BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
It will help. Unlike name dropping.rick_chasey said:Binning off solvency II is not the panacea Andy Briggs thinks it is (who I’ve met I should add)
Meanwhile @TheBigBean https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/19/pledge-to-ban-fur-and-foie-gras-imports-could-be-dropped-after-cabinet-opposition"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Read the article. That's why I posted the link, so you could understand the benefits.rick_chasey said:How will it help, Stevo?
Help what? And why was it put in place in the first place?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Now now Stevo, aren’t you all about answering questions?
I’m not asking because I don’t know, I’m asking to get at why you think it’s such a good idea because it will move the debate on.
If it’s “because the telegraph said so” then fine, but let us know0 -
The link is a good summary, so go read it. Then explain what you disagree with.rick_chasey said:Now now Stevo, aren’t you all about answering questions?
I’m not asking because I don’t know, I’m asking to get at why you think it’s such a good idea.
If it’s “because the telegraph said so” then fine, but let us know"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Good loaded question. You tell us why it happened.briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
No idea. Which is why I asked. You could try answering the question.0 -
What makes you so sure insurers holding less capital to withstand shocks and freeing up regulation to invest in private markets (where valuation is much tricker and the opportunities to miss-value are much higher) is necessarily great?
0 -
If its because you read it in the telegraph who support and it confirms your general view that if the EU did it = bad then great.
Thing is there is a lot to gripe about solvency II but it doesn’t seem to be those bits which are rumoured to be changing.
It was ultimately put in as a response to the role AIG played in the GFC and that broader issue which the AIG collapse highlighted, right?0 -
No thanks. If you don't know then what's your point?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good loaded question. You tell us why it happened.briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
No idea. Which is why I asked. You could try answering the question."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You haven't read the bit about the benefits then? Or are you just avoiding commenting on those? The article is pretty clear on the expected benefits.rick_chasey said:If its because you read it in the telegraph who support and it confirms your general view that if the EU did it = bad then great.
Thing is there is a lot to gripe about solvency II but it doesn’t seem to be those bits which are rumoured to be changing.
It was ultimately put in as a response to the role AIG played in the GFC and that broader issue which the AIG collapse highlighted, right?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
No thanks. If you don't know then what's your point?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good loaded question. You tell us why it happened.briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
No idea. Which is why I asked. You could try answering the question.
When I don't know about something, I ask questions. It's a good way to find out about stuff. You could have tried educating me. Maybe someone else will.0 -
Yes the capital used to otherwise be held in reserve to protect against shocks is being freed up to be invested.Stevo_666 said:
You haven't read the bit about the benefits then? Or are you just avoiding commenting on those? The article is pretty clear on the expected benefits.rick_chasey said:If its because you read it in the telegraph who support and it confirms your general view that if the EU did it = bad then great.
Thing is there is a lot to gripe about solvency II but it doesn’t seem to be those bits which are rumoured to be changing.
It was ultimately put in as a response to the role AIG played in the GFC and that broader issue which the AIG collapse highlighted, right?
It is also relaxing the rules around investing in private markets such as infrastructure. I know how it works.
0 -
Not sure why you think an improved SPS chapter to the TCA would require acceptance of freedom of movement. Almost like you don't want to see an opportunity there. It's been widely publicised that India would want greater freedom of movement as part of a trade deal so if that really is a deal breaker we'd better reduce that 82%.Stevo_666 said:
Nope just stating stating a reasonable possibility. Beats looking at it through s**t tinted spectacles, which seems to be almost compulsory on here.rjsterry said:
I think that's looking through rose tinted glasses one way and being overly negative the other. A month ago we were threatening to impose tariffs on the US in retaliation for Trump's steel tariffs that they haven't got round to removing. On the other hand, the SPS part of the TCA was pretty unambitious with room for improvement and would make a big difference to food producers in the UK.Stevo_666 said:
Main difference is down to what we want to do. A US trade agreement wouldn't come with the same strings attached.rjsterry said:If you are classing a US deal as possible in the medium term, I don't see why you are ruling out a revision of the TCA in a similar timescale.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Stevo_666 said:
Anyhow, let's get pruning the EU red tape...
