Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper (v 3) Loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes
|
|
- Anissa Miller
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper (v 3) Loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SAM introduces a valuation basis of technical provisions that is likely to be different to the basis on which firms profits are taxed. This means that deferred tax assets/liabilities are created on the balance sheet to incorporate this difference. Similarly, these items are available to absorb losses in 1-in-200 year events related to the calculation of the SCR. This discussion document sets out an approach as to how the loss-absorbing impact of these deferred tax positions should be determined. This document does not consider a range of likely future tax bases under SAM (still a source of uncertainty) but rather discusses the application of principles agnostic of a specific tax basis. An assumption that may be true to a greater or lesser extent is that a future tax basis is unlikely to correspond to the upfront recognition of profits to the same degree as the SAM basis. The impact of the various options in this discussion document will be subject to the ultimate tax basis. For life insurance companies this means that the assumption is that the structure of the four funds regime would remain in place. Given this assumption, the document focuses on the tax on profits (transfer tax) as opposed to the tax within the various funds (trustees tax as well as tax on investment return within the corporate fund). The key points which are discussed relate to the extent to which deferred tax assets are allowed to be created in the SCR calculation. On the one hand, these stress conditions incorporate best estimate assumptions following the stress and there may be little justification for any future profits. On the other, it is important to understand some of the assumptions underlying the calculation of the SCR which may result in profits that could be utilised against a deferred tax asset. The recommendation is to allow the creation of a tax asset using the same principles followed when assessing the availability of such an asset in the base case. This means that IFRS principles will apply in recognising the asset, but no prescribed calculation is employed to limit the quantity. Some specific examples of what items should typically be excluded have been included by the task group. It is recommended that the implications of the recommended allowance is assessed once the tax basis has been finalised so as to inform whether additional limitations would be proportional to the additional complexity for the purposes of the standard formula. 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE When drawing up a SAM balance sheet, amounts that would have been held previously as regulatory or discretionary margins are released into own funds (in addition to amounts released/committed due to different assumptions being used). The tax basis recognises 1 Position Paper 112 (v 3) was approved as a FINAL Position Paper by the SAM Steering Committee on 27 March 2015.
2 profit transfers on the liabilities produced by the current statutory valuation method. As such, there may be some profits (losses) that are recognised on an economic balance sheet that have not yet given rise to a tax liability (asset). A deferred tax liability (asset) is set up to take account of these profits (losses). For the remainder of this document it will be explicitly stated when profits/liability cannot be used interchangeably with losses/asset. When performing SCR calculations, it is important to take into account that the adverse scenarios would have an impact on these unrecognised profits (as far as the tax basis is concerned) and hence there should be an adjustment to the deferred tax liability. This adjustment is made by the item called loss-absorbing capacity of deferred tax. This document discusses some of the assumptions used in the calculation of this impact. Particular focus is given to the extent to which deferred tax assets should be recognised on the SAM balance sheet following the events used in the calculation of the Basic SCR. The document is written against the background of the current dispensation for the taxation of life and non-life insurance business, but should be readily adaptable to any new dispensation. 2. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS: IAIS ICPs ICP 17.6 refers to the structure of capital requirements. In particular refers to the reasoning behind a going concern basis being applied and the availability of capital to meet losses in a wind-down scenario: Capital should also be capable of protecting policyholders if the insurer were to close to new business. Generally, the determination of capital on a going concern basis would not be expected to be less than would be required if it is assumed that the insurer were to close to new business. However, this may not be true in all cases, since some assets may lose some or all of their value in the event of a winding-up or run-off, for example, because of a forced sale. Similarly, some liabilities may actually have an increased value if the business does not continue (e.g. claims handling expenses). ICP speaks to the availability of capital to meet losses under both going concern and wind-up bases. In general this applies to assets in the base case, but for the purposes of this discussion it should also be applied to assets in a stressed scenario. 3. EU DIRECTIVE ON SOLVENCY II: PRINCIPLES (LEVEL 1) Article 101 Calculation of the Solvency Capital Requirement 1. The Solvency Capital Requirement shall be calculated in accordance with paragraphs 2 to The Solvency Capital Requirement shall be calculated on the presumption that the undertaking will pursue its business as a going concern. 3. The Solvency Capital Requirement shall be calibrated so as to ensure that all quantifiable risks to which an insurance or reinsurance undertaking is exposed are taken into account. It shall cover existing business, as Page 2 of 11
