A review of Solvency II: Has it met its objectives?. (24th January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rae, R. A.; Barrett, A.; Brooks, D.; Chotai, M. A.; Pelkiewicz, A. J.; Wang, C.
• Is Part Of: British actuarial journal. Volume 23(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-01-24
• Subjects: Solvency II, -- Market consistency, -- Effective risk management, -- Risk margin, -- Brexit; Actuarial science -- Periodicals; Insurance, Life -- Periodicals; Periodicals; Periodicals; 368.010941
• DOI: 10.1017/S1357321717000241
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1357-3217

Abstract

Abstract: Solvency II is currently one of the most sophisticated insurance regulatory regimes in the world. It is built around the principles of market consistency and embedding strong risk management and governance within insurance companies. For business with long-term guarantees, the original basis produced outcomes that were unacceptable to the member states. The original design was amended through Omnibus II. The working party has looked back at the outcome of the final regulation and comments on how well Solvency II has fared, principally from a UK perspective, relative to its initial goals of improved consumer protection, harmonisation, effective risk management and financial stability. We review Pillar 1's market consistent valuation (including the risk margin and transitional measures) as well as the capital requirements (including internal models). We look at the impact this has on asset and liability management, pro-cyclicality and product design. We look at Pillars 2 and 3 in respect of the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment, liquidity and disclosure. Finally, we stand back and look at harmonisation and the implications of Brexit. In summary we conclude that Solvency II represents a huge improvement over Solvency I although it has not fully achieved the goals it aspired to. There are acknowledged shortfalls and imperfections where adjustments to Solvency II are likely. There remain other concerns around pro-cyclicality, and the appropriateness of market consistency is still open to criticism. It is hoped that the paper and the discussion that goes with it provide an insight into where Solvency II has taken European Insurance regulation and the directions in which it could evolve.