Solvency II post-Brexit: equivalence discussion in light of the UK solvency II review and the financial services and markets bill

IF 2 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Pub Date : 2023-06-21 DOI:10.1108/jfrc-04-2023-0050
Anton P. Müller, Svend Reuse
{"title":"Solvency II post-Brexit: equivalence discussion in light of the UK solvency II review and the financial services and markets bill","authors":"Anton P. Müller, Svend Reuse","doi":"10.1108/jfrc-04-2023-0050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nFollowing the United Kingdom's (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU), there is uncertainty in the financial services industry on equivalence of regulatory regimes. This also affects the insurance industry. As of now, it is not clear if the UK’s supervisory regime (“Solvency UK”) will be classified as equivalent to the European Solvency II supervisory regime. After no equivalence decision was taken during the Brexit transition period and there are efforts by the UK in the form of the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill to adapt Solvency II more to the characteristics of the national insurance market, the uncertainties are intensified. Although Solvency II non-equivalence would have a significant impact on insurance groups operating in both the UK and the EU, there has been no detailed analysis of whether these initiatives could have an impact on a future Solvency II equivalence decision. The purpose of this paper is to address and close this research gap with a literature review and a subsequent equivalence mapping and discussion.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nBased on the literature review methodology, this paper draws on academic sources as well as publications from governments and regulators, articles from consultancies and subject matter experts and uses this literature to provide an overview of the current state of research on equivalence in the wider financial services industry, but specifically on Solvency II equivalence, the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Based on this literature review, the paper also forms the basis for an innovative and forward-looking Solvency II equivalence mapping and discussion.\n\n\nFindings\nSeveral articles state that differences between Solvency II and Solvency UK could harm a future Solvency II equivalence decision. The UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill are two initiatives that support the objective of aligning the Solvency II supervisory regime more closely with the circumstances of the UK insurance market. Although both initiatives contribute to the fact that Solvency UK differs in parts from Solvency II, based on the literature review and the subsequent equivalence mapping and discussion, there are currently no reforms that should harm future Solvency II equivalence decisions.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper provides a previously non-existent overview of equivalence in the wider financial services industry, but specifically on Solvency II equivalence, the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and brings them together in an innovative equivalence discussion. It thus presents the current state of knowledge on Solvency II after Brexit and develops it further around a mapping against the equivalence criteria. As non-equivalence could have significant implications for insurance groups operating in both the UK and the EU, this paper is a useful and practical study that provides a previously non-existent equivalence mapping and discussion based on current initiatives and publications. It thus closes the research gap identified and reduces uncertainties in the insurance industry and can be used as a blueprint for detailed and forward-looking equivalence mappings and discussions for the wider financial services industry.\n","PeriodicalId":44814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfrc-04-2023-0050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Following the United Kingdom's (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU), there is uncertainty in the financial services industry on equivalence of regulatory regimes. This also affects the insurance industry. As of now, it is not clear if the UK’s supervisory regime (“Solvency UK”) will be classified as equivalent to the European Solvency II supervisory regime. After no equivalence decision was taken during the Brexit transition period and there are efforts by the UK in the form of the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill to adapt Solvency II more to the characteristics of the national insurance market, the uncertainties are intensified. Although Solvency II non-equivalence would have a significant impact on insurance groups operating in both the UK and the EU, there has been no detailed analysis of whether these initiatives could have an impact on a future Solvency II equivalence decision. The purpose of this paper is to address and close this research gap with a literature review and a subsequent equivalence mapping and discussion. Design/methodology/approach Based on the literature review methodology, this paper draws on academic sources as well as publications from governments and regulators, articles from consultancies and subject