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/21/city-chiefs-pledge-80bn-brexit-big-bang-red-tape-cut2/
"City chiefs to unleash £80bn Brexit 'Big Bang' as ministers scrap EU red tape
Relaxing of EU rules will spur investment in UK economy, say insurers
Tens of billions of pounds in investment is to be unleashed by City insurers after ministers pledged to axe controversial EU-era red tape in a major post-Brexit shakeup.
Two years after the UK officially left the EU, John Glen, the City minister, said the Government will ditch swathes of the controversial Solvency 2 rulebook governing insurers.
It came as Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General, and Andy Briggs, chief executive of Phoenix Group, said they could collectively plough around £80bn into the UK economy in the wake of rules being relaxed in an investment “Big Bang”.
Unveiling the shake-up at the Association of British Insurers’ annual dinner, Mr Glen said: “EU regulation doesn’t work for us anymore and the Government is determined to fix that by tailoring the prudential regulation of insurers to our unique circumstances.
“We have a genuine opportunity to maintain and grow an innovative and vibrant insurance sector while protecting policyholders and making it easier for insurance firms to use long-term capital to unlock growth.”
The rules were adopted by ministers once the UK left the bloc, but Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, had placed the rulebook under review to determine whether it could be relaxed to boost British insurers and increase investment in areas such as infrastructure.
A consultation will be launched in April, with the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority to look into the finer details later in the year.
The changes are expected to reduce the reporting and administration burden on businesses, increase their flexibility to invest in long-term assets including infrastructure, and free up funds by reducing the risk margin insurers face.
At the same time the “matching adjustment” mechanism covering long-term investments, which the industry says pushes it away from projects such as wind farms and into low-yielding sovereign and corporate bonds, will also be tweaked with “more sensitive treatment of credit risk”.
The Government’s move comes amid growing concern in the City and in Whitehall that the UK has been moving too slowly as Brussels has already published proposed reforms to the Solvency 2 regime.
Sir Nigel said: “The EU is reforming the Solvency 2 rules itself, so we need to make the changes or fall behind.
“The UK has the opportunity to bring regulations up to date, making it possible to invest in asset classes that didn’t exist when they were originally written.”
He added that L&G could invest more than £30bn in “levelling up” projects such as renewable energy and social and affordable housing in the coming years if the rulebook is revised.
Insurance has been touted for years as an industry that could benefit from relaxing the EU rules introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.
Mr Briggs said: “Sensible Solvency 2 reforms represent a unique and very significant opportunity to ensure more private-sector capital can be directed by insurers and asset managers into long-term infrastructure assets in the UK."
Does nobody read these articles?Stevo_666 said:Anyhow, let's get pruning the EU red tape...
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/21/city-chiefs-pledge-80bn-brexit-big-bang-red-tape-cut2/
"City chiefs to unleash £80bn Brexit 'Big Bang' as ministers scrap EU red tape
Relaxing of EU rules will spur investment in UK economy, say insurers
Tens of billions of pounds in investment is to be unleashed by City insurers after ministers pledged to axe controversial EU-era red tape in a major post-Brexit shakeup.
Two years after the UK officially left the EU, John Glen, the City minister, said the Government will ditch swathes of the controversial Solvency 2 rulebook governing insurers.
It came as Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General, and Andy Briggs, chief executive of Phoenix Group, said they could collectively plough around £80bn into the UK economy in the wake of rules being relaxed in an investment “Big Bang”.
Unveiling the shake-up at the Association of British Insurers’ annual dinner, Mr Glen said: “EU regulation doesn’t work for us anymore and the Government is determined to fix that by tailoring the prudential regulation of insurers to our unique circumstances.
“We have a genuine opportunity to maintain and grow an innovative and vibrant insurance sector while protecting policyholders and making it easier for insurance firms to use long-term capital to unlock growth.”
The rules were adopted by ministers once the UK left the bloc, but Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, had placed the rulebook under review to determine whether it could be relaxed to boost British insurers and increase investment in areas such as infrastructure.
A consultation will be launched in April, with the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority to look into the finer details later in the year.
The changes are expected to reduce the reporting and administration burden on businesses, increase their flexibility to invest in long-term assets including infrastructure, and free up funds by reducing the risk margin insurers face.
At the same time the “matching adjustment” mechanism covering long-term investments, which the industry says pushes it away from projects such as wind farms and into low-yielding sovereign and corporate bonds, will also be tweaked with “more sensitive treatment of credit risk”.
The Government’s move comes amid growing concern in the City and in Whitehall that the UK has been moving too slowly as Brussels has already published proposed reforms to the Solvency 2 regime.
Sir Nigel said: “The EU is reforming the Solvency 2 rules itself, so we need to make the changes or fall behind.
“The UK has the opportunity to bring regulations up to date, making it possible to invest in asset classes that didn’t exist when they were originally written.”
He added that L&G could invest more than £30bn in “levelling up” projects such as renewable energy and social and affordable housing in the coming years if the rulebook is revised.
Insurance has been touted for years as an industry that could benefit from relaxing the EU rules introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.
Mr Briggs said: “Sensible Solvency 2 reforms represent a unique and very significant opportunity to ensure more private-sector capital can be directed by insurers and asset managers into long-term infrastructure assets in the UK."
After 5 years of inaction it seems they are only doing it because they are being left behind by EU reforms.
How can the general uselessness of the the GB Govt not be a factor when assessing the likelihood of Brexit benefits0 -
I'm sceptical in the extreme as to the "benefits of Brexit" collectively but there is definitely mileage in tweaking the Solvency II regulations. One of our clients is a major life and pension fund provider and is notoriously conservative even by the standards of such providers. Yet even it finds Solvency II restrictive in terms of the volume of infrastructure projects it can fund vs the volume it would be happy to fund.rick_chasey said:Binning off solvency II is not the panacea Andy Briggs thinks it is (who I’ve met I should add)
That's not to say that a few tweaks to the regs will unleash a herd of unicorns to frolick gaily on the sunlit uplands of a post-Brexit Utopia, but they could free up a significant volume of investment in socially useful projects.
0 -
Too much of the wrong sort of regulation (i.e. "light touch" in terms of rigour; box-ticking in terms of the thought processes it motivated).briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
0 -
wallace_and_gromit said:
Too much of the wrong sort of regulation (i.e. "light touch" in terms of rigour; box-ticking in terms of the thought processes it motivated).briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
Thanks. So were the post-2008 changes in regulations sensible reactions to the proven and perceived shortcomings of pre-2008 regs?
The reason I'm asking is that I'm interested in how financial regulations, such as Insolvency II come into being: do the regulators just make shlt up for the sake of it (and to wee off those who have to follow the regs), do the regs try to correct actually risky behaviour, or is it a mix of both?
As I've said before, I suspect nearly all H&S stuff is there as a mix of reacting to previously observed dangerous practices and sensibly pre-emptive restrictions as new practices emerge - and whilst to sensible people the regs are sometimes a bit of a PITA to follow, they keep rogue operators in check, as well as signal to everyone 'minimum best practice'. Ditto financial regs.
0 -
Oddly, most large financial institution love regulation. They all have to do it, so there's no competitive disadvantage really in having to comply with local regulations. Conversely, being able to demonstrate compliance capability and thus gain authorisation from the regulator represents a huge barrier to entry to new entrants.briantrumpet said:wallace_and_gromit said:
Too much of the wrong sort of regulation (i.e. "light touch" in terms of rigour; box-ticking in terms of the thought processes it motivated).briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
Thanks. So were the post-2008 changes in regulations sensible reactions to the proven and perceived shortcomings of pre-2008 regs?
The reason I'm asking is that I'm interested in how financial regulations, such as Insolvency II come into being: do the regulators just make shlt up for the sake of it (and to wee off those who have to follow the regs), do the regs try to correct actually risky behaviour, or is it a mix of both?
As I've said before, I suspect nearly all H&S stuff is there as a mix of reacting to previously observed dangerous practices and sensibly pre-emptive restrictions as new practices emerge - and whilst to sensible people the regs are sometimes a bit of a PITA to follow, they keep rogue operators in check, as well as signal to everyone 'minimum best practice'. Ditto financial regs.
That said, human nature is human nature, and folk will always try and flex their operations at the margins of regulations to gain a competitive edge. And every so often, as in 2008, things go too far.
