G28 Government Policy and Regulation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (19)
- Article (4)
Language
- English (23)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- Financial Regulation (2)
- Portfolio optimization (2)
- Risk aggregation (2)
- Solvency II (2)
- Systematic Risk (2)
- Systemic Risk (2)
- Asset Concentration Risk (1)
- Bank Accounting (1)
- Banking Supervision (1)
- Banking Union (1)
Historical evidence like the global financial crisis from 2007-09 highlights that sector concentration risk can play an important role for the solvency of insurers. However, current microprudential frameworks like the US RBC framework and Solvency II consider only name concentration risk explicitly in their solvency capital requirements for asset concentration risk and neglect sector concentration risk. We show by means of US insurers’ asset holdings from 2009 to 2018 that substantial sectoral asset concentrations exist in the financial, public and real estate sector, and find indicative evidence for a sectoral search for yield behavior. Based on a theoretical solvency capital allocation scheme, we demonstrate that the current regulatory approaches can lead to inappropriate and biased levels of solvency capital for asset concentration risk, and should be revised. Our findings have also important implications on the ongoing discussion of asset concentration risk in the context of macroprudential insurance regulation.
This paper studies the impact of banks’ dividend restrictions on the behavior of their institutional investors. Using an identification strategy that relies on the within investor variation and a difference in difference setup, I find that funds permanently decrease their ownership shares at treated banks during the 2020 dividend restrictions in the Eurozone and even exit treated banks’ stocks. Using data before the intro- duction of the ban reveals a positive relationship between fund ownership and banks’ dividend yield, highlighting again the importance of dividends for European banks’ fund investors. This reaction also has pricing implications since there is a negative relationship between the dividend restriction announcement day cumulative abnormal returns and the percentage of fund owners per bank.
We employ a proprietary transaction-level dataset in Germany to examine how capital requirements affect the liquidity of corporate bonds. Using the 2011 European Banking Authority capital exercise that mandated certain banks to increase regulatory capital, we find that affected banks reduce their inventory holdings, pre-arrange more trades, and have smaller average trade size. While non-bank affiliated dealers increase their market-making activity, they are unable to bridge this gap - aggregate liquidity declines. Our results are stronger for banks with a higher capital shortfall, for non-investment grade bonds, and for bonds where the affected banks were the dominant market-maker.
European insurers are allowed to make discretionary decisions in the calculation of Solvency II capital requirements. These choices include the design of risk models (ranging from a standard formula to a full internal model) and the use of long-term guarantees measures. This article examines the impact and the drivers of discretionary decisions with respect to capital requirements for market risks. In a first step of our analysis, we assess the risk profiles of 49 stock insurers using daily market data. In a second step, we exploit hand-collected Solvency II data for the years 2016 to 2020. We find that long-term guarantees measures substantially influence the reported solvency ratios. The measures are chosen particularly by less solvent insurers and firms with high interest rate and credit spread sensitivities. Internal models are used more frequently by large insurers and especially for risks for which the firms have already found adequate immunization strategies.
Gradient capital allocation, also known as Euler allocation, is a technique used to redistribute diversified capital requirements among different segments of a portfolio. The method is commonly employed to identify dominant risks, assessing the risk-adjusted profitability of segments, and installing limit systems. However, capital allocation can be misleading in all these applications because it only accounts for the current portfolio composition and ignores how diversification effects may change with a portfolio restructuring. This paper proposes enhancing the gradient capital allocation by adding “orthogonal convexity scenarios” (OCS). OCS identify risk concentrations that potentially drive portfolio risk and become relevant after restructuring. OCS have strong ties with principal component analysis (PCA), but they are a more general concept and compatible with common empirical patterns of risk drivers being fat-tailed and increasingly dependent in market downturns. We illustrate possible applications of OCS in terms of risk communication and risk limits.
Fabo, Janˇcokov ́a, Kempf, and P ́astor (2021) show that papers written by central bank researchers find quantitative easing (QE) to be more effective than papers written by academics. Weale and Wieladek (2022) show that a subset of these results lose statistical significance when OLS regressions are replaced by regressions that downweight outliers. We examine those outliers and find no reason to downweight them. Most of them represent estimates from influential central bank papers published in respectable academic journals. For example, among the five papers finding the largest peak effect of QE on output, all five are published in high-quality journals (Journal of Monetary Economics, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, and Applied Economics Letters), and their average number of citations is well over 200. Moreover, we show that these papers have supported policy communication by the world’s leading central banks and shaped the public perception of the effectiveness of QE. New evidence based on quantile regressions further supports the results in Fabo et al. (2021).
Most insurers in the European Union determine their regulatory capital requirements based on the standard formula of Solvency II. However, there is evidence that the standard formula inaccurately reflects insurers’ risk situation and may provide misleading steering incentives. In the second pillar, Solvency II requires insurers to perform a so-called “Own Risk and Solvency Assessment” (ORSA). In their ORSA, insurers must establish their own risk measurement approaches, including those based on scenarios, in order to derive suitable risk assessments and address shortcomings of the standard formula. The idea of this paper is to identify scenarios in such a way that the standard formula in connection with the ORSA provides a reliable basis for risk management decisions. Using an innovative method for scenario identification, our approach allows for a simple but relatively precise assessment of marginal and even non-marginal portfolio changes. We numerically evaluate the proposed approach in the context of market risk employing an internal model from the academic literature and the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) calculation under Solvency II.
This paper analyzes the scope of the private market for pandemic insurance. We develop a framework that explains theoretically how the equilibrium price of pandemic insurance depends on accumulation risk, covariance between pandemic claims and other claims, and covariance between pandemic claims and the stock market performance. Using the natural catastrophe (NatCat) insurance market as a laboratory, we estimate the relationship between the insurance price markup and the tail characteristics of the loss distribution. Then, by using the high-frequency data tracking the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, we calibrate the loss distribution of a hypothetical insurance contract designed to alleviate the impact of the pandemic on small businesses. The pandemic insurance contract price markup corresponds to the top 20% markup observed in the NatCat insurance market. Then we analyze an intertemporal risk-sharing scheme that can reduce the expected shortfall of the loss distribution by 50%.
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.
Life insurance convexity
(2021)
Life insurers massively sell savings contracts with surrender options which allow policyholders to withdraw a guaranteed amount before maturity. These options move toward the money when interest rates rise. Using data on German life insurers, we estimate that a 1 percentage point increase in interest rates raises surrender rates by 17 basis points. We quantify the resulting liquidity risk in a calibrated model of surrender decisions and insurance cash flows. Simulations predict that surrender options can force insurers to sell up to 3% of their assets, depressing asset prices by 90 basis points. The effect is amplified by the duration of insurers' investments, and its impact on the term structure of interest rates depends on life insurers' investment strategy.