A. General comments. October 27, 2012
|
|
- Oliver Fowler
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 AEGON N.V./Transamerica comments on Comparing Certain Aspects of the Insurance Supervisory and Regulatory Regimes in the European Union and the United States October 27, 2012 AEGON appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Technical Committee Reports Comparing Certain Aspects of the Insurance Supervisory and Regulatory Regimes in the European Union and the United States. AEGON has operations in Europe, Asia and also in North America where we operate under the Transamerica brand. We are active in the life insurance, pension, and asset management businesses. AEGON is based in the Netherlands, and has significant operations across Europe. The majority of AEGON s operations, however, are in the United States. We believe that this geographical profile uniquely qualifies us to provide perspective in this extremely important dialogue. We anticipate that this process will create a path to a solution which preserves the ability of global insurers such as AEGON to compete in local markets on both sides of the ocean while ensuring adequate protection of policyholders and effective supervision of groups such as ours. First, we will make some general comments that we believe need to be considered in taking this dialogue forward. Second, we provide some specific comments on group supervision and on solvency and capital requirements. Finally, while we believe that neither the US system nor the EU system is currently positioned to be a global model, we suggest areas where additional convergence is both possible and desirable. A. General comments The dialogue paper is built on seven separate technical committee reports, each addressing one specific topic. However, the report would be strengthened if, in the introduction, it were to address overarching themes, including the following: 1. Both regimes are designed to achieve the same ultimate objectives. The ultimate objective of both regimes is primarily protection of policyholders but also facilitating an effective and efficient marketplace and ensuring financial stability. However, this objective is achieved in different ways because of different underlying philosophies. The US system is based on the notion that policyholder protection and financial stability are best achieved by using a conservative, long term, and stable approach to valuation. As a result, the US system employs cost accounting, incorporates various smoothing mechanisms, and includes multiple elements of prudence. In comparison, the EU system is based on the notion that policyholder protection and financial stability are best achieved by maximizing transparency and by creating risk management incentives. As a result, the EU system employs market value accounting and calibrated capital requirements. 1
2 Other differences between the systems can be linked to different underlying philosophies. One philosophical difference relates to the use of capital requirements. The US system is based on a minimum capital concept that is used primarily for purposes of regulatory intervention, while the EU system is based on an economic capital concept that is intended to serve as a management benchmark. Another difference relates to the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA). The EU ORSA, as presently conceived, is a required standardized tool for internal company risk and capital management. The US ORSA, as presently conceived, is a report to the regulator of the company s approach to risk and capital management. These differences, in our view, are not evidence that one system is more advanced than the other, but rather evidence of different philosophies as to how insurance should be regulated. We believe that policyholder protection, efficient marketplaces, and financial stability can be achieved in more than one way. 2. Individual elements frequently work together to achieve broader regulatory objectives. For example, the EU system places all of the prudence in capital requirements as opposed to the technical provisions. In the US, on the other hand, minimum capital was designed as a supplement to reserves, which include a significant element of prudence. As a consequence, an isolated comparison of either capital requirements or reserves/technical provisions is likely to produce misleading conclusions. 3. The regimes have taken different approaches to regulatory reform. The EU approach and the US approach to regulatory reform have differed. The EU policy was to opt for a new approach with Solvency II, while the state based system in the US has used an evolutionary approach to update the existing system. The EU Solvency II regime is being built as a single, integrated regime, designed to replace Solvency I existing regimes in member states. This new regime is a holistic approach to legal entity and group level supervision and a unified framework for qualitative and quantitative requirements based on a three pillar approach. Pillar 1 consists of the quantitative requirements, pillar 2 sets out requirements for the governance and risk management of insurers as well for the effective supervision of insurers and pillar 3 focuses on disclosures and transparency requirements. It is an ambitious project with a decade already invested in its development. Solvency II has been developed with the intention of producing an entire supervisory framework in a single act of reform. The US regime, in contrast, is not a new framework, but a framework undergoing constant, incremental reform. The policy decision has been to add on the existing system rather than to replace it, often in an effort to rectify perceived deficiencies. At present, the NAIC s Solvency Modernization Initiative and the consequences of Dodd Frank prudential regulatory standards are important evolutionary developments. 4. The regimes are tailored to suit their respective local environments, including their legal systems. In the US, insurance is, by law, regulated by the states at the legal entity level. US state regulators face limitations as to their authority over non insurance entities and insurance entities that are domiciled in other states. In contrast, insurance in the EU has historically been regulated on the national level, and the Solvency II system is designed to regulate the industry consistently across the EU. These legal and environmental differences are important to understand in the context of group supervision. Solvency II is intended to place equal emphasis on the group and the solo entity level, while the US system focuses on legal entities. In the EU, solvency requirements under Solvency II exist at both the legal entity and group level, while in the US, formal state based solvency requirements exist at only 2
