How the New Accounting Standards Cross Solvency II

  • Alessandro Di Lorenzo
  • Lucia Magenta


The introduction of Solvency II new regulatory framework in the European Economic Area strongly impacts on adequacy activities required from insurance companies which are now facing a tighter and more demanding scenario in terms of capital requirements, availability of own funds, which are very sensitive to economic balance sheet assessment, a more robust system of governance and a largely standardized set of data and information to be disclosed. Different aspects of balance sheet evaluation and performance measurement are common with the new international accounting standards that will be effective in the next years (International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS] 9 in 2018 for financial instruments, 2021 if deferral option will be applied by the entity, and IFRS 17 in 2021 for insurance products.). To avoid any misunderstandings on communication and transparency with financial markets, a clear explanation and reconciliation of figures from these two frameworks will pose a great challenge to the insurance sector which must undertake huge efforts for fully implementing both regulations in the next years.


Solvency II Regulatory 


  1. Ball, R. (2006). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): Pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research, 36, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beerbaum, D., & Ahmad, S. (2015). Credit risk according to IFRS 9: Significant increase in credit risk and implications for financial institutions. Aalto University, Department of Accounting and Finance and University of Cologne.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, A., Schmeiser, H., & Schreiber, F. (2013). Portfolio optimization under Solvency II: Implicit constraints imposed by the market risk standard formula. University of St. Gallen, I.VW-HSG, University of Muenster.Google Scholar
  4. Brochet, F., Jagolinzer, A. D., & Riedl, E. J. (2012). Mandatory IFRS adoption and financial statement comparability, contemporary accounting research. Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper No. 11-109. Google Scholar
  5. Calandro, J. Jr., Delbridge, P., & Scheinerman, D. (2012). Using a risk management own risk and solvency assessment to improve risk-to-reward decision-making. Fordham University—Gabelli Center for Global Security Analysis.Google Scholar
  6. EIOPA. (2013a). Consultation Paper 13/08—Guidelines on System of Governance.Google Scholar
  7. EIOPA. (2013b). Consultation Paper 13/09—Guidelines on forward looking assessment of own risks (based on the ORSA principles).Google Scholar
  8. EIOPA. (2013c). Consultation Paper 13/010—Guidelines on submission of information to National Competent Authorities.Google Scholar
  9. EIOPA. (2013d). Consultation Paper 13/011—Guidelines on pre-application of internal models​.Google Scholar
  10. EIOPA. (2014a). Consultation Paper on the proposal for implementing technical standards with regard to the supervisory approval procedure to use undertaking-specific parameters.Google Scholar
  11. EIOPA. (2014b). 14-322—The underlying assumptions in the standard formula for the Solvency Capital Requirement calculation.Google Scholar
  12. EIOPA. (2015). BoS 15/154—Need for high quality public disclosure: Solvency II’s report on solvency and financial condition and the potential role of external audit​.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2014). Commission delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 of 14 October 2014, supplementing Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II).Google Scholar
  14. European Parliament. (2009). Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II).Google Scholar
  15. European Parliament. (2014). Directive 2014/51/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directives 2003/71/EC and 2009/138/EC and Regulations (EC) No. 1060/2009, (EU) No. 1094/2010 and (EU) No. 1095/2010 in respect of the powers of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority).Google Scholar
  16. Florou, A., & Pope, P. F. (2012). Mandatory IFRS adoption and institutional investment decisions. The Accounting Review, 87, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaspar, R. M., & Sousa, H. (2010). Liquidity risk and Solvency II. Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, 1(3), 85–96.Google Scholar
  18. Gerstner, T., Lohmaier, D., & Richter, A. (2015). Value relevance of life insurers embedded disclosures and implications for IFRS 4 phase II. Munich Risk and Insurance Center Working Paper No. 27.Google Scholar
  19. Gurenko, E., & Itigin, A. (2013). Reinsurance as capital optimization tool under Solvency II. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6306.Google Scholar
  20. Gustafsson, J. (2011). A strategic decision-making model executing the use test under Solvency II.Google Scholar
  21. Höring, D. (2012). Will Solvency II market risk requirements bite? The impact of Solvency II on insurers’ asset allocation. The Geneva Papers, Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  22. IFRS. (2013). Insurance contracts. ED/2013/7.Google Scholar
  23. IFRS. (2014). Financial instruments. IFRS Standard 9.Google Scholar
  24. IFRS. (2015). Insurance contracts project overview.Google Scholar
  25. Kouwenberg, R. (2017). Strategic asset allocation and risk budgeting for insurers under Solvency II, Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR)—Erasmus School of Economics (ESE); Mahidol University, College of Management.Google Scholar
  26. Matten, C. (1996). Managing bank capital: Capital allocation and performance measurement. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  27. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2011). Reporting requirements under Solvency II move forward.Google Scholar
  28. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2012a). Asset management and Solvency II—Turning the shake up to your advantage.Google Scholar
  29. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2012b). Laying the foundations for the future of insurance reporting.Google Scholar
  30. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2012c). Pillar II—Operational issues of risk management.Google Scholar
  31. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2013a). Getting to grips with Pillar III.Google Scholar
  32. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2013b). Practical guide to IFRS—Revised exposure draft will significantly change accounting for insurance contracts.Google Scholar
  33. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2015a). All set for Pillar Three.Google Scholar
  34. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2015b). General insurers should not ignore IFRS 4 Phase 2.Google Scholar
  35. Sottocornola, M. (2016). Compliance risk in the European insurance industry: Setting a common playing field.Google Scholar
  36. Swain, R., & Swallow, D. (2015). The prudential regulation of insurers under Solvency II. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2015 Q2.Google Scholar
  37. Yip, R. W. Y., & Young, D. (2012). Does mandatory IFRS adoption improve information comparability? Accounting Review, Lingnan University—Department of Accountancy and The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)—School of Accountancy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Di Lorenzo
    • 1
  • Lucia Magenta
    • 1
  1. 1.PwC AdvisoryMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations