iran to acquire necessary items for its nuclear program.

As Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary Glaser can describe in greater detail, Iran is having great difficulty in obtaining access to financial services that are the lifeblood of international commerce and Iranian proliferation. This is partly a direct result of the international and national sanctions put in place on Iran’s financial sector. As the USG has publicly identified the deceptive conduct and illicit activities of numerous Iranian Banks designated under E.O. 13382 and 13224, and implemented regulations that impose penalties on persons who do business with them, the international private sector has grown wary of conducting business with any Iranian banks. International financial institutions have voluntarily gone beyond their legal requirements to curtail their interactions with Iran because they do not want the risk of handling illicit business. This isolation from the international financial sector has raised the cost of doing business for Iranian procurement agents as they are forced to find alternative financial arrangements and engage in more complex deceptive practices, sacrificing time and resources to do so.

The same can be said of Iran’s government-owned shipping industry, which lacks both credibility as a legitimate entity and has difficulty obtaining foreign insurance for most of its fleet. Impeding IRISL’s access to foreign ports hinders Iran’s ability to exploit those ports for proliferation purposes. The detection in recent months of three shipments of illicit cargo aboard IRISL- controlled vessels or IRISL containers further undermined the international transportation industry’s trust in IRISL. The UNSC’s action in June has only underscored this concern.

Ultimately, this all leads back to whether or not the international community is willing to deal with Iran. Increasingly, the answer is no, or — in those cases in which there are private sector connections — only at great cost.

In addition to the investments that have not gone forward in Iran’s energy sector, a number of companies in several sectors, including shipping, insurance, banking, and industry, have announced that they will pull out of Iran or curtail their Iran-related business. In response to the sanctions on refined petroleum exports, major fuel suppliers such as Vitol, Shell, Reliance, IPG, Glencore, and Trafigura have announced that they will no longer sell refined petroleum products to Iran. Also, major international airports have reported that oil companies have refused to sell jet fuel to Iran Air aircraft, sending a message to Iran’s elites that they will face increasing isolation unless they comply with Iran’s international obligations. The designation of the IRGC’s construction arm, Khatam al-Anbiya, has had a similar effect. The company is pulling out of operations in South Pars, and Khatam al-Anbiya referenced recent sanctions in its announcement that it was doing so. Khatam al-Anbiya’s pull-out is most likely due to Iran’s awareness that even the few foreign firms still willing to do business there will think twice before participating in a project with an entity that has been designated by the United Nations for its role in Iran’s proliferation efforts.

A number of companies in several sectors have announced that they will pull out of Iran or curtail their Iran-related business.

* In February 2010, German reinsurance company Munich Re AG announced that it would not renew existing business or write any new business with insurance companies in Iran.

* Last summer, a spokesman for the conglomerate Finmeccanica said the company withdrew from Iran because it wanted to align itself with the policies of the Italian government and because it was sensitive to concerns by the U.S. Government.

* AAB Ltd. of Switzerland sold products like power generation equipment and semiconductors to Iran. But in January 2010, the company announced it had stopped taking orders for new business and was winding down work on existing contracts.

Ultimately, this all leads back to whether or not the international community is willing to deal with Iran. Increasingly, the answer is no or — in those cases in which there are private sector connections — only at great costs.

UNSCR 1929 will magnify all of these impacts by pointing out more starkly the connection between Iran’s proliferation activities and its oil and gas sector; by underscoring the impact of applying financial pressure on Iran; by denying Iran further supplies of major conventional weapon systems; by increasing the risk to Iran of using cargo vessels and aircraft for transfers of illicit items; and, by encouraging the private sector to follow its sensible instincts in considering the risk of doing business with Iran. On this last point, one little-mentioned impact of our sanctions effort has been a reduction in foreign public support for trade with Iran. The EU made what was previously a call for vigilance an outright ban on new medium-and-long-term trade support to Iran, joining what we have already seen take place more informally by Iranian trading partners around the world. Placing the risk of trade firmly on the backs of those firms engaged in it is shifting not only the financial burden to these firms, but we believe is also compelling a major rethink in whether or not to engage in that trade.

