January CNB opinion on Commission consultation document on Solvency II implementing measures
|
|
- Jacob Richards
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NA PŘÍKOPĚ PRAHA 1 CZECH REPUBLIC January 2011 CNB opinion on Commission consultation document on Solvency II implementing measures General observations We generally agree with the Commission s proposals (with the exceptions given below), although we cannot answer some of the questions without, for example, knowledge of the overall results of QIS5 (not just for the Czech Republic, but for the whole EU) or knowledge of the impacts of the possible changes see question 21 on the correlation parameters used in the standard formula. This is a highly technical issue which cannot be answered solely with regard to whether the proposed parameters meet the Commission s objectives (to introduce internationally recognised standards of supervision of insurance undertakings or maximum harmonisation of the regulations). A change to one of the parameters could have a fundamental effect on the resulting capital requirements of the entire insurance sector or of specific insurance undertakings. We also feel that the deadline for the consultation is entirely inappropriate whatever response the Commission gets, the scope for incorporating it into the implementing measures will be minimal. If the Commission receives totally negative feedback and completely new proposed measures, it will not have enough time to discuss them properly with EIOPA, the Member States or any other stakeholders. If the Solvency II regulation is to be effective from day one (i.e. from 1 January 2013), it is vital to have all the implementing measures officially in force at least a year in advance so that the Member States and European insurers have enough time to prepare and implement these regulations. The timetable no longer allows for major changes to the text of the implementing measures, which have already been under discussion in the relevant Commission working group for more than a year. We therefore regard the timing of the consultation as highly unfortunate. In certain specific areas of the consultation, the CNB in line with its earlier opinions takes a negative stance on some of the Commission s proposals. Those areas are the following: - the inclusion of an illiquidity premium in the risk-free yield curve (we feel this is unjustified) see point 1 (question 1) - recognition of diversification in the risk margin for technical provisions (we feel this is not based on a realistic assumption and may lead to undervaluation of technical provisions) see point 2B (question 3) - reduction of insurance undertakings reporting requirements (at previous working group meetings the Commission suggested a reduction of the reporting requirements that would endanger the conduct of supervision owing to a lack of information) see point 5 (questions 9 12) - the calibration of some capital requirement calculations, or the use of correlation coefficients (it is possible to comment on these issues only on the basis of knowledge of the impacts of any changes to the calibration and not on the basis of generally proposed options that only suggest lower or higher factors).
2 The EC questions and CNB answers are provided below: 1. Technical provisions best estimate risk-free interest rate curve Question 1: - harmonising the calculation of technical provisions; and - promoting compatibility of valuation and reporting rules with the international accounting standards elaborated by the IASB. Answer 1: We disagree with the Commission s suggestion to choose the risk-free yield curve, mainly because of the inclusion of an illiquidity premium. The CNB has already stated in its opinions that it is against the inclusion of an illiquidity premium. In our view, the existing research in this area does not provide convincing evidence of the need to include an illiquidity premium in the risk-free interest rate curve. Moreover, there are no clear rules and procedures for the exact calculation of the illiquidity premium (and in our opinion it will be difficult to create clear rules), nor are there specific and sufficiently transparent criteria based on which EIOPA would be empowered to declare a situation of reduced liquidity. We do not have a strong opinion on whether to opt for the swap or bonds yield curve, but if our opposition to the inclusion of a liquidity premium is not accepted, we would be against using the bonds yield curve in combination with an illiquidity premium (option 4) owing to the significant spread between the bonds and swap curves on the Czech market. 2A. Technical provisions risk margin Cost-of-Capital rate Question 2: - harmonising the calculation of technical provisions; and - promoting compatibility of valuation and reporting rules with the international accounting standards elaborated by the IASB. Question 3: Do you agree that a 6% Cost-of-Capital rate would closely reflect the cost of providing an amount of eligible own funds equal to the SCR necessary to support the insurance obligations over the life time thereof? Answers 2 and 3: We agree with the Commission s suggestion to set the cost-of-capital rate equal to 6%. We regard this level as appropriate based on the analyses conducted by CEIOPS and the results of QIS4, where this option was tested.
