When evaluating possible packages of quantitative reform, an important validation point for the PRA is whether the resultant liability values, including the risk margin, are adequate relative to the transfer values implied by actual buy-out transactions. If current liability valuations were to be insufficient to fund these observable transfer costs, then the balance sheet would lack the resilience that it would be expected to have under Solvency II and a key safeguard of policyholder protection would be put at risk. In other words, we could no longer be confident enough that if an insurer failed in the future, its liabilities could be safely transferred to a third party. The long-term security of policyholder benefits would then be in question. The PRA is continuing its work to assess the extent to which different reform combinations lead to an adequate transfer value being achieved and see this as a key validation tool when assessing the merits of any package. Page 8  Regulation I now come to the final R – regulation – and want to focus remarks today specifically on the work to reform the existing regulatory framework for insurers – Solvency II. The interlinkages between the first three Rs I have covered help explain why such regulatory reform needs to be considered as a package: changes in one part of our regulatory and supervisory framework have consequences for others.
Of course, there is no reason to ban books, but the unrest caused by this book is actually a positive thing. It is a sign of changing times, enhanced understanding, and diminishing prejudice. When that book was published in the mid-20th century, hardly anyone thought of it as being hurtful or offensive in any way. But now we see that it can indeed be those things, and this is why the publication of the book and the ensuing discussion are a positive indication of new times and changed perspective. Actually, recent decades have seen a fervent effort to recast well-known terms and names for all sorts of phenomena so as to avoid injuring those who, either temporarily or for the long term, might be vulnerable. This is also positive, though some of these philanthropic efforts have gone a bit too far in their enthusiasm. Another phenomenon we see is that newly coined terms soon become cloaked in a sort of semi-divinity in Iceland – like the term “international expansion,” which no one dares oppose lest he be accused of being an anachronism, devoid of a sense of “vision,” as it is now called, and of not knowing when the time is ripe for action. Upon closer scrutiny, the term “international expansion” seems to be nothing more than investment abroad – together with utilisation of knowledge and talent, of course.