3 the legal entity level (although federal group capital requirements will soon apply to some insurers as a result of Dodd Frank reforms). In addition, in the US, material intra group transactions must be preapproved by the regulator in the interest of protecting the legal entity, while in the EU, such transactions are generally reported after the fact, reflecting more of a group perspective. We view these differences as a product of different local environments and legal systems, not as an indication of deficiency in one system or the other. B. Specific comments In addition to the preceding general comments, we have specific comments about two important sections within the report. 1. Group supervision We believe that the report should more fully describe current enhancements to the concept of group supervision within the US system. The report notes that group supervision in the US currently involves the windows and walls approach, whereby the primary interest of regulators is the impact that activities within the group may have on the regulated insurance company, while attempting to wall off such exposures. However, more robust and coordinated supervision of US insurance groups is emerging. Financial examinations of all of a group s legal entities are coordinated across states and legal entities. Supervisory colleges are currently being formed as the result of revisions to the Insurance Holding Company Model Act. In addition, the new ORSA will provide group level risk and capital information to regulators. While the report makes mention of many of these developments, we believe that identifying them in one location is helpful in countering a possible misperception that group activities in the US are lightly regulated. 2. Solvency and capital requirements As mentioned previously, the different roles that capital requirements play in both systems needs to be recognized and understood. In addition, both capital requirements and technical provisions (reserves) are interrelated. Therefore, the capital requirements of the EU and US systems should not be compared in isolation as is currently the case in the draft report. Specifically, in the US, reserves (or technical provisions) within the balance sheet valuation are both historically and currently the primary source of prudence within the solvency framework. The draft report omits the fact that the risk based capital regime was originally added on top of the statutory reserve system, and no element of the reserve system was amended when RBC was introduced. This historical development explains why US regulators typically place more emphasis on reserves and less emphasis on capital requirements than supervisors in other jurisdictions. We have found that this is sometimes not well understood outside the US. In contrast, Solvency II has been structured in a way that places all of the prudence within the capital requirements. The risk margin within the Solvency II technical provisions is not intended to provide prudence but rather is an inherent element of an economic valuation, as it reflects the compensation over and above the best estimate that risk averse market participants require for accepting the 3
4 uncertainty in insurance obligations. We have found that this is sometimes not well understood in the US. In addition, we are concerned about the overly simplified conclusion that the discount rate used within the EU reserving basis is lower than that used within the US basis. Because the discount rate has a very significant impact on the valuation of long term life insurance liabilities, this part of the report is very important. And the reality is complex. A fundamental difference is that the EU valuation basis is a variation of market value accounting, while the US employs cost accounting, subject to a liability adequacy test. An inherent characteristic of cost accounting is that the relative prudence may increase or decrease (to a point) over time. Other important issues adding to the complexity of the discount rate discussion include the following: Ongoing discussions about counter cyclical measures will impact the discounting approach within Solvency II. In the US, the report notes that Moody s bond index rates are used to determine valuation (discount) rates. However, the report omits mention of formulaic adjustments, required by law, that reduce these rates. In general, these downward adjustments are greater when product guarantees are longer and when interest rates are higher. In some historical environments, maximum valuation (discount) rates for US life insurance products have been well below riskfree (US Treasury) rates. In addition, we believe that the report understates the role of asset adequacy testing within the US framework, relegating it to a single sentence. Asset adequacy testing is the liability adequacy test that supplements the cost accounting based reserve framework, evaluating whether reserves need to be increased. It assesses whether the company s assets are sufficient to mature its liabilities under multiple stress scenarios. The work is documented in company produced reports that run hundreds of pages. In order to provide a high level perspective on the differences between the frameworks, we have produced the following chart, which compares the major quantitative elements of the two systems. Comparison of Major Quantitative Elements of US and EU Frameworks Solvency II in the EU State based regime in the US Source of quantitative Capital requirements Primarily in reserves (technical prudence provisions); secondarily in capital requirements Accounting basis Market value with counter cyclical adjustments Primarily cost, supplemented by liability adequacy test Solvency modeling One year mark to market (used for Lifetime runoff (used for liability approach capital requirements) adequacy test) Supervisory emphasis Stresses used in capital calculations Assumptions used in reserve calculations In summary, it would be very misleading to limit the focus of comparison to capital requirements and ladders of intervention. The total picture must include technical provisions, and even then, a comparison would be a function of the type of product, when it was sold, emerging experience, permissible capital resources, and other factors. 4
