Nomura rounds up markets’ biggest misses in 2016

Forecasting markets a year in advance is never easy, but with “year-ahead investment themes” season well underway, Nomura has provided a handy reminder of quite how difficult it is, with an overview of markets’ biggest hits and misses (OK, mostly misses) from the start of 2016. The biggest miss among analysts, according to Nomura’s Sam […]

Continue Reading


Spanish construction rebuilds after market collapse

Property developer Olivier Crambade founded Therus Invest in Madrid in 2004 to build offices and retail space. For five years business went quite well, and Therus developed and sold more than €300m of properties. Then Spain’s economy imploded, taking property with it, and Mr Crambade spent six years tending to Dhamma Energy, a solar energy […]

Continue Reading


Euro suffers worst month against the pound since financial crisis

Political risks are still all the rage in the currency markets. The euro has suffered its worst slump against the pound since 2009 in November, as investors hone in on a series of looming battles between eurosceptic populists and establishment parties at the ballot box. The single currency has shed 4.5 per cent against sterling […]

Continue Reading


RBS falls 2% after failing BoE stress test

Royal Bank of Scotland shares have slipped 2 per cent in early trading this morning, after the state-controlled lender emerged as the biggest loser in the Bank of England’s latest round of annual stress tests. The lender has now given regulators a plan to bulk up its capital levels by cutting costs and selling assets, […]

Continue Reading


China capital curbs reflect buyer’s remorse over market reforms

Last year the reformist head of China’s central bank convinced his Communist party bosses to give market forces a bigger say in setting the renminbi’s daily “reference rate” against the US dollar. In return, Zhou Xiaochuan assured his more conservative party colleagues that the redback would finally secure coveted recognition as an official reserve currency […]

Continue Reading

Categorized | Insurance

Crunch time for insurers on capital rules

Posted on August 31, 2015

(Photo by Carlo Allegri/Getty Images)©Getty

It is crunch time for Europe’s insurers. A long-awaited overhaul of financial safety standards is within sight, with far-reaching implications for the €8.4tn industry.

Investors would be forgiven for assuming that only minor details need to be finalised before the new regime takes effect in four months. After all, regulators have spent more than a decade planning it.

    No such luck. Shares in Delta Lloyd have plunged 43 per cent after the Amsterdam-listed insurer said this month that its financial headroom under the new rules would be tighter than previously disclosed.

    Its larger rival Aegon, which owns the US insurer Transamerica, also said that its capital surplus would be lower than expected. Aegon’s shares have lost 23 per cent this month.

    The warnings have investors in other European insurance companies wondering whether they too are in for nasty surprises before the reforms, known as Solvency II, kick in at the start of January.

    Igotz Aubin, head of prudential regulation at the trade body Insurance Europe, says many executives “are extremely concerned about the pressure which insurers face due to additional last minute requirements”.

    Allianz, Axa and Aviva are among hundreds of companies that need to comply with the shake-up.

    Executives at several big insurers have said that the new rules, designed in the wake of the financial crisis to ensure companies have strong financial buffers so they can meet claims, should be manageable. Yet behind the scenes, the industry is on tenterhooks. “They’re all absolutely petrified,” says a Solvency II consultant at a big four firm.

    Brussels policymakers agreed the basis of the regulations months ago. But they set a tight implementation timetable. National supervisors still need to specify the capital requirements for each big insurer by taking into account the particular risks they run.

    Regulators need to approve each company’s “internal model”, which amounts to sifting through gigabytes of arcane detail about their risk exposures. Without being able to use the bespoke version, companies must fall back on the cruder “standard formula” laid down by regulators, which may oblige them to hold more capital.

    Watchdogs also need to grant insurers permission to use other crucial mechanisms that give them further relief from the most onerous regulatory demands.

    Executives are holding crunch talks with their regulators to get the green light. But so far, only Germany’s Hannover Re, has secured model approval.

    The disclosures by Delta Lloyd and Aegon underline the risks.

    In particular, the warning from Delta Lloyd, which wrote almost €4bn of policies last year, has sparked concerns that the insurer may need to tap shareholders for more cash even though it raised €340m in an equity issue in March.

    Soon after the fundraising, the company said it held at least 70 per cent more capital than the minimum required under Solvency II. But this month it warned the ratio had dropped to less than 40 per cent.

