Concluding Summary of Part II

Abstract

The fifth chapter of the second part summarizes all the findings of the methodological trashing accompanied by genealogy with which this monograph is concerned. As it turns out, the ideology behind Solvency II, a piece of post-crisis legislation is less stringent than its pre-crisis predecessor, Solvency I, whilst being more stringent that its source of inspiration, Basel II, which played a negative role in the last financial and economic crisis (the reason for the post-crisis financial legal reform).

Ensuing, the chapter suggests why the EU legislator did not slow down and withdraw Solvency II from the table before it could come into effect in 2016, to redesign it, using the potential of insurance undertakings as engines of economic development and thus founding Solvency II on the ideology of quality (in opposition to quantity and efficiency) after having observed the inadequacies of Basel II and the economic problems created by the aftermath of the worst financial and economic crisis of the last 70 years.