Abstract
AbstractThis article provides a critical analysis of the consistency of the standard approaches for market and credit risks under Solvency II and the current and forthcoming Basel III standards. The comparability is assessed both theoretically via a detailed comparison of the capital standards and in a numerical analysis that contrasts the capital charges for a stylized portfolio. Our examination reveals substantial discrepancies in the design of the frameworks. These lead to vastly differing capital requirements for the same risks. Moreover, the analysis indicates higher charges for banks than insurers, especially under the proposed new Basel III standard approaches.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
