G28 Government Policy and Regulation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2023 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (6)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
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.
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 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.
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).
Who should hold bail-inable debt and how can regulators police holding restrictions effectively?
(2023)
This paper analyses the demand-side prerequisites for the efficient application of the bail-in tool in bank resolution, scrutinises whether the European bank crisis management and deposit insurance (CMDI) framework is apt to establish them, and proposes amendments to remedy identified shortcomings.
The first applications of the new European CMDI framework, particularly in Italy, have shown that a bail-in of debt holders is especially problematic if they are households or other types of retail investors. Such debt holders may be unable to bear losses, and the social implications of bailing them in may create incentives for decision makers to refrain from involving them in bank resolution. In turn, however, if investors can expect resolution authorities (RAs) to behave inconsistently over time and bail-out bank capital and debt holders despite earlier vows to involve them in bank rescues, the pricing and monitoring incentives that the crisis management framework seeks to invigorate would vanish. As a result, market discipline would be suboptimal and moral hazard would persist. Therefore, the policy objectives of the CMDI framework will only be achieved if critical bail-in capital is not held by retail investors without sufficient loss-bearing capacity. Currently, neither the CMDI framework nor capital market regulation suffice to assure that this precondition is met. Therefore, some amendments are necessary. In particular, debt instruments that are most likely to absorb losses in resolution should have a high minimum denomination and banks should not be allowed to self-place such securities.