The valuation of insurance liabilities has traditionally been dealt with by actuaries, who closely monitored underlying illiquid features, assumed a long-term perspective, and exercised their own subjective, expert judgment. However, the new EU regulatory regime of Solvency II (S2) has come to require market-consistent valuation supplemented by a risk-sensitive capital. This is considered an unwanted shift towards short-termism that is misaligned with the industry's long term and countercyclical character. The new principles place the ‘technicalising’ logic of financial economics over ‘contextualising’ actuarial know-how. Following existing analytics of valuation from the ethnography of reinsurance markets and the social studies of finance, such requirements appear either as an alarming attack against the actuarial component of traditional valuation practice, or else as a preserver of it, through a process of enfolding at the heart of the financialisation project. This article holds that the case of S2 challenges both these analytics of valuation. S2’s financialisation project, precisely by attempting to construct itself, deconstructs itself into an actuarial project, in a recurring, aporetic process. In this respect, fair (or otherwise) valuation remains always undecidable, inconclusive, and thus responsible.

Despite the vast literature on Rawls's work, few have discussed his arguments for the value of democracy. When his arguments have been discussed, they have received staunch criticism. Some critics have charged that Rawls's arguments are not deeply democratic. Others have gone further, claiming that Rawls's arguments denigrate democracy. These criticisms are unsurprising, since Rawls's arguments, as arguments that the principle of equal basic liberty needs to include democratic liberties, are incomplete. In contrast to his trenchant remarks about core civil liberties, Rawls does not say much about the inclusion of political liberties of a democratic sort – such as the right to vote – among the basic liberties.

In this paper, I complete some of Rawls's arguments and show that he has grounds for including political liberties, particularly those of a democratic nature, in the principle of equal basic liberty. In doing so, I make some beginning steps toward illustrating the genuinely democratic nature of Rawls's arguments. Rawls believes that a few different arguments can be given for democratic institutions and that these arguments work together to support the value of democracy. In this paper, I focus on Rawls's arguments relating to self-respect. I focus on this set of arguments because they are among the strongest of Rawls's arguments for equal political liberty and its fair value.

When a private pension plan sponsor with an underfunded plan becomes insolvent, the difference between the value of the plan's assets and its termination liabilities represents a liability for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Hence, accurately modeling the joint statistical distribution over time of defined benefit pension underfunding and sponsor terminations is critical for estimating PBGC's prospective cash flows and evaluating its financial position. It appears that the current Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS) approach to modeling risk does a reasonable job of capturing its statistical properties effects on PBGC cash flows, although some of the aspects might be improved, and metrics expanded. The present paper outlines, how an option-based approach to modeling the joint distribution of defaults and underfunding in PIMS might be implemented, while preserving the strengths of the current model. Moving to an option-based approach would allow PIMS to be used to estimate the fair values of future liabilities. Such an approach could have a significant effect on the perceived financial position of PBGC.

Insurance accounting has for many years proved a challenging topic for standard setters, preparers and users, often described as a “black box”. Will recent developments, in particular the July 2010 Insurance Contracts Exposure Draft, herald a new era?

This paper reviews these developments, setting out key issues and implications. It concentrates on issues relevant to life insurers, although much of the content is also relevant to non-life insurers.

The paper compares certain IFRS and Solvency II developments, recognising that UK insurers face challenges in implementing new financial and regulatory reporting requirements in similar timeframes. The paper considers resulting external disclosure requirements and a possible future role for supplementary information.

The recent financial crisis has raised challenges to market-consistent valuation, both in its implementation and application. These include both commercial and technical challenges. The whole concept of mark-to-market accounting has been questioned in some quarters.

There have been commercial challenges in deciding how to assess business strategies given recent volatile market-consistent results, including the implications for ALM and new business pricing. Industry-wide, macroeconomic concerns have been raised regarding procyclicality.

This paper recognises these commercial challenges and highlights how a combination of different forms of management information covering both market-consistent and other measures can help in making decisions. This paper sets out some possible approaches to mitigate procyclicality.

There have been technical challenges in:

• – assessing how to value instruments in markets which are or have become illiquid

• – selecting an appropriate ‘risk-free’ or reference rate

• – deciding whether and how to make additional allowance for the liquidity premium or own credit risk

• – the calibration of stochastic models used to value embedded financial options and guarantees

• – assessing an appropriate allowance for non-hedgeable risk.

This paper discusses these technical challenges. The paper proposes a way forward in some areas, taking into account the recent dislocation of the financial markets and drawing on recent Solvency II, IASB, FASB and MCEV developments.