5 C. Proposed enhancements While we do not believe that complete convergence of the EU and US supervisory frameworks is achievable at this time for reasons described in the General Comments section of this letter, we believe that the overarching aims of supervisors would be furthered by certain targeted enhancements within each regime. These enhancements would have the benefit of bringing the regimes closer together. 1. Group supervision The report observes that Solvency II in the EU has been designed to apply at both the group and legal entity levels, and that the group supervisor has significant authority over the legal entities of the group. In contrast, the US regime is focused on the legal entity, and, while regulators share information about the legal entities of the group, no single regulator has authority over all of the legal entities of the group if such entities are domiciled in different states. It is our observation that group supervision exists in the US, although it is at a somewhat informal and early stage of development. For instance, the new ORSA requirement is applied at a group level, and new holding company requirements both facilitate supervisory colleges and require potentially extensive disclosures about the risk exposures of the group. It is also our observation that a lead state concept frequently exists in an informal sense. We would support the development of a more formal overlay of group supervision within the US. This would involve the following: (a) continued development of supervisory colleges, (b) formal identification of a lead supervisor with responsibility for understanding and providing insight to other supervisors and the Federal Insurance Office about the group s structure, strategy, financial position, risks, and risk management, (c) development of a basic set of information to be supplied to regulators (d) a mechanism for coordination of supplementary information requests about the group, and (e) mandatory participation by lead state regulator in the group supervision regime. This proposed overlay of group supervision would not be intended to detract from the existing focus on legal entities. It would, however, address a perceived gap in the US framework and streamline the regulation of the group. It would also bring the state based system in the US closer to certain parameter of Solvency II in the EU. 2. Counter cyclical measures The primary concern of many insurers about Solvency II is the significant volatility in own funds that may result from changes in market credit spreads. This volatility may encourage procyclical behavior and appears to require insurers to maintain a significant buffer above the solvency capital requirement (SCR) to avoid regulatory concerns. We have been encouraged by the recognition of this issue and the development of, first, the liquidity premium, and, more recently, the matching and countercyclical adjustments. We are concerned, however, that these measures might apply to only a limited scope of products, except in times of market turmoil. In particular, they would have a limited effect on many important long term insurance products that meet important social needs within our various local insurance markets. We believe that a sound argument can be made either for a broader application of the matching premium or for a reintroduction of a separate liquidity premium. The core insurance business model is based on the predictability of cash outflows resulting from the law of large numbers. Insurers may not know which policyholders will file a claim, but they often can reliably estimate the number. This same 5
6 principle applies, in general, to lapse or surrender of policies. As a consequence of the predictability of cash outflows, insurers can often prudently invest in relatively illiquid assets and harvest the investment premiums. This predictability, therefore, has real economic value for an insurer, and an economic solvency framework such as Solvency II should reflect it. We are encouraged that a QIS exercise on the counter cyclical measures is underway, and we believe that the results of the exercise will show that these measures can be designed in a way to achieve a sound and robust prudential framework while respecting the long term nature of the insurance business. We believe an adequate application of such measures would significantly reduce volatility and bring Solvency II in the EU closer to the concepts underlying the state based framework in the US. 3. Reinsurance and collateral requirements As our US business is a large purchaser of reinsurance, we would welcome the potential for increased competition within the US market. Historically, such competition has been limited by requirements that non US reinsurers must hold 100% collateral. The 2011 amendments to the NAIC s Credit for Reinsurance Model Law introduced reforms that allow strong reinsurers to hold less than 100% collateral under certain circumstances. The dialogue report notes, however, that significant differences nonetheless exist between the US approach to non US insurers in qualified jurisdictions and the EU approach to non EU insurers in equivalent jurisdictions. We would support additional reforms to the NAIC model that would bring it closer to the EU approach. In general, we do not believe that collateral should be required from highly rated, well capitalized, and well regulated reinsurers. To that end, we suggest: (1) collateral reduction/elimination should be possible for in force business, not just new risks, and (2) the sliding scale of collateral, which is a function of rating agency ratings, should be eliminated. In addition, the NAIC model should be an accreditation standard, thus making national uniformity significantly more likely. These changes would both benefit US direct writers and bring the state based system in the US closer to Solvency II in the EU. D. Concluding remarks In summary, the state based system in the US and Solvency II in the EU have the same ultimate objectives. The methods used to achieve these objectives have been informed by philosophical differences, legal frameworks, and historical practices. However, the existence of such differences should not imply that one system or the other is not equivalent for protecting policyholders, facilitating an effective and efficient marketplace, and ensuring financial stability. To be clear, convergence of supervisory and regulatory practices is desirable and in our view may be an achievable objective over time. An exercise of ongoing convergence is facilitated by bilateral regulatory dialogue between the EU and the US. As this dialogue progresses, it will need to include not only factual comparisons of individual elements, but an understanding how those elements work together. Therefore, this dialogue needs to continue and evolve. In the meantime, complete convergence is not a pre requisite for mutual recognition of different solvency and supervisory systems. The insurance markets in both the US and EU are best served by a regulatory environment that allows non domestic insurers to compete on a level playing field. We advocate policy decisions that achieve this outcome. 6
SMI. Capital Requirements. Governance & Risk Management. Group Supervision. Statutory Accounting & Financial Reporting.
