• No results found

Some questions about Solvency II

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Some questions about Solvency II"

Copied!
27
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Karolien Van Beeck

(2)

Summary Introduction Solvency II Example QIS3 SST Product development Comparison References End

(3)

Context

I Methodology to obtain profitability of new products

I Profitability and Solvency II

I Specifiy Parameters

I Goal: optimal return

I ´and policyholder

(4)

Historic Background

I Solvency II: 3 pilars

I Pillar 1: Quantitative requirements

I Minimal capital requirements

I Solvability capital requirements

I Pillar 2: Supervisor review

(5)

Used methods

I QIS3 and European Embedded Value

I Standard formulas

I SST and European Embedded Value

(6)

Value measurement of the portfolio

I EEV

I 12 Principes

I MCEV (Market Consistent Embedded Value)

I Future cashflows

I Riskfree

I Adapted profitsharing

(7)

Product

I Branch 21 (saving product, universal life type, 0%)

I Profit sharing (added to reserve)

I Death outgo = reserve

(8)

Portfolio and assetmix

I Length contracts 20, 25, 35 year (age at entry. 45, 40, 35)

Total No contracts 10.863 Regular premium e58.504.956 Single premium e82.586.017 Total e141.136.686 I Assetmix: 70/30

(9)

Balancesheet

Ante

Assets e141.136.686

Liabilities e91.572.269

(10)

Overzicht SCR

(11)

Principles

I Apply stresstests

I Extract results

I No reducing effect of future profitsharing

I Reducing effect of future profit sharing

I “VaR”

(12)

SCR

Life Overview Lifemort e216.764 Lifelong e0,00 Lifedis e0,00 Lifelapse e6.142.083 Lifeexp e3.198.187 Liferev e0,00 LifeCAT e240.311 SCRLife e8.249.150 No diversification e9.797.344 Diversifiction effect e1.548.194

(13)

Mkt

Mkt

en KC

Mkt Overview SCR KC int e113.495.581 e106.788.071 eq e13.549.121 e4.347.010 prop e0,00 e0,00 sp e0,00 e0,00 conc e0,00 e0,00 fx e0,00 e0,00 Mkt e114.301.469 e106.876.511 No diversifivcation e127.044.703 e111.135.080 Diversification effect e12.743.234 e4.258.570

(14)

Summary

I SCR I SCRDef: e0 I SCRLife: e8.249.150 I SCRMkt: e7.424.957 I CoC 6% I e15.600.976 I Economic balance Ante Assets e141.136.686 Liabilities e107.173.245 NAV e33.963.440 I SCR I 9.961.044 I Solvencyratio I 3,41

(15)

Remarks

I Principle I Risk =BSCR - KC I Big SCR I Marketrisk I SCR under QIS3 = SCRMkt−KCMkt= 7.424.957 I Riskmkt= p (SCRint−(KCint)2+ SCReq−KCeq)2= 11.387.255 I QIS4

(16)

Principles

I No future profitsharing

I Market risk: cashflows grouped in timebuckets (diversification)

I “Expected shortfall”

(17)

SST

Life Overview SST-Lmort e289.791 SST-Llong e0,00 SST-Ldis e0,00 SST-Llapse e8.743.955 SST-Lexp e3.930.842 SST-Lex-opt e0,00 SST-Lreact e0,00 SSTLife e9.591.259 No diversication e12.964.589 Diversification effect e3.373.330

(18)

I No timebuckets

I Symmetric testing less usefull

I Results Overview SST-Mint e15.306.455 SST-Meq e10.576.296 SSTMarket e20.202.765 No diversification e25.781.620 Diversification-effect e5.578.855

(19)

Summary

I SCR I SSTLife: e9.591.259 I SSTMarkete20.202.765 I CoC 6% I e18.353.402 I Economic Balance Ante Assets e141.136.686 Liabilities e109.925.671 NAV e31.211.015 I SCR I e22.363.898 I Solvencyratio I 1,77

(20)

I Higher SCR’s

I SST less appropriate because of profitsharing

(21)

Changing Assetsmix

I Assetsmix 60/40 I Consequence on SCR (QIS3-methodology) I SCRDef: e0 I SCRLife: e8.249.150 I SCRMkt: e15.235.871 I CoC 6% I e16.153.843 I Economic balance Ante Assets e141.136.686 Liabilities e107.726.111 NAV e33.410.574 I Solvencyratio I 1,90

(22)

Overview

QIS3 70/30 SST 70/30 QIS3 60/40 BSCR e9.961.044 e22.363.898 e17.663.245 CoC e15.600.976 e18.353.402 e16.153.843 Solvencyratio 3,41 1,77 1,90 I Conclusions I Higher SCR using SST I Pct equity%, SCR% I Conclusion I SCR: invest in obligations