3 2B. Technical provisions risk margin diversification Question 4: - harmonising the calculation of technical provisions; and - promoting compatibility of valuation and reporting rules with the international accounting standards elaborated by the IASB. Answer 4: In its opinions the CNB has always been against the suggested calculation method, since full diversification is not possible. The risk margin represents the costs of obtaining additional capital incurred by the reference undertaking taking over a portfolio of insurance contracts. The key assumption about the reference undertaking is that it is an empty company into which the portfolio is transferred. It is important to emphasise that new composite insurers (providing life and non-life insurance simultaneously) cannot currently be created and so it is impossible to transfer an entire portfolio from an old composite undertaking to a new empty undertaking. As a minimum, therefore, diversification between types of life and non-life insurance should not be recognised. Consequently, we believe that the proposed calculation does not satisfy the Commission s third objective (introducing risk-sensitive harmonised solvency standards). 3. Own funds quantitative limits for SCR and MCR Question 5: - promoting compatibility of prudential supervision of insurance and banking; and IAIS and IAA. (Please provide reasons and examples. If you do not agree, which option in Annex 1 or alternative suggestion meets Answer 5: We agree with the Commission s suggestion, as we regard this combination as an approach that is balanced with regard to the capital quality requirement and the cost of capital. Question 6: In your view, what impact would the Commission Services suggested approach have on the following: - cost of own funds - capital raising or capital reduction
4 Answer 6: We feel that increasing the proportion of highest-quality capital could have implications for the cost of capital, as a provider of highest-quality capital can be expected to demand a higher yield. According to past impact study results of, the impacts on Czech insurers should be minimal, if not zero all insurers have so far been reporting sufficient own funds and there have been no problems with raising capital in the past where necessary. In this regard, however, we would like to add that Solvency II is not the only framework under preparation and that the introduction of Basel III could have far greater impacts the amount of capital banks will have to raise in the near future can be expected to limit investors willingness to provide capital to insurance undertakings. 4. Procyclicality Pillar II dampener Question 7: - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools; - promoting compatibility of prudential supervision of insurance and banking; and IAIS and IAA. (Please provide reasons and examples. If you do not agree, which option in Annex 1 or alternative suggestion meets Question 8: Should the list of factors to be taken into account by supervisory authorities when deciding whether to grant such a decision be left open? (Please provide reasons) Answers 7 and 8: We agree with the Commission s suggested approach, as we feel it meets the objectives set by the Commission for the implementing measures. Likewise, we feel that the list of factors influencing the decisions of supervisory authorities should be left open, as proposed by the Commission. 5. Supervisory reporting content, form and modalities Question 9: - harmonizing supervisory reporting; - promoting compatibility of valuation and reporting rules with the international accounting standards elaborated by the IASB; and (Please provide reasons and examples. If you do not agree, which combination of options in Annex 1 or alternative suggestion meets these objectives in a more efficient and effective way and why?) Question 10: The Commission Services are currently of the view that, in line with the proportionality principle, the level 2 implementing measures should only require material and/ or relevant
5 information to be provided. Do you agree with this approach? (Please provide reasons, including specific suggestions on how to implement the proportionality principle with respect to reporting requirements, how and who should determine what information is material and/ or relevant) Answers 9 and 10: We feel that the question of reporting of specific information should be dealt with at the level of supervisory authorities. The level 2 implementing measures should only contain general rules (for example time limits for sending information to supervisory authorities) and authorisation for EIOPA to issue relevant level 3 measures specifying the required information in detail. It is important to emphasise that supervisory authorities must have the relevant tools and all the necessary information to perform their work in an efficient and effective way. We do not agree with limiting the quantity of information to be reported to supervisory authorities. The Commission s efforts to reduce the reporting requirements are entirely unacceptable, as any limitation of reported information would hinder the supervision of insurance undertakings. Question 11: Do you have any suggestions on which specific quantitative data should be subject to external audit? (Please provide reasons) Answer 11: We feel that balance sheets drawn up in accordance with the Solvency II rules and the calculated SCR should be subject to external audit (on an annual basis). Question 12: Do you have background information or evidence that groups are approaching the reporting requirements from a centralised, top-down group perspective? (Please also provide views on whether groups should be encouraged to adopt this approach) Answer 12: In QIS5 we came across cases in several insurers from large groups where data had been completed at the parent company level and domestic insurers did not entirely know what the figures meant and how they had been calculated. Whether insurers would choose such an approach in the case of regular reporting requirements is a question. However, we think that such approach is unacceptable. 6. Public disclosure content, form and modalities Question 13: - harmonizing supervisory reporting; - promoting compatibility of valuation and reporting rules with the international accounting standards elaborated by the IASB; and (Please provide reasons and examples. If you do not agree, which option in Annex 1 or alternative suggestion meets Answer 13: We agree with the Commission s suggestion.
6 Question 14: The current approach favoured by the Commission Services would be to list a number of items which would need to be put in the public domain. Some stakeholders argue that the SFCR should contain much less information, so that it is understandable by policy holders, while others support disclosure of information directed at a much wider audience. Do you have views on: a) what stakeholders should be addressed? b) what are the areas on which stakeholders need information? c) how detailed has it to be? Answer 14: In our view, disclosure of information to policy holders must be clearly strengthened. The question is whether a prudential regulation like Solvency II should be used for this purpose. It would probably be better to strengthen disclosure of information to policy holders through the planned revision of the IMD or the planned regulation of PRIPS. Information on the financial condition of an insurer is certainly relevant to policy holders, but is probably not the most important factor in the decision to buy a policy. Reports on solvency and financial condition are therefore more relevant to other market participants, such as reinsurers, banks, rating agencies, financial analysts and investors. Such reports should thus contain as much relevant information as possible and we therefore agree with the suggested approach. Question 15: Solvency II will be based on an economic valuation of all assets and liabilities. The current approach favoured by the Commission Services would be to require public disclosure of a number of aggregated key figures arising from solvency valuation and their material differences with the accounting valuation. Do you support that approach? (Please provide reasons and suggestions on how precise such information should be and how it should be presented to be understood well by markets) Answer 15: We support the suggested approach. Its basic principle should be incorporated into Solvency II right from the outset. It is important to realise that Solvency II is a prudential regulation to be used primarily for the assessment of the financial soundness of insurance undertakings by supervisory authorities. It is designed especially for insurance undertakings alone, whereas the accounting principles pertain to a wider range of entities, so the purposes of the two frameworks may partially differ. At least a basic explanation and justification of the differences between accounting and Solvency II is therefore desirable if they are to be properly understood. 