Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-8hm5d Total loading time: 0.399 Render date: 2022-05-19T00:32:02.851Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Market-consistent valuations and Solvency II: Implications of the recent financial crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

Abstract

The recent financial crisis has raised challenges to market-consistent valuation, both in its implementation and application. These include both commercial and technical challenges. The whole concept of mark-to-market accounting has been questioned in some quarters.

There have been commercial challenges in deciding how to assess business strategies given recent volatile market-consistent results, including the implications for ALM and new business pricing. Industry-wide, macroeconomic concerns have been raised regarding procyclicality.

This paper recognises these commercial challenges and highlights how a combination of different forms of management information covering both market-consistent and other measures can help in making decisions. This paper sets out some possible approaches to mitigate procyclicality.

There have been technical challenges in:

  • assessing how to value instruments in markets which are or have become illiquid

  • selecting an appropriate ‘risk-free’ or reference rate

  • deciding whether and how to make additional allowance for the liquidity premium or own credit risk

  • the calibration of stochastic models used to value embedded financial options and guarantees

  • assessing an appropriate allowance for non-hedgeable risk.

This paper discusses these technical challenges. The paper proposes a way forward in some areas, taking into account the recent dislocation of the financial markets and drawing on recent Solvency II, IASB, FASB and MCEV developments.

