Solvency Ⅱ与C-ROSS非寿险保险风险最低资本要求比较研究——基于中国60家财产保险公司的经验证据

Minimum Capital Requirements of Non-Life Insurance Risk under Solvency Ⅱ and C-ROSS:Based on Empirical Evidences from 60 P&C Insurance Companies in China

本文以非寿险业务保险风险最低资本要求为考察对象,研究了欧盟Solvency Ⅱ与中国C-ROSS的差异,并利用中国保险市场60家财险公司的经验数据,对两者之间的差异进行了实证和模拟分析。研究结果表明,Solvency Ⅱ和C-ROSS对中国财险公司保险风险最低资本要求存在差异。对于拥有传统业务结构的财险公司,Solvency Ⅱ对保险风险最低资本要求更高,但是这种差距随着公司业务规模的缩小而减弱;对于以经营某些专业险种为主的财险公司,主营业务险种对两者差异具有决定性影响。本文的研究结论详细解释了Solvency Ⅱ与C-ROSS在非寿险保险风险最低资本计算上的异同,对C-ROSS下一步的修订工作提供了一定的支持与参考。

This article analyzed the differences between the European Union’s SolvencyⅡand China’s Risk-Oriented Solvency System(C-ROSS)in regard to the minimum capital requirements of non-life insurance risks.It conducted empirical and simulation analyses based on data from China’s 60 property and casualty(P&C)insurance companies.The results show that SolvencyⅡand C-ROSS had different minimum capital requirements for China’s non-life insurance risk.For P&C insurance companies with a traditional business structure,SolvencyⅡhas a higher minimum capital requirement,but the gap decreases with the reduction in the scale of business;for insurers primarily operating certain specialized types of insurance,its major business type has a decisive influence.The results of this study can help explain in detail the similarities and differences between SolvencyⅡand C-ROSS in calculating the minimum capital requirements of non-life insurance risks,and may provide some references for the modification of C-ROSS at the next stage.