7. Treatment of holdings in participations and subsidiaries Question 16: Do you consider that the approach tested in QIS5 would be the most efficient and effective in order to achieve the objectives of: - promoting compatibility of prudential supervision of insurance and banking; and (Please provide reasons and examples. If you do not agree, which option in Annex 1 or alternative suggestion meets
7 Answer 16: We agree with the Commission that this question deserves deeper analysis, in particular of the QIS5 results, and especially for companies that have a large number of holdings in various sectors, which is not really the case for the Czech Republic. Question 17: Do you agree with Deloitte's conclusion that the choice of policy option may cause some undertakings to change their corporate structure? (Please provide reasons and examples) Answer 17: Yes, this is already currently happening in some cases, although more with regard to the restructuring of entire insurance groups. However, the application of a lower stress for some participations may lead to the transfer of some risky assets (to which a higher capital requirement would otherwise apply) to subsidiaries to which a lower capital requirement would be applied. Question 18: In terms of alternative approaches for holdings in certain regulated related undertakings (financial and credit institutions and insurance and reinsurance undertakings), would you support an approach which makes use of the additional information available about these holdings to determine their contribution to the overall risk profile of the undertaking? (Please give suggestions of possible approaches) Answer 18: Yes, we consider a more detailed analysis of holdings to be an important part of risk management by insurance undertakings. 8. SCR standard formula equity risk Pillar 1 dampener Question 19: - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools; - promoting compatibility of prudential supervision of insurance and banking; and IAIS and IAA. Answer 19: We do not agree with the Commission s proposal. In line with CEIOPS advice, we suggest choosing option 4, i.e. 12 months. This option would be a compromise between the short and long horizons. Short-term options lead to frequently changing equity stress that is hard to predict when estimating future capital requirements. Long horizons, by contrast, react slowly to changes in the equity index. Moreover, the one-year horizon is consistent with the other time horizons used in the calculation of capital requirements. 9. SCR standard formula loss-absorbing capacity of technical provisions Question 20:
8 Is option 2 or 3 the most efficient - introducing proportionate requirements for small undertakings. - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools; and IAIS and IAA. (Please provide reasons and examples) Answer 20: We suggest choosing option 2 or 1. Option 3 was tested in QIS5 and the method under test turned out to be too complicated and in some cases unfeasible for the Czech participants. Czech insurers therefore preferred the modular approach (from QIS4), i.e. option 2. Given the efforts to reduce the overall complexity of the standard formula, we could reconsider option 1, i.e. a single adjustment using a factor depending on the size of future profit shares contained in technical provisions. 10A. SCR standard formula diversification effects correlation parameters Question 21: - introducing proportionate requirements for small undertakings. IAIS and IAA; and Answer 21: We agree with the Commission s suggestion to retain the correlation parameters already tested in QIS4 and QIS5. Although we do not have any analyses of the dependence between different lines of business, which, moreover, differs from the non-life insurance segmentation used currently, the QIS4/QIS5 results showed that the suggested parameters lead to capital requirements with which the Czech participants would be compliant. 10B. SCR standard formula diversification effects geographical diversification Question 22: - introducing proportionate requirements for small undertakings. IAIS and IAA; and (Please provide reasons and examples. If you do not agree, which option in Annex 1 or alternative suggestion meets Answer 22:
9 We suggest choosing option 1, i.e. not reflecting geographical diversification in the standard calculation. As the impact study results have shown, this aspect of the calculation has no effect on the resulting capital requirement of Czech insurers and merely increases the complexity and opacity of the standard formula. When geographical diversification is justified for an insurance undertaking, it can be recognised in other ways in the current proposals, for example by using parameters specific to the undertaking or by introducing a partial internal model. 11. SCR internal models integration of partial internal models Question 23: - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools; and Answer 23: We agree with the Commission s suggestion. 12A. SCR standard formula underwriting risk (other than catastrophe risk) arising from non-life insurance obligations Question 24: and - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools. Answer 24: We agree with the Commission s suggestion to calculate non-life risks on the basis of the factor approach, which has been widely tested in several impact studies with no negative responses from market participants. 12.B SCR standard formula underwriting risk (other than catastrophe risk) arising from life insurance obligations Question 25: and - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools.
10 Answer 25: We agree with the Commission s suggestion to calculate life risks on the basis of the scenario approach, which has been widely tested in several impact studies, as no major problems with its application were identified among market participants. However, the calibration issues need to be discussed on the basis of the QIS5 results. 12C. SCR standard formula underwriting catastrophe risks arising from insurance obligations Question 26: and - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools. Answer 26: We generally agree with the scenario approach to the calculation of catastrophe risks, which suitably captures the nature of natural and man-made disasters, as suggested by the Commission. However, we wish to point out that QIS5 revealed that some market participants may have problems with some calculations because they do not have data in the required structure. Moreover, some risks in particular flood risk was overestimated for the Czech Republic in QIS5. This led to excessive/inappropriate capital requirements. 13. SCR internal models use test Question 27: and - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools. (Please provide reasons and examples. If you do not agree, which option in Annex 1 or alternative suggestion meets Answer 27: We feel that the internal model should be used, as a minimum, at all levels of the organisation in significant decision-making processes. 14. SCR internal models statistical quality standards Question 28: and effective in order to achieve the objectives of: and - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools.
