There are some synergies between IFRS 17 and Solvency II, but their existence hasn't translated into reduced implementation costs for the insurance industry, Insurance Europe deputy director general Olav Jones has lamented.

Speaking on a panel at an IFRS 17 virtual conference, hosted by Insurance Asset Risk's sister publication InsuranceERM, Jones said: "We understand from [insurance] companies that the amount they've had to spend on IFRS 17 has been something in the similar region to, or in some cases even more than, what they spent on Solvency II. So, there are some synergies - but it hasn't significantly reduced the total cost and complexity of the projects."

On the same panel, Jo Clube, group technical accounting director at Aviva, noted that the introduction of IFRS 17 was "definitely helping the Solvency II cash flows," but that there are many differences between the two frameworks.

"Solvency II is designed for prudential regulation and IFRS 17 is designed to report performance," she said. "We will definitely try to bridge our Solvency II and IFRS position, but we need to remember that there will be some differences and that the objectives of the two aren't the same."

The IFRS 17 virtual conference is taking place today (30 March), for more information please visit the event's webpage.

Vincent Huck