Solvency Modernization Initiative ROADMAP Solvency Modernization Initiative 1. The Solvency Modernization Initiative (SMI) is a critical self-examination to update the United States insurance solvency
More informationThe 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
More informationGregg Clifton. CFO Aurigen Reinsurance
Gregg Clifton CFO Aurigen Reinsurance Regulatory Capital When it comes to regulatory capital, is there a discernable clicking sound of a ratchet? More onerous Canadian capital requirements and the inherent
More informationKarel 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
More informationSolvency 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
More informationIRSG Opinion on Potential Harmonisation of Recovery and Resolution Frameworks for Insurers
IRSG OPINION ON DISCUSSION PAPER (EIOPA-CP-16-009) ON POTENTIAL HARMONISATION OF RECOVERY AND RESOLUTION FRAMEWORKS FOR INSURERS EIOPA-IRSG-17-03 28 February 2017 IRSG Opinion on Potential Harmonisation
More informationSolvency 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
More informationField Tests of Economic Value-Based Evaluation and Supervisory Method. - Summary of the Results -
March 28, 2017 Financial Services Agency Field Tests of Economic Value-Based Evaluation and Supervisory Method - Summary of the Results - Table of Contents I. Background and objectives... 2 I.1. Background...
More informationEIOPA: recent developments in insurance and pensions. EVCA Investors' Forum Geneva, 14 March 2012
EIOPA: recent developments in insurance and pensions EVCA Investors' Forum Geneva, 14 March 2012 Content What is EIOPA? Recent developments on Solvency II EIOPA s advice on pensions 2 EIOPA: Background
More informationSOLVENCY 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
More informationLink between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2
Link between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 XXIV International Seminar on Insurance and Surety, November 2014, Mexico City Olaf Ermert, BaFin Link between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 Content Introduction Own Risk and
More informationREQUEST 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
More informationSolvency Monitoring and
Solvency Monitoring and Reporting Venkatasubramanian A CILA2006/AV 1 Intro No amount of capital can substitute for the capacity to understand, measure and manage risk and no formula or model can capture
More informationFIO recommendations on modernizing insurance regulation in the US
Insurance regulatory update FIO recommendations on modernizing insurance regulation in the US Time for the industry to act The Federal Insurance Office (FIO) has submitted to Congress its long-awaited
More informationslaughter and may The matching premium
slaughter and may BRIEFING MARCH 2012 Introduction Solvency II is intended to introduce greater levels of harmonisation in the prudential regulation of insurers across Europe. This includes greater harmonisation
More informationRisk-based capital and governance in Asia-Pacific: emerging regulations
Risk-based capital and governance in Asia-Pacific: emerging regulations 1 Changing regulations in a changing market Across the Asia-Pacific region, countries are reviewing their approach to regulation
More informationThe Review of Solvency II. 01/02/2018 Hans De Cuyper, President of Assuralia
The Review of Solvency II 01/02/2018 Hans De Cuyper, President of Assuralia 1 Implementation of Solvency II Belgian insurance companies early adopters with first dry runs in 2014 2 From Solvency I to Solvency
More informationINTERNATIONAL 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
More informationThe fourth quantitative impact study of new regulation in the insurance sector 1 Peter Paluš, Andrea Gondová
1 The article only deals with insurance undertakings, because no reinsurance undertaking was under the supervision of the National Bank of Slovakia when the fourth quantitative impact study was being carried
More informationA Comparison of Solvency Systems: US and EU
A Comparison of Solvency Systems: US and EU Principles or Rules Uniformity Principles are included in numerous NAIC handbooks. The statutory accounting framework is based on overarching statements of concepts;
More informationAdvisory Guidelines of the Financial Supervision Authority. Requirements to the internal capital adequacy assessment process
Advisory Guidelines of the Financial Supervision Authority Requirements to the internal capital adequacy assessment process These Advisory Guidelines were established by Resolution No 66 of the Management
More informationInternational Regulatory Developments