In general, things tend to go in cycles. There is always a reaction to a crisis, which maybe errs on the side of caution. Though maybe not - it was telling during the chaos of the early days of the Covid crisis that there was no hint of a banking crisis as balance sheets had been strengthened considerably at the behest of regulators since 2008. Then over time, memories fade, the old hands who've seen it all before and tend to instil a note of move off into retirement, the new dynamic generation were still at school when the sh*t last hit the fan and are yet to learn that they, too, are not invincible. More and more risks get taken, and in particular, the types of risk that can be taken change and aren't in the scope of current regulation e.g. (at some recent point) algorithmic trading posed risks that didn't exist 20+ years ago as no such trading existed itself. Everything is fine for a while, sometimes quite a long while, until very suddenly, it isn't. And so the cycle begins again.
I'm slightly concerned at the return of "Covenant Light" loans (aka "Liar Loans") in some particularly "hot" sub-sectors of the property market e.g. industrial units inside the M25. But I will likely be retired before these chickens come home to roost.
0 -
Absolutely agree tweaking solvency II is likely to be helpful, but I don't really think the capital regs are that bad; they just look worse in a low interest rate environment....wallace_and_gromit said:
I'm sceptical in the extreme as to the "benefits of Brexit" collectively but there is definitely mileage in tweaking the Solvency II regulations. One of our clients is a major life and pension fund provider and is notoriously conservative even by the standards of such providers. Yet even it finds Solvency II restrictive in terms of the volume of infrastructure projects it can fund vs the volume it would be happy to fund.rick_chasey said:Binning off solvency II is not the panacea Andy Briggs thinks it is (who I’ve met I should add)
That's not to say that a few tweaks to the regs will unleash a herd of unicorns to frolick gaily on the sunlit uplands of a post-Brexit Utopia, but they could free up a significant volume of investment in socially useful projects.
Tangentially:
I know insurers are all hot under the collar for private markets, 5 years after the boom kicked off, and a decade of rock bottom interest rates, but things are so hot in private markets, I'm running a sweepstake in the office with 5 other guys on when there is a private markets "correction", with the payout on when the FT reports a market wide correction (10%+ fall).
Our alternatives team was 2 people 4 years ago and is now bigger than our public markets team. Frothy doesn't come close.
Mr Briggs has a particular incentive as his entire business is buying up back-books and running them more effectively, which in large part is down to better returns on investment; so looser rules on investment suits; until he blows up a back-book and the gov't is left holding the can for the annuity holders.0 -
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I wouldn't say our insurer/pension client was hot for anything. They're too conservative for that! Just frustrated by regulations that are overly zealous in places.rick_chasey said:
Absolutely agree tweaking solvency II is likely to be helpful, but I don't really think the capital regs are that bad; they just look worse in a low interest rate environment....wallace_and_gromit said:
I'm sceptical in the extreme as to the "benefits of Brexit" collectively but there is definitely mileage in tweaking the Solvency II regulations. One of our clients is a major life and pension fund provider and is notoriously conservative even by the standards of such providers. Yet even it finds Solvency II restrictive in terms of the volume of infrastructure projects it can fund vs the volume it would be happy to fund.rick_chasey said:Binning off solvency II is not the panacea Andy Briggs thinks it is (who I’ve met I should add)
That's not to say that a few tweaks to the regs will unleash a herd of unicorns to frolick gaily on the sunlit uplands of a post-Brexit Utopia, but they could free up a significant volume of investment in socially useful projects.
Tangentially:
I know insurers are all hot under the collar for private markets...
0 -
People got a bit overconfident is the short answer. Boom and bust was a thing of the past.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
No thanks. If you don't know then what's your point?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good loaded question. You tell us why it happened.briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
No idea. Which is why I asked. You could try answering the question.
When I don't know about something, I ask questions. It's a good way to find out about stuff. You could have tried educating me. Maybe someone else will.0 -
In a non-lower-bound interest rate environment would they be so frustrated?wallace_and_gromit said:
I wouldn't say our insurer/pension client was hot for anything. They're too conservative for that! Just frustrated by regulations that are overly zealous in places.rick_chasey said:
Absolutely agree tweaking solvency II is likely to be helpful, but I don't really think the capital regs are that bad; they just look worse in a low interest rate environment....wallace_and_gromit said:
I'm sceptical in the extreme as to the "benefits of Brexit" collectively but there is definitely mileage in tweaking the Solvency II regulations. One of our clients is a major life and pension fund provider and is notoriously conservative even by the standards of such providers. Yet even it finds Solvency II restrictive in terms of the volume of infrastructure projects it can fund vs the volume it would be happy to fund.rick_chasey said:Binning off solvency II is not the panacea Andy Briggs thinks it is (who I’ve met I should add)
That's not to say that a few tweaks to the regs will unleash a herd of unicorns to frolick gaily on the sunlit uplands of a post-Brexit Utopia, but they could free up a significant volume of investment in socially useful projects.
