This is dominated by asset allocation and Pillar 3 requirements, and I'll cover through those in due course. It was the interview with Sr. Montalvo from EIOPA which immediately caught my eye, so I picked the following bones out of it:
- Solvency II is "...nothing more and nothing less than a risk-based supervisory framework"
- Solvency II "aims to be a neutral system" with regard to asset allocation
- "The new framework creates business opportunities rather than operational risks"
- "No Pillar prevails, all are equally important"
- The capital weightings on asset lines are based on "...sound technical calculations that were taken by the supervisory community (and in particular by the actuarial teams involved)" - is this a tacit acknowledgement of a residual element of black-boxedness?
- On IFRS convergence "...we had to move forward because in the accounting areas progress was not being sufficiently made". 'Aimerez-vous rencontrer M. Kettle, M. Pot?'
- On early implementation, "...once we see how it is working, [EIOPA] will have the courage to say which things can be improved"
Is Solvency II perfect? No. Can it be improved? Probably, yes. But it is an extremely good starting point, so let's get it started!