Solvency II, or how to sweep the downside risk under the carpet

Under Solvency II the computation of capital requirements is based on value at risk (V@R). V@R is a quantile-based risk measure and neglects extreme risks in the tail. V@R belongs to the family of distortion risk measures. A serious deficiency of V@R is that firms can hide their total downside risk in corporate networks, unless a consolidated solvency balance sheet is required for each economic scenario. In this case, they can largely reduce their total capital requirements via appropriate transfer agreements within a network structure consisting of sufficiently many entities and thereby circumvent capital regulation. We prove several versions of such a result for general distortion risk measures of V@R-type, explicitly construct suitable allocations of the network portfolio, and finally demonstrate how these findings can be extended beyond distortion risk measures. We also discuss why consolidation requirements cannot completely eliminate this problem. Capital regulation should thus be based on coherent or convex risk measures like average value at risk or expectiles.

[1]  Ruodu Wang,et al.  How Superadditive Can a Risk Measure Be? , 2015, SIAM J. Financial Math..

[2]  H. Föllmer,et al.  Stochastic Finance: An Introduction in Discrete Time , 2002 .

[3]  Paul Glasserman,et al.  Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering , 2003 .

[4]  D. Denneberg Non-additive measure and integral , 1994 .

[5]  Ilya Molchanov,et al.  Intragroup transfers, intragroup diversification and their risk assessment , 2015 .

[6]  Jan Dhaene,et al.  Remarks on quantiles and distortion risk measures , 2012 .

[7]  Rama Cont,et al.  Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures , 2010 .

[8]  G. Greco,et al.  Sulla rappresentazione di funzionali mediante integrali , 1982 .

[9]  Shaun S. Wang Premium Calculation by Transforming the Layer Premium Density , 1996, ASTIN Bulletin.

[10]  Yongsheng Song,et al.  The representations of two types of functionals on L∞(Ω, Ƒ) and L∞(Ω, Ƒ, ℙ) , 2006 .

[11]  Jan Dhaene,et al.  Risk Measures and Comonotonicity: A Review , 2006, Stochastic Models.

[12]  D. Schmeidler Integral representation without additivity , 1986 .

[13]  Quantile-Based Risk Sharing , 2017 .

[14]  Ruodu Wang Regulatory arbitrage of risk measures , 2016 .

[15]  A. Galichon The VAR at Risk , 2008, 2102.02577.

[16]  E. Jouini,et al.  OPTIMAL RISK SHARING FOR LAW INVARIANT MONETARY UTILITY FUNCTIONS , 2008 .

[17]  Wei Cui,et al.  Optimal reinsurance minimizing the distortion risk measure under general reinsurance premium principles , 2013 .

[18]  Volker Krätschmer,et al.  Comparative and qualitative robustness for law-invariant risk measures , 2012, Finance Stochastics.

[19]  Damir Filipović,et al.  Optimal Capital and Risk Transfers for Group Diversification , 2007 .

[20]  H. Föllmer,et al.  The Axiomatic Approach to Risk Measures for Capital Determination , 2015 .

[21]  Yongsheng Song,et al.  An overview of representation theorems for static risk measures , 2009 .

[22]  G. Choquet Theory of capacities , 1954 .

[23]  Yongsheng Song,et al.  Risk Measures with Comonotonic Subadditivity or Convexity and Respecting Stochastic Orders , 2022 .

[24]  M. Christiansen,et al.  FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITION OF THE SOLVENCY CAPITAL REQUIREMENT IN SOLVENCY II , 2014, ASTIN Bulletin.