International Regulatory Developments An Introduction to Solvency II Simone Brathwaite, FSA, FCIA, CERA Principal Oliver Wyman December 2, 2010 Many bodies driving global regulatory change A simplification
More informationAn 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
More informationU.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Hearing on Finding the Right Capital Regulation for Insurers Submitted Testimony
More informationRisk Concentrations Principles
Risk Concentrations Principles THE JOINT FORUM BASEL COMMITTEE ON BANKING SUPERVISION INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF SECURITIES COMMISSIONS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS Basel December
More informationResults of the QIS5 Report
aktuariat-witzel Universität Basel Frühjahrssemester 2011 Dr. Ruprecht Witzel ruprecht.witzel@aktuariat-witzel.ch On 5 July 2010 the European Commission published the QIS5 Technical Specifications The
More informationRe: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Consultative Document Countercyclical capital buffer proposal, July 2010
Mark D. Linsz Corporate Treasurer September 10, 2010 VIA E-MAIL: baselcommittee@bis.org Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Bank for International Settlements Centralbahnplatz 2 CH-4002 Basel Switzerland
More informationSolvency 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
More informationMacro-Prudential Approaches: Monitoring the Insurance Sector
Macro-Prudential Approaches: Monitoring the Insurance Sector Observations from Global Financial Stability Reports and the NAIC toolbox NAIC Financial Stability Task Force December 10, 2016 Elise Liebers
More informationCEA response to CEIOPS request on the calculation of the group SCR
Position CEA response to CEIOPS request on the calculation of the group SCR CEA reference: ECO-SLV-09-060 Date: 27 February 2009 Referring to: Related CEA documents: CEIOPS request on the calculation of
More informationCOMITÉ 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,
More informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS ISSUES PAPER ON GROUP-WIDE SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT AND SUPERVISION 5 MARCH 2009 This document was prepared jointly by the Solvency and Actuarial Issues Subcommittee
More information29th India Fellowship Seminar
29th India Fellowship Seminar Is Risk Based Capital way forward? Adaptability to Indian Context & Comparison of various market consistent measures Guide: Sunil Sharma Presented by: Rakesh Kumar Niraj Kumar
More informationSolvency II, linking risk with capital
Solvency II, linking risk with capital Prof. Karel Van Hulle KU Leuven Member IRSG EIOPA FIAR International Insurance-Reinsurance Forum Brasov, 16 May 2016 Insurance is about risk People are naturally
More informationSolvency Control Levels
International Association of Insurance Supervisors Solvency, Solvency Assessments and Actuarial Issues Subcommittee Draft Guidance Paper Solvency Control Levels Contents I. Introduction...1 II. Minimum
More informationEIOPA, Solvency II and the Loss Adjusting profession
SPEECH Gabriel Bernardino Chairman of EIOPA EIOPA, Solvency II and the Loss Adjusting profession General Assembly of the European Federation of Loss Adjusting Experts Porto, 11 May 2012 Page 2 of 11 Ladies
More informationBermuda s Insurance Solvency Framework The Roadmap to Regulatory Equivalence. September
Bermuda s Insurance Solvency Framework The Roadmap to Regulatory Equivalence September 2010 Executive Summary Bermuda Monetary Authority 1 The Bermuda Monetary Authority has made considerable progress
More informationEBF 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
More informationFRAMEWORK FOR SUPERVISORY INFORMATION
FRAMEWORK FOR SUPERVISORY INFORMATION ABOUT THE DERIVATIVES ACTIVITIES OF BANKS AND SECURITIES FIRMS (Joint report issued in conjunction with the Technical Committee of IOSCO) (May 1995) I. Introduction
More informationGL ON COMMON PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SREP EBA/CP/2014/14. 7 July Consultation Paper
EBA/CP/2014/14 7 July 2014 Consultation Paper Draft Guidelines for common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process under Article 107 (3) of Directive 2013/36/EU Contents
More informationVice President and Chief Actuary CLHIA
1 TITLE Presentation Points Steve Additional Easson, Points FCIA, FSA, CFA Additional Points Vice President and Chief Actuary CLHIA 2 TITLE AGENDA Presentation Points 1. Regulatory Additional (and Points
More informationReport on the use of capital add-ons 2017
EIOPA-BoS/17-336 rev2 21 December 2017 Report on the use of capital add-ons 2017 1/10 Contents Executive summary... 3 I. Introduction and mandate... 5 1. Objectives... 5 2. Mandate... 5 3. Disclaimer...
