360 Soziale Probleme und Sozialdienste; Verbände
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (5)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Solvency II (2)
- Bewertungsreserven (1)
- Garantiezins (1)
- Insurance (1)
- Lebensversicherungen (1)
- Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (1)
- Regulierung (1)
- Versicherungen (1)
- capital requirements (1)
- insurance (1)
Institute
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (6) (remove)
Investors and insurance policyholders are often confronted with complex products and providers' opaque organisational structures. At the same time, the possibility that their claims will not be honoured often poses an existential risk. Financial regulation therefore aims at putting in place a financial services framework that will safeguard market processes whilst also protecting consumers. However, benefits of regulation are accompanied by certain risks, as can be exemplified with the case of insurance regulation.
Kapitalanleger wie Versicherungsnehmer werden oft konfrontiert mit komplexen Produkten und nicht durchschaubaren Unternehmensstrukturen der Anbieter. Gleichzeitig stellt die mögliche Nichterfüllung ihrer Ansprüche häufig ein existenzielles Risiko dar. Deshalb ist es Ziel der Finanzregulierung, Rahmenbedingungen im Finanzdienstleistungsbereich zu schaffen, die wirtschaftliche Abläufe gewährleisten und gleichzeitig den Konsumenten schützen. Dem Nutzen der Regulierung stehen aber auch Risiken gegenüber, die im diesem Artikel am Beispiel der Versicherungsregulierung dargelegt werden.
This chapter outlines the conditions under which accounting-based smoothing can be beneficial for policyholders who hold with-profit or participating payout life annuities (PLAs). We use a realistically-calibrated model of PLAs to explore how alternative accounting techniques influence policyholder welfare as well as insurer profitability and stability. We find that accounting smoothing of participating life annuities is favorable to consumers and insurers, as it mitigates the impact of short-term volatility and enhances the utility of these long-term annuity contracts.
This article discusses the effects of the countercyclical premium discussed in insurance supervision in the context of Solvency II. While the basic principle of introducing countercyclical elements into Solvency II is endorsed, the authors argue for a system based on market scenarios which would enforce stricter capital requirements in boom times and less strict requirements in times of crisis.
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.
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.