11 (Please provide reasons and examples. If you do not agree, which option in Annex 1 or alternative suggestion meets Answer 28: We agree with the Commission s suggestion. Insurance undertakings should establish their own policy on data quality of their internal models. 15. Capital add-ons Question 29: - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools; and - introducing proportionate requirements for small undertakings. Question 30: Should supervisors be able to exercise judgment, according to pre-defined criteria, in relation to each of the following: 1) in the case of risk-profile capital add-ons, significant deviations from the SCR that are below 15% 2) for the purposes of determining when a governance capital add-on may be applied, the timeframe to be regarded as an appropriate for having allowed other remedial measures to have been exhausted, subject to a maximum period of 6 months 3) the methodology used to determine the capital add-on. (Please provide reasons) Answers 29 and 30: The concept of using capital add-ons as a remedial measure is based on proper and individual assessment of the risk profile of the specific insurance undertaking. Consequently, the decision to apply it is also highly individual and it will be very hard to find a precise definition of the circumstances that should lead to the adoption of such a measure. It is therefore desirable to leave room and flexibility for supervisory authorities. We do not believe that such flexibility is at odds with the maximum harmonisation on which Solvency II is based. It is important to realise that such flexibility also puts extremely high demands on supervisory authorities, as they will have to justify their decisions in watertight fashion to ensure that they are not overturned by the courts, to which insurers would be able to appeal. Therefore, we agree with the Commission s suggestion that supervisory authorities should exercise judgment when deciding on capital add-ons in conformity with the draft text of the implementing measures (i.e. with the chosen options). 16. Actuarial function Question 31: - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools;
12 IAIS and IAA; and Question 32: Do you agree that requiring EIOPA to adopt (non-binding) guidelines at Level 3 would be the most appropriate solution in terms of practicability and level-playing-field considerations? (Please provide reasons) Answers 31 and 32: We agree with the Commission s suggestion. We believe that actuarial technical standards should be developed by experts from the actuarial profession with the involvement of representatives of supervisory authorities. The general scope of the tasks of the actuarial function should be prescribed in the implementing measures with the aim of harmonising understanding of the actuarial function among market participants and defining the core tasks of the actuarial function in relation to the calculation of technical provisions and cooperation on risk management. As regards written reports to be submitted annually by the actuarial function to the management of the undertaking, it is desirable for the implementing measures to lay down a general framework for the content of such reports in the interests of ensuring a unified approach across the market. Question 33: Should actuarial guidelines solely relate to technical issues or should they be extended to include professional and ethical guidelines? (Please provide reasons) Answer 33: We have no objections to selected relevant professional principles being part of the actuarial guidelines. We believe that it is already currently common practice for professional principles to form part of the guidelines of professional actuarial associations. 17. Supervisory co-operation and co-ordination Question 34: - harmonising supervisory powers, methods and tools; - promoting compatibility of prudential supervision of insurance and banking; IAIS and IAA; and Answer 34: We do not agree with the Commission s suggestion to introduce binding qualitative thresholds for determining the significance of branches when creating colleges. In this regard, we incline more towards CEIOPS advice, as we feel that it is always necessary to assess the situation on an individual basis.
13 Question 35: Do you share the view that provisions on colleges should not be set in level 2 implementing measures? (Please provide reasons for your response and, where relevant, suggestions on the provisions which you think should be included at level 2) Answer 35: Yes. Colleges differ in nature according to the structure, main activity and risk profile of the group, and we therefore believe the rules for the operation of colleges should be as flexible as possible. Question 36: What are your views on the need for supervisors in the college to systematically exchange information? What information would be the most efficient and useful to be exchanged taking into account the potential burden for supervisors? Answer 36: Exchanging information is a vital part of group supervision. For efficient supervision, the maximum amount of relevant information needs to be exchanged. We do not believe that efficient supervision will be aided by automatic sharing of all statements of insurers from a group and all their reports on the undertaking s solvency and financial condition among all members of the college. The implementing measures should make it possible to request such information (and require supervisory authorities to provide requested information), but in our view the proposed automatic exchange is inefficient, ineffective and unnecessary.
Department of Insurance and Investment Funds
Ministry of Finance Unit of Insurance and Financial Reporting Department of Insurance and Investment Funds Financial Stability Department Dnr 2011-92-AFS European Commission Internal Markets and Services
Level 2 Implementing measures CEA Comments on the Impact Assessment
Level 2 Implementing measures CEA Comments on the Impact Assessment CEA reference: ECO-SLV-11-065 Date: 01 February 2011 Referring to: Solvency II Contact person: ECOFIN Department Email: ecofin@cea.eu
Solvency II implementation measures CEIOPS advice Third set November AMICE core messages
Solvency II implementation measures CEIOPS advice Third set November 2009 AMICE core messages AMICE s high-level messages with regard to the third wave of consultations by CEIOPS on their advice for Solvency
The Solvency II project and the work of CEIOPS
Thomas Steffen CEIOPS Chairman Budapest, 16 May 07 The Solvency II project and the work of CEIOPS Outline Reasons for a change in the insurance EU regulatory framework The Solvency II project Drivers Process
REQUEST TO EIOPA FOR TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE REVIEW OF THE SOLVENCY II DIRECTIVE (DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC)
Ref. Ares(2019)782244-11/02/2019 REQUEST TO EIOPA FOR TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE REVIEW OF THE SOLVENCY II DIRECTIVE (DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC) With this mandate to EIOPA, the Commission seeks EIOPA's Technical
Solvency II Update. Latest developments and industry challenges (Session 10) Réjean Besner
Solvency II Update Latest developments and industry challenges (Session 10) Canadian Institute of Actuaries - Annual Meeting, 29 June 2011 Réjean Besner Content Solvency II framework Solvency II equivalence
CEIOPS-DOC-06/06. November 2006
CEIOPS-DOC-06/06 Advice to the European Commission in the framework of the Solvency II project on insurance undertakings Internal Risk and Capital Assessment requirements, supervisors evaluation procedures
SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT (SAM) FRAMEWORK
SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT (SAM) FRAMEWORK Hantie van Heerden Head: Actuarial Insurance Department 5 October 2010 High-level summary of Solvency II Background to SAM Agenda Current Structures Progress
EIOPA-CP-13/ March Cover note for the Consultation on Guidelines on preparing for Solvency II
EIOPA-CP-13/015 27 March 2013 Cover note for the Consultation on Guidelines on preparing for Solvency II EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel. + 49 69-951119-20; Fax. +
Cover note for the draft consultation papers on the Guidelines and ITS for Solvency II (set 2)
EIOPA-BoS-14/229 27 November 2014 Cover note for the draft consultation papers on the Guidelines and ITS for Solvency II (set 2) 1/10 1. Introduction 1.1. EIOPA invites comments from stakeholders on the
Karel VAN HULLE. Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG Markt, European Commission
Solvency II: State of Play Guernsey, 18th December 2009 Karel VAN HULLE Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG Markt, European Commission 1 Why do we need Solvency II? Lack of risk sensitivity in existing
Consultation Paper on the draft proposal for Guidelines on reporting and public disclosure
EIOPA-CP-14/047 27 November 2014 Consultation Paper on the draft proposal for Guidelines on reporting and public disclosure EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel. + 49 69-951119-20;
EIOPA's Supervisory Statement. Solvency II: Solvency and Financial Condition Report
EIOPA-BoS/17-310 18 December 2017 EIOPA's Supervisory Statement Solvency II: Solvency and Financial Condition Report EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel. + 49 69-951119-20;
CEIOPS-DOC-61/10 January Former Consultation Paper 65
CEIOPS-DOC-61/10 January 2010 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Partial internal models Former Consultation Paper 65 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany Tel.
