Posts Tagged ‘solvency’



February 27th, 2017

Managing Volatility Key To Solvency II Transition: Part II

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

paire-eric-sm1Eric Paire, Head of Global Partners & Strategic Advisory, EMEA

Contact

“To remain competitive, smaller companies simply cannot afford to operate at 200 percent. This volatility on multiple fronts means that establishing the solvency level that will provide a sufficiently robust capital buffer to withstand these fluctuations is extremely difficult. Is it 130 percent, 150 percent, 170 percent or higher?” notes Eric Paire, Head of Global Partners & Strategic Advisory, EMEA at Guy Carpenter.

Continue reading…

February 23rd, 2017

Managing Volatility Key To Solvency II Transition: Part I

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

paire-eric-smEric Paire, Head of Global Partners & Strategic Advisory, EMEA

Contact

Movement Within Capital Ratios Leading to Uncertainty Amongst Mid-Size Companies

The impact of the Solvency II capital ratio on composite life and property/casualty balance sheets is proving more substantial than some companies initially expected, according to Eric Paire, Head of Global Partners & Strategic Advisory, EMEA at Guy Carpenter. This development is due to the double impact of market volatility and volatility within the solvency ratio itself.

Continue reading…

February 14th, 2017

Chart: Solvency II Ratios as of End of H1 2016

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

Chart presents (re)insurers’ Solvency II ratios compiled by Guy Carpenter for the first half of 2016. Many companies publish their solvency ratios without being required to do so, and some others actually specify target solvency ratio ranges as part of their risk appetite and financial targets. Solvency ratios are another metric for investors to use when assessing the relative financial strength of companies - and (re)insurance buyers can do the same when assessing counterparty risk.

Continue reading…

November 17th, 2016

Reserving and Capital Setting: The Crystalization of Emerging Risks, Part I

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

As discussed in the Executive Summary of this report, the term “crystalization of risk” refers to the timescale over which we realize that the risk is manifesting itself and how this view changes until ultimate understanding of quantum is reached and all liabilities are discharged. The “Reserving Risks” section in last year’s report, Ahead of the Curve: Understanding Emerging Risks looked at how information emerges in the presence of reserving cycles. The profit or loss in any particular financial year is made up of not only the profit or loss from the same accident year but also any recognized changes in the reserves on prior years.

Continue reading…

September 12th, 2016

Managing Volatility Key To Solvency II Transition - GC@MC Commentary

Posted at 12:00 AM ET

paire-eric-smEric Paire, Head of Global Partners & Strategic Advisory, EMEA

Contact

Movement Within Capital Ratios Leading to Uncertainty Amongst Mid-Size Companies

The impact of the Solvency II capital ratio on composite life and property/casualty balance sheets is proving more substantial than some companies initially expected, according to Eric Paire, Head of Global Partners & Strategic Advisory, EMEA at Guy Carpenter. This development is due to the double impact of market volatility and volatility within the solvency ratio itself.

Continue reading…

July 7th, 2016

Changes to Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio (BCAR)

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

Here we review recent GC Capital Ideas posts on developing changes to Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio (BCAR) and the potential impact of those changes on (re)insurers.

Continue reading…

June 9th, 2016

Reserving and Capital Setting: The Crystalization of Emerging Risks, Part II

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

The chart below attempts to illustrate the solvency calculation issue. Suppose the best estimate is 20 and the assessment from modeling is that the 1-in-200-year ultimate loss is 100. If all else stays the same and with the simplifying assumption that the yield curve stays flat, one can say that the sum of the 1-year solvency capital requirements (SCRs) approximated the difference between 100 and 20 (i.e. 80). Yet, because of the discounting, when in time the change in own funds is recognized, is important. The black line represents a linear recognition pattern so the 1-year SCRs are all equal with increments of 10. The blue line represents a Binary Fast recognition so the first year SCR is 80 and the remaining years’ SCR are zero. This means that the deterioration is recognized quickly. The red line again shows binary recognition but with a slow pattern as the movement is only occurring toward the end of the liabilities’ life. The two curves in light blue and light red represent less severe versions of the binary forms.

Continue reading…

June 8th, 2016

Reserving and Capital Setting: The Crystalization of Emerging Risks, Part I

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

As discussed in the Executive Summary of this report, the term “crystalization of risk” refers to the timescale over which we realize that the risk is manifesting itself and how this view changes until ultimate understanding of quantum is reached and all liabilities are discharged. The “Reserving Risks” section in last year’s report, Ahead of the Curve: Understanding Emerging Risks looked at how information emerges in the presence of reserving cycles. The profit or loss in any particular financial year is made up of not only the profit or loss from the same accident year but also any recognized changes in the reserves on prior years.

Continue reading…

April 27th, 2016

China’s Insurance Regulatory System

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

Here we review recent GC Capital Ideas posts on developments in China’s insurance regulatory system. 

Continue reading…

February 4th, 2016

Rating Agency Developments

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

There is a great deal of overlap between the requirements of government regulators and credit rating agencies. The difference, however, is in the objectives of those requirements, with regulators focused on solvency and ability to trade, or not, and the rating agencies taking it a step further to opine on relative financial strength. Regulatory solvency approval can be viewed as a “qualifier” or minimum standard required to be considered by a customer. A credit rating, on the other hand, can act as a “differentiator” to distribution channels and insurance buyers ultimately leading to greater potential sales opportunities.

Continue reading…