This paper compares the shareholder-value-maximising capital structure and pricing policy of insurance groups against that of stand-alone insurers. Groups can utilise intra-group risk diversification by means of capital and risk transfer instruments. We show that using these instruments enables the group to offer insurance with less default risk and at lower premiums than is optimal for stand-alone insurers. We also take into account that shareholders of groups could find it more difficult to prevent inefficient overinvestment or cross-subsidisation, which we model by higher dead-weight costs of carrying capital. The trade-off between risk diversification on the one hand and higher dead-weight costs on the other can result in group-building being beneficial for shareholders but detrimental for policyholders.

The Solvency II standard formula employs an approximate value-at-risk approach to define risk-based capital requirements. This paper investigates how the standard formula's stock risk calibration influences the equity position and investment strategy of a shareholder-value-maximising insurer with limited liability. The capital requirement for stock risks is determined by multiplying a regulation-defined stock risk parameter by the value of the insurer's stock portfolio. Intuitively, a higher stock risk parameter should reduce risky investments as well as insolvency risk. However, we find that the default probability does not necessarily decrease when reducing the investment risk (by increasing the stock risk parameter). We also find that, depending on the precise interaction between assets and liabilities, some insurers will invest conservatively, whereas others will prefer a very risky investment strategy, and a slight change of the stock risk parameter may lead from a conservative to a high-risk asset allocation.

PurposeThis paper aims to propose a scenario-based approach for measuring interest rate risks. Many regulatory capital standards in banking and insurance make use of similar approaches. The authors provide a theoretical justification and extensive backtesting of our approach.Design/methodology/approachThe authors theoretically derive a scenario-based value-at-risk for interest rate risks based on a principal component analysis. The authors calibrate their approach based on the Nelson–Siegel model, which is modified to account for lower bounds for interest rates. The authors backtest the model outcomes against historical yield curve changes for a large number of generated asset–liability portfolios. In addition, the authors backtest the scenario-based value-at-risk against the stochastic model.FindingsThe backtesting results of the adjusted Nelson–Siegel model (accounting for a lower bound) are similar to those of the traditional Nelson–Siegel model. The suitability of the scenario-based value-at-risk can be substantially improved by allowing for correlation parameters in the aggregation of the scenario outcomes. Implementing those parameters is straightforward with the replacement of Pearson correlations by value-at-risk-implied tail correlations in situations where risk factors are not elliptically distributed.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper assumes deterministic cash flow patterns. The authors discuss the applicability of their approach, e.g. for insurance companies.Practical implicationsThe authors’ approach can be used to better communicate interest rate risks using scenarios. Discussing risk measurement results with decision makers can help to backtest stochastic-term structure models.Originality/valueThe authors’ adjustment of the Nelson–Siegel model to account for lower bounds makes the model more useful in the current low-yield environment when unjustifiably high negative interest rates need to be avoided. The proposed scenario-based value-at-risk allows for a pragmatic measurement of interest rate risks, which nevertheless closely approximates the value-at-risk according to the stochastic model.

Socially responsible investing (SRI) continues to gain momentum in the financial market space for various reasons, starting with the looming effect of climate change and the drive toward a net-zero economy. Existing SRI approaches have included environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria as a further dimension to portfolio selection, but these approaches focus on classical investors and do not account for specific aspects of insurance companies. In this paper, we consider the stock selection problem of life insurance companies. In addition to stock risk, our model set-up includes other important market risk categories of insurers, namely interest rate risk and credit risk. In line with common standards in insurance solvency regulation, such as Solvency II, we measure risk using the solvency ratio, i.e. the ratio of the insurer's market-based equity capital to the Value-at-Risk of all modeled risk categories. As a consequence, we employ a modification of Markowitz's Portfolio Selection Theory by choosing the "solvency ratio" as a downside risk measure to obtain a feasible set of optimal portfolios in a three-dimensional (risk, return, and ESG) capital allocation plane. We find that for a given solvency ratio, stock portfolios with a moderate ESG level can lead to a higher expected return than those with a low ESG level. A highly ambitious ESG level, however, reduces the expected return. Because of the specific nature of a life insurer's business model, the impact of the ESG level on the expected return of life insurers can substantially differ from the corresponding impact for classical investors.

No abstract