Essential adjustments for the success of Solvency II for groups
Position Paper Essential adjustments for the success of Solvency II for groups (based on the findings from QIS5 for groups and the current discussion on implementing measures) CEA reference: ECO-SLV-11-729
Actuaries and the Regulatory Environment. Role of the Actuary in the Solvency II framework
Actuaries and the Regulatory Environment Role of the Actuary in the Solvency II framework IAA Fund Southeast Europe Actuarial Seminar, Zagreb, 3 October 2011 1 Solvency II primary objectives fundamental
Solvency II and the Work of CEIOPS
The Geneva Papers, 2008, 33, (60 65) r 2008 The International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics 1018-5895/08 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/gpp Solvency II and the Work of CEIOPS Thomas
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DES ASSURANCES
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DES ASSURANCES SECRÉTARIAT GÉNÉRAL 3bis, rue de la Chaussée d'antin F 75009 Paris Tél. : +33 1 44 83 11 83 Fax : +33 1 47 70 03 75 www.cea.assur.org DÉLÉGATION À BRUXELLES Square de Meeûs,
Delegations will find below a Presidency compromise text on the above Commission proposal, to be discussed at the 28 February 2011 meeting.
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 21 February 2011 6460/11 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0006 (COD) NOTE from: to: Subject: EF 16 ECOFIN 69 SURE 4 CODEC 220 Presidency Delegations Proposal for a
Final Report. Public Consultation No. 14/036 on. Guidelines on undertaking-specific. parameters
EIOPA-BoS-14/178 27 November 2014 Final Report on Public Consultation No. 14/036 on Guidelines on undertaking-specific parameters EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel.
'SOLVENCY II': Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
MEMO/07/286 Brussels, 10 July 2007 'SOLVENCY II': Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (see also IP/07/1060) 1. Why does the EU need harmonised solvency rules? The aim of a solvency regime is to ensure the
Final Report on public consultation No. 14/049 on Guidelines on the implementation of the long-term guarantee measures
EIOPA-BoS-15/111 30 June 2015 Final Report on public consultation No. 14/049 on Guidelines on the implementation of the long-term guarantee measures EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt
Solvency II overview
Solvency II overview David Payne, FIA Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar 21 September 2010 INTNL-2: Solvency II - Update and Current Events Antitrust Notice The Casualty Actuarial Society is committed to adhering
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar I - Sub Committee Capital Resources and Capital Requirements Task Groups Discussion Document 53 (v 10) Treatment of participations in the solo entity submission
Appendix 2: Supervisory Statements
Appendix 2: Supervisory Statements Transposition of Solvency II: Part 3 August 2014 1 Appendix 2.1 Supervisory Statement SS[xx]/14 Solvency II: general application August 2014 Prudential Regulation Authority
Analysis of Insurance Undertakings Preparedness for Solvency II. October 2010
Analysis of Insurance Undertakings Preparedness for Solvency II October 2010 Contents Introduction...2 1. General...3 1.1 Analyses in insurance undertakings and schedule of preparations...3 1.2 IT systems
Initial comments on the Proposal for a Solvency II framework Directive (COM (2007) 361 of 10 July
Brussels, 21/12/2007 Version 10 Initial comments on the Proposal for a Solvency II framework Directive (COM (2007) 361 of 10 July 2007 1 This document provides the initial comments of the European mutual
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
Principles No. 3.4 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS PRINCIPLES ON GROUP-WIDE SUPERVISION OCTOBER 2008 This document has been prepared by the Financial Conglomerates Subcommittee (renamed
Solvency II: Orientation debate Design of a future prudential supervisory system in the EU
MARKT/2503/03 EN Orig. Solvency II: Orientation debate Design of a future prudential supervisory system in the EU (Recommendations by the Commission Services) Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles /
Delegations will find below a Presidency compromise text on the above Commission proposal, as a result of the 17 June meeting.
