Looking back
EXPOSED BUT NOT AT RISK
There has been much speculation as to whether insurers’ exposure to Greece should be cause for concern. Federico Faccio at rating agency Fitch gives his take on the risks for insurers and how they built up in the first place.
W
hile much of the recent media attention has been concentrated on the exposures
the banks have to Greece, insurers too have been pondering how severe their own exposures might be if the crisis in the country—and across the wider eurozone—should worsen.
But how did they get to this position in the
first place? “These exposures began to build back in the
early 2000s, when the eurozone was created,” says Federico Faccio, a senior director in the insurance group at Fitch.
“At that time, there was a convergence of
interest rates across a number of countries and Greece was offering the highest yield. There was also a sense of potential support being granted to the eurozone members, which, to an extent, we are seeing happen today.
“It was felt at the time that investing in Greek
sovereign debt was a good way to diversify investment portfolios on the fixed income side,
70 | INTELLIGENT INSURER | September 2011
and also to pick up extra yield over and above a risk-free rate. The creation of the eurozone gave the opportunity to the industry to invest in Greek debt.”
Faccio says that, back then, there was an
expectation that there would be some sort of convergence of monetary policy and interest rates. Since Greek bonds were yielding more than bonds of other eurozone members, it was regarded as a good investment.
“This really lasted until last year when the crisis erupted,” he says.
But Fitch does not regard the situation in
Greece as being a serious threat to the European insurance industry. Should the economic situation in Greece worsen, any damage to the industry would be limited, Faccio says.
“We are not talking about a significant exposure,
or anything that could severely undermine the credit profile of the industry across Europe. Clearly, what insurers tend to do is to match
assets with liabilities geographically. So if they have a company operating in a specific peripheral country, it is not uncommon to see a large exposure to a domestic bond. This is because they seek to match their liabilities in that particular country.
“Larger players with some Greek operations might also have some exposure to Greek debt. But it depends where the exposure is within the group. Generally, if the exposure is against local liabilities, movements in the market value of sovereign debt may not be such a serious concern as the regulators encourage insurers to invest in domestic bonds.”
On the implementation of Solvency II, under
the proposed regime, holding sovereign debt attracts no capital charges. However, this could change, according to Faccio.
“The risk is that one day the regulator or the
European Commission will decide that holding certain sovereign debt could attract
capital
charges. However, this is not the case at the moment,” he says.
©
iStockphoto.com/tropicalpixsingapore
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72