For MCEV and SII market consistent valuation of liabilities involves discounting the cashflows at a risk free rate.
On p23 of Chapter 22 it says 'To calculate a market consistent EV: Cashflows for products that do not contain options and guarantees are discounted at a rate that reflects the riskiness of each cashflow.'
Why the difference?
Page 23 of chapter 22 is correct - to be market consistent we should discount cashflows at a rate that reflects their riskiness. However, there are a number of different ways to do this (which is where it gets confusing).
To illustrate the basic idea, consider two assets: a bond and a share. Both assets have market value of 100 - so any market consistent valuation should place a value of 100 on these assets.
The bond has expected payoff of 104 in one year's time. So if we discount at 4% we get the market consistent value of 100.
The share has expected payoff of 108 in one year's time. So if we discount at 8% we get the market consistent value of 100.
So, we have discounted the more risky asset at a higher rate. This can be applied to any asset, eg unquoted assets. The future profits from in force business is an asset too - so again we should discount the profits at a higher rate if they are more risky.
The question now is - how to derive the market consistent risk discount rate for unquoted assets (including future profits on in force business)? Solvency II and MCEV Principles both use a similar approach (but there are other market consistent techniques that do not follow this approach).
Both SII and MCEV Principles discount the unhedgeable liability cashflows at the risk free discount rate. However, this gives the wrong answer (as the cashflows are risky). So, SII adds a risk margin to the liabilities using the cost of capital method. Similarly the MCEV Principles deduct the cost of residual non-hedgeable risks from the VIF.
A simple numerical example may help. Consider an insurance policy that will release a profit of 110 in one year's time. If a suitable risk discount rate is 10% then the market consistent VIF is 100.
An alternative way to value the policy is to follow the MCEV principles. Here we discount the profit at the risk free rate of 4% to give 110 / 1.04 = 105.76. We must then deduct the cost of residual non-hedgeable risks. If this cost is 5.76, then again we have the same market consistent value of 100. So we could say that the MCEV Principles have implicitly discounted the cashflows at 10% in this case.
I hope this example helps.
Best wishes
Mark