Let me be clear, we are not pursuing sanctions for the sake of sanctions. Our aim is to use this tool of pressure to sharpen the choices that the Iranian government faces, and to press it to negotiate seriously with the international community and the P5+1 on its nuclear program. Pressure is meant to complement, not replace, the diplomatic solution to which we and our partners are still committed. We continue to acknowledge Iran’s right to pursue civilian nuclear power. But with that right comes a profound responsibility to meet its international obligations and reassure the rest of the international community about the exclusively peaceful nature of its intentions. The Foreign Ministers of the P5+1 countries made clear in the statement they issued upon the adoption of UNSCR 1929 that we remain ready to engage with Iran to address these concerns. Our foremost objective is a durable diplomatic solution to the world’s concerns about the Iranian nuclear program and the broader issues at stake with Iran. The choice to adopt a more constructive course is one that Tehran alone can make.

There is growing international pressure on Iran to live up to its obligations – and growing international isolation for Iran if it does not. UNSCR 1929, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, and the amplifying efforts that I’ve discussed help significantly to sharpen that choice. We are pleased that Congress has given the Administration the tools to increase pressure even further. We will continue to work very hard to implement them and continue to urge our partners to follow suit with their own, tough national sanctions to complement UNSCR 1929. Thank you.

“The flooding across Asia has displaced millions of people and destroyed many millions of hectares of farmland,” said Steve Jakubowski, president of impact forecasting at Aon Benfield, in a statement.

In some cases, Jakubowski said farming companies reported 80% of their crops were destroyed, which “is devastating to the livelihoods of those affected and will have a significant impact on local economies, some of which rely heavily on agrarian output.”

Pakistan has experienced its worst flood since 1929, bringing economic losses to hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, according to a report by Aon Benfield, an international reinsurance broker. About 250,000 homes were damaged and more than 1,500 people died.

Monsoon rains caused flash flooding and landslides between July 21 and 29, destroying transportation and agricultural infrastructures across Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa, Punjab and Baluchistan provinces in Pakistan.

The floods are projected to cause economic damages of more than US$200 million, according to Aon Benfield. However, the country’s insurance penetration [premium as a percentage of gross domestic product] was only 0.3% and 0.4% for life and nonlife insurance, respectively in 2009, according to Swiss Re’s sigma report.

China also suffered severe rainfall and subsequent flooding along the provinces of the Yangtze River, with more than 650,000 homes affected and economic losses of about US$12.5 billion in July, according to Aon Benfield.

Heavy rains in July caused overflow of the Yangtze River and other flash floods and landslides, killing 475 people in the southern, central and western parts of China. More than 4 million hectares of farmland were affected, said Aon Benfield in the report.

In China, insurance penetration stood at 2.3% and 1.1% for life and nonlife insurance, respectively, compared with the global average of 4% for life and 3% for nonlife in 2009.

In India, monsoons rains and flooding led to economic damages of more than US$428 million in early July in northeastern Assam state and southwestern Kerala state.

The country was also hit by monsoon rains and flooding in northern India, with about six deaths reported and widespread damages on agricultural and transportation infrastructure on July 24. India’s insurance penetration was 4.6% and 0.6% for life and nonlife insurance, respectively, in 2009.

Four of the company’s top leaders have left or announced plans to leave since January 2009.

“It’s not reflective of any dissension or disharmony. This is a normal evolution, a well-managed evolution,” said Chief Executive Officer Patrick Thiele, who announced his plans to retire in May after 10 years at the company’s helm. He noted the succession plans have included several months of overlap for the incoming officer to learn the ropes.

“It’s very daunting for someone to take over an executive level of position in the organization. We want to make sure they are properly supported in their first six months,” Thiele said.

