Investment Regulation, Portfolio Allocation, and Investment Yield in the U.S. and China Insurance Industry

REFERENCES

• Cantor, R., & Packer, F. (1996). Discretion in response to split ratings: The case of NAIC. Journal of Insurance Regulation, 15(Winter), 234–255.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, A. H., Mazumdar, S. C., & Surana, R. (2011). China’s corporate bond market development: Security design implications of information asymmetry. Chinese Economy, 44(5), 6–33. doi:10.2753/ces1097-1475440501
   Google Scholar
• Chen, B., Tennyson, S., Wang, M., & Zhou, H. (2014). The development and regulation of China’s insurance market: History and perspectives. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 17, 241–263. doi:10.1111/rmir.12012
   Google Scholar
• China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC). (1999). The interim measures for regulating the investments on securities investment funds. Beijing, China: China Insurance Regulatory Commission.
   Google Scholar
• China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC). (2004). The interim measures for the stock investments of insurance institutional investors. Beijing, China: China Insurance Regulatory Commission.
   Google Scholar
• China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC). (2010). The interim measures for regulating the investments of insurance funds. Beijing, China: China Insurance Regulatory Commission.
   Google Scholar
• China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC). (2014). CIRC’s notice on strengthening and improving the investment regulation of insurance funds. Beijing, China: China Insurance Regulatory Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, L. (2012). An analysis of asset allocation in China insurance industry: History and current status. Journal of Finance and Economies, 11, 71–74.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, H., & Guo, J. (2009). An investigation of asset allocation in the China insurance industry: A perspective of asset-liability matching. Macroeconomics, 11, 51–58.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). (1996). Investments of insurers model act (Defined limits version). Kansas City, MO: National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). (1998). Investments of insurers model act (Defined standards version). Kansas City, MO: National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). (2009). Derivative instruments model regulation. Kansas City, MO: National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). (2011). Analysis of insurance industry portfolio asset mixes (Capital Markets Special Report). New York, NY: Capital Markets & Investment Analysis Office of NAIC.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). (2013). Update on insurance industry portfolio asset mixes (Capital Markets Special Report). New York, NY: Capital Markets & Investment Analysis Office of NAIC.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). (2014). Year-end 2013 insurance industry investment portfolio asset mixes (Capital Markets Special Report). New York, NY: Capital Markets & Investment Analysis Office of NAIC.
   Google Scholar
• National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). (2013). China statistical yearbook. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rudolph, M. J. (2011). U.S. insurance company investment strategies in an economic downturn. White Paper sponsored by Committee on Financial Research, Society of Actuaries, Schaumburg, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Salvatore, D. (2010). China’s financial markets in the global context. Chinese Economy, 43(6), 8–21. doi:10.2753/1097-1475430602
   Google Scholar
• Swiss Re. (2014). World insurance in 2013: Steering towards recovery. Sigma, 3. Zurich, Switzerland: Swiss Re.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, J. (2002). A comparison of solvency requirements and early warning systems for life insurance companies in China with representative world practices. North American Actuarial Journal, 6, 91–112. doi:10.1080/10920277.2002.10596031
   Google Scholar