Advertisement

Equity Solvency Capital Requirements - What Institutional Regulation Can Learn from Private Investor Regulation

  • Laurens SwinkelsEmail author
  • David Blitz
  • Winfried Hallerbach
  • Pim van Vliet
Article

Solvency II has one standard equity solvency capital requirement for type 1 or developed market stocks (39 per cent) and one for type 2 or emerging market stocks (49 per cent). As such, differences in financial economic risk of stock portfolios within developed or emerging markets do not influence solvency requirements. This encourages risk-seeking behaviour by insurance companies, and could sustain or even create structural mispricing in the cross-section of stock returns. We argue to improve Solvency II regulation by aligning it with more sophisticated European regulation that is already in place for mutual funds. Specifically, we propose to multiply the standard solvency charge of 39 per cent with the ratio of equity portfolio volatility to broad equity market volatility. This ratio will be above one for more risky portfolios and below one for less risky portfolios, meaning that high-risk stock portfolios require more solvency capital than the market, while low-risk stock portfolios require less. Our approach encompasses the existing distinction between emerging and developed markets, and reduces geography to just one of many potential sources of risk that should be recognised. The proposed approach gives better incentives to institutional investors, contributes to market efficiency, and is much less prone to regulatory arbitrage than the existing approach.

Keywords

capital requirements equities regulation Solvency II 

References

  1. Acharya, V.V. and Steffen, S. (2015) ‘The ‘greatest’ carry trade ever? Understanding eurozone bank risks’, Journal of Financial Economics 115(2): 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, C. (2008) ‘Moving average models for volatility and correlation, and covariance matrices’, in F.J. Fabozzi (ed.) Handbook of Finance Volume 3, Valuation, Financial Modeling, and Quantitative Tools, Chap. 5, Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M. and Wurgler, J. (2015) ‘Do strict capital requirements raise the cost of capital? Bank regulation, capital structure, and the low-risk anomaly’, American Economic Review 105(5): 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bank for International Settlements (2013) ‘Sovereign risk: a world without risk-free assets’, BIS Papers No. 72.Google Scholar
  5. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2014) ‘Fundamental review of the trading book: outstanding issues’, Consultative Document, Available online: https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d305.pdf.
  6. Becker, B. and Ivashina, V. (2015) ‘Reaching for yield in the bond market’, Journal of Finance 70(5): 1863–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben Dor, A., Dynkin, L., Hyman, J., Houweling, P., Van Leeuwen, E. and Penninga, O. (2007) ‘DTS (Duration Times Spread)’, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2): 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, F., Jensen, M.C. and Scholes, M. (1972) ‘The capital asset pricing model: Some empirical tests’, in M.C. Jensen (ed.) Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets, New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Blitz, D. and Van Vliet, P. (2007) ‘The volatility effect’, Journal of Portfolio Management 34(1): 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blitz, D., Falkenstein, E., and Van Vliet, P. (2014) ‘Explanations for the volatility effect: An overview based on the CAPM assumptions’, Journal of Portfolio Management 40(3): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blume, M.E. (1975) ‘Betas and their regression tendencies’, Journal of Finance 30(3): 785–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braun, A., Schmeiser, H. and Schreiber, F. (2017) ‘Portfolio optimization under Solvency II: Implicit constraints imposed by the Market Risk Standard Formula’, Journal of Risk and Insurance 84(1): 177–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colaert, V. (2015) ‘Deposit guarantee schemes in Europe: Is the Banking Union in need of a third pillar?’, European Company and Financial Law Review 12(3): 372–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doff, R. (2016) ‘The Final Solvency II Framework: Will It Be Effective?’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and InsuranceIssues and Practice 41(4): 587–607.Google Scholar
  15. European Stability Mechanism (2016) ‘Tackling sovereign risk in European banks’, ESM Discussion Paper 1.Google Scholar
  16. Fama, E.F. and MacBeth, J.D. (1973), “Risk, return and equilibrium: Empirical tests’, Journal of Political Economy 81(3): 607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Floreani, A. (2013) Risk measures and capital requirements: A critique of the Solvency II approach. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 38(2): 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frazzini, A. and Pedersen, L.H. (2014) ‘Betting against beta’, Journal of Financial Economics 111(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gatzert, N. and Kosub, T. (2014) ‘Insurers’ investment in infrastructure: Overview and treatment under Solvency II’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance— Issues and Practice 39(2): 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gatzert, N. and Martin, M. (2012) ‘Quantifying credit and market risk under Solvency II: Standard approach versus internal model’, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 51(3): 649–666.Google Scholar
  21. Grootveld, H. and Hallerbach, W. (1999) ‘Variance vs downside risk: Is there really that much difference?’, European Journal of Operational Research 114(2): 304–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haugen, R.A. and Heins, A.J. (1975) ‘Risk and the rate of return on financial assets: Some old wine in new bottles’, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 10(5): 775–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Höring, D. (2013) ‘Will Solvency II Market Risk Requirements Bite? The impact of Solvency II on Insurers’ Asset Allocation’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and InsuranceIssues and Practice 38(2): 250–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordan, B.D. and Riley, T.B. (2015) ‘Volatility and mutual fund manager skill’, Journal of Financial Economics 118(2): 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laas, D. and Siegel, C. (2017) ‘Basel III versus Solvency II: An analysis of regulatory consistency under the New Capital Standards’, Journal of Risk and Insurance 84(4): 1231–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levi, Y. and Welch, I. (2017) ‘Market-beta and downside risk’, SSRN, available from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3000824
  27. Lusardi, A. and Mitchell, O.S. (2011) ‘Financial literacy around the world: An overview’, Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 10(4): 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mezõfi, B., Niedermayer, A., Niedermayer, D. and Süli, B.M. (2017) ‘Solvency II reporting: How to interpret funds’ aggregate solvency capital requirement figures’, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 76: 164–171.Google Scholar
  29. Pfeifer, D. and Strassburger, D. (2008) ‘Solvency II: Stability problems with the SCR aggregation formula’, Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 2008(1): 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Laere, E., and Baesens, B. (2010) ‘The development of a simple and intuitive rating system under Solvency II’, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 46(3): 500–510.Google Scholar
  31. Van Vliet, P. (2015) ‘Tail risk in low volatility strategies’, Robeco Client Note, Available on request.Google Scholar
  32. Willmott, C.J. and Matsuura, K. (2005) ‘Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance’, Climate Research 30(1): 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Geneva Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurens Swinkels
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Blitz
    • 2
  • Winfried Hallerbach
    • 2
  • Pim van Vliet
    • 2
  1. 1.Erasmus University Rotterdam – Erasmus School of EconomicsRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Robeco, Weena 850RotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations