The Geneva Association has confirmed what most of us already knew: insurance is not like banking and it does not pose a systemic risk to the financial world. In a nutshell, insurers are more stable than banks because they are funded by upfront premiums, giving them strong operating cash flow. Insurance policies are long-term with controlled outflows, which aids stability: you won’t have “a run” on an insurer.
During the credit crunch, the Geneva Association observes, insurers maintained relatively steady capacity, business volumes and prices, unlike investment banks. Some insurers did get into bother but that was through their quasi-banking activities, namely derivatives trading on non-insurance balance sheets and their mismanagement of short-term funding from securities lending.
Recognising that, the industry association has put forward five recommendations to address those activities and further strengthen stability. As well as suggesting ways of strengthening risk management it suggests implementing a principle-based supervision framework that captures any non-insurance activitities, such as excessive derivative trading. It adds that it would agree to “macro-prudential monitoring with appropriate insurance representation”.
But Nikolaus von Bomhard, Munich Re CEO and chairman of the Geneva Association, adds something that will resonate with his peers in the industry. “In the public debate, the business model of insurance is not always sufficiently demarcated from the business models of other financial services providers, such as banks,” he said.
That’s why many believe that any reform of insurance regulation prompted by the financial crisis must be proportionate and fit for purpose. Insurers are the shock absorbers of the global economy and through their longterm investments they actually contribute to stability.
They have proved that and regulators should be careful not to undermine them with unnecessary rules that could even cause instability in the sector.