Type
Sessional meetings: papers and abstracts of discussions
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaron, C., Bause, S., Buck, C., Cartier, J-F., Creedon, J., Escudero, A., Foroughi, K., Gose, B., Guiry, C., Harrison, J., Hugmark, T., Milton, A., Pater, G., Vandenbosch, G. (2010). 2009 EEV/MCEV: Greater consistency, challenges remain, Towers Watson Insights, May.Google Scholar
Actuarial Society of South Africa (2008). PGN 110 Allowance for embedded investment derivatives.Google Scholar
AMP (2003). Proposal to demerge – explanatory memorandum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. C. H. (1959). Gross premium calculations and profit measurement for non-participating insurance. Transactions of the Society of Actuaries, XI, 357394.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. A., Sias, R. W. (2008). Portfolio diversification, November.Google Scholar
Blight, P., Kapel, A., Bice, A. (2003). Market-consistent economic valuations for the wealth management industry. Institute of Actuaries of Australia.Google Scholar
Bootle, R. (2010). Business Comment, The Daily Telegraph, Monday January 11 2010.Google Scholar
Buck, C. A., Bochanski, S. J. (2009). MCEV: The Right Reporting Standard for Volatile Times? Watson Wyatt Publication.Google Scholar
Byrne, F., Dullaway, D. (2009). The market-consistent value of liabilities and the credit crunch, Life & Pensions, January.Google Scholar
CEIOPS (2009a). Consultation Paper no. 40 Draft CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions – Article 86 (b) risk free interest rate term structure, July.Google Scholar
CEIOPS (2009b). Consultation Paper no. 42 Draft CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions – Article 86 (d) Calculation of the Risk Margin, July.Google Scholar
CEIOPS (2009c). CEIOPS’ advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions – Article 86 (b) risk free interest rate term structure (former CP 40), November.Google Scholar
CEIOPS (2009d). CEIOPS’ advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions – Article 86 (d) Calculation of the Risk Margin (former CP 42), November.Google Scholar
CEIOPS (2010). Taskforce on the illiquidity premium – report, March.Google Scholar
CFO FORUM (2004). European Embedded Value Principles and Basis for Conclusions, May.Google Scholar
CFO FORUM (2008). Market Consistent Embedded Value Principles and Basis for Conclusions, June.Google Scholar
CFO FORUM (2009). Market Consistent Embedded Value Principles and Basis for Conclusions, October (revised to permit liquidity premium).Google Scholar
CFO FORUM/CRO Forum (2010). QIS5 Technical Specification Risk-free interest rates, April.Google Scholar
Collins, S. A., Keeler, D. J. (1993). Analysis of life company financial performance. Paper presented to the Staple Inn Actuarial Society.Google Scholar
Coughlan, A., Demerle, E., McGuffie, J., Paton, B., Purves, B., Sanner, A. (2008a). CFO Forum MCEV Principles, PricewaterhouseCoopers.Google Scholar
Coughlan, A., Cummings, C., Kirk, D., Paton, B., Purves, B., Rothman, C. (2008b). Allowance for risk in MCEV and interaction with other accounting measures, PricewaterhouseCoopers, October.Google Scholar
Dullaway, D. (2001). A new and improved embedded value. Emphasis Q3 2001.Google Scholar
Dullaway, D. (2009). Financial crisis – liquid assets. The Actuary, January.Google Scholar
Dullaway, D., Foroughi, K. (2002). Broadening it out – the economic balance sheet. Emphasis on Financial Management Special Edition. November.Google Scholar
Dullaway, D., Needleman, P. (2004). Realistic liabilities and risk capital margins for with profits business. British Actuarial Journal, 10, 185222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dullaway, D., Whitlock, P. M. (2005). Market-consistent embedded value: Dispelling the myths. Towers Perrin White Paper, February.Google Scholar
Dullaway, D., Foroughi, K., Wright, P. W. (2007). How Consistent is Market-Consistent as a Concept? Towers Perrin Update, August.Google Scholar
Exley, C. J., Smith, A. D. (2003). The cost of capital for financial firms. Discussion paper presented to the Finance and Investment Conference.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009a). Solvency II Framework (final text), November.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009b). Letter from Jorgen Hölmquist (European Commission) to Gabriel Bernardino (CEIOPS), November.Google Scholar
European Commission (2010). QIS5 Technical Specifications, July.Google Scholar
Financial Accounting Standards Board (2006). FAS 157 Fair Value Measurement.Google Scholar
Financial Accounting Standards Board (2009). Staff Position Paper 157/4 Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly, April.Google Scholar
Foroughi, K., Jones, I. A., Dardis, A. (2003). Investment guarantees in the South African life insurance industry. South African Actuarial Journal, 3, 2975.Google Scholar
Foroughi, K., Alargé Salvans, F., Bause, S., Cartier, J-F., Creedon, J., Gose, B., Hugmark, T., Harewood, N., Kapel, A., Lebel, D., Milton, A., Mirani, A., Whitlock, P. M. (2008a). 2007 EEV: Stable Accounting in Volatile Markets, Towers Perrin Update, May.Google Scholar
Foroughi, K., Alargé Salvans, F., Bause, S., Cartier, J-F., Creedon, J., Gose, B., Hugmark, T., Harewood, N., Kapel, A., Lebel, D., Milton, A., Mirani, A., Whitlock, P. M. (2008b). CFO Forum adopts MCEV, Towers Perrin Update, June.Google Scholar
Foroughi, K., Alargé Salvans, F., Bause, S., Cartier, J-F., Creedon, J., Gose, B., Hugmark, T., Harewood, N., Kapel, A., Lebel, D., Milton, A., Mirani, A., Whitlock, P. M. (2009a). 2008 EEV/MCEV: Coping with extreme financial conditions, Towers Perrin Update, May.Google Scholar