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 21 June 2011 11858/11 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0006 (COD) NOTE from: to: Subject: EF 93 ECOFIN 445 SURE 15 CODEC 1057 Presidency Delegations Proposal for a
COVER NOTE TO ACCOMPANY THE DRAFT QIS5 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Internal Market and Services DG FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Insurance and Pensions 1. Introduction COVER NOTE TO ACCOMPANY THE DRAFT QIS5 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Brussels, 15 April 2010
CEA proposed amendments, April 2008
CEA proposed amendments, April 2008 Amendment 1: Recital 14 a (new) The supervision of reinsurance activity shall take account of the special characteristics of reinsurance business, notably its global
Society of Actuaries in Ireland Solvency II for Beginners. Mike Frazer. 19 May 2011
Society of Actuaries in Ireland Solvency II for Beginners Mike Frazer 19 May 2011 1 Agenda Why has Solvency II been created? Structure of Solvency II The Solvency II Balance Sheet Pillar II & III Aspects
Solvency II. Insurance and Pensions Unit, European Commission
Solvency II Insurance and Pensions Unit, European Commission Introduction Solvency II Deepened integration of the EU insurance market 14 existing Directives on insurance and reinsurance supervision, insurance
Background information about Guidelines on preparing for Solvency II
1 Background information about Guidelines on preparing for Solvency II 1. Why is EIOPA issuing Guidelines? The Guidelines follow EIOPA s Opinion on interim measures regarding Solvency II published on the
Insurance Stress Test 2016 Frequently Asked Questions & Answers 1
15 December 2016 Insurance Stress Test 2016 Frequently Asked Questions & Answers 1 1. What is a stress test? A stress test is an important risk management and supervisory tool. It is used by financial
GROUP CONSULTATIF ACTUARIAL STANDARD OF PRACTICE 1 (GCASP 1)
GROUPE CONSULTATIF ACTUARIEL EUROPEEN EUROPEAN ACTUARIAL CONSULTATIVE GROUP SECRETARIAT, MAISON DES ACTUAIRES, 4 PLACE DU SAMEDI B-1000 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM TELEPHONE: (+32) 22 17 01 21 FAX: (+32) 27 92 46
Introduction of a new risk-based capital framework in Singapore Convergence or divergence in relation to Solvency II?
framework in Singapore Convergence or Solvency Consulting Knowledge Series Author Dr. Manijeh McHugh Contact solvency-solutions@munichre.com December 2013 In June 2012, the Monetary Authority of Singapore
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 21.9.2017 C(2017) 6218 final COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of 21.9.2017 supplementing Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council with
Consultation Paper. the draft proposal for. Guidelines. on the implementation of the long term. guarantee adjustments and transitional.
EIOPA-CP-14/049 27 November 2014 Consultation Paper on the draft proposal for Guidelines on the implementation of the long term guarantee adjustments and transitional measures EIOPA WesthafenTower Westhafenplatz
CONSULTATION PAPER ON DRAFT RTS ON TREATMENT OF CLEARING MEMBERS' EXPOSURES TO CLIENTS EBA/CP/2014/ February Consultation Paper
EBA/CP/2014/01 28 February 2014 Consultation Paper Draft regulatory technical standards on the margin periods for risk used for the treatment of clearing members' exposures to clients under Article 304(5)
CEIOPS-SEC-78/10 25 May 2010 CEIOPS Comments on QIS5 draft technical specifications
CEIOPS-SEC-78/10 25 May 2010 CEIOPS Comments on QIS5 draft technical specifications 1. Following the submission by CEIOPS of its draft technical specifications for QIS5 and the publication on 15 April
Solvency II. Yannis Pitaras IACPM Brussels, 15 May 2009
Solvency II Yannis Pitaras IACPM Brussels, 15 May 2009 CEA s Member Associations 33 national member associations: 27 EU Member States + 6 Non EU Markets Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Turkey, Liechtenstein,
EIOPA15/ Nov 2015
EIOPA15/821 19 Nov 2015 Call for evidence concerning the request to ΕΙΟΡΑ for further technical advice on the identification and calibration of other infrastructure investment risk categories i.e. infrastructure
Solvency II Detailed guidance notes for dry run process. March 2010
Solvency II Detailed guidance notes for dry run process March 2010 Introduction The successful implementation of Solvency II at Lloyd s is critical to maintain the competitive position and capital advantages
Technical provisions best estimate risk-free interest rate curve
European Commission E-mail: markt-solvencyii@ec.europa.eu Cc: Mr. Karel van Hulle Head of Unit H2 Insurance and Pensions DG Internal Market and Services European Commission 26 January 2011 Ref.: INS/PRJ/LFU/IDS
Hot Topic: Understanding the implications of QIS5
Hot Topic: Understanding the 17 March 2011 Summary On 14 March 2011 the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published the results of the fifth Quantitative Impact Study (QIS5)
Report to G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on International Accounting Standards
Report to G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on International Accounting Standards Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Basel April 2000 Table of Contents Executive Summary...1 I. Introduction...4
The Society of Actuaries in Ireland
The Society of Actuaries in Ireland The Solvency II Actuary Kathryn Morgan Annette Olesen 8 Content Overview of Solvency II and latest developments The Actuarial Function Impact on the role of the actuary
THE INSURANCE BUSINESS (SOLVENCY) RULES 2015
THE INSURANCE BUSINESS (SOLVENCY) RULES 2015 Table of Contents Part 1 Introduction... 2 Part 2 Capital Adequacy... 4 Part 3 MCR... 7 Part 4 PCR... 10 Part 5 - Internal Model... 23 Part 6 Valuation... 34
EBA/Rec/2017/02. 1 November Final Report on. Recommendation on the coverage of entities in a group recovery plan
EBA/Rec/2017/02 1 November 2017 Final Report on Recommendation on the coverage of entities in a group recovery plan Contents Executive summary 3 Background and rationale 5 1. Compliance and reporting obligations
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) /... of XXX
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, XXX [ ](2015) XXX draft COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) /... of XXX laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the procedures, formats and templates
Solvency II Insights for North American Insurers. CAS Centennial Meeting Damon Paisley Bill VonSeggern November 10, 2014
Solvency II Insights for North American Insurers CAS Centennial Meeting Damon Paisley Bill VonSeggern November 10, 2014 Agenda 1 Introduction to Solvency II 2 Pillar I 3 Pillar II and Governance 4 North
An Introduction to Solvency II
An Introduction to Solvency II Peter Withey KPMG Agenda 1. Background to Solvency II 2. Pillar 1: Quantitative Pillar Basic building blocks Assets Technical Reserves Solvency Capital Requirement Internal
Deadline: cob
Stakeholder: (Name + Address) The question numbers below correspond to Joint Consultation Paper JC CP 2012 01 Please follow the instructions for filling in the template: Do not change the numbering in
EIOPA Final Report on Public Consultations No. 13/011 on the Proposal for Guidelines on the Pre!application for Internal Models
EIOPA/13/416 27 September 2013 EIOPA Final Report on Public Consultations No. 13/011 on the Proposal for Guidelines on the Pre!application for Internal Models EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1 60327
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
2009L0138 EN 31.03.2015 006.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
4.0 The authority may allow credit institutions to use a combination of approaches in accordance with Section I.5 of this Appendix.