More informationPractical application of Liquidity Premium to the valuation of insurance liabilities and determination of capital requirements
28 April 2011 Practical application of Liquidity Premium to the valuation of insurance liabilities and determination of capital requirements 1. Introduction CRO Forum Position on Liquidity Premium The
More informationSTATEMENT AT THE HEARING OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT S ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Gabriel Bernardino Chairman European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) STATEMENT AT THE HEARING OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT S ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Brussels, 9 October
More informationP/C Risk-Based Capital: State and International Solvency Regulation
P/C Risk-Based Capital: State and International Solvency Regulation May 31, 2011 Presented by the Property and Casualty Risk-Based Capital Committee 1 Presenters Moderator and speaker: Alex Krutov, FCAS,
More informationHot 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)
More informationEIOPA Technical Findings on the Long-Term Guarantees Assessment. June Milliman Solvency II Update
EIOPA Technical Findings on the Long-Term Guarantees Assessment June 2013 The EIOPA report on the Long-Term Guarantees Assessment makes a number of recommendations to further encourage long-term liability
More informationResults of the QIS5 Report Short Version
aktuariat-witzel Results of the QIS5 Report Short Version Universität Basel Frühjahrssemester 2013 Dr. Ruprecht Witzel ruprecht.witzel@aktuariat-witzel.ch On 5 July 2010 the European Commission published
More informationSolvency 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
More informationSession 169 PD - IAIS Global Insurance Capital Standards Update. Moderator: David Sherwood
Session 169 PD - IAIS Global Insurance Capital Standards Update Moderator: David Sherwood Presenters: Elizabeth K. Dietrich, FSA, CERA, MAAA David Sherwood SOA Antitrust Compliance Guidelines SOA Presentation
More informationCEIOPS-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
More informationOPRISK USA. New York 25 March The view from Europe. Arnoud Vossen, Secretary General of CEBS
OPRISK USA New York 25 March 2009 The view from Europe Arnoud Vossen, Secretary General of CEBS Ladies and Gentlemen, I am honoured to present to you a European view on risk management and legislation
More information1. 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
More informationFrequently Asked Questions for The global risk-based Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) Updated 21 July 2017
Updated 21 July 2017 Frequently Asked Questions for The global risk-based Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) Updated 21 July 2017 Questions 1. What is the risk-based global insurance capital standard (ICS)?...
More informationKEYNOTE SPEECH BUILDING A COMMON SUPERVISORY CULTURE. 2 nd IVASS CONFERENCE SOLVENCY II AND SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED INSURERS
KEYNOTE SPEECH Gabriel Bernardino Chairman European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) BUILDING A COMMON SUPERVISORY CULTURE 2 nd IVASS CONFERENCE SOLVENCY II AND SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
More informationInsurance Summit Mr Raymond Tam Executive Director (Policy and Development) Insurance Authority 21 September 2017
Insurance Summit 2017 Mr Raymond Tam Executive Director (Policy and Development) Insurance Authority 21 September 2017 Priority of Policy Initiatives Development of risk-based capital regime Facilitation
More information17/06/2012. Solvency II: Implementation Challenges & Opportunities. What is Solvency II about?
