Economic activity improving When it comes to the prospects for higher demand from the euro countries following the debt crisis and all the structural problems, I have become gradually less pessimistic over the last 12 months. This is for example because several highly-indebted countries have made progress in reducing their budget deficits. The Swedish crisis of the 1990s made a great impression on me as an economist and my experience from that period tells me that when households and companies see that the worst problems are over and that the situation is being managed then there is potential for increased confidence about the future, which we have also seen in recent months. This is despite the fact that unemployment is still high and that the recovery of economic activity in these countries is starting from a low level. Of course a lot remains to be done and here the responsibility primarily lies with the politicians in the respective countries. The euro area’s common monetary policy is an important tool for easing the readjustment, but it cannot correct all the causes of the crisis. This requires decisions at the national level in order to come to terms with weak public finances and to change economic and political structures so that competitiveness is improved. It has long been the Riksbank’s assessment that the crisis can be resolved in an orderly way and that economic growth will gradually improve.
This means that any reforms to the MA will be a key determinant of success against all three of the government’s objectives for the Solvency II Review. My colleague Charlotte Gerken discussed in April how we use the MA as part of our supervisory approach, and I won’t rehearse the points that she made today4. As a regulator, we have long believed in the core concept behind the MA. We firmly supported its inclusion in Solvency II, and we brought in a similar mechanism in our previous Individual Capital Adequacy Standards (‘ICAS’) regime. There has been a lot of feedback about broadening of the asset eligibility criteria for the MA, and about simplification of the application process. We have heard this feedback, and are confident that the review can achieve improvements in these areas. If we get these changes right, the path can be smoothed for insurers to invest for the long term in a way which supports innovation and growth and is sustainable. Of course as I said earlier, unless there is adequate policyholder protection, any such changes will not meet these objectives. So through the QIS we will be gathering data around how the MA could be calculated, so that we can be sure that the reformed MA provides adequate protection given the wide range of assets annuity writers hold. Changes on eligibility and process don’t so easily lend themselves to a QIS, but they can be designed to ensure that the MA meets the government’s other objectives for the review.