Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (115) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (115) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (115)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (115)
Keywords
- Solvency II (4)
- Währungsunion (4)
- systemic risk (4)
- insurance (3)
- Banking Union (2)
- Basel III (2)
- Fiscal Union (2)
- Fiskalunion (2)
- Heterogeneous Agents (2)
- Income and Wealth Inequality (2)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (115) (remove)
Low interest rates are becoming a threat to the stability of the life insurance industry, especially in countries such as Germany, where products with relatively high guaranteed returns sold in the past still represent a prominent share of the total portfolio. This contribution aims to assess and quantify the effects of the current low interest rate phase on the balance sheet of a representative German life insurer, given the current asset allocation and the outstanding liabilities. To do so, we generate a stochastic term structure of interest rates as well as stock market returns to simulate investment returns of a stylized life insurance business portfolio in a multi-period setting. Based on empirically calibrated parameters, we can observe the evolution of the life insurers’ balance sheet over time with a special focus on their solvency situation. To account for different scenarios and in order to check the robustness of our findings, we calibrate different capital market settings and different initial situations of capital endowment. Our results suggest that a prolonged period of low interest rates would markedly affect the solvency situation of life insurers, leading to a relatively high cumulative probability of default, especially for less capitalized companies. In addition, the new reform of the German life insurance regulation has a beneficial effect on the cumulative probability of default, as a direct consequence of the reduction of the payouts to policyholders.
This paper investigates systemic risk in the insurance industry. We first analyze the systemic contribution of the insurance industry vis-à-vis other industries by applying 3 measures, namely the linear Granger causality test, conditional value at risk and marginal expected shortfall, on 3 groups, namely banks, insurers and non-financial companies listed in Europe over the last 14 years. We then analyze the determinants of the systemic risk contribution within the insurance industry by using balance sheet level data in a broader sample. Our evidence suggests that i) the insurance industry shows a persistent systemic relevance over time and plays a subordinate role in causing systemic risk compared to banks, and that ii) within the industry, those insurers which engage more in non-insurance-related activities tend to pose more systemic risk. In addition, we are among the first to provide empirical evidence on the role of diversification as potential determinant of systemic risk in the insurance industry. Finally, we confirm that size is also a significant driver of systemic risk, whereas price-to-book ratio and leverage display counterintuitive results.
Capital maintenance rules are part of a legal capital regime that consists of rules on raising capital and rules on maintaining it. The function of these rules is the protection of the corporation’s creditors. This is evidenced by the fact that in public as well as private companies the provisions on legal capital are not open to disapplication or variation even with unanimous shareholder consent. Thus, providing the company with a minimum of funding and ensuring equal treatment of shareholders are mere reflexes of creditor protection or, at best, ancillary purposes of legal capital. Legal capital is part of a corporation’s equity. The key feature of equity is that it ranks behind the claims of other stakeholders in the distribution of a corporation’s assets. Consequently, equity will also be the first part of a corporation’s funds to be depleted by losses. Capital maintenance rules seek to enforce this order of priority of different groups of stakeholders by restricting distributions to shareholders. Such restrictions are not unique to legal systems that have adopted a legal capital regime. A prominent example of a statute that has eliminated mandatory legal capital is the Delaware General Corporation Law. § 154 DCGL leaves it up to the directors to decide whether any part of the consideration received by the corporation for its shares shall be attributed to capital. Thus, a Delaware corporation need not have any stated capital. This has significant impact on the funds available for distribution to shareholders. Pursuant to § 170 (a) DGCL dividends may only be paid out of surplus or, in the absence of surplus, out of net profits of the current or the preceding fiscal year. § 154 DGCL defines surplus as the excess of a corporation’s net assets over the amount of its capital, and net assets as the amount by which total assets exceed total liabilities. A corporation without stated capital may, therefore, distribute all of its net assets to its shareholders and continue business without any equity on its balance sheet. This highlights the difference between the different approaches to creditor protection in Germany and the U.S. Both legal systems acknowledge the priority of creditors over shareholders in corporate distributions. However, German law seeks to give creditors additional comfort by requiring companies to raise and maintain additional layers of assets above and beyond those corresponding to the company’s liabilities that may not be depleted by way of distributions to shareholders. While private companies must merely raise and maintain their stated capital, public companies are required to raise and maintain additional equity accounts unavailable for distributions to shareholders such as the share premium account1 and the legal reserve.2
In recent years a number of objections have been raised against this concept of creditor protection. Critics argue that contractual arrangements are a more efficient means for protecting the interests of creditors.3 Capital maintenance does not prevent creditors from negotiating for more stringent protection of their claims such as collateral or financial covenants. It does, however, provide a minimum standard of protection for the benefit of creditors who lack the commercial experience or the bargaining power or who, like tort victims, are simply unable to negotiate for contractual safeguards. Capital maintenance ensures that their protection against excessive distributions does not depend on large creditors who are free to waive covenants that, in effect, benefit all creditors in exchange for individual arrangements that work exclusively in their favour.
