The NAIC's Risk-Based Capital Model Governance Task Force, co-chaired by Wisconsin Commissioner Nathan Houdek and Ohio Director Judith French, adopted nine principles at the Fall 2025 National Meeting and reviewed a draft process flowchart on March 24, 2026. It is the first attempt to govern how the RBC formula itself gets changed.

The formula has taken new factors since 1993 through a functional but never formalized route. What forced the question was three concurrent proposals, each calibrated on a different statistical basis.

Key Takeaways

What the Task Force Adopted

The nine principles are described by the NAIC as a guiding North Star for the purpose, maintenance, and prioritization of RBC requirements, and they apply retrospectively as well as prospectively.

Principle Core Requirement Practical Implication
1. Materiality Updates should occur only when changes meaningfully impact solvency risk assessment Blocks low-impact proposals from consuming regulatory bandwidth; establishes a threshold test before technical work begins
2. Equal Capital for Equal Risk Requirements must maintain consistent statistical safety levels and time horizons across risk types Forces cross-formula calibration consistency; a 1-in-X year event in P&C catastrophe risk should map to equivalent confidence in life credit risk
3. Objectivity Account for concentration, diversification, and tail risks without promoting unrelated regulatory actions Prevents RBC from becoming a vehicle for policy goals unrelated to solvency (e.g., ESG investment incentives or punitive charges on disfavored asset classes)
4. Accuracy Precision in assessing solvency risk while avoiding unnecessary complexity Establishes a proportionality test: the marginal precision gain from complexity must justify the implementation burden on companies and regulators
5. Grounded in Statutory Accounting Changes must be derived from data available in statutory annual statements Prevents proposals that require off-balance-sheet data collection, ensuring factors can be calculated from Schedule D, BA, and other standard exhibits
6. Emerging Risks Incorporate new macroprudential risks when material to industry segments Provides the entry point for cyber, climate, AI operational risk, and other novel risk categories; requires materiality demonstration before calibration work begins
7. Transparency Adherence to NAIC open meeting policies with clear documentation Requires public exposure, comment periods, and documented rationale for every factor change; blocks closed-door calibration decisions
8. Process Data-driven methodologies with model validation and expert judgment where needed Establishes minimum analytical standards for supporting a factor proposal; generic assertions of risk without quantitative support would fail this test
9. Prioritization Use regulatory judgment considering necessity, materiality, and resource intensity Allows the NAIC to sequence proposals rather than running all in parallel; acknowledges finite staff capacity for concurrent complex projects

The process flowchart reviewed at the Spring 2026 National Meeting separates policy questions from technical ones at each stage. A risk gap is identified and tested against materiality; the relevant Committee then scopes policy before any calibration begins, deciding which entity types are affected, what confidence level applies, whether the charge is factor-based or model-based, and which data sources are acceptable.

Only then does a working group calibrate, expose for comment, and pass through a cross-formula consistency check before the Financial Condition Committee adopts. Regulators noted at the Spring meeting that technical work sometimes proceeds before agreement on underlying policy objectives, which is the inefficiency stage two exists to remove: eighteen months of calibration is wasted if the policy question of whether the risk belongs in RBC at all was never resolved.

Three Proposals, Three Confidence Levels

The principle that does real work is the second one, and applying it to what is already in flight shows why it was needed.

The wildfire catastrophe factor adopted at Spring 2026 brings the peril into the P&C Rcat component using three vendor models, RMS, Verisk and KCC-CoreLogic, evaluated for consistency, with PR027 instructions specifying data at selected return periods. The CLO proposal from the American Academy of Actuaries uses CTE(90) across the universe of broadly syndicated loan CLOs held by US insurers. The collateral loan revision replaces a flat 6.8% charge with a loan-to-value framework carrying generic haircuts.

Three statistical foundations, three data sources, three implicit confidence levels. Nothing in the old process could ask whether a 1-in-100 return period for wildfire is equivalent in conservatism to a CTE(90) threshold for credit risk, and the answer determines relative capital across lines.

The architecture underneath makes that harder than it sounds. Life RBC runs C-1 through C-4 with distinct methodologies and 20 designation categories for bonds; P&C runs Rcat and R1 through R5 plus operational risk; health runs H0 through H4. Aligning confidence intervals across three formulas built on different principles is the central technical problem, not a documentation exercise.

The capital consequence is already visible in how differently the two adopted and pending items land. Wildfire, on impact assessment, shifted the action level of only two companies using 2024 data and none using 2025 data, which makes it closer to an information capture mechanism than a charge at current calibration. The CLO factors, by contrast, cut senior tranche charges below current generic bond levels while raising below-investment-grade charges materially, with tranches at 4% or less of a deal facing elevated charges for reduced structural protection. Same framework, opposite effects on required surplus, and only the consistency check stands between them.

Sequencing Is Not the Same as Relief

The limit of the framework is that it governs process and not aggregate outcome.

Life insurers face the densest queue: CLO factor recalibration targeting December 31, 2026, the collateral loan revision that commissioners argue should not take effect before year-end 2027, the proposed elimination of the investment subsidiary category across LR025 to LR033, PR006 and XR007, and the C-3 field test using economic scenario generators running through the Life Actuarial Task Force. The prioritization principle lets the Task Force sequence these. It cannot reduce their sum, because each proposal is still evaluated independently against materiality and accuracy.

That matters most where the exposures concentrate. A PE-backed life insurer holds the CLO tranches, the collateral loans backed by fund interests, and the investment subsidiary structures at once, so the internal capital model has to be stress-tested against the full stack rather than one proposal at a time.

The second constraint came from the comment record. Industry stakeholders cautioned against forced harmonization on the grounds that differences across the three formulas are frequently intentional: a life insurer's 30-year bond portfolio faces different risk dynamics than a P&C company's three-year duration portfolio even where both hold the same NAIC 2-rated bond. Several commenters urged prioritizing by material solvency effect rather than pursuing theoretical consistency.

That is a direct tension with Equal Capital for Equal Risk, and the framework does not resolve it. It relocates it, from an unwritten convention into a documented check where someone has to write down why two different standards are appropriate. Whether that produces convergence or a well-documented record of divergence is the question the gap analysis referrals will answer.

Further Reading

Sources