matter experts and uses this literature to provide an overview of the current state of research on equivalence in the wider financial services industry, but specifically on Solvency II equivalence, the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Based on this literature review, the paper also forms the basis for an innovative and forward-looking Solvency II equivalence mapping and discussion. Findings Several articles state that differences between Solvency II and Solvency UK could harm a future Solvency II equivalence decision. The UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill are two initiatives that support the objective of aligning the Solvency II supervisory regime more closely with the circumstances of the UK insurance market. Although both initiatives contribute to the fact that Solvency UK differs in parts from Solvency II, based on the literature review and the subsequent equivalence mapping and discussion, there are currently no reforms that should harm future Solvency II equivalence decisions. Originality/value This paper provides a previously non-existent overview of equivalence in the wider financial services industry, but specifically on Solvency II equivalence, the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and brings them together in an innovative equivalence discussion. It thus presents the current state of knowledge on Solvency II after Brexit and develops it further around a mapping against the equivalence criteria. As non-equivalence could have significant implications for insurance groups operating in both the UK and the EU, this paper is a useful and practical study that provides a previously non-existent equivalence mapping and discussion based on current initiatives and publications. It thus closes the research gap identified and reduces uncertainties in the insurance industry and can be used as a blueprint for detailed and forward-looking equivalence mappings and discussions for the wider financial services industry.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国脱欧后的偿付能力II:根据英国偿付能力II审查和金融服务与市场法案进行的对等讨论
目的英国退出欧盟后,金融服务业在监管制度的对等性方面存在不确定性。这也影响到保险业。截至目前,尚不清楚英国的监管制度(“Solvency UK”)是否会被归类为等同于欧洲偿付能力II监管制度。在英国脱欧过渡期内没有做出对等决定,英国以《英国偿付能力II审查》和《金融服务和市场法案》的形式努力使偿付能力II更适应国家保险市场的特点后,不确定性加剧。尽管偿付能力II不对等将对在英国和欧盟运营的保险集团产生重大影响,但尚未对这些举措是否会对未来的偿付能力II对等决策产生影响进行详细分析。本文的目的是通过文献综述和随后的等价映射和讨论来填补和缩小这一研究空白。设计/方法论/方法论基于文献综述方法论,本文借鉴了学术来源以及政府和监管机构的出版物、咨询公司和主题专家的文章,并利用这些文献概述了更广泛的金融服务业中对等研究的现状,但特别是关于偿付能力II等效性、英国偿付能力II审查和金融服务与市场法案。基于这篇文献综述,本文还为创新和前瞻性的Solvency II等价映射和讨论奠定了基础。发现几篇文章指出,Solvency II和Solvency UK之间的差异可能会损害未来的SolvencyⅡ等效决策。《英国偿付能力II审查》和《金融服务与市场法案》是两项举措,支持将偿付能力II监管制度与英国保险市场的情况更紧密地结合起来。尽管这两项举措都导致Solvency UK在部分方面与Solvency II不同,但根据文献综述以及随后的等价映射和讨论,目前没有任何改革会损害SolvencyⅡ未来的等价决策。独创性/价值本文对更广泛的金融服务行业中以前不存在的等价性进行了概述,特别是关于偿付能力II等价性、英国偿付能力II审查和金融服务与市场法案,并将它们结合在一起进行了创新的等价性讨论。因此,它介绍了英国脱欧后Solvency II的当前知识状态,并围绕对等标准的映射进一步发展。由于不对等可能对在英国和欧盟运营的保险集团产生重大影响,本文是一项有用且实用的研究,根据当前的举措和出版物,提供了以前不存在的对等映射和讨论。因此,它缩小了已确定的研究差距,减少了保险业的不确定性,可作为更广泛的金融服务业详细和前瞻性等价映射和讨论的蓝图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1992, the Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance has provided an authoritative and scholarly platform for international research in financial regulation and compliance. The journal is at the intersection between academic research and the practice of financial regulation, with distinguished past authors including senior regulators, central bankers and even a Prime Minister. Financial crises, predatory practices, internationalization and integration, the increased use of technology and financial innovation are just some of the changes and issues that contemporary financial regulators are grappling with. These challenges and changes hold profound implications for regulation and compliance, ranging from macro-prudential to consumer protection policies. The journal seeks to illuminate these issues, is pluralistic in approach and invites scholarly papers using any appropriate methodology. Accordingly, the journal welcomes submissions from finance, law, economics and interdisciplinary perspectives. A broad spectrum of research styles, sources of information and topics (e.g. banking laws and regulations, stock market and cross border regulation, risk assessment and management, training and competence, competition law, case law, compliance and regulatory updates and guidelines) are appropriate. All submissions are double-blind refereed and judged on academic rigour, originality, quality of exposition and relevance to policy and practice. Once accepted, individual articles are typeset, proofed and published online as the Version of Record within an average of 32 days, so that articles can be downloaded and cited earlier.
期刊最新文献
CBDCs, regulated stablecoins and tokenized traditional assets under the Basel Committee rules on cryptoassets All are interesting to invest, I fear of missing out (FOMO): a comparative study among self-employed and salaried investors A law and economic analysis of trading through dark pools Financial liberalisation and illicit financial outflows in African countries: does institutional quality and macroeconomic stability matter? Crossing the lines a human approach to improving the effectiveness of the three lines model in practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1