I Return : invest in equity

(23)

I 8 JUNI 2007. - Wet tot wijziging van de procedure tot vaststelling van de maximale referentierentevoet voor verzekeringsverrichtingen van lange duur (1)

I G. Boender: A hybrid simulation/optimisation scenario model

for asset/liability management; European Journal of Perational Research; 1997

I G. Borremans: De bepaling van de technische intrestvoet bij

de financiering van aanvullende pensioenen; Eindverhandeling

GGS Actuari¨ele Wetenschappen; 2006-2007

I E. Briys, F. de Varenne: On the Risk of Insurance Liabilities: Debunking Some common Pitfalls; The Journal of Risk and Insurance1997, vol. 64 No. 4, 673-694

I CEIOPS-DOC-19/07

I CEIOPS-DOC-22/07

(24)

I CEIOPS-FS-13/07

I CFO Forum: European Embedded Value Principles

I CFO Forum: European Guidance on European Embedded

Value Disclosures

I P. Colle: Handboek bijzonder gereglementeerde

verzekeringscontracten; Intersentia; 2005

I DIRECTIVE 2002/83/EC OF THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 November 2002: concerning life assurance; Official Journal of the European Communities; 19.12.2002

I G. Finkelstein, E. MCWilliam, S. Nagle, P. de Beus, R. van

Leijenhorst, L. Maas, J. Cui: Guarantee and embedded options; Ernst en Young; 2003

I R. Honegger, C. Mathis: Duration of Life Insurance Liabilities and Asset Liability Management;

actuaries.org/AFIR/colloquia/Rome/Honegger Mathis.pdf

I P. Keller: Swiss Solvency Test; Federal Office of Private Insurance Luzern, 2005

(25)

I M. Koller: How does Solvency II compare with the Swiss Solvency Test (Public Hearing on Solvency II); Brussels 21.6.2006

I P. Nguyen, R. Portait: Dynamic asset allocation with mean

variance preferences and solvency constraint; Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control; 2002

I H. Ooghe, M. Deloof, S. Manigart: Handboek

bedrijfsfinanciering; Intersentia 2003

I R. Shiller, F. Kon-Ya and Y. Tsutsui: Why Did the Nikkei

Crash? Expanding the Scope of Expectations Data Collection; The Review of Economics and Statistics; 1996

I S. True and K. Foroughi: Financial services (Taking Forward

Embedded Values); Emphasis 2004/3

I Prof. D. Van Berlaer: Grondige Studie Groepsverzekeringen

en pensioenfondsen Deel 2

I D. van Bragt, H. Steehouwer, B. Waalwijk: Market Consistent

ALM For Life Insurerssteps toward Solvency II; OCFR working paper series; 2008

(26)

I Prof. F. van den Spiegel: Het beheer van renterisico door middel van duration analyse; Nederlands Instituut voor het Bank en Effectenbedrijf; 1989

I T.J. Watsham and K. Parramore: Quantitative Methods in

Finance; International Business Press; 1997

I S.R. Warrier: Solvency and Capital Adequacy;

Regulatory/Law; Lessons Learned; 2007

I Zurich Financial Services: European Embedded Value; 2005

I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte Carlo method#History

I http://www.stock-market-crash.net/1987.htm

I http://www.econreview.com/events/ltcm1998b.htm

I

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/fipfedfel/y 3A1992 3Ai 3Aoct16 3An 3A92-36.htm

I

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=wto free trade 19

I

(27)

References

Related documents

Notes: Number of customers reliant on major electricity distribution substations located in areas susceptible to river and coastal flooding at differing flood likelihoods that

Prudence margin Solvency I Solvency II Book Value of assets Technical Provisions Free Surplus Solvency I Economic Value of liabilities Solvency II SCR Free Surplus Book Value of

The key downside to Solvency I was that it did not tailor capital requirements to the actual risks that insurance companies are exposed to, providing insufficient incentives

To ease comparison with Solvency II, we present the ZK using a modular approach in which the main risk categories are separated as market risks, underwriting risks (we consider

rating agencies Market-consistent valuation Validation of internal models Quantitative capital requirements z Technical provisions z Minimum capital requirement (MCR) z

ABSTRACT This paper proposes an invariant-set based minimal detectable fault (MDF) computation method based on the set-separation condition between the healthy and faulty residual

Primary bedroom with beautiful coastal property set up email alerts for sale in the st leonards is the ultimate coastal maine country coastal or just.. Ends of coastal lot for

The calculation based on the MRs in the signaling shows that the average difference between the uplink level and downlink level is 14 dBm, and Cabinet-top power – MS power = 10.4