GovernanceRegulationNew Regulatory Regimes ‘Pose Credit Implications for Insurers’

New Regulatory Regimes ‘Pose Credit Implications for Insurers’

Future significant changes to global insurance solvency regimes will not directly affect insurers’ ratings, but company responses could have positive and negative credit implications, according to credit ratings agency (CRA) Moody’s Investors Service.

“These regulatory and solvency overhauls bring with them increased exposure to model risk and complexity, as firms are increasingly allowed to employ customised/internal models to determine regulatory capital needs,” said Wallace Enman, a Moody’s vice president (VP) – senior credit officer.

“With memories of the recent financial crisis still fresh, some have argued that increasingly complex capital adequacy frameworks may just increase costs and reduce transparency while only marginally reducing the risk of insolvency or financial contagion.”

In its report, entitled
‘Global Insurance Regulators Battle Doubts and Delays Over Solvency Modernisation’
, Moody’s says that in addition, actions taken by firms in response to new regulation, such as de-risking certain guaranteed products or returning modelled excess capital to owners, would have credit implications.

The report examines the likely benefits of the Solvency II capital adequacy regime in Europe and the Solvency Modernisation Initiative (SMI) in the US. Both regimes are supportive of the interests of insurance company creditors, focusing on addressing missing risks under current rules, encouraging insurers to improve risk management, and improving disclosure of certain financial data, says Moody’s.

However, there are challenges to realising these benefits which have become more apparent as the targeted implementation dates have drawn near. Moody’s cites the likely delay until January 2016 of Solvency II in Europe even as regional economic stress increases. In the US, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has made some progress on accreditation standards, and will continue its work on upgrading solvency regulation in 2013.

Related Articles

The ripple effects of strenuous international regulation: What this means for the trade finance gap, SMEs and AI

Regulation The ripple effects of strenuous international regulation: What this means for the trade finance gap, SMEs and AI

2w Laura Noble
GDPR: Expect consumers to punish lax organizations

Regulation GDPR: Expect consumers to punish lax organizations

1m Laura Noble
Dodd-Frank rollback: What we know so far

Regulation Dodd-Frank rollback: What we know so far

1m Laura Noble
US sanctions on North Korean goods ramp up slavery compliance

Governance US sanctions on North Korean goods ramp up slavery compliance

2m Donna Westerman
Technology, MiFID II and 2027: The changing face of the post-trade industry

Regulation Technology, MiFID II and 2027: The changing face of the post-trade industry

2m Thomas Zeeb
IBOR replacement: a major change significantly affecting corporate treasurers

Governance IBOR replacement: a major change significantly affecting corporate treasurers

3m Sven Göggel
Bringing cryptocurrency to the front line  

Payments Bringing cryptocurrency to the front line  

3m Karen Vickers
Open Banking and data protection: Friends or foes?

Compliance Open Banking and data protection: Friends or foes?

3m Oana Dolea