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"
Perhaps his sweetest quote is worth isolating: