 |
Download the article here |
Dr Florian Ueltzhöfer
Actuary DAV/IVS
Teoman Kaplan
Actuary DAV
Italy was one of the solvability “losers” during the CoViD crisis. Compared to the other countries whose insurers suffered, Italy is quite different.
First of all, Italy – with one exception – is not using the Transitional measure on Technical Provisions (TTP), hence no “support” from that side. We will analyse the TTP closer in our next episode. Second, Italy does not have a big Duration Gap either, when compared to most of the other countries with diminished Solvency Ratios during the crisis. Only Spain and the UK – the countries using the Matching Adjustment – naturally have a smaller Duration Gap than Italy. From an ALM1 perspective, therefore, we would expect a reduced volatility of the Own Funds2.
So, what could be the cause for such a dramatic loss in Solvency Ratio in Italy? It seems that the Volatility Adjustment (VA) did not have the same positive effects in Italy as for NL and DK. To understand this, we must take a closer look at the asset allocation of Italian insurers. The most obvious, compared to all other countries, is the massive overweight of BTP exposure (41.4%) and the overall home bias (57.4%). Now this explains a lot! When we look at the spread volatility of BTPs during the crisis, we can clearly see that they “outperformed” the other government bonds. Compared to NL and DK, therefore, Italian insurers lost far more in asset value due to this spread widening. At the same time, the excess spread widening in Italy’s countryspecific VA reference portfolio was not significant enough to trigger its activation under the current framework. This implies that for the liabilities, on the one hand, only the increase in the EUR-currency VA was applicable, while for the assets, on the other hand, the spread widening in local investments hit way harder. Paired with a Liability duration 5 years shorter than in NL and DK, the VA mechanism was far from (over-)compensating the losses incurred through the BTP-spread widening.
It seems obvious that in the current discussion started by EIOPA on the “2020 review”, the VA is playing a major part. The latest proposal* towards changes in the VA is targeted at the extreme impacts we have seen at both ends of the spectrum:
- for countries like NL and DK, the overshooting effect will be minimised,
- for countries like IT, a smoother transition of recognising country-specific spread will be introduced.
We have now seen and discussed the (non-) impact of the VA, and want to take a closer look at the TTP in our next instalment.
Finally, we will look at Sweden and Finland, where neither the VA nor the TTP play a major role.
LOOKING FORWARD TO FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS CHANNEL!
Average Portfolio of Italian Life and Other Undertakings and YTD change of Bund-BTP-Spread
Sources: EIOPA Insurance Statistics (SQ Exposures 2020); Life and Other undertakings only; Bloomberg; own presentation.
*European Commision, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/138/EC, 22 Sep 2021
1ALM = Asset and Liability Management
2Own Funds = available capital an insurer has to cover its Solvency Capital Requirements (SCR)
Investing involves risk. The value of an investment and the income from it may fall as well as rise and investors might not get back the full amount invested. The views and opinions expressed herein, which are subject to change without notice, are those of the issuer companies at the time of publication. The data used is derived from various sources, and assumed to be correct and reliable at the time of publication. The conditions of any underlying offer or contract that may have been, or will be, made or concluded, shall prevail. The duplication, publication, or transmission of the contents, irrespective of the form, is not permitted; except for the case of explicit permission by Allianz Global Investors GmbH.
For investors in Europe (excluding Switzerland)
This is a marketing communication issued by Allianz Global Investors GmbH, www.allianzgi.com, an investment company with limited liability, incorporated in Germany, with its registered office at Bockenheimer Landstrasse 42-44, 60323 Frankfurt/M, registered with the local court Frankfurt/M under HRB 9340, authorised by Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (www.bafin.de). Allianz Global Investors GmbH has established branches in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands. Contact details and information on the local regulation are available here (www.allianzgi.com/Info).
For investors in Switzerland
This is an advertising document issued by Allianz Global Investors (Schweiz) AG, a 100% subsidiary of Allianz Global Investors GmbH.
Related Insights
Summary
Inflation has made a forceful comeback recently, and we believe it will last longer than the financial markets and many investors currently anticipate. In part one of a two-part paper, we look at the factors that may cause a more persistent rise in consumer price inflation – and why it matters to investors.
Key takeaways:
- The recent inflation spike has been amplified by several extraordinary and temporary factors – including the post-Covid rebound and base effects
- But there are other reasons why consumer price inflation may turn out to be “sticky” – including continued accommodation from central banks, less globalisation and an aging population
- We also expect the fight against climate change and economic inequality to contribute to upward inflationary pressure