Foroughi, K., Alargé Salvans, F., Bause, S., Cartier, J-F., Creedon, J., Gose, B., Hugmark, T., Harewood, N., Kapel, A., Lebel, D., Milton, A., Mirani, A., Whitlock, P. M. (2009b). Revised MCEV Principles include liquidity premium, Towers Perrin Update, October.Google Scholar
Foroughi, K. (2009). Market-Consistent Embedded Values within a Solvency II Framework. The Solvency II Handbook: Developing ERM Frameworks in Insurance and Reinsurance Companies, Chapter 5, RiskBooks.Google Scholar
Foroughi, K. (2010a). Market-consistent valuations and the implications of the recent financial crisis, Paper presented to the International Congress of Actuaries, Cape Town, March.Google Scholar
Foroughi, K. (2010b). Analysing earnings and risks, The Actuary, July.Google Scholar
Freeman, M., Fujiki, M. (2001). Why some Japanese insurers are failing. Emphasis 2001/3.Google Scholar
Hare, D. J. P., Craske, G., Crispin, J., Desai, A., Dullaway, D., Earnshaw, M., Frankland, R., Jordan, G., Kerr, M., Manley, G., McKenzie, J. L., Rae, R., Saker, M. (2004). The realistic reporting of with-profits business. British Actuarial Journal, 10, 223293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbert, J., Kirchner, A., Kretzschmar, G., Li, R., McNeil, A., Stark, J. (2009). Summary of liquidity premium estimation methods. Version 1.2. Barrie & Hibbert Research Document.Google Scholar
International Accounting Standards Board (2001). Draft statement of principles.Google Scholar
International Accounting Standards Board (2004–5). International Financial Reporting Standards.Google Scholar
International Accounting Standards Board (2007). Discussion Paper Preliminary Views on Insurance Contracts, May.Google Scholar
International Accounting Standards Board (2009a). Fair Value Measurement Exposure Draft, May.Google Scholar
International Accounting Standards Board (2009b). Financial Instruments: Classification and Measurement Exposure Draft, July.Google Scholar
International Accounting Standards Board (2009c). IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, International Financial Reporting Standard, November.Google Scholar
International Accounting Standards Board (2010). Exposure Draft Insurance Contracts, July.Google Scholar
International Actuarial Association (2009). Measurement of liabilities for insurance contracts: Current estimates and risk margins. An international actuarial research paper prepared by the ad hoc Risk Margin Working Group.Google Scholar
International Association Of Insurance Supervisors (2007). IAIS common structure for the assessment of insurer solvency, February.Google Scholar
LLOYDS TSB (2006). Transition to European Embedded Value at Scottish Widows, November.Google Scholar
Merton, R. C. (1974). On the pricing of corporate debt: the risk structure of interest rates. Journal of Finance, 29, 449470.Google Scholar
Muir, M. J., Chase, A., Coleman, P. S., Cooper, P., Finkelstein, G. S., Fulcher, P., Harvey, C., Pereira, F. R., Shamash, A., Wilkins, T. J. D. (2006). Credit derivatives, prepared by the Derivatives Working Party of the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries.Google Scholar
O’ Keeffe, P. J. L., Desai, A. J., Foroughi, K., Hibbett, G. J., Maxwell, A. F., Sharp, A. C., Taverner, N. H., Ward, M. B., Willis, F. J. P. (2005). Current developments in embedded value reporting. British Actuarial Journal, 11, 407496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D., Turnbull, C. (2009). A Measure of the Liquidity of Insurance Liabilities. Barrie & Hibbert Research Note.Google Scholar
Reinhart, C. M., Rogoff, K. (2009). This time is different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly.Google Scholar
Royal & Sun Alliance (2003). Proposal for rights issue.Google Scholar
Sheldon, T. J., Smith, A. D. (2004). Market consistent valuation of life assurance business. British Actuarial Journal, 10, 543626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swiss Federal Office of Private Insurance (2004). White Paper of the Swiss Solvency Test, November.Google Scholar
Swiss Federal Office of Private Insurance (2006). The Swiss Experience with Market Consistent Technical Provisions – the Cost of Capital Approach.Google Scholar
Tillinghast-Towers Perrin (2003). Market-consistent embedded value: Allowing for risk within an embedded value framework. Tillinghast-Towers Perrin White Paper, November.Google Scholar
Towers Watson (2010) Report of CEIOPS Task Force on the Illiquidity Premium. Towers Watson e-alert, March.Google Scholar
True, S., Taylor-Gooby, S., Whitlock, P. M., Byrne, F., Hoffmann, W., Milton, A., Jones, G., Hales, S., Kalberer, T., Melody, P. (2004). European Embedded Values – A significant step forward, Towers Perrin Update, May.Google Scholar
Varnell, E. M. (2009). Economic scenario generators and Solvency II. British Actuarial Journal, 16(1), 121159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weale, M. R. (2010). ‘Default’ on UK government debt was no such thing, Letter to the Financial Times, 8 March 2010.Google Scholar
Webber, L., Churm, R. (2007). Decomposing corporate bond spreads. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 47(4), 533541.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Market-consistent valuations and Solvency II: Implications of the recent financial crisis
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Market-consistent valuations and Solvency II: Implications of the recent financial crisis
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Market-consistent valuations and Solvency II: Implications of the recent financial crisis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *