Fitch Ratings says that some U.S. insurers will likely be labeled “systemically important”, leading to more oversight and tougher regulations for these firms.

The rating agency reported that earlier this week the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council finalized the criteria that will help regulators determine which non-bank financial companies should be deemed systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs. And Fitch says that it believes a number of firms are likely to meet the non-bank SIFI criteria.

Nevertheless, the FSOC will ultimately determine which firms receive the SIFI designation, based on quantitative and qualitative considerations.

Fitch says that, much like the banks that have been classified as SIFIs, non-bank SIFIs “can expect increased regulatory burden and cost associated with the designation.” One potential offset to this, it suggests, is the creation of a barrier to entry, or at least a barrier to sizable competitors emerging.

And, similar to the banking sector, it also expects to see firms that are near the SIFI thresholds to more actively manage their positions to avoid a SIFI classification. Although, it notes that, “This could be challenging given the subjective nature of the non-bank SIFI determination process versus the bank SIFI one. Bank eligibility for SIFI designation relies more heavily on assets versus the non-bank criteria.”

That said, Fitch reports that some companies have begun the process of repositioning their business activities and their risk management/reporting systems in anticipation of a SIFI designation.

“MetLife, AIG, Berkshire, GECC, and Prudential are among the potential candidates for SIFI branding given their sizable assets and interconnectedness with the financial markets,” it says.

For consumers, Fitch says that while they may benefit from more financially stable service providers, “they could also become subject to increased costs via higher insurance premiums and financing costs. Certain lines of businesses might also cease if they no longer proved cost effective as a result of the change,” it concludes.