Biztosítók kockázatdiverzifikációja (Risk diversification of insurers)

A biztosítók működését általában több homogén részállományból összetevődő heterogén biztosítási állomány jellemzi. A részállományok alkotta biztosítási portfólió esetében a kockázatdiverzifikáció vizsgálható a teljes állományra, illetve a részállományokra összesített kockázatok különbségeként, és elemezhető a kockázat és hozam kapcsolata alapján is. A biztosítók működésének főbb sajátosságait tartalmazó modellben azt mutatjuk meg, hogy a biztosítási portfólió esetében tapasztalható kockázatdiverzifikációs hatások milyen mértékben hasonlítanak a klasszikusnak számító, befektetésekkel foglalkozó Markowitz-féle portfólióelmélet által leírtakra. Modellünk alapján megállapítható: számos hasonlóságon túl a biztosító működési sajátosságai következtében a hatékony biztosítási portfóliók, illetve az optimális befektetési arányok meghatározása egyedi tulajdonságokkal jellemezhető. / === / Insurance is generally characterized by a heterogeneous insurance population made up of several (homogeneous) sub-populations. Risk diversification in the "insurance portfolio" containing these sub-populations can appear as a difference between the risk of the total population and the sum of the risks of the separate sub-populations, and it can also be analysed based on the relation of risk and return. Examining these aspects of risk diversification with a model covering the main features of insurance activity, the study analyses how far the risk diversification effects of the insurance portfolio resemble the results of classical Markowitz portfolio theory. Based on the results from the study's theoretical model, it appears that alongside several similarities, there are some individual features in the determination of "efficient insurance portfolios" and optimal investment weights.

A Tale of Three Countries: Recovery after Banking Crises

Highlights: • Iceland, Ireland and Latvia experienced similar developments before the crisis, such as sharp increases in banks’ balance sheets and the expansion of the construction sector. However the impact of the crisis was different: Latvia was hit harder than any other country in the world. Ireland also suffered heavily, while Iceland came out from the crisis with the smallest fall in employment, despite the greatest shock to the financial system. • There were marked differences in policy mix: currency collapse in Iceland but not in Latvia, letting banks fail in Iceland but not in Ireland, and the introduction of strict capital controls only in Iceland. The speed of fiscal consolidation was fastest in Latvia and slowest in Ireland. • Economic recovery has started in all three countries and there are several encouraging signals. The programme targets in terms of fiscal adjustment, structural reforms and financial reform are on track in all three countries. • Iceland seems to have the right policy mix. • Internal devaluation in Ireland and Latvia through wage cuts did not work, because privatesector wages hardly changed. The productivity increase was significant in Ireland and moderate in Latvia, yet was the result of a greater fall in employment than the fall in output, with harmful social consequences. • The experience with the collapse of the gigantic Icelandic banking system suggests that letting banks fail when they had a faulty business model is the right choice. • There is a strong case for a European banking federation.