Traditional participating life insurance contracts with year-to-year (cliquet-style) guarantees have come under pressure in the current situation of low interest rates and volatile capital markets, in particular when priced in a market consistent valuation framework. In addition, such guarantees lead to rather high capital requirements under risk-based solvency frameworks such as Solvency II or the Swiss Solvency Test (SST). We introduce several alternative product designs and analyze their impact on the insurer's financial situation. We also introduce a measure for Capital Efficiency that considers both, profits and capital requirements, and compare the results of the innovative products to the traditional product design with respect to Capital Efficiency in a market consistent valuation model.

No abstract

Some details of the Solvency II framework are still under discussion. A crucial aspect in the debate is the appropriate reflection of surplus participation mechanisms that apply to traditional participating life insurance contracts. In particular, the inheritance of profits between existing business and new business resulting from the surplus participation process has to be incorporated in the Solvency II valuation framework which requires a run off valuation of the existing portfolio under going concern assumptions. This paper analyzes the inheritance effects caused by the pre-financing of acquisition cost of new business via cost surplus of existing business which is inherent in traditional German life insurance. We show that in the context of Solvency II an allowance for the inherited fundsdenoted as Going Concern Reserve (GCR)-is justified and in line with the Solvency II valuation principles. Based on a stochastic balance sheet and cash flow projection model, we present a methodology to quantify the GCR and provide a profound analysis of the GCR and its components. Our results show that the GCR has significant impact on the overall solvency situation of life insurance companies offering participating contracts.

2009),"The insurance distribution systems and efficiency in the property-casualty insurance industry", Managerial Finance, Vol. 35 Iss 8 pp. 670-681 http:// dx.If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to transfer the concept of market-consistent embedded value (MCEV) from life to non-life insurance. This is an important undertaking since differences in management techniques between life and non-life insurance make management at the group level very difficult. The purpose of this paper is to offer a solution to this problem. Design/methodology/approach -After explaining MCEV, the authors derive differences between life and non-life insurance and develop a MCEV model for non-life business. The model framework is applied to a German non-life insurance company to illustrate its usefulness in different applications. Findings -The authors show an MCEV calculation based on empirical data and set up an economic balance sheet. The value implications of varying loss ratios, cancellation rates, and costs within a sensitivity analysis are analyzed. The usefulness of the model is illustrated within a value-added analysis. The authors also embed the MCEV concept in a simplified model for an insurance group, to derive group MCEV and outline differences between local GAAP, IFRS and MCEV. Practical implications -The analysis provides new and relevant information to the stakeholders of an insurance company. The model provides information comparable to that provided by embedded value models currently used in the life insurance industry and fills a gap in the literature. The authors reveal significant valuation difference between MCEV and IFRS and argue that there is a need for a consistent MCEV approach at the insurance-group level. Originality/value -The paper presents a new valuation technique for non-life insurance that is easy to use, simple to interpret, and directly comparable to life insurance. Despite the growing policy interest in embedded value, not much academic attention has been given to this methodology. The authors hope that this work will encourage further discussion on this topic in academia and practice.

The objective of this study is to analyse what the quantitative funding requirements for pension funds with defined benefit plans would be, if Solvency II (based on the QIS 3 methodology) would be applied. Also possible extensions of the Solvency II methodology that seem necessary in order to reflect the specifics of pension funds will be discussed.