A project to develop an Accounting Standard for Insurance, with the aim of enhancing understandability, relevance, reliability and comparability of general purpose financial reporting for insurance worldwide, is being progressed by the International Accounting Standards Board. The basis of the proposals is that assets and liabilities be shown at fair values (market values for quoted instruments). This paper, prepared by a Working Party established by the Life Board of the United Kingdom actuarial profession, summarises and comments upon a number of the principal features of the proposals, as they have emerged up to September 2001. The paper goes on to consider how a system of reporting for prudential regulatory purposes might be built upon a fair value general reporting base, summarising the thinking of a number of other bodies, proposing certain principles and suggesting lines of development. The appendices to the paper discuss a number of issues in further depth and present some illustrative results of some investigations into applying fair value methods in practice. The emphasis of the paper is on reporting for life assurance business, although many of the principles apply equally to general insurance.

The International Accounting Standards Board is undertaking a project to develop an Accounting Standard for Insurance. The basis for these proposals is that assets and liabilities should be shown at fair values (market values for quoted instruments). This is an updated version of a paper, prepared by a Working Party established by the General Insurance Research Organisation (GIRO) of the General Insurance Board of the actuarial profession of the United Kingdom, which was first presented to the GIRO Conference in October 2002. This paper summarises and comments upon the principal features of the proposals as they have emerged up to February 2003. The paper considers the implications for general insurance companies of these proposals. In particular, it examines the concept of market value margins, and the practical issues that insurance companies are likely to encounter in implementing them. The emphasis of the paper is on reporting for general insurance business, although many of the principles apply equally to life assurance.

In this paper we present many investigations into the results of simulating the process of hedging a vanilla option at discrete times. We consider mainly a ‘maxi’ option (paying Max(A, B)), though calls, puts and ‘minis’ are also considered. We show the sensitivity of the variability of the hedging error to the actual investment strategy adopted, and to the many ways in which the simulated real world can diverge from the assumed option pricing model. We show how prudential reserves can be calculated, using conditional tail expectations, and how net premiums or fair values (which we present as the same) can be calculated, allowing for the necessary prudential reserves. We use two bond models, the very simple Black-Scholes one and a less unrealistic one. We also use the Wilkie model as an even more realistic real-world model, allowing for many complications in it to make it more realistic. We make observations on the important difference between real-world models and option pricing models, and emphasise the latter as the way of getting hedging quantities, and not just option prices.

The paper introduces a setting in which each business in an economy faces considerable uncertainty about the cost of providing its service and therefore needs risk capital to give consumers confidence in its solvency. The paper then explores the operation of the capital market under conditions where businesses charge for this service dependability by setting an entity specific profit margin.

This entity specific profit margin is associated with an optimal, arbitrage-free investment portfolio for investors and, as they optimise their portfolios, generates a market equilibrium. Under these conditions it is shown that the entity specific risk premium for investors is the same as the premium for non-diversifiable risk relative to the market portfolio. This reconciles an entity specific approach with the capital asset pricing model, and in this setting would allow the use of the former without having to explicitly take the latter into consideration.

A consequence of this is that entity specific pricing and valuation are fair in such an setting and, for example, the fair value accounting of insurance liabilities can be performed on an entity specific basis.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is introducing new International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) which aim to make financial statements more useful. The process has generated considerable debate. This paper is a contribution to the debate, in the particular context of insurance accounting, and attempts to provide a coherent framework for accounting theory which makes a clear distinction between retrospective statements required for administrative accountability, fair value for current market transactions and to measure value creation, and a prospective prudence required to protect policyholders, depositors and other creditors. It is argued that the IASB's founding purpose to provide a single set of accounts is therefore incoherent; different purposes require different numbers. This also implies that fair value accounts should attempt to value intangible assets. In this context, actuarial analyses of surplus would greatly assist in measuring whether model assumptions are appropriate.

This article examines the role of bid prices for determining the fair value of securities in a subsequent squeeze-out appraisal. The recent Takeover Directive includes a legal presumption of a fair bid price under certain prescribed conditions. The author seeks to identify circumstances that may be regarded as a sufficient reason to reverse the fairness presumption and deviate from the consideration offered in a bid when determining the squeeze-out price. Theoretical underpinnings of the preconditions are also presented. Particular interest is paid to the question what significance may be given, when determining the fair squeeze-out price, to the consideration offered in such a voluntary bid that fails to gain acceptance by a qualified majority (90 per cent) of securities targeted.

Fair valuation is becoming a major concern for actuaries, especially in the perspective of IAS norms. One of the key aspects in this context is the simultaneous analysis of assets and liabilities in any sound actuarial valuation. The aim of this paper is to illustrate these concepts, by comparing three common ways of giving bonus in life insurance with profit: reversionary, cash or terminal. For each participation scheme, we compute the fair value of the contract taking into account liability parameters (guaranteed interest rate and participation level) as well as asset parameters (market conditions and investment strategy). We find some equilibrium conditions between all those coefficients and compare, from an analytical and numerical point of view, the systems of bonus. Developments are made first in the classical binomial model and then extended in a Black and Scholes economy.