3 well as the new business expected to be written over the following 12 months. With respect to existing business, it shall cover only unexpected losses. It shall correspond to the Value-at-Risk of the basic own funds of an insurance or reinsurance undertaking subject to a confidence level of 99,5 % over a one-year period. 4. The Solvency Capital Requirement shall cover at least the following risks: (a) non-life underwriting risk; (b) life underwriting risk; (c) health underwriting risk; (d) market risk; (e) credit risk; (f) operational risk. Operational risk as referred to in point (f) of the first subparagraph shall include legal risks, and exclude risks arising from strategic decisions, as well as reputation risks. 5. When calculating the Solvency Capital Requirement, insurance and reinsurance undertakings shall take account of the effect of risk-mitigation techniques, provided that credit risk and other risks arising from the use of such techniques are properly reflected in the Solvency Capital Requirement. Article 103 Structure of the Standard Formula The Solvency Capital Requirement calculated on the basis of the standard formula shall be the sum of the following items: (a) the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement, as laid down in Article 104; (b) the capital requirement for operational risk, as laid down in Article 107; (c) the adjustment for the loss-absorbing capacity of technical provisions and deferred taxes, as laid down in Article 108. Article 108 Adjustment for the loss-absorbing capacity of technical provisions and deferred taxes The adjustment referred to in Article 103(c) for the loss-absorbing capacity of technical provisions and deferred taxes shall reflect potential compensation of unexpected losses through a simultaneous decrease in technical provisions or deferred taxes or a combination of the two. That adjustment shall take account of the risk mitigating effect provided by future discretionary benefits of insurance contracts, to the extent insurance and reinsurance undertakings can establish that a reduction in such benefits may be used to cover unexpected losses when they arise. The risk mitigating effect provided by future discretionary benefits shall be no higher than the sum of technical provisions and deferred taxes relating to those future discretionary benefits. For the purpose of the second paragraph, the value of future discretionary benefits under adverse circumstances shall be compared to the value of such benefits under the underlying assumptions of the bestestimate calculation. 4. MAPPING ANY PRINCIPLE (LEVEL 1) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IAIS ICP & EU DIRECTIVE The level 1 directive specifies a going concern basis, whereas the ICPs refer to both a going concern and wind-up basis. 5. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE (LEVELS 2 & 3) 5.1 IAIS standards and guidance papers No further guidance papers were referred to, other than the additional CP issued by the PRA (UK) Page 3 of 11
4 5.2 CEIOPS CPs (consultation papers) CP54 speaks to the loss-absorbing capacity of technical provisions and deferred taxes. The text below is from the Level II implementing measures: Calculation of the adjustment for loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes The calculation of the adjustment for loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes should be consistent with the calculation for loss-absorbing capacity of technical provisions The loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes should take into account decreases in deferred tax liabilities and increases in deferred tax assets. The latter should, however, only be taken into account up to the amount that stays available under stressed situations. Where under stress the asset may disappear, no allowance should be made The value of the deferred tax liability or asset should be recalculated under the single equivalent scenario. As described above, it is assumed that all the shocks making up the single equivalent scenario occur simultaneously. Furthermore it should be assumed that the undertaking makes an operational risk loss equal to SCRop within the equivalent scenario. This ensures that the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes is properly captured The adjustment for loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes is based on the difference between the value of deferred taxes as included on the balance sheet and the value of deferred taxes under the single equivalent scenario