Tangentially:
I know insurers are all hot under the collar for private markets...0 -
Yes, because their complaint is that the regs incentivise investment in relatively low return fixed interest investments because they penalise relatively modest risks unduly rather than being about the absolute returns.rick_chasey said:
In a non-lower-bound interest rate environment would they be so frustrated?wallace_and_gromit said:
I wouldn't say our insurer/pension client was hot for anything. They're too conservative for that! Just frustrated by regulations that are overly zealous in places.rick_chasey said:
Absolutely agree tweaking solvency II is likely to be helpful, but I don't really think the capital regs are that bad; they just look worse in a low interest rate environment....wallace_and_gromit said:
I'm sceptical in the extreme as to the "benefits of Brexit" collectively but there is definitely mileage in tweaking the Solvency II regulations. One of our clients is a major life and pension fund provider and is notoriously conservative even by the standards of such providers. Yet even it finds Solvency II restrictive in terms of the volume of infrastructure projects it can fund vs the volume it would be happy to fund.rick_chasey said:Binning off solvency II is not the panacea Andy Briggs thinks it is (who I’ve met I should add)
That's not to say that a few tweaks to the regs will unleash a herd of unicorns to frolick gaily on the sunlit uplands of a post-Brexit Utopia, but they could free up a significant volume of investment in socially useful projects.
Tangentially:
I know insurers are all hot under the collar for private markets...0 -
TheBigBean said:
People got a bit overconfident is the short answer. Boom and bust was a thing of the past.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
No thanks. If you don't know then what's your point?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good loaded question. You tell us why it happened.briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
No idea. Which is why I asked. You could try answering the question.
When I don't know about something, I ask questions. It's a good way to find out about stuff. You could have tried educating me. Maybe someone else will.
Thanks. Haha, yes. History obviously never repeats itself.0 -
He should have added that people got greedy, both at an individual level, a corporate level and in government.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
People got a bit overconfident is the short answer. Boom and bust was a thing of the past.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
No thanks. If you don't know then what's your point?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good loaded question. You tell us why it happened.briantrumpet said:Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?
No idea. Which is why I asked. You could try answering the question.
When I don't know about something, I ask questions. It's a good way to find out about stuff. You could have tried educating me. Maybe someone else will.
Thanks. Haha, yes. History obviously never repeats itself.0 -
We could trade on WTO terms without Brexit.Stevo_666 said:
Not too interested in arguing over a few percent one way or the other, the principle is the same.morstar said:
I agree completely with the idea that we have to deal with it and make the best of it. I never suggested we have any other option.Stevo_666 said:
So what's your alternative strategy then? Be realistic.morstar said:The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.
US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%
So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.
Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.
Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%
So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.
Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
As I said above, the EU deal is done, so not in scope of what we should do from now on.
Also can you explain why we would sign up to a terrible trade deal with a larger country that leaves us worse off than no deal at all - which is what you seem to be implying will happen?
However, using inaccurate and blunt statistics suggesting we are awash with opportunities is misleading. Given that it is done, it is no different people moaning about it than it is people supporting it. We're all wasting our breath.
The point in the statistics is this, if you espouse the idea we have great trading opportunities available with 82% of the global economy, you are including China and the US in that. It is up to those in power to achieve those benefits. If the best we've got is not signing up to a bad deal, then those are no longer an opportunity and the 82% is not available. Therefore you can't claim this as an opportunity. I believe this is the case and the evidence would support that assertion.
Note that it's closer to 81% but I've been generous with rounding.
Explain how trade could make things worse than no trade deal. In any event it is about mutual benefits and clearly you dont sign up until you feel that you have got enough, so clearly nobody will sign a trade deal that inhibits trade compared to the no trade deal situation.
You can postulate about probabilities but a US deal is not that unlikely given a bit of time. There are also moves to join the Trans Pacific Partnership which would effectively be a trade deal with a fairly significant chunk of the global economy.
Unless we get a trade deal, Brexit hasn’t provided any new opportunity that weren’t already there.