In addition to Thiele’s exit, the company’s three operating arms — PartnerRe North America, PartnerRe Global and PartnerRe Capital Markets — will also change leaders within a two-year span. All positions are being filled from executives within PartnerRe’s ranks.

Costas Miranthis, CEO of PartnerRe Ltd.’s insurance operations outside of North America, PartnerRe Global, was tapped to succeed Thiele on Jan. 1., 2011, the company announced in May (BestWire, May 14, 2010).

Now, the company’s No. 2 officer, Albert Benchimol, announced he’s also leaving at the end of the year. He acts as both chief financial officer of PartnerRe Ltd. and CEO of PartnerRe Capital Markets Group, the company’s investment arm.

William Babcock, currently group finance director, has been tapped to succeed Benchimol as CFO while Marvin Pestcoe, deputy head of capital markets group, will succeed Benchimol as CEO of PartnerRe Capital Markets Group.

Meanwhile, Emmanuel Clarke, head of specialty lines, global and deputy CEO of PartnerRe Global, was named as Miranthis’ successor as CEO of PartnerRe Global.

These latest executive announcements follow the retirement earlier this year of Bruno Meyenhofer, chairman of PartnerRe Global, who left March 31. He had been with the company since it acquired Winterthur Re in 1998. A successor for Meyenhofer has not been named.

And last year, Scott Moore, president and CEO of PartnerRe U.S. retired and was succeed by Tad Walker, who had been chief underwriting officer of PartnerRe U.S. In January 2009, Walker was promoted to succeed Moore, who had joined the then-start-up company in 1993 as CFO and was promoted to CEO of the U.S. operations five years later.

Thiele said when he started at the company in 2000, he learned that several of the company’s officers were all about the same age.

“We realized then that Bruno, Scott and myself were all coming to retirement age at exactly the same time. We all have lives. We’re very dedicated to PartnerRe, but wanted to make sure we had a succession plan in place,” Thiele said.

For years, the company has worked internally and with the board, “so that we knew when the retirements were going to happen and planned for it,” Thiele said. “We pride ourselves on continuity. reinsurance is a long-term business. We’ve been thinking about management development for the last six years. It really does represent a normal sort of development in an organization.”

Benchimol is retiring from the company, but not necessarily retiring from the work force, Thiele said.

“Albert is younger, it’s a personal decision on his part. He felt that after 10 years as CFO at one organization and 10 years of working with one CEO, it was his decision to do something else,” Thiele said.

Clarke has 16 years experience in the reinsurance industry, and joined PartnerRe in 1997 when the company acquired SAFR. He’ll continue in his current role until Sept. 1.

Babcock has 20 years of professional experience, both in public accounting and the reinsurance industry. Before joining PartnerRe in 2008, he was chief accounting officer and director of financial operations at Endurance Specialty Ltd. He’ll continue in his current role until Oct. 1.

Pestcoe has more than 26 years experience in the property/casualty insurance and reinsurance industry. He joined PartnerRe in 2001 to lead the company’s alternative risk operations. Before joining PartnerRe, Pestcoe was the chief actuarial officer of Swiss Re New Markets. He’ll continue his current role until Oct. 1.

On July 13, A.M. Best Co. said PartnerRe Group’s Best’s financial Strength Rating of A+ (Superior) are unchanged following the company?s recent executive announcements.

“A.M. Best believes that any potential concerns regarding the number and/or significance of the recent management changes announced at PartnerRe are largely mitigated by the depth of experience, the continuity and the length of the transition period provided. In addition, PartnerRe has a very strong enterprise risk management framework, including a well thought out succession plan, which will support the company during this transition. The qualitative strengths of PartnerRe are of particular importance since the company just completed the acquisition of Paris Re in the last several months,” A.M. Best Co. said.

In December, PartnerRe Ltd. completed the $2 billion acquisition of Paris Re Holdings Ltd. (BestWire, Dec. 8, 2009). PartnerRe ranked as the ninth-largest global reinsurer by 2008 gross written premiums, according to Best’s Review’s 2009 ranking of the top 35 global reinsurers. Paris Re was the 22nd largest.

