Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (740)
- Part of Periodical (276)
- Report (30)
- Article (22)
- Periodical (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (1072) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (1072) (remove)
Keywords
- Financial Institutions (46)
- Capital Markets Union (37)
- ECB (36)
- Banking Union (32)
- Financial Markets (32)
- Banking Regulation (28)
- Household Finance (24)
- Monetary Policy (22)
- Banking Supervision (20)
- Financial Stability (19)
Institute
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (1072) (remove)
Tail-correlation matrices are an important tool for aggregating risk measurements across risk categories, asset classes and/or business segments. This paper demonstrates that traditional tail-correlation matrices—which are conventionally assumed to have ones on the diagonal—can lead to substantial biases of the aggregate risk measurement’s sensitivities with respect to risk exposures. Due to these biases, decision-makers receive an odd view of the effects of portfolio changes and may be unable to identify the optimal portfolio from a risk-return perspective. To overcome these issues, we introduce the “sensitivity-implied tail-correlation matrix”. The proposed tail-correlation matrix allows for a simple deterministic risk aggregation approach which reasonably approximates the true aggregate risk measurement according to the complete multivariate risk distribution. Numerical examples demonstrate that our approach is a better basis for portfolio optimization than the Value-at-Risk implied tail-correlation matrix, especially if the calibration portfolio (or current portfolio) deviates from the optimal portfolio.
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 documents that the bond investments of insurance companies transmit shocks from insurance markets to the real economy. Liquidity windfalls from household insurance purchases increase insurers’ demand for corporate bonds. Exploiting the fact that insurers persistently invest in a small subset of firms for identification, I show that these increases in bond demand raise bond prices and lower firms’ funding costs. In response, firms issue more bonds, especially when their bond underwriters are well connected with investors. Firms use the proceeds to raise investment rather than equity payouts. The results emphasize the significant impact of investor demand on firms’ financing and investment activities.
Testing frequency and severity risk under various information regimes and implications in insurance
(2023)
We build on Peter et al. (2017) who examined the benefit of testing frequency risk under various information regimes. We first consider testing only severity risk, and whether the principle of indemnity, i.e. the usual contract term that excludes claims payments above the resulting insured loss, affects the insurance contracts offered and purchased. Under information regimes which are less restrictive (in terms of obtaining and using customer information), it is possible for the insurer to offer different contracts for tested and untested individuals. In the absence of the principle of indemnity, individuals will test their severity risk and a separating equilibrium ensues. With the principle of indemnity, given an actuarially fair pooled contract, individuals will not test for severity under less restrictive information regimes; a pooling equilibrium thus ensues. Under more restrictive information regimes, the insurer offers separating contracts. Individuals will test for severity and purchase appropriate contracts. We also consider testing for both frequency and severity risk. The results here are more varied. The highest gain in efficiency from testing results from one of the more restrictive information regimes. Generally under all information regimes, there is a greater gain in efficiency without the principle of indemnity than with the principle of indemnity.
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.
I measure the effects of workers’ mobility across regions of different productivity through the lens of a search and matching model with heterogeneous workers and firms estimated with administrative data. In an application to Italy, I find that reallocation of workers to the most productive region boosts productivity at the country level but amplifies differentials across regions. Employment rates decline as migrants foster job competition, and inequality between workers doubles in less productive areas since displacement is particularly severe for low-skill workers. Migration does affect mismatch: mobility favors co-location of agents with similar productivity but within-region rank correlation declines in the most productive region. I show that worker-firm complementarities in production account for 33% of the productivity gains. Place-based programs directed to firms, like incentives for hiring unemployed or creating high productivity jobs, raise employment rates and reduce the gaps in productivity across regions. In contrast, subsidies to attract high-skill workers in the South have limited effects.
Between 2016 and 2022, life insurers in several European countries experienced negative longterm interest rates, which put pressure on their business models. The aim of this paper is to empirically investigate the impact of negative interest rates on the stock performance of life insurers. To measure the sensitivities, I estimate the level, slope, and curvature of the yield curve using the Nelson-Siegel model and empirical proxies. Panel regressions show that the effect of changes in the level is up to three times greater in a negative interest rate environment than in a positive one. Thus, a 1ppt decline in long-term interest rates reduces the stock returns of European life insurers by up to 10ppt when interest rates are below 0%. I also show that the relationship between the level and the sensitivity to interest rates is convex, and that life insurers benefit from rising interest rates across all maturity types.
Homeownership rates differ widely across European countries. We document that part of this variation is driven by differences in the fraction of adults co-residing with their parents. Comparing Germany and Italy, we show that in contrast to homeownership rates per household, homeownership rates per individual are very similar during the first part of the life cycle. To understand these patterns, we build an overlapping-generations model where individuals face uninsurable income risk and make consumption-saving and housing tenure decisions. We embed an explicit intergenerational link between children and parents to capture the three-way trade-off between owning, renting, and co-residing. Calibrating the model to Germany we explore the role of income profiles, housing policies, and the taste for independence and show that a combination of these factors goes a long way in explaining the differential life-cycle patterns of living arrangements between the two countries.
In crisis times, insurance companies might feel the pressure to present an investment portfolio performance that is superior to the market, since investment portfolios back the claims of policyholders and serve as a signal for the claims’ safety. I investigate how a stock market crisis as experienced over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic influences insurance firms’ decisions on the allocation of their corporate bond portfolio. I find that insurers shift their portfolio holdings towards lower credit risk assets as financial market conditions tighten. This tendency seems to be restricted by the liquidity risk of high-yield assets, and the credit risk of lower-rated investment grade assets. Both effects lead to an increase in the fraction of less liquid assets during the crash and the recovery.