Abstract

Basel III, regulating the solvency of banks, is to be fully implemented by 2027 while Solvency III directed at insurers is being prepared. In view of past experience, it will be closely modelled after Basel III. This raises two questions. (i) Will Basel III and Solvency III be more successful than their predecessors? (ii) Is it appropriate to continue regulating the solvency of banks and insurers in the same way? The first question is motivated by an earlier finding that Basel I and II risked inducing more rather than less risk-taking by banks, which also holds for Solvency I and II w.r.t. insurers. The methodology applied was to determine the slope of an endogenous perceived efficiency frontier (EPEF) in (μ^,σ^)-space derived from banks’ and insurers’ optimal adjustment to exogenous changes, in expected returns dμ¯ and volatility dσ¯ on the capital market. Both Basel I and II and Solvency I and II neglected the impact of these developments on banks’ and insurers’ EPEF. This neglect had the effect of steepening the EPEF, causing senior management to opt for an increased rather than reduced value of σ^, and hence a lower solvency level. This issue is resolved by Basel III (Principle 5), which requires banks to take developments in the capital market into account in the formulation of their business strategies designed to ensure solvency. In combination with increased capital requirements, this is shown to result in a reduced slope of their EPEF and hence a reduced risk exposure. However, planned Solvency III may cause the EPEF of highly capitalized insurance companies to become steeper, with a concomitant decrease in their risk-taking and an increase of their solvency level. The second question, concerning the appropriateness of the uniformity of solvency regulation directed at banks and insurers, arises because the parameters determining the slope of the respective EPEF are found to crucially differ. Therefore, the uniformity of Basel and Solvency norms creates the risk of a mistaken regulatory focus.

Highlights

  • Basel III regulation, designed to further enhance banks’ solvency, will be fully implemented by 2027 (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision 2017), while preparations are under way for Solvency III directed at insurance companies (Van Hulle 2018)

  • Fearing that banks may still be exposed to excessive risk despite Basel II regulation, both the International Monetary Fund (International Monetary Fund 2013) and the European Central Bank (ECB) performed stress tests, subjecting banks to shocks notably originating in the capital market

  • This paper was motivated by the fact that Basel III solvency regulation is to be fully implemented by 2027, while Solvency III directed at insurers is in preparation, which raises two questions. (i) Will Basel III and planned Solvency III be more successful than their predecessors Basel I and II and Solvency I

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Basel III regulation, designed to further enhance banks’ solvency, will be fully implemented by 2027 (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision 2017), while preparations are under way for Solvency III directed at insurance companies (Van Hulle 2018). This, induced senior management to opt for higher expected returns (μ) but higher volatility (σ) and a lower level of solvency (Zweifel et al 2015; Zweifel 2015) This deficiency is corrected by Basel III which explicitly requires banks to take account of developments in the capital markets (dubbed “interest rate risk”) in the formulation of their business strategies designed to ensure solvency Basel III stipulates a maximum leverage ratio, which means an increased amount of solvency capital for most banks These innovations are shown to reduce the slope of the bank’s EPEF, inducing senior management to opt for less volatility, an effect that is found to hold as well at least for insurance companies with little solvency capital.

Solvency Regulation of Banks
Solvency Regulation of Insurers
The Bank’s Investment Division Selects the Optimal Solvency Level
Adjustment by Banks
Adjustment by Insurers
Basel I and II
Solvency I and II
Basel III
Planned Solvency III
Limitations
10. Summary and Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call