econintersect.com
  • 토토사이트
    • 카지노사이트
    • 도박사이트
    • 룰렛 사이트
    • 라이브카지노
    • 바카라사이트
    • 안전카지노
  • 경제
  • 파이낸스
  • 정치
  • 투자
No Result
View All Result
  • 토토사이트
    • 카지노사이트
    • 도박사이트
    • 룰렛 사이트
    • 라이브카지노
    • 바카라사이트
    • 안전카지노
  • 경제
  • 파이낸스
  • 정치
  • 투자
No Result
View All Result
econintersect.com
No Result
View All Result

Insurance and Banking: Risk, Resiliency and Harmonisation

admin by admin
3월 6, 2011
in 미분류
0
0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Lombard Street Clearing House Guest Author London Banker has been a central banker and securities markets regulator during a varied and interesting career in global financial markets.  He writes at London Banker.
 
I attended an interesting discussion of risk management in the City this week, bringing together insurers with bankers. The two sectors manage risk quite differently, which is why there are rarely insurance crises and frequently banking crises. Insurance crises tend to occur when insurers act like banks (AIG Financial Products, MBIA and other monolines). Bank crises tend to occur when banks act like investment banks.

Insurers must not underwrite risks that they will not be able to cover in the event, and must therefore have reserves sufficient to perform at all times. This makes the insurers much more cautious about taking on risk, about pricing risk accurately at the time of contracting, and about managing reserves to be liquid when claims require payment. Regulation is fundamentally about solvency and selling.

Banks undertake risks on their books that they can only cover so long as they continue to have access to liquidity (funding, deposits, repos or central bank support). Bank capital is never enough to ensure performance without market liquidity for reserve assets. Banks are generally much less cautious about taking on risk, rely overmuch on incomplete models to price risk, and manage capital to optimise returns rather than ensure survival. Regulation focuses on capital (never enough on its own) rather than conduct, common sense and functional suitability.

One risk manager observed that in insurance the risks are exogenous, generally independent in occurrence, and finite. In banking the risks are too often endogenous, correlated in unpredictable ways, and of unknowable magnitude. As a result, a single bank failing has systemic consequences for the banking system, where a single insurance company failure has no systemic consequences for the insurance sector.

An interesting observation both insurers and bankers agreed on was that international harmonisation of regulation had driven formerly diverse business models and management preferences toward uniformity by enforcing preferred models for capital and solvency. As a result, the risks of total systemic failure are much, much higher than before Basel II and Solvency II, because when the models are wrong, the whole financial system is compromised.

Models are always wrong because they are partial, approximate, and use historic data and correlations. In internationally harmonised regulation, the failure of models is even more assured as many domestic factors which have great implications for financial risk are ignored or discounted. Quite simply, models are illuminating, not correct.

What this means is that the 25 year drive to harmonise regulation using financial models is almost certainly counterproductive if the aim was to ensure wider financial integrity and stability. Instead of a global financial system constructed as a spider’s web, such that the breaking of one strand does not compromise the whole web, we have a system that has bound all the threads into a single cable. And if that cable frays under stress . . .

There was controversy around the idea of functionally segregating the pedestrian but systemically important functions like payments and mortgage intermediation from the riskier eccentricities of modern of investment banking. About half the room thought it perfectly sensible, and half thought it couldn’t be done. I’m of the view that “narrow banking” for some functions might be a very reasonable way to secure the taxpayer from future losses by reducing the scope for contagion in the banking system. And if we could do that, we could allow bad banks to fail, restoring some morals and some hazard to the management of banking.

Previous Post

Western Hemisphere Stocks Rebound

Next Post

World Stock Index Rankings Little Changed this Week

Related Posts

Bitcoin Is Finally Trading Perfectly Like 'Digital Gold'
Economics

Bitcoin Is Finally Trading Perfectly Like ‘Digital Gold’

by admin
Namibia Will Regulate And Not Ban Crypto With New Law
Finance

Namibia Will Regulate And Not Ban Crypto With New Law

by admin
6,746 ETH Valued At $12M Was Just Burned
Economics

6,746 ETH Valued At $12M Was Just Burned

by admin
Bitcoin Is Steady Above $29,000 Awaiting US NFP Figures
Economics

Bitcoin: What Next After Consolidation Ends?

by admin
US Government Offloads Another 8,200 Bitcoin – On-chain Data
Economics

US Government Offloads Another 8,200 Bitcoin – On-chain Data

by admin
Next Post

World Stock Index Rankings Little Changed this Week

답글 남기기 응답 취소

이메일 주소는 공개되지 않습니다. 필수 필드는 *로 표시됩니다

Browse by Category

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized

Browse by Tags

adoption altcoins bank banking banks Binance Bitcoin Bitcoin market blockchain BTC BTC price business China crypto crypto adoption cryptocurrency crypto exchange crypto market crypto regulation decentralized finance DeFi Elon Musk ETH Ethereum Europe Federal Reserve finance FTX inflation investment market analysis Metaverse NFT nonfungible tokens oil market price analysis recession regulation Russia stock market technology Tesla the UK the US Twitter

Categories

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized

© Copyright 2024 EconIntersect

No Result
View All Result
  • 토토사이트
    • 카지노사이트
    • 도박사이트
    • 룰렛 사이트
    • 라이브카지노
    • 바카라사이트
    • 안전카지노
  • 경제
  • 파이낸스
  • 정치
  • 투자

© Copyright 2024 EconIntersect