Arguments on artificial volatility dampeners must focus on fundamentals, warns Skinner

Debate on matching and counter-cyclical premiums must not remain linked to needs of specific countries if political consensus is to be reached

peter-skinner

The debate on the mechanisms to remove artificial volatility caused by Solvency II has become too aligned to certain countries and product lines, according to Peter Skinner MEP, the European Parliament’s rapporteur for Solvency II. The argument must focus on the fundamental purpose of these tools if support for them is to be achieved within the European Parliament, he warns.

Skinner’s comments came as the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (Econ) of the European Parliament postponed a

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

Most read articles loading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here