The difference between the well-known need for watershed action, with generally accepted conclusions, specific to European authorities and the cry for efficiency and clarity of the business environment was more visible than ever.
One of the opinions that have emerged most strongly could be summarized as follows: in an attempt to build a comprehensive regulation, Solvency II is about to become a "mammoth" directive that has already abandoned the principles of simplicity and, worse than that, begins to lose sight of the original objective - protecting the interests of insurance consumers. It is not only insurance and private pension providers' opinion, but also that of the entities representing consumer interests. Simply put, to protect the interests of consumers means to provide access to affordable financial products, properly structured and transparently managed, with a reasonable degree of financial security. The word "reasonable" is, in this context, of a well defined relevance, given the escalating costs induced by the additional safety measures. There is a common perception that products offered in these conditions could be "perfect", but out of reach to the general public, leading to quitting protection and / or savings, which is not in the interests of the broad masses of consumers.
Another topic repeatedly mentioned was that of the slowness of the European regulatory process. Present authorities - EIOPA, the European Commission, IAIS etc. - recognize that the analysis, debate and adoption procedures of the European regulations are long lasting. On the other hand, industries subjected to these regulations are not standing still waiting for the new legal framework's shaping, the financial environment is continuously evolving, so that new legislation could be easily outdated just before launch. Finding a functional compromise between these two conflicting tendencies became an issue by itself and not a collateral one.
Finally, long-term investments and long-term guarantees are also controversial issues. The main source of dissatisfaction relates to the mark-to-market benchmarking system which largely contradicts with the "long term" approach specific to the pension funds and life insurers' investments. In this context, forcing such investors to comply a short-term oriented benchmark may be contrary to the essential interests of their clients.
To conclude this brief review ... while the authorities are frequently referring to financial stability and safety systems, the industry is mostly talking about protecting the consumers and shareholders interests. Where are these lines of speech meeting?
Certainly, in the market. It remains to be seen what kind of effects will result for those who are, at least theoretically, the final beneficiaries - the consumers.