Refine
Year of publication
- 2014 (213) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (213) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (213) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (213)
Keywords
- financial crisis (6)
- monetary policy (6)
- Informationstechnologie (4)
- Transparenz (4)
- transparency (4)
- Household Finance (3)
- Labor income risk (3)
- Portfolio choice (3)
- Regulierung (3)
- Risikohaftung (3)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (141)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (129)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (86)
- House of Finance (HoF) (85)
- Rechtswissenschaft (28)
- Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (11)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (10)
- Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS) (9)
- LOEWE-Schwerpunkt Außergerichtliche und gerichtliche Konfliktlösung (7)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (6)
A greater firm-level transparency through enhanced disclosure provides more information regarding the risk situation of an insurer to its outside stakeholders such as stock investors and policyholders. The disclosure of the insurer's risktaking can result in negative influences on, for example, its stock performance and insurance demand when stock investors and policyholders are risk-averse. Insurers, which are concerned about the potential ex post adverse effects of risk-taking under greater transparency, are thus inclined to limit their risks ex ante. In other words, improved firm-level transparency can induce less risktaking incentive of insurers. This article investigates empirically the relationship between firm-level transparency and insurers' strategies on capitalization and risky investments. By exploring the disclosure levels and the risk behavior of 52 European stock insurance companies from 2005 to 2012, the results show that insurers tend to hold more equity capital under the anticipation of greater transparency, and this strategy on capital-holding is consistent for different types of insurance businesses. When considering the influence of improved transparency on the investment policy of insurers, the results are mixed for different types of insurers.
The Solvency II standard formula employs an approximate Value-at-Risk approach to define risk-based capital requirements. This paper investigates how the standard formula’s stock risk calibration influences the equity position and investment strategy of a shareholder-value-maximizing insurer with limited liability. The capital requirement for stock risks is determined by multiplying a regulation-defined stock risk parameter by the value of the insurer’s stock portfolio. Intuitively, a higher stock risk parameter should reduce risky investments as well as insolvency risk. However, we find that the default probability does not necessarily decrease when reducing the investment risk (by increasing the stock investment risk parameter). We also find that depending on the precise interaction between assets and liabilities, some insurers will invest conservatively, whereas others will prefer a very risky investment strategy, and a slight change of the stock risk parameter may lead from a conservative to a high risk asset allocation.
This paper uses laboratory experiments to provide a systematic analysis of how di↵erent presentation formats a↵ect individuals’ investment decisions. The results indicate that the type of presentation as well as personal characteristics influence both, the consistency of decisions and the riskiness of investment choices. However, while personal characteristics have a larger impact on consistency, the chosen risk level is determined more by framing e↵ects. On the level of personal characteristics, participants’ decisions show that better financial literacy and a better understanding of the presentation format enhance consistency and thus decision quality. Moreover, female participants on average make less consistent decisions and tend to prefer less risky alternatives. On the level of framing dimensions, subjects choose riskier investments when possible outcomes are shown in absolute values rather than rates of return and when the loss potential is less obvious. In particular, reducing the emphasis on downside risk and upside potential simultaneously leads to a substantial increase in risk taking.