Le sfide dell'UE e il ruolo delle assicurazioni: intervento Laterza

Good afternoon everyone, and I also join in the thanks of Director Corazza and President Farina for the presence at the highest levels of all institutions and of all of you. It is a tangible sign of interest from institutions towards the insurance sector, as well as the great interest of the insurance sector towards institutions, and above all a testimony to the importance we attach to this June appointment. The reasons for this interest have been lucidly and brilliantly set forth by President Farina. I fully share all the considerations made. It is difficult for me to make an additional contribution, but I will try to do so by drawing inspiration from some of what I believe are the distinctive features of the Unipol Group, at least as it distinguishes itself in the insurance business in Italy.

Starting from a consideration on data, and in particular on telematics data. Towards the end of last year, we promoted an initiative at the European Parliament and European institutions generally, a very interesting and suggestive initiative that could serve as a complementary element to the ecological transition process, which envisages the complete renewal of the European citizens' car fleet towards cars with lower CO2 emissions and, eventually, a transition to electric. This transition, however, is expensive; not everyone can afford it. According to the data we have, in Italy only about 30% of citizens can economically afford a process of renewing their car towards new generation or electric vehicles. In this sense, the use of low-cost technologies such as telematics applied to cars can certainly facilitate and accelerate this process, based on a very simple principle: a virtuous driver with a Euro 4 car is much better than a less virtuous driver with a Euro 7 or electric car. The technology available to the Unipol Group, which is telematics applied to cars, allows us to monitor this type of phenomenon. Consequently, we can achieve the goal of allowing everyone, even those who cannot afford it economically, to circulate in urban areas without having a new generation car, using technology that is available today and not particularly expensive. Obviously, regulation must in some way protect those who have already invested for several years in this type of technology. Therefore, it is absolutely understandable to have regulations that allow citizens to transfer their data to anyone, but on the other hand, these regulations must protect the investments made in existing technologies. In essence, insurance is different from banking. We cannot take the regulation related to payments, the so-called PSD2, and apply it sic et simpliciter to the insurance sector, because insurance companies make the use of data a strategic connotation element; it is how we price risks. Therefore, the transferability of data to our competitors raises an issue that must be considered. This is the first consideration I feel I should make here, also in view of how future regulatory developments will be managed.

The second consideration concerns Solvency II. It is very true what President Farina and Giancarlo Fancel said: the revision of the Solvency II regulation is an important step forward towards a more advanced and concrete way of pricing risks. However, from my point of view, we have not reached the final point; many things still need to be done. It is a regulation that still presents itself as pro-cyclical. Let me explain: insurance companies are medium to long-term investors, perhaps the last ones left in the literal sense. The objective of this role is precisely to intervene in markets when needed. For example, when the spread of BTPs over Bunds over the so-called virtuous or core countries tends to widen, it is precisely at that moment that the role of insurance companies as entities that help calm these anomalous spread movements is important. These anomalies can be due to systematic events such as war, pandemic, or others. At the moment, the regulation, although improved in recent years, is still penalizing precisely in these moments. Therefore, the suggestion or consideration I feel I should make for the next steps that will have to be taken in terms of Solvency II reform should aim to take into account the possibility that insurance companies can intervene precisely in these phases, which is not yet the case.

And then a specific issue I feel I should raise, on which as a group we have fought hard, together with many of those present here, including parliamentary connections, is a case of a blatant level playing field issue in my opinion: what goes by the name of the 'Reverse Danish Compromise' – a very strange word referring to a Scandinavian country, but it applies in all European countries. It is the principle by which a bank that invests in an insurance company today has a clear advantage in terms of regulatory capital calculation, so much so that many banks are doing exactly this, understandably and rightly. On the other hand, an insurance company that invests in banking holdings has no advantage, indeed it faces a penalty. I say this because, as a group, we are instead developing an industrial strategy heavily based on the bancassurance sphere. Despite this regulatory situation, we are continuing our industrial strategy. We have managed, I repeat with the help of representatives of all institutions present at the European Parliament and all European institutions in general, to achieve recognition of the concept – which is already something – and therefore by 2027 there is a commitment to address the issue and hopefully find a solution.

Then I have been rightly allocated a few minutes; there would be many things to say, such as the Directive on the resolution of insurance companies, which has just started its approval and discussion process at the European Parliament in Brussels. In Italy, we all experienced a year ago, Bianca remembers, we met at the MEF to discuss the Eurovita case. Therefore, in perspective, having schemes to use to manage resolution situations of insurance companies is certainly a fundamental element, as is the topic raised by Giancarlo Fancel about excessive regulation. He considered it in the context of the Retail Investment Strategy. I add the whole topic of ESG regulation, which is very articulated and not always harmonious with each other; on the contrary, sometimes in conflict. Often, I would say, the excess of regulation does not go in the direction of transparency, quite the opposite. So also on this, I believe a great deal of work needs to be done, a lot of work. Therefore, it is also important from our side that the political class that will represent us in the European Parliament is equally authoritative, competent, prepared, and available to face certain types of discussions, as it has been until now. And most importantly, that it starts a work, an activity, that will necessarily have to be of great intensity to face the challenges of the future. So from this point of view, a big good luck to all those who will run in the next elections. [Applause]