What is Solvency II about? Solvency II: Implementation Challenges & Opportunities The Solvency II Directive is a regulatory framework for the European insurance industry that adopts a more dynamic and
More informationDoes the ORSA add value? Challenges and initial achievements. Lukas Ziewer Risk Management Perspectives, 18/11/2014
Does the ORSA add value? Challenges and initial achievements Lukas Ziewer Risk Management Perspectives, 18/11/2014 My three wishes for a prudential regime 1. Capital as a single currency for risk as a
More informationMetLife. March 15, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Bank for International Settlements Centralbahnplatz 2 CH Basel Switzerland
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 10 Park Avenue, Monistown, NJ 07962 Jason P. Manske Senior Managing Director Tel973-355-4778 jmanske@metlife.com Todd F. Lurie Associate General Counsel Tel973-355-4368
More informationREPORT ON THE USE OF CAPITAL ADD-ONS DURING 2017
https://eiopa.europa.eu/ REPORT ON THE USE OF CAPITAL ADD-ONS DURING 2017 PDF ISBN 978-92-9473-118-0 ISSN 2599-8781 doi:10.2854/795644 EI-06-18-354-EN-N Print ISBN 978-92-9473-117-3 doi:10.2854/521028
More information[ALL FACTORS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE ILLUSTRATIVE AND DO NOT PRE-EMPT A SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON CALIBRATION]
26 Boulevard Haussmann F 75009 Paris Tél. : +33 1 44 83 11 83 Fax : +33 1 47 70 03 75 www.cea.assur.org Square de Meeûs, 29 B 1000 Bruxelles Tél. : +32 2 547 58 11 Fax : +32 2 547 58 19 www.cea.assur.org
More informationInsurance Supervisory Approach January February 2018
Insurance Supervisory Approach January 2018 09 February 2018 1 Welcome and Introduction Evolution of our supervisory approach under Solvency II Providing clarity on our key areas of focus Setting expectations
More informationIs it implementing Basel II or do we need Basell III? BBA Annual Internacional Banking Conference. José María Roldán Director General de Regulación
London, 30 June 2009 Is it implementing Basel II or do we need Basell III? BBA Annual Internacional Banking Conference José María Roldán Director General de Regulación It is a pleasure to join you today
More informationProposal for a Directive on Reinsurance Supervision Frequently Asked Questions (see also IP/04/513)
MEMO/04/90 Brussels, 21 April 2004 Proposal for a Directive on Reinsurance Supervision Frequently Asked Questions (see also IP/04/513) What are the main objectives of the proposal? The proposed Directive
More informationSolvency 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
More information1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 2. DEFINITIONS
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 28 1 (v 6) Treatment of Expected Profits Included in Future Cash flows as a Capital Resource 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE An insurance
More informationERM and the new world of insurance regulation. Where insurers should focus now to find business value
ERM and the new world of insurance regulation Where insurers should focus now to find business value Enterprise risk management is a common denominator Reform efforts have much in common, including enhanced
More informationThe future of life insurance, Solvency II and investment strategies
KEYNOTE SPEECH Gabriel Bernardino Chairman of EIOPA The future of life insurance, Solvency II and investment strategies 11 th Handelsblatt Annual Conference Solvency II Munich, 15 July 2014 Page 2 of 9
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Stress Testing Task Group Discussion Document 96 (v 3) General Stress Testing Guidance for Insurance Companies
Solvency Assessment and Management: Stress Testing Task Group Discussion Document 96 (v 3) General Stress Testing Guidance for Insurance Companies 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The business of insurance is
More informationOpinion of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority on the group solvency calculation in the context of equivalence
EIOPABoS15/201 25 September 2015 Opinion of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority on the group solvency calculation in the context of equivalence Legal Basis 1. This opinion is issued
More informationConsultation 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
More informationJanuary CNB opinion on Commission consultation document on Solvency II implementing measures
NA PŘÍKOPĚ 28 115 03 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
More informationJuly 29, Japanese Bankers Association
July 29, 2008 Comments on "Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision" June 2008 - Draft for Consultation from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Japanese Bankers Association
More informationSolvency 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,
More informationGUERNSEY NEW RISK BASED INSURANCE SOLVENCY REQUIREMENTS
GUERNSEY NEW RISK BASED INSURANCE SOLVENCY REQUIREMENTS Introduction The Guernsey Financial Services Commission has published a consultation paper entitled Evolving Insurance Regulation. The paper proposes
More informationStability and consumer protection The EIOPA view
SPEECH Gabriel Bernardino Chairman of EIOPA Stability and consumer protection The EIOPA view Central Bank of Ireland Stakeholder Conference Dublin, 27 April 2012 Page 2 of 9 Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen,
More informationSolvency 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 /
More informationEssential 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
More information'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
More informationSAIA (011) Issue 3 / 2012
