2026 SOFE Career Development Seminar session insights and key takeaways

During this session, Baker Tilly insurance specialists Kelsey Barlow and Clarissa Crisp focused on practical strategies for improving examination efficiency without compromising regulatory rigor. The discussion explored common causes of examination delays, opportunities to streamline planning and communication, and techniques for reducing company burden while maintaining high-quality examination outcomes. Some main takeaways include:

• Plan smarter: Early planning measures will improve exam scope and efficiencies.
• Communicate proactively: A “no surprises” approach helps support a faster, smoother, closing conference.
• Document efficiently: Establish clear documentation expectations to improve workpaper quality and support a structured review process.
• Respect company time: Manage requests to ensure clear communication, reduce follow-up requests, and avoid delays in response time.
• Collaborate: Leverage work performed to the extent feasible to gain efficiencies and support exam conclusions.
• Stay risk-focused: A well-defined, risk-focused scope helps examination teams target what matters most, improving both examination quality and efficiency.

The session emphasized that examination efficiency is not about doing less work but about focusing effort where it matters most. Long examination cycle times can create challenges for regulators, companies, and policyholders alike by increasing resource demands, delaying corrective action, and reducing the timeliness of regulatory oversight. Common drivers of delays include scope creep, unclear document requests, staffing changes, communication breakdowns, and workpaper bottlenecks. Recognizing and addressing these issues early can help examination teams maintain momentum and avoid unnecessary rework.

Several best practices were discussed for improving examination planning and coordination. Effective exam teams leverage prior examination findings, financial analysis results, ORSA reports, and other available work products to inform risk-focused scoping decisions. Clear documentation of scope, consolidated document request lists, defined milestone calendars, and early role assignments help establish expectations before fieldwork begins. The session also highlighted the value of coordinating with financial analysts, lead states, and other stakeholders early in the process to avoid duplication of effort and better target examination resources.

Communication was identified as one of the most important factors influencing examination efficiency. Strong practices include conducting structured kickoff meetings, maintaining regular status discussions, using shared open-item trackers, and discussing developing findings throughout the examination rather than waiting until the closing conference. The presenters stressed the importance of a “no surprises” approach, whereby regulators and companies maintain open communication regarding expectations, requests, and emerging issues throughout the examination lifecycle.

The session also addressed documentation efficiency and reducing company burden. Examination teams can improve workpaper quality by establishing reviewer expectations upfront, documenting conclusions as testing is performed, using templates appropriately, and implementing structured review processes. At the same time, regulators can reduce company burden through organized document requests, clear communication regarding information needs, secure information-sharing tools, and appropriate reliance on validated work already performed by others. These practices help improve efficiency while preserving the quality and supportability of examination conclusions.

Ultimately, the session reinforced that quality and efficiency are not competing objectives. Well-planned, well-communicated, and risk-focused examinations are often both more effective and more efficient. By investing in planning, maintaining clear communication, documenting decisions in real time, and respecting company resources, regulators can shorten examination timelines while continuing to support strong solvency oversight and policyholder protection.

This session, hosted by Baker Tilly’s Russ Sommers, Jessie Adamson and Dennis Schaefer, focused on helping insurance examiners respond effectively when information technology general controls (ITGCs) are determined to be ineffective while maintaining examination quality and regulatory compliance. The discussion covered common IT examination findings, recurring control issues, compensating controls, and practical approaches for adapting examination procedures. Key takeaways include:

• Assess risk thoughtfully: Not every IT finding results in an ineffective ITGC conclusion. Consider the nature, scope, and significance of deficiencies.
• Evaluate compensating controls: ITGC and process level controls may reduce the impact of identified weaknesses.
• Address recurring issues: Documentation, governance, technical, and resource challenges can indicate broader control environment concerns.
• Collaborate across teams: Coordination between IT and financial examiners improves consistency and examination effectiveness.
• Adapt testing as needed: When ITGCs are ineffective, increase substantive testing and validate the accuracy and completeness of system-generated information.

This session emphasized that ineffective ITGCs require a risk-based, evidence-driven response rather than a default conclusion. By evaluating compensating controls, addressing recurring issues, and tailoring substantive procedures to identify risks, examination teams can maintain high-quality, efficient examinations while obtaining sufficient audit evidence.

Presented by insurance specialists Kelsey Barlow and Jessie Adamson, this session focused on how regulators can use Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) reports to better understand insurer risk, solvency concerns and enterprise risk management (ERM) maturity.

The importance of understanding ORSA as both a process and a report:

• ORSA as an internal process: Insurers use ORSA to identify, assess, and manage risks that could affect their ability to meet policyholder obligations.
• ORSA Summary Report: The report provides regulators with a window into the insurer’s own view of its risks, capital position, and ERM practices.
• Regulatory expectations: ORSA should be conducted at least annually, integrated into strategic planning and capital management, reviewed at the board level and supported by company-specific stress scenarios.
• Three key report sections: Section 1 addresses the risk management framework, Section 2 identifies risk exposures, and Section 3 evaluates group risk capital and prospective solvency.
• Regulatory review focus: Regulators should look for consistency between the ORSA, financial statements, exam findings, RBC trends, and observable business conditions.

Best practices for reviewing ORSA reports include assessing whether the report is company specific, whether risk appetite is measurable, whether stress scenarios are severe enough to create meaningful capital pressure, and whether management can explain the assumptions behind the report.

The session emphasized that ORSA should not sit on a file until the next exam. Regulators can use ORSA findings to inform exam planning, prioritize scope areas, validate governance representations, and support ongoing risk-focused surveillance. A strong ORSA can signal a mature ERM culture, while a weak, boilerplate or overly optimistic ORSA may itself be an important risk indicator.

Effective use of ORSA helps regulators see what insurers are worried about before problems emerge, connect risk management practices to solvency oversight, and make more informed decisions about examination priorities and supervisory strategy.

Presented by insurance regulatory specialists John Romano and Clarissa Crisp, this session explored how NAIC Model Audit Rule 205 requires management's own report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting (ICFR), what makes that assertion credible, and how regulators can read it to decide where to rely and where to test. Some main takeaways include:

• The assertion stands on its own. For insurers above $500 million in direct written and assumed premiums, Section 16 of Model #205 requires management to report whether the company's ICFR was effective as of the prior Dec. 31. Unlike a Sarbanes-Oxley filer, a MAR filer does not require external auditor attestation, so credibility rests entirely on management's own process, documentation, and judgment.
• The support is the report. The conclusion is one sentence and almost always says "effective." A regulator does not assess the report by reading the report. The real assessment happens in the scoping, the testing, the deficiency log, and the certifications that sit behind the signature.
• One bright line cannot be crossed. Management cannot conclude that internal control is effective if even one material weakness remains unremediated as of the reporting date. A report that claims effectiveness with a known material weakness still open is not aggressive. It is wrong.
• Quality drives the exam. A strong file makes the assertion easy to rely on and lets an examiner narrow scope. A thin file, a confident conclusion with little behind it, forces the examiner to perform the work management claims was already done.