Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (30)
- Part of Periodical (6)
- Article (3)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (40)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (40)
Keywords
- Solvency II (9)
- Life Insurance (7)
- Systemic Risk (5)
- Financial Institutions (4)
- Interest Rates (4)
- Lebensversicherung (4)
- Adverse Selection (3)
- EIOPA (3)
- Financial Markets (3)
- Privacy (3)
The European Commission has published a Green Paper outlining possible measures to create a single market for capital in Europe. Our comments on the Commission’s capital markets union project use the functional finance approach as a starting point. Policy decisions, according to the functional finance perspective, should be essentially neutral (agnostic) in terms of institutions (level playing field). Our main angle, from which we assess proposals for the capital markets union agenda, are information asymmetries and the agency problems (screening, monitoring) which arise as a result. Within this perspective, we make a number of more specific proposals.
The Liikanen Group proposes contingent convertible (CoCo) bonds as a potential mechanism to enhance financial stability in the banking industry. Especially life insurance companies could serve as CoCo bond holders as they are already the largest purchasers of bank bonds in Europe. We develop a stylized model with a direct financial connection between banking and insurance and study the effects of various types of bonds such as non-convertible bonds, write-down bonds and CoCos on banks' and insurers' risk situations. In addition, we compare insurers' capital requirements under the proposed Solvency II standard model as well as under an internal model that ex-ante anticipates additional risks due to possible conversion of the CoCo bond into bank shares. In order to check the robustness of our findings, we consider different CoCo designs (write-down factor, trigger value, holding time of bank shares) and compare the resulting capital requirements with those for holding non-convertible bonds. We identify situations in which insurers benefit from buying CoCo bonds due to lower capital requirements and higher coupon rates. Furthermore, our results highlight how the Solvency II standard model can mislead insurers in their CoCo investment decision due to economically irrational incentives.
Pursuant to art. 45 of the Solvency II Framework Directive, all insurance undertakings will be obliged to conduct an “Own Risk and Solvency Assessment” (ORSA). ORSA’s relevance is not limited only to the second pillar of Solvency II, where mainly qualitative requirements are to be found. ORSA rather exhibits strong interlinks with the first pillar and its quantitative requirements and may also serve as a trigger for transparency duties which form Solvency II’s third pillar. ORSA may thus be described in some respects as the glue that binds together all three pillars of Solvency II. ORSA is one of the most obvious examples of the supervisory shift from a rules-based to a principles-based approach. As such, ORSA has hitherto been only very roughly defined. Since it is for the undertaking to determine its own specific risk profile and to evaluate whether this risk profile deviates significantly from the assumptions underlying the standard formula, it seems only natural that the supervisor must specify in greater detail what these underlying assumptions are. The most practicable way to do so would be for EIOPA to establish a “standard insurer”, which implies a translation of the assumptions concerning the underlying probability distributions into directly observable characteristics. The creation of the standard insurer would be an important step towards relaxing the insurers’ fear of what ORSA might bring about.
Mittels des Gesetzes zur zusätzlichen Aufsicht über beaufsichtigte Unternehmen eines Finanzkonglomerats (Konglomerate, die aus mehreren Unternehmen aus verschiedenen Finanzmarktsektoren bestehen, beispielsweise aus dem Bankensektor und dem Versicherungssektor) sollen Regelungslücken geschlossen werden, die insbesondere die Gefahr betreffen, die sich aus der „Ansteckung“ einzelner Finanzkonglomerats-Unternehmen ergeben. Die vorliegende Stellungnahme weist auf eine Inkonsistenz in der beabsichtigten Ansiedlung der Aufsichtskompetenz hin und bietet einen Vorschlag zur Präzisierung der Eigenmittelvorschriften.
In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten wurden hohe Garantieverzinsungen in den Lebensversicherungsverträgen vereinbart. Dauert die herrschende Niedrigzinsphase noch einige Jahre an, wird es für einige Lebensversicherungsunternehmen schwierig werden, die gegebenen Langzeitgarantien über ihre Kapitalanlage zu erwirtschaften. Der Gesetzgeber sollte festlegen, dass Versicherungskunden nur an Bewertungsreserven beteiligt werden, die eine Höhe übersteigen, die zur Gewährleistung eines intergenerativen Risikoausgleichs notwendig ist. Weiterhin sollten Versicherungskunden nur an Bewertungsreserven beteiligt werden, die aus Kapitalanlagen entstehen, die nicht festverzinsliche Wertpapiere umfassen.
The Liikanen Group proposes contingent convertible (CoCo) bonds as instruments to enhance financial stability in the banking industry. Especially life insurance companies could serve as CoCo bond holders as they are already the largest purchasers of bank bonds in Europe. The growing number of banks issuing CoCo bonds leads to a rising awareness of these hybrid securities among life insurers as they are increasingly looking for higher?yielding investments into bond?like asset classes during the current low interest rate period. Our contribution provides an insight for life insurance companies to understand the effects of holding CoCo bonds as implied by the Solvency II standards that will become effective by 2016.
Coming (great) events cast their (long) shadow before. As the financial crisis gave birth to the creation of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS), the imminent Brexit now serves as an impulse to rather extensively reorganize it. Pursuant to the preferences of the Commission—as revealed in its draft for a regulation amending the regulations founding the European Supervisory Authorities (ESA)—the supervision (and regulation) of the financial sectors should be further centralized and integrated and additional powers should be given to the ESAs. To a large degree these alterations are intended to adjust the competences of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to better meet its new objectives under the Capital Markets Union (“CMU”). In view that an equivalent to the CMU or the Banking Union—in the sense of a European Insurance Union—is not yet on the horizon for the insurance sector (or the occupational pensions sector), one could prima vista take the view that insurance supervision and regulation is once again taken captive by the necessity of regulatory reforms stemming from other financial sectors. However, even if that is partially the case, the outcome of the intended reforms might still be advantageous for the insurance sector and an important step in the right direction. Therefore, it needs to be intensively discussed.
At this stage, some of the most prominent envisioned changes to the structure, tasks and powers of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and their necessity, usefulness or counter-productivity still have to be examined.