We were never denied access to the 82% as a member of the Eu.
Don’t mention me in a totally unrelated post and try to somehow make a connection to me and being unrealistic.Stevo_666 said:
As I said above to Morstar, be realistic.rick_chasey said:
Yeah, like renegotiating a more inclusive deal?Stevo_666 said:
Read what I said above about that. We're talking about what we can do in the future, not what's already done in the past.rick_chasey said:I’d take this argument more seriously if you were more critical of the existing Uk EU trade agreement, which does not cover vast swathes of the UK Economy
I mean, the government is literally trying to renegotiate parts of it already, right?
Or are you also of the view they shouldn't do that?
Trade deals are not cast in stone.
How many scenarios do you see where renegotiating the EU deal in a way that pleases you would not result in some concession such as free movement, accepting the supremacy of EU law or giving the EU the ability to regulate and interfere in UK affairs? Which, let's face it, is not going to fly in the UK. Better to focus on trade deals that do not have such onerous consequences.
I pointed out the fallacy of your oft repeated 85% claim (which is both incorrect and unrealistic).
0 -
Forget about NFTs and blockchains. Invest in potato futures. Another famine is guaranteed.0
-
The need for reform is mainly driven by the fact that these rules were transposed directly into UK law when we were part of the EU and as such are not fully suited to the UK situation. This is certainly the view of the governor of the BoE and the regulator, whose views I give a little more weight to than a bunch of cyclists on an internet forum.surrey_commuter said:Stevo_666 said:Anyhow, let's get pruning the EU red tape...
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/21/city-chiefs-pledge-80bn-brexit-big-bang-red-tape-cut2/
"City chiefs to unleash £80bn Brexit 'Big Bang' as ministers scrap EU red tape
Relaxing of EU rules will spur investment in UK economy, say insurers
Tens of billions of pounds in investment is to be unleashed by City insurers after ministers pledged to axe controversial EU-era red tape in a major post-Brexit shakeup.
Two years after the UK officially left the EU, John Glen, the City minister, said the Government will ditch swathes of the controversial Solvency 2 rulebook governing insurers.
It came as Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General, and Andy Briggs, chief executive of Phoenix Group, said they could collectively plough around £80bn into the UK economy in the wake of rules being relaxed in an investment “Big Bang”.
Unveiling the shake-up at the Association of British Insurers’ annual dinner, Mr Glen said: “EU regulation doesn’t work for us anymore and the Government is determined to fix that by tailoring the prudential regulation of insurers to our unique circumstances.
“We have a genuine opportunity to maintain and grow an innovative and vibrant insurance sector while protecting policyholders and making it easier for insurance firms to use long-term capital to unlock growth.”
The rules were adopted by ministers once the UK left the bloc, but Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, had placed the rulebook under review to determine whether it could be relaxed to boost British insurers and increase investment in areas such as infrastructure.
A consultation will be launched in April, with the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority to look into the finer details later in the year.
The changes are expected to reduce the reporting and administration burden on businesses, increase their flexibility to invest in long-term assets including infrastructure, and free up funds by reducing the risk margin insurers face.
At the same time the “matching adjustment” mechanism covering long-term investments, which the industry says pushes it away from projects such as wind farms and into low-yielding sovereign and corporate bonds, will also be tweaked with “more sensitive treatment of credit risk”.
The Government’s move comes amid growing concern in the City and in Whitehall that the UK has been moving too slowly as Brussels has already published proposed reforms to the Solvency 2 regime.
Sir Nigel said: “The EU is reforming the Solvency 2 rules itself, so we need to make the changes or fall behind.
“The UK has the opportunity to bring regulations up to date, making it possible to invest in asset classes that didn’t exist when they were originally written.”
He added that L&G could invest more than £30bn in “levelling up” projects such as renewable energy and social and affordable housing in the coming years if the rulebook is revised.
Insurance has been touted for years as an industry that could benefit from relaxing the EU rules introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.
Mr Briggs said: “Sensible Solvency 2 reforms represent a unique and very significant opportunity to ensure more private-sector capital can be directed by insurers and asset managers into long-term infrastructure assets in the UK."
Does nobody read these articles?Stevo_666 said:Anyhow, let's get pruning the EU red tape...