SECTION I.1 - OPERATIONAL RISK Minimum Own Funds Requirements for Operational Risk 1.0 Credit institutions shall hold own funds against operational risk in accordance with the methodologies set out in
The Central Bank s Requirement for External Audit of Solvency II Regulatory Returns / Public Disclosures
2016 The Central Bank s Requirement for External Audit of Solvency II Regulatory Returns / Public Contents The Central Bank s Requirement for External Audit of Solvency II Regulatory Returns/Public...
Opinion to EU Institutions on a Common Framework for Risk Assessment and Transparency for IORPs
EIOPABoS16/075 14 April 2016 Opinion to EU Institutions on a Common Framework for Risk Assessment and Transparency for IORPs EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1 60327 Frankfurt Germany Tel. + 49 6995111920;
PRA RULEBOOK: SOLVENCY II FIRMS: GROUP SUPERVISION INSTRUMENT 2015
PRA RULEBOOK: SOLVENCY II FIRMS: GROUP SUPERVISION INSTRUMENT 2015 Powers exercised A. The Prudential Regulation Authority ( PRA ) makes this instrument in the exercise of the following powers and related
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 19.1.2011 COM(2011) 8 final 2011/0006 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directives 2003/71/EC and 2009/138/EC
IAA Fund Seminar in Chinese Taipei
IAA Fund Seminar in Chinese Taipei Solvency II 12 October 2014 Contents 1. What is Solvency II 2. What are the Loose Ends 3. On the Way to IMAP 4. Solvency Regime in Asia Pacific What is Solvency II -Solvency
Solvency II: changes within the European single insurance market
Solvency II: changes within the European single insurance market Maciej Sterzynski Jan Dhaene ** April 29, 2006 Abstract The changing global economy makes the European single market to be urgently reformed
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar I - Sub Committee Capital Requirements Task Group Discussion Document 61 (v 1) SCR standard formula: Operational Risk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Official Journal of the European Union L 341. Legislation. Non-legislative acts. Volume December English edition. Contents REGULATIONS
Official Journal of the European Union L 341 English edition Legislation Volume 60 20 December 2017 Contents II Non-legislative acts REGULATIONS Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2358 of 21 September
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 10.4.2018 C(2018) 2080 final COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of 10.4.2018 amending and supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 of the European Parliament and of
Judging the appropriateness of the Standard Formula under Solvency II
Judging the appropriateness of the Standard Formula under Solvency II Steven Hooghwerff, AAG Roel van der Kamp, CFA, FRM Sinéad Clarke, FSAI, FIA, BAFS 1 Introduction Solvency II, which went live on January
Revised Guidelines on the recognition of External Credit Assessment Institutions
30 November 2010 Revised Guidelines on the recognition of External Credit Assessment Institutions Executive Summary 1. The Capital Requirements Directive 1 (CRD) allows institutions to use external credit
EIOPA s Insurance Stress Test Frequently asked Questions & Answers
24 May 2016 EIOPA s Insurance Stress Test 2016 Frequently asked Questions & Answers 1. What is a stress test? A stress test is an important risk management tool. It is used by financial institutions, micro-prudential
QIS5 Consultation Feedback: High Level Issues
20 MAY 2010 QIS5 Consultation Feedback: High Level Issues The CRO Forum and CFO Forum are pleased to be able to provide comment on the QIS5 draft specification, as prescribed in the QIS5 consultation.
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 73 1 (v 3) Treatment of new business in SCR
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 73 1 (v 3) Treatment of new business in SCR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As for the Solvency II Framework Directive and IAIS guidance, the risk
Guidelines on credit institutions credit risk management practices and accounting for expected credit losses
Guidelines on credit institutions credit risk management practices and accounting for expected credit losses European Banking Authority (EBA) www.managementsolutions.com Research and Development Management
Prudential Standard GOI 3 Risk Management and Internal Controls for Insurers
Prudential Standard GOI 3 Risk Management and Internal Controls for Insurers Objectives and Key Requirements of this Prudential Standard Effective risk management is fundamental to the prudent management
Solvency II Detailed guidance notes
Solvency II Detailed guidance notes March 2010 Section 8 - supervisory reporting and disclosure Section 8: reporting and disclosure Overview This section outlines the Solvency II requirements for supervisory
EIOPA- CP-14/ November 2014
EIOPA- CP-14/055 27 November 2014 Consultation Paper on the proposal for draft Implementing Technical Standards on the procedures, formats and templates of the solvency and financial condition report EIOPA
EBF response to the EBA consultation on prudent valuation
D2380F-2012 Brussels, 11 January 2013 Set up in 1960, the European Banking Federation is the voice of the European banking sector (European Union & European Free Trade Association countries). The EBF represents
Undertaking-specific parameters (USPs)
General Insurance Convention 2011 - Liverpool Richard Bulmer Undertaking-specific parameters (USPs) Workshop B9 Wednesday 12 October 2011 Undertaking-specific parameters Background to USPs Discussion of
EIOPA Final Report on Public Consultation No. 14/005 on the Implementing Technical Standard (ITS) on internal model approval processes
EIOPA-BoS-14/141 31 October 2014 EIOPA Final Report on Public Consultation No. 14/005 on the Implementing Technical Standard (ITS) on internal model approval processes Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary...