The stock of PartnerRe (NYSE: PRE) was trading at $73.75 a share on the morning of July 14, down 0.70% from the previous close.

In a release, the Company said that it is proud to have American Family Insurance, one of the largest mutual insurance companies in the U.S., as a brand advertiser. Starting in June, people using SkyGrid for iPad will be able to reach out and touch an interactive home and learn about safety and savings tips to consider when insuring a house or apartment. The Interactive Home, designed by American Family Insurance, is a completely new experience that has been reconfigured for the iPad by SkyGrid in concert with Mindshare, the media agency of record for American Family Insurance.

“We’re enthusiastic to be able to partner with American Family Insurance and create this unique Multi-Touch advertising experience for everyone with an iPad” said Kevin Pomplun, founder and CEO of SkyGrid. “The SkyGrid platform, combined with iPad’s large display, innovative Multi-Touch user interface, and revolutionary software, has created a new way for people to interact with the brands they care about.”

SkyGrid said that this exclusive opportunity was developed for American Family Insurance through SkyGrid’s relationship with Mindshare, a leader in the digital media marketplace. SkyGrid and Mindshare partnered strategically to identify the most engaging way for users to interact with and experience American Family’s top priority of protecting what matters most – their customers’ families. SkyGrid worked with American Family Insurance and Mindshare to custom-design the Interactive Home Platform for this one-of-a-kind advertising implementation. Using iPad’s large display and innovative Multi-Touch interface, people will be able to walk through a tour of a home, revealing helpful safety and savings tips to consider when insuring a house or apartment.

“We’ve developed an additional way for consumers to engage with our Interactive Home and give them a unique experience that helps them learn about insurance and how to protect their families,” said Mark Zurfluh, regional media manager at American Family Insurance.

But the bill has immediately met with opposition. Lending brokers, however, expressed problems with the bill, which was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Their main concern is the provision prohibiting the yield spread premium, the Los Angeles Times reported.

According to the Times, the bill would:

-Establish a federal standard for home loans, requiring that mortgages be approved only for borrowers who have a “reasonable ability” to repay.

* Prohibit financial incentives that encourage lenders to steer borrowers into more costly loans than those they qualify for, including the bonuses known as “yield spread premiums” that lenders pay to brokers.

* Restrict costly prepayment penalties charged to borrowers who wish to close out their loans, typically to refinance on cheaper terms. Such penalties would have to expire three months before mortgage interest is scheduled to reset. Prepayment penalties would be banned altogether for high-cost, sub-prime loans.

* Require licensing and registration for brokers and bank loan officers. Consumer advocates have called for such rules to protect borrowers from unscrupulous lenders that may move from state to state.

* Establish federal minimum requirements while encouraging states to impose tougher rules. Many lenders prefer a new federal law setting maximum standards that states would not be allowed to exceed. Federal rule-making and enforcement duties would go to such agencies as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Federal Trade Commission.

Far fewer anti-business bills are on the table, and a number of pro-business bills are still alive, including several tax credit and infrastructure spending packages being pushed by business interests.

It’s a stark contrast to last year, when California companies were facing dozens of bills that threatened to raise the cost of doing business, only to be saved by vetoes from Gov. Gray Davis.

What’s changed, of course, is that legislators have realized that Davis intends to stick to his centrist path, which is effectively holding the more liberal, anti-business tendencies of the Democrat-controlled Legislature in check.

“The governor doesn’t want a whole slew of anti-business bills; he showed this last year and again earlier this year with his veto pen,” said Tony Quinn, a Republican political analyst in Sacramento. “The legislators now understand he’s not going to sign these bills, so they are not introducing them or are stopping them on their own in committee.”

