IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bracjl/v25y2020ip-_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review of the risk margin – Solvency II and beyond

Author

Listed:
  • Pelkiewicz, A. J.
  • Ahmed, S. W.
  • Fulcher, P.
  • Johnson, K. L.
  • Reynolds, S. M.
  • Schneider, R. J.
  • Scott, A. J.

Abstract

For life insurers in the United Kingdom (UK), the risk margin is one of the most controversial aspects of the Solvency II regime which came into force in 2016. The risk margin is the difference between the technical provisions and the best estimate liabilities. The technical provisions are intended to be market-consistent, and so are defined as the amount required to be paid to transfer the business to another undertaking. In practice, the technical provisions cannot be directly calculated, and so the risk margin must be determined using a proxy method; the method chosen for Solvency II is known as the cost-of-capital method. Following the implementation of Solvency II, the risk margin came under considerable criticism for being too large and too sensitive to interest rate movements. These criticisms are particularly valid for annuity business in the UK – such business is of great significance to the system for retirement provision. A further criticism is that mitigation of the impact of the risk margin has led to an increase in reinsurance of longevity risks, particularly to overseas reinsurers. This criticism has led to political interest, and the risk margin was a major element of the Treasury Committee inquiry into EU Insurance Regulation. The working party was set up in response to this criticism. Our brief is to consider both the overall purpose of the risk margin for life insurers and solutions to the current problems, having regard to the possibility of post-Brexit flexibility. We have concluded that a risk margin in some form is necessary, although its size depends on the level of security desired, and so is primarily a political question. We have reviewed possible alternatives to the current risk margin, both within the existing cost-of-capital methodology and considering a wide range of alternatives. We believe that requirements for the risk margin will depend on future circumstances, in particular relating to Brexit, and we have identified a number of possible changes to methodology which should be considered, depending on circumstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Pelkiewicz, A. J. & Ahmed, S. W. & Fulcher, P. & Johnson, K. L. & Reynolds, S. M. & Schneider, R. J. & Scott, A. J., 2020. "A review of the risk margin – Solvency II and beyond," British Actuarial Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25, pages 1-1, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bracjl:v:25:y:2020:i::p:-_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S135732172000001X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karim Barigou & Valeria Bignozzi & Andreas Tsanakas, 2021. "Insurance valuation: A two-step generalised regression approach," Post-Print hal-03043244, HAL.
    2. Karim Barigou & Valeria Bignozzi & Andreas Tsanakas, 2020. "Insurance valuation: A two-step generalised regression approach," Papers 2012.04364, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    3. Karim Barigou & Valeria Bignozzi & Andreas Tsanakas, 2021. "Insurance valuation: A two-step generalised regression approach," Working Papers hal-03043244, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bracjl:v:25:y:2020:i::p:-_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/baj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.