Another way to consider the graveyard question is to look at the returns of the insurance firms that we oversee and ask whether or not they resemble tombstones. Empirically, returns on equity can be volatile thanks to things like competitive pricing pressures, catastrophe risk losses and asset market volatility, but they have remained healthy in recent years. Since the introduction of Solvency II, returns have been in ranges of about 8 to 10% in general insurance, and 10% to 15% in the life sector. Our insurance sector is clearly alive and kicking. Moreover, the PRA does not aspire to a zero failure regime – more than fifty insurers regulated by the PRA are currently in some form of run off, for example – and even our primary objective of safety and soundness is in some ways just a means to end. Policyholders are not well served by firms that are so safe and cautious that they might apparently be able to live forever, but never grow or change. Such firms are more likely to be broken by a storm than to bend with it. On the contrary, policyholders are better protected by firms that: first, are sufficiently profitable and attractive to external capital to be able to change and grow in response to the changing external environment; and second, are able, if their business models do fail, to exit the market in an orderly fashion, paying their remaining liabilities as they fall due. What we do have a very low appetite for is disorderly failure.
But to acknowledge these complexities does not weaken the case for the importance of trying to make sensible judgments about how monetary policy should respond to asset price developments. Here are some considerations for how central banks should navigate through these challenges. 2  BIS Review 2/2006  First, in circumstances where the central bank observes a large realized movement in asset prices and is confident in its knowledge of the impact of those moves on the path of aggregate demand, monetary policy may need to follow a different path than might have seemed appropriate in the absence of those developments. In other words, when policymakers have already witnessed a significant move in asset values, and are confident in what that move means for the outlook, it should be prepared to adjust policy accordingly. Note that in order for this seemingly straightforward proposition to apply the central bank must be responding to its assessment of what an already observed movement in asset prices will mean for output and inflation. Of course central banks must always be prepared to respond when factors threaten to push aggregate demand away from aggregate supply and impact the inflation outlook. Movements in asset prices certainly have the potential to be one of those factors, and the implications of this approach apply in both directions.