2. 外语
  3. (1)Of all the catastrophes mat could befall America in coming years, a big terrorist attack, perhaps even bigger than those on S

(1)Of all the catastrophes mat could befall America in coming years, a big terrorist attack, perhaps even bigger than those on S

admin2019-05-24  31
问题     (1)Of all the catastrophes mat could befall America in coming years, a big terrorist attack, perhaps even bigger than those on September 11th 2001, may be more likely than others. Who would pay for the millions in property damage, business losses and other claims from such an attack?
    (2)This is the question with which America’s Congress is currently wrestling. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act(TRIA)was passed as a temporary measure after September 11th to provide a government back-stop for the insurance industry in me event of a catastrophic attack. It now says government can step in when insured losses from a terrorist event top $5m. TRIA has helped to stabilize the market, and enabled insurers to continue offering terrorism-risk cover even after swallowing the big losses imposed by September 11th. But unless Congress acts fast, TRIA will expire at the end of the year. One likely result is the loss of terrorism-risk cover for thousands of firms and property owners. This, in turn, could disrupt businesses and make some commercial activity impossible. With modifications, TRIA should be extended.
    (3)The government has been opposed to extension. It has always seen TRIA as a short-term measure, and has argued that the private sector should assume sole responsibility for terrorism insurance. This is the right goal. A purely private solution would be best, lifting any future burden from the taxpayer and relying on the industry to price and spread risks more accurately than any government can do. But relying entirely on the private sector immediately does not look feasible. With TRIA’s expiration looming, insurers and reinsurers have not rushed to write new contracts for next year offering to fall gaps in terrorism cover.
    (4)Why the hesitation? Unlike other risks, the threat of terrorism cannot be forecast in time or scope, making a mockery of insurers’ underwriting models. A big chemical, biological or nuclear attack is a prospect few can price, or afford to cover. Insurers are already being threatened with downgrades by rating agencies for the terrorism cover they have sold.
    (5)One reason is that insurance, far from being a free market, is already one of the most heavily regulated of industries. Operating in a highly distorted marketplace, with 50 state regulators, the insurance industry seems to be having trouble pricing the largest of terrorism risks in a way that is credible and can still offer insurers a profit. Letting TRIA expire, and abruptly withdrawing the government role in insuring the largest losses, would just exacerbate this problem.
    (6)Any renewal of TRIA should, once again, be limited to two years, say. Its extension must also shift more of the burden, and the business, to the private sector. If an extension is agreed and TRIA’s threshold for government intervention is raised substantially, work should begin now to find better longer-term solutions. One place to look is abroad, where governments have dealt with terrorism risk for years. In Britain, for instance, insurers have created a pool of capital that is backed by the government and, over time, shifts a greater share of risk on to thee private sector. Other options to consider include tax changes that reduce the cost of holding capital by insurers and reinsurers, and facilitating the use of catastrophe bonds.
    (7)With fewer regulatory distortions of insurance markets, a solely private solution maybe attainable in the long run. In the current environment, though, the government that regularly warns of terrorist threats must still have a role to play in a solution that safeguards America’s financial security. It would be better to plan ahead than wait for a rushed, Katrina-style bail-out after a big attack. Amid all the uncertainties, one thing seems clear; any such bail-out would be more costly and lead to also greater market distortions without an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act today.
Which of the following statements about TRIA is true?
选项 A、It provides insurance to properties in high-risk areas.
B、It should be extended as it is now.
C、It requires government support to risk insurance.
D、It has caused a substantial loss of revenue to the state.
答案C
解析 从第2段第2句可知，TRIA是9·11恐怖主义袭击之后通过的，是在发生灾难性袭击的情况下，由政府为保险业提供后备支持的暂时性法案，故本题选C。TRIA并不直接提供保险，而是为保险公司提供支持，因此排除A；该段最后一句表明延期该法案需要在修改法案的前提下，B中的as it is now与之相矛盾；文章没有提到法案给政府带来的财政损失，而且全文的观点是支持其延期的，故排除D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/fobK777K
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)