However where the adjustment for loss absorbency of technical provisions is calculated using the modular approach, a further adjustment should be made to reflect the loss-absorbing capacities of deferred taxes. As in QIS4, this adjustment should be calculated as follows: The Basic Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR) should be calculated on the basis that the current (pre-stress) liability in respect of deferred taxes is excluded from the current (pre-stress) balance sheet. The capital requirement for operational risk should be added to the BSCR. The outcome is reduced by the adjustment for the loss absorbing capacity of technical provisions. The result of this calculation is called SCR shock. The liability or asset in respect of deferred taxes should then be calculated under the assumption that the undertaking made an immediate loss equal to the SCR shock The adjustment to the basic SCR for the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes is equal to the change in the deferred tax liability and/or asset Note that advice on the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities is included in CEIOPS advice on valuation of assets and other liabilities (CEIOPS-DOC-35/09) 2 CP35 has been considered by the Assets Task Group in their recommendations for the valuation of other assets and liabilities. The QIS5 report mentions that some supervisors were concerned with the qualitative assessment as to whether deferred tax assets could be realised within a reasonable time frame. The text below is from Part I of the Long-Term Guarantee Assessment: 2 (This last reference is incorrect in the CP and should be CEIOPS-DOC-31/09, but reference is made to an earlier CP35.) Page 4 of 11
5 Adjustment for loss absorbency of deferred taxes SCR The adjustment for the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes should be equal to the change in the value of deferred taxes of undertakings that would result from an instantaneous loss of an amount that is equal to the following amount: SCRshock = BSCR + AdjTP + SCROp where BSCR is the Basic SCR, AdjTP is the adjustment for the loss-absorbing capacity of technical provisions and SCROp denotes the capital requirement for operational risk. SCR For the purpose of this calculation, the value of deferred taxes should be calculated as set out in the section on valuation. Where a loss of SCRshock would result in the setting up of deferred tax assets, insurance and reinsurance undertakings should take into account the magnitude of the loss and its impact on the undertaking's financial situation when assessing whether it is probable that future taxable profit will be available against which the deferred tax asset can be utilized in accordance with the section on valuation. SCR For the purpose of this calculation, a decrease in deferred tax liabilities or an increase in deferred tax assets should result in a negative adjustment for the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes. SCR Where the calculation of the adjustment results in a positive change of deferred taxes, the adjustment shall be nil. SCR Undertakings should calculate the adjustment for deferred taxes in accordance with the valuation principles as set out in the section on valuation. Those principles require the calculation of the adjustment for the loss-absorbency capacity of notional deferred taxes by stressing the Solvency II balance sheet and determining the consequences on the undertaking s tax figures. The notional deferred taxes should then be calculated on the basis of temporary differences between the stressed Solvency II values and the corresponding figures for tax purposes. Following the principles set out in the section on valuation, notional deferred taxes should be recognized in relation to all assets and liabilities that are recognized either for Solvency or tax purposes. Items not recognized for Solvency or tax purposes should be valued at zero. SCR If undertakings do not set up a stressed Solvency II balance sheet, supervisory authorities should allow a calculation with methods based on average tax rates, if undertakings demonstrate that this approach avoids material misstatement of the adjustment. SCR Undertakings should ensure that the calculation of the loss-absorbing capacity of notional deferred taxes is performed at a level of granularity that reflects all material relevant regulations of all applicable tax regimes. SCR Where it is necessary to allocate the loss SCRshock to its causes in order to calculate the adjustment for the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes, undertakings should allocate the loss to the risks that are captured by the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement and the capital requirement for operational risk. The allocation should be consistent with the contribution of the modules and sub-modules of the standard formula to the Basic SCR. The level of granularity of loss-allocation should be sufficient to allow for all material relevant regulations of applicable tax regimes to be taken into account. Adjustment for loss absorbency of notional deferred taxes: Recognition SCR Undertakings should recognize notional deferred tax assets conditional on their temporary nature. The recognition should be based on the extent to which offsetting