This announcement is in response to a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) consultation on the potential harmonisation of frameworks for insurers.
The lobby group said in its position paper that Solvency II already allows early intervention when either the Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR), or the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) are breached, and that this is sufficient.
It states: “Insurance Europe believes it is important to reiterate that Solvency II already provides several safeguards that…
Continue Reading “Solvency II means no need for new EU insurance framework” at The Actuary
The implementation of Solvency II in Europe has provided an additional risk management tool to owners of European captives, but at a cost, forcing risk managers to re-examine whether they are getting the best use out of their captives.
Solvency II, the European Union-wide risk-based capital rules for insurers and reinsurers, came into force in January 2016, and with it came new elements that have affected captives, for better or for worse.
“What we’re seeing as managers is an increased interest in strategic reviews and companies re-examining the captives to explore optimization opportunities and thus potentially…
Continue Reading “Solvency II complicates captive strategies ” at Business Insurance News
It has become a bit of a guessing game trying to figure out why the UK population voted for Brexit: was it immigration, money, sovereignty?
However, there is another meme that has always appeared in the UK’s wrangles with Europe and that is the issue of what people like to call “red tape.”
The view goes that outside the European Union (EU), the UK will be able to jettison many of the rules that it has found inconvenient.
There’s no doubt that many, even those who did not support the Leave campaign, would not weep to see the back of some of the more overbearing EU financial regulations.
Continue Reading “Don’t bank on Solvency II going away anytime soon” at the Actuarial Post
UK insurance groups have claimed that the latest EU capital regulations are harming customers and distorting markets — and are calling for changes in the way they are implemented.
According to the Association of British Insurers, the Solvency II rules, which came into force at the start of the year, have had unintended consequences and a reassessment is needed.
Its comments come in a submission to parliament’s Treasury select committee, which has launched an inquiry into the post-Brexit future of Solvency II in the UK.
When it launched the investigation in September, the committee said it would look at the impact of the rules on customers, the economy and the competitiveness of the UK insurance industry.
Continue Reading “Insurers claim capital rules are harming customers” at Financial Times
PensionsEurope has responded to Norwegian plans to introduce solvency capital requirements for pension funds to reiterate warnings on the detrimental effect of such requirements and again point to IORP II statements against the further development of solvency models for pension funds.
Commenting on Norwegian government plans to introduce a simplified Solvency II requirement for pension funds in January 2018, the umbrella association for national workplace pension bodies warned against solvency capital requirements for pension funds – be they at national or EU level – as they would have significant negative consequences.
Continue Reading “PensionsEurope seizes on Norway plan to warn against solvency rules” at IPE Investment & Pensions Europe
In his submission to the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions (CEIOPS), now known as the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) consultation of 2009, on the Level 2 implementation of the risk margin, Dutch actuary Hans Waszink drew attention to a fundamental flaw in the proposed formula.
In particular, he pointed out that, in certain conditions, the risk margin could be even higher than the solvency capital requirement (SCR) itself.
This incongruity had been of little practical significance in most situations, but in the current low interest rate environment and for long-duration obligations such as longevity it can, and does, produce very anomalous outcomes.
Continue Reading “A fundamental flaw in Solvency II” at The Actuary News
IVASS, the Italian insurance regulator, recently approved IVASS Regulation 28 of July 26 2016 on the look-through approach to determine the solvency capital requirements of insurers in the context of:
Under the standard formula, the solvency capital requirement will be determined by applying the look-through approach to collective investment schemes consisting of undertakings for collective…
Continue Reading “IVASS approves look-through approach to determine solvency capital requirements” at International Law Office News
In a post-Solvency II world and against the backdrop of the UK’s leaving the EU, Malta can offer companies a robust regulatory regime, access to Europe and innovative structures such as protected cell companies and ILS, Penny Hudson at Artex Risk Solutions tells Monte Carlo Today.
The attraction and benefits of Malta as a domicile are already established, although the jurisdiction is seeing potential enhancement due to the UK’s planned exit from the European Union as it will reap the rewards of its own EU membership and sustained investment in its regulatory regime, infrastructure and education system needed to support its fast-growing financial services sector.
That is the view of Penny Hudson, director and head of the Malta office at Artex Risk Solutions, the specialist in insurance management and alternative risk programmes.
Continue Reading “Malta: a gateway to Europe” at Intelligent Insurer News
Rushed changes to the ultimate forward rate (UFR) could risk pushing insurers towards sub-optimal investment strategies, which could unnecessarily impact policyholders’ returns negatively, according to Insurance Europe, the European insurance and reinsurance federation.
It says that it is unnecessary to change the UFR before the Solvency II review stressing that the current framework has several additional layers of protection in place already to make sure policyholder claims will be paid.
On possible changes to the methodology for calculating the UFR to a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority meeting, Insurance Europe said there is no need for changing it either for prudential or policyholder protection reasons.
Continue Reading “Solvency II changes may threaten investment returns for policyholders” at Intelligent Insurer