    Investors get nervous about low ratios, and most companies target surpluses of at least 60 per cent. Reduced headroom means regulators are more likely to question insurer business models — potentially constraining expansion and dividend payouts.

    Delta Lloyd blamed a more cautious stance by the Dutch regulator of its “operational risks”. The watchdog is requiring it to use the “standard formula” to cover such risks.

    Aegon, which had previously estimated its capital surplus under Solvency II to be 50-100 per cent above the minimum, cautioned that this had deteriorated to 40-70 per cent.

    Analysts say this is because regulators have made more conservative assumptions about Aegon’s operations in the US, the UK and the Netherlands.

    Aegon’s difficulties are not as acute as Delta Lloyd’s. Still, says Ashik Musaddi, analyst at JPMorgan Cazenove, the group’s ability to return capital to shareholders could be undermined.

    There are reasons to suspect the Netherlands is a special case. Although Solvency II is supposed to harmonise rules across the EU, the framework also gives considerable power to national authorities.

    Executives regard the Dutch regulator as particularly tough — partly a legacy of the financial crisis. As recently as 2013, the Dutch government had to nationalise SNS Reaal to safeguard the financial system.

    “The Netherlands are a tough insurance market — supervised by a tough regulator,” says Claudia Gaspari, analyst at Barclays.

    Despite the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of Solvency II, analysts do not expect many insurers to have to raise additional capital solely because of the new regime. Even so, not all are convinced the risks are confined to the Netherlands. “Be prepared for volatility,” warns Niccolò Dalla Palma at Exane BNP Paribas of the next few weeks.

    Share prices across the sector are vulnerable, says Gordon Aitken, analyst at RBC Capital Markets. “We see risk skewed to the downside from Solvency II,” he says. “Even in the best-case scenario of a benign result, we do not expect share prices to react positively.”

    The secret nature of the talks between insurers and regulators — supervisors have forbidden executives from discussing the approval process publicly — has made it difficult for investors to determine which companies are at particular risk.

    We see risk skewed to the downside from Solvency II. Even in the best-case scenario of a benign result, we do not expect share prices to react positively

    – Gordon Aitken, RBC Capital

    Yet there remain concerns about the UK, even though Sam Woods, the Prudential Regulation Authority’s director of insurance supervision, said in a speech last month that the watchdog had no plans to use the new rules to force the industry to raise capital.

    Mr Aitken says that annuity writers in the UK are most at risk from unfavourable regulatory rulings. Last week, advisers at PwC, the professional services firm, cautioned that prices of “bulk annuities” were set to jump because of Solvency II.

    The PRA, which is scrutinising the models of about 20 insurers, does not plan to say which have been approved until December — shortly before the regime begins to take effect.

    “This is a very important time for the companies,” says Hugh Savill, director of regulation at the trade body the Association of British Insurers. “It’s heads-down time to get the approvals through.”

    Jim Bichard, ‎partner at PwC, says: “Whatever happens, Solvency II has been and continues to be a huge distraction.

    “Regardless of the outcome, people have expended a huge amount of resources, effort and time on this.”

    Getting to grips with Solvency II


    The EU’s Solvency II reforms aim to improve protection for policyholders by bolstering insurers’ resilience against shocks — the kind of catastrophe or financial market crisis forecast to happen once every 200 years. The changes standardise a piecemeal approach to insurance regulation in different European countries.

    Similar in some respects to the Basel III rules for banks, the regime introduces a more sophisticated way of determining capital requirements for insurers. Under Solvency II, regulators consider the risks of all parts of insurance balance sheets. The highly-complex exercise involves estimating each company’s potential liabilities — how much they could be on the hook for policyholder claims — and the value of their financial assets in times of stress.

    The regime also shakes-up corporate governance and disclosure standards.

    Insurers have said they broadly support the principles but are concerned about how the system will work in practice.

    After intense industry lobbying, policymakers in Brussels made several concessions to address insurers’ biggest fears.

    Parts of the industry have been given 16 years to fully comply. This is particularly important for life insurers in Germany, some of which would become insolvent if they had to comply with all of the new rules immediately because of the nature of the policies they provide.

    Yet the industry has many gripes. These include red tape: the disclosure requirements mean insurers need to provide regulators with dozens times more information than at present.

    European insurers are also concerned that it will put their businesses in overseas markets, such as the US, at a disadvantage to local rivals.