Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • December 2017
12

Once is misfortune, twice looks like carelessness

Open-access content 5th December 2017

In an opinion piece for The Actuary magazine in October 2016 (bit.ly/fundamentalFLAW) I highlighted a fundamental flaw in the EIOPA formula for calculating the risk margin.


In an opinion piece for The Actuary magazine in October 2016 I highlighted a fundamental flaw in the EIOPA formula for calculating the risk margin. 

I drew attention to the most stark manifestation of the flaw as being the possibility of situations where the risk margin could exceed the solvency capital requirement (SCR). But the flaw was more structural than that and derived from the prescribed method for calculating the risk margin, which was to discount future 6% annual costs of capital at the risk-free rate. This was highlighted as far back as the first (CEIOPS) consultation in 2009 by Dutch actuary Hans Waszink.

It was therefore most disappointing and surprising that in the latest EIOPA consultation paper (6 November 2017) these points are dismissed somewhat summarily with the observation that (paraphrasing) "there is no conceptual reason why the risk margin cannot exceed the SCR". As a stand-alone statement this is unobjectionable but it completely misses the point.  

The point, though not the central one that I made in the opinion piece, was that it is economically absurd for the present value of the cost of capital to exceed the maximum amount of that capital which is projected to be required. Solvency II defines the required capital as being the SCR and it defines the risk margin as being the upfront cost of providing that capital. Ergo, the risk margin should not in any circumstances exceed the SCR. Hans Waszink, in his 2009 submission to CEIOPS, gave the theoretically correct formula. To have ignored that advice once was careless, but to ignore it twice… well, we know what Lady Bracknell would have thought.

By contrast to this 'one liner' dismissal of the logical flaw in the formula, the consultation paper devoted many pages to supporting a rejection of the call for a reduction in the CoC rate of 6%.


Brian Woods FSAI

16 November 2017


This article appeared in our December 2017 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
12
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Director of Investment Risk

London (Central)
+ comprehensive benefits
Reference
118783

Qualified Reporting and Process Improvement

London (Central)
£90,000 - £100,000
Reference
118762

Risk Actuary

London (Central)
Market Rates + 20% bonus + benefits
Reference
118782
See all jobs »
 
 

Most-Popular

 
 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2020 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL. Tel: 020 7880 6200