Solvency II Is Not Risk-Based—Could It Be? Evidence from Non-Life Calibrations

Sylvestre Frezal

North American Actuarial Journal, 2018, vol. 22, issue 3, 365-379

Abstract: Risk-based prudential regulations are spreading. For example, the capital requirements of Solvency II are considered to be founded on a risk measure. We focus on premium and reserving risks, which represent 40% of capital requirements for non-life insurance companies in Europe, and draw on internal robustness tests to demonstrate that these measures are unreliable. There are three possible explanations for this lack of reliability: a political economy factor, an idiosyncratic factor, and an epistemological barrier. We examine each of these and evaluate their significance, thus casting doubts on the feasibility of such ambition and providing insights to adapt the design of any prudential regulation intended to be risk-based to such pitfalls.

Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10920277.2017.1421473 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:uaajxx:v:22:y:2018:i:3:p:365-379

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/uaaj20

DOI: 10.1080/10920277.2017.1421473

Access Statistics for this article

North American Actuarial Journal is currently edited by Kathryn Baker

More articles in North American Actuarial Journal from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().