On the regulatory failure point, I would highlight just one example.
The Solvency II regime is designed to protect insurers against 1-in-200 year events that could occur over a 12 month time horizon. That’s the objective.
EIOPA quantified this as the maximum of a 70% relative increase and a 1% absolute increase in short term interest rates. So 12 months ago the stress to the key rate would have been merely a 1% increase. That’s what insurers are obliged to protect themselves against. 1-in-200 year stress my foot. Experience this year has than surpassed it.
This is a most extraordinary exchange. It appears the consequences of the FED/Treasury decision was only realised after the Senator asked some probing questions.
On the regulatory failure point, I would highlight just one example.
The Solvency II regime is designed to protect insurers against 1-in-200 year events that could occur over a 12 month time horizon. That’s the objective.
EIOPA quantified this as the maximum of a 70% relative increase and a 1% absolute increase in short term interest rates. So 12 months ago the stress to the key rate would have been merely a 1% increase. That’s what insurers are obliged to protect themselves against. 1-in-200 year stress my foot. Experience this year has than surpassed it.
Ref: page 106
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R0035&from=EN
This is a most extraordinary exchange. It appears the consequences of the FED/Treasury decision was only realised after the Senator asked some probing questions.
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1636675744767291393?t=jHFwsE8c7cxGC3PlQyOAow&s=19