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/21/city-chiefs-pledge-80bn-brexit-big-bang-red-tape-cut2/
"City chiefs to unleash £80bn Brexit 'Big Bang' as ministers scrap EU red tape
Relaxing of EU rules will spur investment in UK economy, say insurers
Tens of billions of pounds in investment is to be unleashed by City insurers after ministers pledged to axe controversial EU-era red tape in a major post-Brexit shakeup.
Two years after the UK officially left the EU, John Glen, the City minister, said the Government will ditch swathes of the controversial Solvency 2 rulebook governing insurers.
It came as Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General, and Andy Briggs, chief executive of Phoenix Group, said they could collectively plough around £80bn into the UK economy in the wake of rules being relaxed in an investment “Big Bang”.
Unveiling the shake-up at the Association of British Insurers’ annual dinner, Mr Glen said: “EU regulation doesn’t work for us anymore and the Government is determined to fix that by tailoring the prudential regulation of insurers to our unique circumstances.
“We have a genuine opportunity to maintain and grow an innovative and vibrant insurance sector while protecting policyholders and making it easier for insurance firms to use long-term capital to unlock growth.”
The rules were adopted by ministers once the UK left the bloc, but Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, had placed the rulebook under review to determine whether it could be relaxed to boost British insurers and increase investment in areas such as infrastructure.
A consultation will be launched in April, with the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority to look into the finer details later in the year.
The changes are expected to reduce the reporting and administration burden on businesses, increase their flexibility to invest in long-term assets including infrastructure, and free up funds by reducing the risk margin insurers face.
At the same time the “matching adjustment” mechanism covering long-term investments, which the industry says pushes it away from projects such as wind farms and into low-yielding sovereign and corporate bonds, will also be tweaked with “more sensitive treatment of credit risk”.
The Government’s move comes amid growing concern in the City and in Whitehall that the UK has been moving too slowly as Brussels has already published proposed reforms to the Solvency 2 regime.
Sir Nigel said: “The EU is reforming the Solvency 2 rules itself, so we need to make the changes or fall behind.
“The UK has the opportunity to bring regulations up to date, making it possible to invest in asset classes that didn’t exist when they were originally written.”
He added that L&G could invest more than £30bn in “levelling up” projects such as renewable energy and social and affordable housing in the coming years if the rulebook is revised.
Insurance has been touted for years as an industry that could benefit from relaxing the EU rules introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.
Mr Briggs said: “Sensible Solvency 2 reforms represent a unique and very significant opportunity to ensure more private-sector capital can be directed by insurers and asset managers into long-term infrastructure assets in the UK."
After 5 years of inaction it seems they are only doing it because they are being left behind by EU reforms.
How can the general uselessness of the the GB Govt not be a factor when assessing the likelihood of Brexit benefits
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
if you Google Andrew Bailey you may rethink that last opinionStevo_666 said:
The need for reform is mainly driven by the fact that these rules were transposed directly into UK law when we were part of the EU and as such are not fully suited to the UK situation. This is certainly the view of the governor of the BoE and the regulator, whose views I give a little more weight to than a bunch of cyclists on an internet forum.surrey_commuter said:Stevo_666 said:Anyhow, let's get pruning the EU red tape...
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/21/city-chiefs-pledge-80bn-brexit-big-bang-red-tape-cut2/
"City chiefs to unleash £80bn Brexit 'Big Bang' as ministers scrap EU red tape
Relaxing of EU rules will spur investment in UK economy, say insurers
Tens of billions of pounds in investment is to be unleashed by City insurers after ministers pledged to axe controversial EU-era red tape in a major post-Brexit shakeup.
Two years after the UK officially left the EU, John Glen, the City minister, said the Government will ditch swathes of the controversial Solvency 2 rulebook governing insurers.
It came as Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General, and Andy Briggs, chief executive of Phoenix Group, said they could collectively plough around £80bn into the UK economy in the wake of rules being relaxed in an investment “Big Bang”.
Unveiling the shake-up at the Association of British Insurers’ annual dinner, Mr Glen said: “EU regulation doesn’t work for us anymore and the Government is determined to fix that by tailoring the prudential regulation of insurers to our unique circumstances.
“We have a genuine opportunity to maintain and grow an innovative and vibrant insurance sector while protecting policyholders and making it easier for insurance firms to use long-term capital to unlock growth.”