Anleihen werden in der Regel in zahlreiche Teilschuldverschreibungen aufgespalten und diese an verschiedene Investoren verkauft. Dies begründet, der Zahl der umlaufenden Teilschuldverschreibungen entsprechend, jeweils unterschiedliche Schuldverhältnisse zwischen dem Emittenten und dem jeweiligen Investor. Hält ein Investor mehrere Teilschuldverschreibungen, so entstehen dementsprechend mehrere rechtlich voneinander zu unterscheidende Schuldverhältnisse mit gleichem Inhalt.1 Diese können jeweils ein unterschiedliches rechtliches Schicksal haben, z. B. getrennt voneinander übertragen werden. Sie können auch, von atypischen Gestaltungen abgesehen, je einzeln vom Gläubiger gekündigt werden, wenn die Anleihebedingungen insoweit keine Vorkehrungen treffen. Die folgenden Bemerkungen dazu befassen sich zunächst mit der umstrittenen Frage, ob auch eine Kündigung aus wichtigem Grund seitens eines Gläubigers gemäß §§ 490 Abs. 1, 314 BGB in Betracht kommt (im Folgenden I. - VII.)
Die sog. Business Judgment Rule wurde durch Art. 1 Nr. 1a des UMAG1 auf entsprechende Vorschläge im Schrifttum2 als neuer § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 2 in das Aktiengesetz eingefügt. Der Sache nach war sie bereits zuvor in Rechtsprechung3 und Lehre4 anerkannt. Nach gängigem Verständnis soll die Business Judgment Rule einen „sicheren Hafen“ bieten, der Organmitglieder davor schützt, dass unternehmerische Misserfolge auf der Grundlage nachträglicher besserer Erkenntnis als Sorgfaltspflichtverstöße sanktioniert werden. Nach ganz überwiegen-der Auffassung beschränkt sich die Bedeutung von § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 2 AktG nicht darauf, durch ausdrückliche Regelung von Elementen der Sorgfaltspflicht klarzustellen, dass das Gesetz mit dem strengen Sorgfaltsmaßstab des ordentlichen und gewissenhaften Geschäftslei-ters nicht etwa eine Erfolgshaftung statuiert. Die Business Judgment Rule wird vielmehr als Privilegierung gegenüber dem ansonsten geltenden Haftungsmaßstab des § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 1 AktG verstanden. Ausdrückliche Stellungnahmen zur Wirkungsweise dieses Privilegs reichen von der Annahme eines der richterlichen Nachprüfung entzogenen unternehmerischen Ermes-sensspielraums5 über die Einordnung als unwiderlegliche Vermutung objektiv rechtmäßigen Verhaltens6 bis hin zu der Annahme, dass im Anwendungsbereich der Business Judgment Rule eine Haftung gegenüber der Gesellschaft nur ab der Grenze der groben Fahrlässigkeit in Betracht komme.7 Aber auch die zahlreichen Stellungnahmen, die sich nicht ausdrücklich zur Frage der Haftungserleichterung äußern, setzen eine privilegierende Wirkung der Business Judgment Rule voraus. Anderenfalls hätten die eingehenden Überlegungen zur Abgrenzung unternehmerischer von anderen, insbesondere rechtlich gebundenen Entscheidungen, für die offenbar ein strengerer Sorgfalts- und Haftungsmaßstab gelten soll, keinerlei praktische Bedeutung.