is permitted according to the relevant tax regimes, which may include offset against past tax liabilities, or current or likely future tax liabilities. SCR Where an approach based on average tax rates is employed, undertakings should ensure that deferred tax liabilities in the unstressed Solvency II balance sheet are not double counted for the purpose of recognition. They can either support recognition of deferred tax assets in the unstressed Solvency II balance sheet, or notional deferred tax assets in the SCR calculation, but not both. Hence, the recognition of notional deferred tax assets cannot be supported by deferred tax liabilities which are already supporting the recognition of deferred tax assets in the balance sheet for valuation purposes. SCR These restrictions should be implicit if a stressed Solvency II balance sheet is set up. The recognition of notional deferred tax assets in a stressed Solvency II balance sheet should follow the principles set out in the section on Valuation of assets and liabilities other than TP. SCR If the recognition of notional deferred tax assets is supported by future profit assessments, the notional deferred tax asset recognized to the extent that it is probable that the entity will have sufficient taxable profit available after it suffered the instantaneous loss. SCR Appropriate techniques should be employed to assess the temporary nature of the notional deferred tax asset and the timing of future taxable profits. The assessment should be undertaken in accordance with the section on valuation of assets and liabilities other than TP. Projections should take into account the prospects of the undertaking after suffering the instantaneous loss. Page 5 of 11
6 SCR Where an approach based on average tax rates is employed, undertakings should take care that notional deferred tax assets arising from the instantaneous loss cannot be supported by future taxable profits already supporting the recognition of deferred tax assets for valuation purposes. SCR To avoid double counting, future profits for the recognition of deferred tax assets in the Solvency II balance sheet should be deducted from the post-stress projections of future profits. Only the remaining amount may be recognized to demonstrate eligibility of the notional deferred tax asset. 5.3 PRA CPs The Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) in the UK issued CP3/14 during February 2014 which expanded on issues that require consideration when performing the calculations. These considerations affect the valuation of deferred tax assets in the base case, in the Risk Margin calculations and in the SCR. Only comments relating to the calculation of the SCR are included in the discussion below. Although the CP outlines these focus areas, it does not contradict earlier notes in the former CP35 that IAS12 principles should be applied in the base case as well as stressed scenarios to ascertain recoverability. 2.3 A firm can also recognise the tax effects of the 1-in-200 stress for the purposes of calculating its SCR if it can demonstrate that the tax loss created could be: set against tax due in the period of the stress; or carried back to reclaim tax paid in the twelve months prior to the loss scenario. 2.4 Judgement both by firms and supervisors will be required to decide whether future taxable profits are probable in accordance with IAS 12 and can be used to justify recognition of relevant DTAs. Double counting of deferred tax liabilities 3.2 If firms have both DTA and DTL in the SII balance sheet, any DTL they wish to use to support utilisation of the tax effects of the SCR shock should not already be in use to support utilisation of the balance sheet DTA. SII contract boundary assumptions 3.3 Different contract boundaries as between statutory accounting and SII may be a credible source of future taxable profits. If firms calculate this impact separately from projections of new business, they are reminded to take care to prevent double counting. Risk margin 3.4 Article 77 of the SII Directive makes clear that the risk margin is an integral part of technical provisions and will need to be determined each time a firm calculates its solvency position. 3.5 The SII regime assumes that firms will continue in business after the shock, and as such, the risk margin is maintained from year to year. Any risk margin released on liabilities which run off would usually be replaced with risk margin to be provided in respect of new liabilities. Where this is the case, it is not appropriate to include the amount of the current risk margin as an element of future taxable profits in a firm s projections. 3.6 Different considerations might apply to firms which are completely closed to new business. These firms would be expected to have regard to the: time the firm has already been in run-off; Page 6 of 11
