Articles - Liquidity and Solvency II: 3 key challenges for insurers


Liquidity is an important part of any insurance company’s risk management strategy and insurers have to maintain an appropriate level of liquidity to pay claims. However, since the credit crisis of 2008 three key liquidity challenges have emerged for today’s insurer: This article explores the impact of Solvency II on the optimal approach to managing liquidity.

 By Scott Eason, Head of Insurance Consulting at Barnett Waddingham
  
 Solvency II and liquidity investing for insurance
 Solvency II introduces fundamental changes to the capital treatment of liquidity investments. Cash is not a ‘risk free’ asset and treasury teams should recognise there are also differences between the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) necessary for cash deposits held at a bank, versus other short-dated money market instruments.
  
 
 The Solvency II standard methodology assumes the loss given default for cash held at a bank is 100%. The reason for this is based on a logical assumption that if the bank were to default, the entire cash holding will be written down to zero.
 The counterparty risk sub-module is therefore the main driver of investment risk for deposits, while other cash instruments are covered by the market risk sub modules – such as currency risk, interest rate risk, spread risk and concentration risk.
 We have estimated, for typical cash instruments, the amount of solvency capital required under the standard formula on an asset only basis (see figure 2).
  
 
  
 Methodology: Analytics are based on Barnett Waddingham’s interpretation of the Solvency II Standard formula
 Interest rate risk is excluded: This is a delta NAV calculation and is dependent on the duration of the underlying instruments offset by liabilities; therefore it is not practical to consider interest rate risk on a stand-alone basis
  
 Currency Risk is excluded: An assumption is made that all securities are in the reporting currency therefore no currency risk is incurred. Concentration risk is excluded: This applies across all holdings on the balance sheet. We assume these investments are in a well-diversified pool of assets across the insurer’s balance sheet.
  
 Keeping all other factors neutral and focussing on spread risk and counterparty risk, the chart above shows how risk capital for deposits is significantly greater than using market traded securities.
  
 Optimal strategy
 In most cases, liquidity funds aim to target an uplift of 50-100bps over cash deposits by investing in assets with an average maturity of 6m-2y.
  
 Given that the SCR on these funds is typically lower than for cash deposits, we can see that switching a proportion of assets from cash deposits to liquidity funds should be optimal.
  
 The amount to invest, and the funds to consider, will depend on your cashflow projections and your appetite for liquidity risk. We would be very happy to help you assess your needs and the potential opportunity to improve return on capital. 

Back to Index


Similar News to this Story

The diversification trap and how to avoid it
Pension schemes often focus on maximising diversification within a scheme’s governance constraints. However, if this pursuit of diversification goes
Signs of demand pressures in the bulk annuity market
Another record breaking year in bulk annuity market is on the cards, but what does this mean for schemes and sponsors eyeing future transactions as pa
Two of the proposed amendments to IFRS 17
In this video Deloitte outlines two of the proposed amendments to IFRS 17, the separate presentation of groups of assets and groups of liabilities on

Site Search

Exact   Any  

Latest Actuarial Jobs

Actuarial Login

Email
Password
 Jobseeker    Client
Reminder Logon

APA Sponsors

Actuarial Jobs & News Feeds

Jobs RSS News RSS

WikiActuary

Be the first to contribute to our definitive actuarial reference forum. Built by actuaries for actuaries.