Table of Contents SAM Snippets... 2 The SAIA SAM Financial Impact Study... 7 Understanding a breach of the SCR (under Solvency II)... 10 1 SAM Snippets Insurance Laws Amendment Bill (ILAB) The Insurance
More informationInternational Trends in Regulatory Capital & Target Surplus. Caroline Bennet - Trowbridge Deloitte Jennifer Lang - CBA
International Trends in Regulatory Capital & Target Surplus Caroline Bennet - Trowbridge Deloitte Jennifer Lang - CBA Agenda Review of Capital Framework International Trends in Regulatory Capital Target
More informationOwn Risk Solvency Assessment (ORSA) Linking Risk Management, Capital Management and Strategic Planning
Own Risk Solvency Assessment (ORSA) Linking Risk Management, Capital Management and Strategic Planning Moderator: David Holland, Risk Director, Ally Insurance SPEAKERS Mary-ellen Coggins, Managing Director,
More informationInsights. NAIC s ORSA. A Broader Approach to Regulation. NAIC S ORSA Part of a Global Shift to Regulatory Modernization
Insights June 2011 NAIC s ORSA A Broader Approach to Regulation Broad regulatory changes are on the horizon for U.S. insurers. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC s) Solvency Modernization
More informationSharing insights on key industry issues*
Insurance This article is from a PricewaterhouseCoopers publication entitled Insurancedigest Sharing insights on key industry issues* Americas edition February 2009 Solvency II: A competitive advantage
More informationLiquidity Regulation in the UK & Europe Impact on International Banks and Broker-Dealers
S T R I C T L Y P R I V A T E A N D C O N F I D E N T I A L 7 th July, 2010 Liquidity Regulation in the UK & Europe Impact on International Banks and Broker-Dealers Derek Paine - Compliance Manager (Speaker)
More informationIntroduction 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
More informationPublic Disclosure Authorized. Public Disclosure Authorized. Public Disclosure Authorized. cover_test.indd 1-2 4/24/09 11:55:22
cover_test.indd 1-2 4/24/09 11:55:22 losure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized 1 4/24/09 11:58:20 What is an actuary?... 1 Basic actuarial
More informationKey Challenges Reflections from the FSA
Momentum Conference, December 2010 Daniel Draper and Yen Ni Tan Key Challenges Reflections from the FSA 2010 The Actuarial Profession www.actuaries.org.uk Agenda Update from GIAT Issues on the regulatory
More informationGuidance Note: Stress Testing Credit Unions with Assets Greater than $500 million. May Ce document est également disponible en français.
Guidance Note: Stress Testing Credit Unions with Assets Greater than $500 million May 2017 Ce document est également disponible en français. Applicability This Guidance Note is for use by all credit unions
More informationEU Directive 2009/138 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance A general introduction to the Solvency II framework
66 ARTICLES Ioannis ROKAS, PhD * 1/2017 EU Directive 2009/138 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance A general introduction to the Solvency II framework UDC: 368(4-672EU)
More informationSupervisory Statement SS15/15 Solvency II: approvals. March Appendix 2.15
Supervisory Statement SS15/15 Solvency II: approvals March 2015 Appendix 2.15 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8 Lothbury,
More informationFebruary 6, Dear Ms. Vullo:
February 6, 2018 Reinsurance Task Force Chair Maria T. Vullo National Association of Insurance Commissioners VIA Email Transmission: Jake Stultz (jstultz@naic.org), RE: NAMIC Comments Bilateral Agreement
More informationEIOPA-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. +
More informationSUPERVISORY POLICY STATEMENT (Class 1(1) and Class 1(2))
SUPERVISORY POLICY STATEMENT (Class 1(1) and Class 1(2)) Domestic Systemically Important Banks June 2017 Page 1 of 23 Contents 1. Introduction 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 Legal basis 5 2. Overview of IOM D-SIB
More informationNAIC OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT (ORSA) GUIDANCE MANUAL
NAIC OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT (ORSA) GUIDANCE MANUAL Created by the NAIC Group Solvency Issues Working Group Of the Solvency Modernization Initiatives (EX) Task Force 2011 National Association
More informationSolvency 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
More informationCapital Adequacy and Supervisory Assessment of Solvency Position
Capital Adequacy and Supervisory Assessment of Solvency Position Jeffery Yong IAIS Secretariat Regional Seminar for Supervisors in Africa on Risk-based Solvency and Supervision, 14 September 2010 Agenda
More informationWebinar. The Gibraltar Financial Services Commission. Solvency II Implications for Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) 28 th May 2015
Webinar Solvency II Implications for Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) 28 th May 2015 Kathryn Morgan, Director or Regulatory Operations Ken Hogg, Solvency II Project Manager Webinar 28 th May 2015 Agenda
More informationIntroductory Speech. The Solvency II Review: What happens next? Conference on "The review of Solvency II organised by the National Bank of Belgium
Introductory Speech Gabriel Bernardino Chairman of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) The Solvency II Review: What happens next? Conference on "The review of Solvency II
More informationThe Swiss Solvency Test SST: Experiences and Future Actions
The Swiss Solvency Test SST: Experiences and Future Actions PRMIA Zurich, 28 February 2012 René Schnieper, FINMA The Swiss Solvency Test SST: Experiences and Future Actions Agenda Importance of Solvency
More information