The rules were adopted by ministers once the UK left the bloc, but Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, had placed the rulebook under review to determine whether it could be relaxed to boost British insurers and increase investment in areas such as infrastructure.
A consultation will be launched in April, with the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority to look into the finer details later in the year.
The changes are expected to reduce the reporting and administration burden on businesses, increase their flexibility to invest in long-term assets including infrastructure, and free up funds by reducing the risk margin insurers face.
At the same time the “matching adjustment” mechanism covering long-term investments, which the industry says pushes it away from projects such as wind farms and into low-yielding sovereign and corporate bonds, will also be tweaked with “more sensitive treatment of credit risk”.
The Government’s move comes amid growing concern in the City and in Whitehall that the UK has been moving too slowly as Brussels has already published proposed reforms to the Solvency 2 regime.
Sir Nigel said: “The EU is reforming the Solvency 2 rules itself, so we need to make the changes or fall behind.
“The UK has the opportunity to bring regulations up to date, making it possible to invest in asset classes that didn’t exist when they were originally written.”
He added that L&G could invest more than £30bn in “levelling up” projects such as renewable energy and social and affordable housing in the coming years if the rulebook is revised.
Insurance has been touted for years as an industry that could benefit from relaxing the EU rules introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.
Mr Briggs said: “Sensible Solvency 2 reforms represent a unique and very significant opportunity to ensure more private-sector capital can be directed by insurers and asset managers into long-term infrastructure assets in the UK."
Does nobody read these articles?Stevo_666 said:Anyhow, let's get pruning the EU red tape...
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/21/city-chiefs-pledge-80bn-brexit-big-bang-red-tape-cut2/
"City chiefs to unleash £80bn Brexit 'Big Bang' as ministers scrap EU red tape
Relaxing of EU rules will spur investment in UK economy, say insurers
Tens of billions of pounds in investment is to be unleashed by City insurers after ministers pledged to axe controversial EU-era red tape in a major post-Brexit shakeup.
Two years after the UK officially left the EU, John Glen, the City minister, said the Government will ditch swathes of the controversial Solvency 2 rulebook governing insurers.
It came as Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General, and Andy Briggs, chief executive of Phoenix Group, said they could collectively plough around £80bn into the UK economy in the wake of rules being relaxed in an investment “Big Bang”.
Unveiling the shake-up at the Association of British Insurers’ annual dinner, Mr Glen said: “EU regulation doesn’t work for us anymore and the Government is determined to fix that by tailoring the prudential regulation of insurers to our unique circumstances.
“We have a genuine opportunity to maintain and grow an innovative and vibrant insurance sector while protecting policyholders and making it easier for insurance firms to use long-term capital to unlock growth.”
The rules were adopted by ministers once the UK left the bloc, but Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, had placed the rulebook under review to determine whether it could be relaxed to boost British insurers and increase investment in areas such as infrastructure.
A consultation will be launched in April, with the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority to look into the finer details later in the year.
The changes are expected to reduce the reporting and administration burden on businesses, increase their flexibility to invest in long-term assets including infrastructure, and free up funds by reducing the risk margin insurers face.
At the same time the “matching adjustment” mechanism covering long-term investments, which the industry says pushes it away from projects such as wind farms and into low-yielding sovereign and corporate bonds, will also be tweaked with “more sensitive treatment of credit risk”.
The Government’s move comes amid growing concern in the City and in Whitehall that the UK has been moving too slowly as Brussels has already published proposed reforms to the Solvency 2 regime.
Sir Nigel said: “The EU is reforming the Solvency 2 rules itself, so we need to make the changes or fall behind.
“The UK has the opportunity to bring regulations up to date, making it possible to invest in asset classes that didn’t exist when they were originally written.”
He added that L&G could invest more than £30bn in “levelling up” projects such as renewable energy and social and affordable housing in the coming years if the rulebook is revised.
Insurance has been touted for years as an industry that could benefit from relaxing the EU rules introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.
Mr Briggs said: “Sensible Solvency 2 reforms represent a unique and very significant opportunity to ensure more private-sector capital can be directed by insurers and asset managers into long-term infrastructure assets in the UK."
After 5 years of inaction it seems they are only doing it because they are being left behind by EU reforms.
How can the general uselessness of the the GB Govt not be a factor when assessing the likelihood of Brexit benefits1