1.Hinsichtlich der Haftung von Organmitgliedern gegenüber der Gesellschaft für Fehlein-schätzungen der Rechtslage gilt kein anderer Maßstab als hinsichtlich der Haftung für Fehler bei unternehmerischen Entscheidungen (dazu sogleich, II).
2.Die Business Judgment Rule des § 93 Abs. 1 Satz 2 AktG enthält kein Haftungsprivileg; insbesondere stellt sie Organmitglieder nicht grundsätzlich von der Haftung für grobe Fahr-lässigkeit frei. Sie konkretisiert vielmehr lediglich die Sorgfaltsanforderungen an einen or-dentlichen und gewissenhaften Geschäftsleiter und stellt klar, dass dessen Haftung nicht mit nachträglicher besserer Erkenntnis begründet werden kann. Aus diesem Grund ist es unbe-denklich, dass sich die Haftung für unternehmerische, rechtliche und sonstige Fehler nach einheitlichen Haftungsgrundsätzen richtet (dazu unten, III.).
This paper studies the life cycle consumption-investment-insurance problem of a family. The wage earner faces the risk of a health shock that significantly increases his probability of dying. The family can buy long-term life insurance that can only be revised at significant costs, which makes insurance decisions sticky. Furthermore, a revision is only possible as long as the insured person is healthy. A second important feature of our model is that the labor income of the wage earner is unspanned. We document that the combination of unspanned labor income and the stickiness of insurance decisions reduces the long-term insurance demand significantly. This is because an income shock induces the need to reduce the insurance coverage, since premia become less affordable. Since such a reduction is costly and families anticipate these potential costs, they buy less protection at all ages. In particular, young families stay away from long-term life insurance markets altogether. Our results are robust to adding short-term life insurance, annuities and health insurance.
We consider the continuous-time portfolio optimization problem of an investor with constant relative risk aversion who maximizes expected utility of terminal wealth. The risky asset follows a jump-diffusion model with a diffusion state variable. We propose an approximation method that replaces the jumps by a diffusion and solve the resulting problem analytically. Furthermore, we provide explicit bounds on the true optimal strategy and the relative wealth equivalent loss that do not rely on quantities known only in the true model. We apply our method to a calibrated affine model. Our findings are threefold: Jumps matter more, i.e. our approximation is less accurate, if (i) the expected jump size or (ii) the jump intensity is large. Fixing the average impact of jumps, we find that (iii) rare, but severe jumps matter more than frequent, but small jumps.
Based on a cognitive notion of neo-additive capacities reflecting likelihood insensitivity with respect to survival chances, we construct a Choquet Bayesian learning model over the life-cycle that generates a motivational notion of neo-additive survival beliefs expressing ambiguity attitudes. We embed these neo-additive survival beliefs as decision weights in a Choquet expected utility life-cycle consumption model and calibrate it with data on subjective survival beliefs from the Health and Retirement Study. Our quantitative analysis shows that agents with calibrated neo-additive survival beliefs (i) save less than originally planned, (ii) exhibit undersaving at younger ages, and (iii) hold larger amounts of assets in old age than their rational expectations counterparts who correctly assess their survival chances. Our neo-additive life-cycle model can therefore simultaneously accommodate three important empirical findings on household saving behavior.