The Impact of Solvency II and Relevant Implementing Measures on the Insurance Firm’s Risk Management Maturity
The aim of this chapter is to determine whether the Solvency II rules and implementing measures have had any influence on the maturity level of organisation’s risk management. In fact this study sought to understand the status of the organisation’s risk management maturity prior to and after the introduction of Solvency II and the relevant implementing measures.
To answer this question, the authors used a questionnaire, which was sent out to targeted controllers (risk managers/consultants/officers, auditors and compliance managers/officers) and managers (CFOs, CEOs, COOs, directors and investment managers) within European insurance firms located in the UK, Italy, Holland, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic and Malta.
The findings provide empirical evidence that the organisations’ risk management maturity improved with the introduction of Solvency II regulations and the relevant implementing measures.
KeywordsRisk ICP Solvency II
- Barth, R. J., Caprio, G., Jr., & Levine, R. (2006). Rethinking bank regulation: Till angels govern. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bezzina, F., Grima, S., & Mamo, J. (2014). Risk management practices adopted by financial firms in Malta. Managerial Finance, 40(6). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
- Financial Reporting Council (FRC). (2014, September). Guidance on Risk Management, Internal Control and Related Financial and Business Reporting.Google Scholar
- GAO. (1999, November). Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.Google Scholar
- Garrett, E. S. (2010, August 15). Derivatives wrongly named as key culprit in system breakdown, US Fed News Service, Including US State News, July 25, 2009. Derivatives wrongly named as key culprit in system breakdown. US Fed News Service, Including US State News. HT Media Ltd. 2009. HighBeam Research. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com 2015.
- Gibson, S. M. (2004, July). Understanding the risk of synthetic CDOs revised. Retrieved from www.federalreserve.gov/…/2004/200436/20043… (Cited 22 February, 2015).
- Grima, S. (2012). The current financial crisis and derivative misuse. Journal of Social Sciences Research, 1(8), 265–276.Google Scholar
- Madison, J. (1788, February 6). Separation of powers, Federalist Papers, Chapter 10, Document 16, Number 51, pp. 347–353.Google Scholar
- Lemke, Lins and Picard. Mortgage-Backed Securities, Chapters 4 and 5 (Thomson West, 2013 ed.).Google Scholar
- Lepke, Lins and Picard. Mortgage-Backed Securities, §5:15 (Thomson West, 2014).Google Scholar
- Naghi, L. E. (2013). The influence of prudential regulation over the capitalization of the Romanian insurance market. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 20(2), 91–107.Google Scholar
- Pritsch, G., Stegemann, U., & Freeman, A. (2008). Turning risk management into a true competitive advantage: Lessons from recent crisis. Working Papers on Risk No. 5, McKinsey. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from http://www.mckinsey.com/
- Saunders, M. N. K. (2012). Choosing research participants. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), The practice of qualitative organisational research: Core methods and current challenges (pp. 37–55). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- The Founders’ Constitution. (2000). Volume 1, Chapter 10, Document 16, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- The New York Times. (2009, April 16). Regulate Me, Please.Google Scholar