As of the June 2 deadline for bills to pass their house of origin, less than a dozen major anti-business bills had made it through. What’s more, the $12.3 billion state budget surplus is making it easier for Davis and legislators to hand out goodies to businesses, like tax credits, and to push for long-delayed infrastructure projects.

As a result, business lobbyists are more optimistic than they have been in years about getting tax breaks approved, including a hike in the manufacturer’s research and development tax credit.

“The budget surplus is helping us a lot,” said Gavin McHugh, senior vice president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.

Nonetheless, business lobbyists are still concerned about some of the anti-business bills that have made it through, particularly a proposed $2.7 billion hike in workers’ compensation benefits and a $700 million unemployment insurance tax increase.

Coming in a year when businesses across the state have seen an average 20 percent increase in their workers’ comp insurance premiums, the 15 percent benefit increase proposed in SB 996 by Sen. Patrick Johnston, D-Stockton, could hit the bottom lines of businesses very hard. The bill, if passed, would increase the amount of money that businesses would be required to pay injured workers. Labor and trial lawyer lobbies are vigorously pushing for the bill.

“It’s moved along nicely so far and we think it’s going to pass,” said Tom Rankin, president of the California Labor Federation.

But Gov. Davis vetoed a similar bill last year that called for $2 billion in benefit increases. In his veto message, Davis said the amount of the benefit increase was too large.

SB 996 is now in a joint Assembly-Senate conference committee, where labor, business, trial lawyer and insurance interests are trying to hammer out a compromise. Observers believe a smaller increase this year might win Davis’ approval, especially if it were to be coupled with some cost-saving reforms.

Employer groups are also concerned about a bill that would expand the scope of the Family and Medical Leave Act. SB 1149, by Senate Insurance Committee chair Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, would make the existing law apply to businesses with 20 or more employees, instead of the current threshold of 50 workers.

“This is a big threat hanging out there,” said Fred Main, senior vice president of the California Chamber of Commerce. “It could really hit thousands of small businesses that can’t afford to have people out on long leaves. Such decisions are best left to be handled on a case-by-case basis.”

Businesses already have dodged one bullet when it comes to family leaves. Earlier this year Davis vetoed a bill by Sen. Tom Hayden, D-Santa Monica, that would have expanded the scope of the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow workers time off to care for people outside their immediate families.

Tax breaks on the table

On the other side of the ledger, California businesses appear likely to get two major tax credits they have long pushed for; both are included in Davis’ latest budget proposal. One is an increase in the allowance for “net operating loss carry-forwards,” in which companies can reduce their taxable income by deducting operating losses suffered in previous years.

AB 1774, by Assemblyman Ted Lempert, D-Palo Alto, would increase the net operating loss carry forward from the current 50 percent to 65 percent, starting in 2004.

The other tax credit measure calls for an increase in manufacturers’ research and development allowance from the current 12 percent of total R

In August, the hospital announced that both its Behavioral Health Services department and outpatient women’s clinic will cease operations Oct. 10. As many as 100 employees could be affected by the closures.

“It’s just because census (number of patients) has been low in these areas and operating costs are high and insurance reimbursements have been low it makes more sense to let our patients utilize those services outside of the hospital,” explained Glendale Memorial Hospital senior marketing specialist Danielle Grossman. “These programs have provided outstanding service, but the majority of these services can be accessed elsewhere in the community.”

The fate of nurses at the hospital remains uncertain, according to California Nurses Association labor representative Erik Macatuno.

“They’re being offered an opportunity to work where they can (within the facility), but some of them are opting to go somewhere else,” he said. “It’s still unclear when it’s happening right now.”

But Macatuno stressed that the departmental closures do not place nurses in professional peril of any sort. “They have a union contract that protects them in cases of this situation,” he said.

Other staffers affected by the downsizing include a range of different types of technicians, medical assistants and administrative personnel.

Grossman pointed out that a number of positive changes are taking place at the hospital as well, including new equipment, a multimillion dollar information systems upgrade, and renovation of two patient floors to include more private rooms.

“We are growing services,” she said.