Comment: Practical considerations are compromising Solvency II methodology

A number of politically-inspired compromises have led the Solvency II directive away from its market-consistent routes – so much so that according to Barrie & Hibbert’s Craig Turnbull and John Hibbert, the final confidence level for some liabilities is not one in 200, but one in 12

Solvency II (SII) is intended to be an economically rigorous, principle-based capital requirements framework. It aspires to apply market-consistent valuation methods to an insurer’s liabilities and principle-based stochastic methods for assessing one-year 99.5th Value-at-Risk solvency capital. However, the process of transforming Solvency II from a set of high-level principles into a workable regulatory system now appear to have resulted in compromises in the emerging methodology. As a

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to View our subscription options

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here