Solvency II. New Rules in Europe for the Insurance Industry. Lecture at UConn Law, January 28, 2013
Solvency II New Rules in Europe for the Insurance Industry Lecture at UConn Law, January 28, 2013 Christian Armbrüster Freie Universität Berlin c.armbruester@fu-berlin.de Main institutions of the European
EBF Response to BCBS Consultative Document (CD) on Interest rate Risk in the Banking Book (IRRBB)
EBF_016518 8 th September 2015 EBF Response to BCBS Consultative Document (CD) on Interest rate Risk in the Banking Book (IRRBB) The European Banking Federation (EBF) is the voice of the European banking
The valuation of insurance liabilities under Solvency 2
The valuation of insurance liabilities under Solvency 2 Introduction Insurance liabilities being the core part of an insurer s balance sheet, the reliability of their valuation is the very basis to assess
Solvency II. Making it workable for all. January 2011
1 Solvency II Making it workable for all January 2011 I. Introduction Based on the experience of the fifth quantitative impact study (QIS 5) exercise and indications received from its members, the CEA
EUROPEAN STANDARD OF ACTUARIAL PRACTICE 2 (ESAP 2) ACTUARIAL FUNCTION REPORT UNDER DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC
ACTUARIAL ASSOCIATION OF EUROPE ASSOCIATION ACTUARIELLE EUROPÉENNE 4 PLACE DU SAMEDI B-1000 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM TEL: (+32) 22 17 01 21 FAX: (+32) 27 92 46 48 E-MAIL: info@actuary.eu WEB: www.actuary.eu EUROPEAN
EIOPA-CP-14/ April Consultation Paper on the proposal for Implementing Technical Standards on special purpose vehicles
EIOPA-CP-14/008 01 April 2014 Consultation Paper on the proposal for Implementing Technical Standards on special purpose vehicles EIOPA WesthafenTower Westhafenplatz 1 60327 Frankfurt Germany Phone: +49
We referred to ICP 20 which deals with public disclosures and is therefore directly comparable to the SFCR.
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 52 1 (v 4) Solvency Financial Condition Report and Report to Supervisor Detailed Requirements - Risk Profile EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION
Feedback on Solvency II Draft Directive
5 October 2007 Feedback on Solvency II Draft Directive Chief Risk Officer Forum Copyright 2007 Chief Risk Officer Forum Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary... 3 2 Introduction... 5 3 The CRO Forum Solvency
Re: Possible Solvency and Financial Condition Report components subject to assurance
Ms Sandra Hack European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) Westhafenplatz 1 D-60327 Frankfurt am Main 10 January 2012 Ref.: INS/PRJ/SKU/IDS Dear Ms Hack, Re: Possible Solvency and Financial
EIOPA s first set of advice to the European Commission on specific items in the Solvency II Delegated Regulation
EIOPA-BoS-17/280 30 October 2017 EIOPA s first set of advice to the European Commission on specific items in the Solvency II Delegated Regulation EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt
EUROPEAN STANDARD OF ACTUARIAL PRACTICE 2 (ESAP2) ACTUARIAL FUNCTION REPORT UNDER DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC
EUROPEAN STANDARD OF ACTUARIAL PRACTICE 2 (ESAP2) ACTUARIAL FUNCTION REPORT UNDER DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC FINAL MODEL STANDARD including considerations and reference to regulatory requirements Date: 31 January
EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD
2.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/1 I (Resolutions, recommendations and opinions) RECOMMENDATIONS EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD
INTERNAL CAPITAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS GUIDELINE. Nepal Rastra Bank Bank Supervision Department. August 2012 (updated July 2013)
INTERNAL CAPITAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS GUIDELINE Nepal Rastra Bank Bank Supervision Department August 2012 (updated July 2013) Table of Contents Page No. 1. Introduction 1 2. Internal Capital Adequacy
Solvency II Update. Craig McCulloch
Solvency II Update Craig McCulloch Agenda SII overview Latest Developments Legislative timetable Current regulatory progress Implementation measures QIS4 results & implications Australian Implications
Consultation Paper CP23/14. Solvency II approvals
Consultation Paper CP23/14 Solvency II approvals October 2014 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8 Lothbury, London EC2R 7HH.
Fast-track Reinsurance Supervision project Overview and issues for consideration by the Insurance Committee
MARKT/2513/03 EN Orig. 18 June 2003 Fast-track Reinsurance Supervision project Overview and issues for consideration by the Insurance Committee Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie,
Chapter 6: Analysis of control
Chapter 6: Analysis of control 6.1. Introduction The preceding Chapter dealt with the manner in which the relevant risks are analysed for the functional activities distinguished within the organisational
AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Risks and Risk Management
AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Risks and Risk Management December 2017 1 RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The business of insurance represents the transfer of risk from the insurance policy holder to the insurer
Challenges to Solvency II Reform in Insurance Industry
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Challenges to Solvency II Reform in Insurance Industry Berim Ramosaj 16. November 2010 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/26739/ MPRA Paper No. 26739, posted 17.
This technical advice shall be delivered by 28 February Context. 1.1 Scope
Ref. Ares(2017)932544-21/02/2017 REQUEST TO EIOPA FOR TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE REVIEW OF SPECIFIC ITEMS IN THE SOLVENCY II DELEGATED REGULATION AS REGARDS UNJUSTIFIED CONSTRAINTS TO FINANCING (Regulation
Guidance paper on the use of internal models for risk and capital management purposes by insurers
Guidance paper on the use of internal models for risk and capital management purposes by insurers October 1, 2008 Stuart Wason Chair, IAA Solvency Sub-Committee Agenda Introduction Global need for guidance