|
|
Bowles said: "We could go ahead with Pillars II and III but the political point is in Pillar I. The political point is some insurance companies would quite like to have either lower prudential standards or more work coming their way, and they just campaign to get it."
Bowles hit back at suggestions from European Commissioners that products issued by different kinds of institutions, such as insurance firms and pension funds, should be treated the same.
She said in the area of competition with life insurance, the type of product and institution had to be compared and there was more work to be done before a stand-alone insurance subsidiary could be compared to a pension fund.
The European Commission has laid out its intention to create a "level-playing field" between insurers and pension funds, which would create a new Directive "inspired" by Pillar I of Solvency II.
Bowles continued: "We don't allow all kinds of people to suddenly pop up and offer bank accounts to people. They have to be authorised by institutions and to some extent you can't isolate financial products from how they're provided.
"I'm not sure I want my pension mixed in with fire insurance and car insurance without having any choice. All these types of insurance require different types of liquidity to meet the claims that might be brought. The structure - if you're a mixed insurance company - is dealt with by Solvency II.
"If you go to having a subsidiary which looks more like a pension fund you've still got to work out how that works into the group solvency provision. If you can create and isolate it, by then you've probably not got an insurance company, you've got a pension fund and you should be running under IORPs."