7 nature of the firm s business and business model; availability of historical data regarding differences between actual and projected experience; likely period until run-off is complete; and credibility of the planning period of the firm. 5.4 Other relevant jurisdictions (e.g. OSFI, APRA) These jurisdictions were not assessed for the purposes of this discussion document. Based on the qualitative feedback in QIS3, some insurers do take credit for the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes in the current regulatory regime. The specifications currently do not preclude this. 5.5 Mapping of differences between above approaches (Level 2 and 3) Any differences in approach do not relate to principle-based or technical aspects of the calculation, but to recoverability. Within a European context, there are likely to be a number of different approaches to recoverability as a number of tax regimes are involved. The approach relating to recoverability of the notional deferred asset should however be broadly consistent across jurisdictions. 6. ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE APPROACHES GIVEN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT It should be noted that the discussion below focuses on allowing for the loss-absorbing capacity of transfer tax. Within the market risk sub-modules, allowance should be made for any offsetting impact (primarily capital gains tax) following asset stresses. The recoverability relating to any deferred tax asset created in this way would need to be assessed per shock. This poses less of a problem as on a best estimate basis assets are assumed to still earn the risk-free rate following a shock which would mean that unrealised capital gains tax assets are expected to be utilised. The latter point as not deliberated any further. The discussion of available approaches has been divided into two sections. The first relates to the structure of the calculation and the second to recoverability/limitations that may relate to deferred tax assets. 6.1 Structure of calculation Given that the SAM SCR is only performed on a modular basis, the available approaches would be to: 1) allow for the loss-absorbing capacity per shock and then adjust for the fact that calculations are performed at solo or group level as appropriate or, 2) as per Solvency II, only perform a global adjustment where an intermediate calculation of SCRshock is required see section 2.17 under 5.2. The second approach has been tested in a variety of SA QIS exercises. (Some of the amendments tested related to the extent that deferred tax assets could be set up in the SCR calculation dealt with in the section on recoverability.) Page 7 of 11
8 6.1.1 Discussion of inherent advantages and disadvantages of each approach If the first calculation is performed, then some adjustment would be required to reflect the level at which the entity is taxed. (This would need to be performed to limit the potential double-counting of loss-absorbing capacity.) It may be difficult to develop an approach that would be suitable across industry yet appropriate to the standard formula. The second calculation is computationally simple, yet corresponds to the objectives in Article 101 in that it performs a combined adjustment to all other components of the SCR. No adjustment to limit double-counting is required. The main sensitivity to both calculations relates to the rates of taxation to apply. An assessment of the appropriate rate may become computationally intensive, e.g. if the effective rate of transfer tax from the various policyholder funds on life business needs to be allowed for. Similarly, capital losses to shareholder funds would not receive the same tax credit due to the incorporation of an inclusion rate. The assertions around the appropriateness of approximations to allow for this would need to be re-assessed following developments to the tax basis, especially those for life funds Impact of the approaches on EU 3 rd country equivalence Neither approach should impact 3 rd country equivalence, but the second is clearly more aligned with that followed in Solvency II Conclusions on preferred approach The second approach is preferable mainly as a result of: 1) It being performed at the same level at which tax is calculated for the entity 2) It being computationally simple 6.2 Extent of recoverability Two approaches have been put forward: 1) Limit the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes to the sum of that which is required to expunge any deferred tax liabilities on the SAM balance sheet. 2) Do not apply any formulaic limits, but rely on the approach relating to recoverability of deferred tax assets set out in the section on valuation to also apply to the stressed scenario Discussion of inherent advantages and disadvantages of each approach The first approach is computationally simple. It does not require projections or any other supporting calculations relating to the recoverability of deferred tax assets on the stressed SAM balance sheet. Under the current tax regime, this approach may not ultimately result in a limitation for many life insurers. It would lead to a consistent, if conservative, application relating to recoverability. Page 8 of 11
9 The first approach is based on the principle that SCR calculations do not allow for an improvement in assumptions following a stress and that there would be no sources of taxable profit on the best estimate basis required for SAM against which to offset this asset. The assertions supporting the first approach have been challenged in working group discussions on the following grounds: 1. The unwinding of the risk margin is expected to lead to profits as the business in question winds down. Counter-argument: The re-calculation of the risk margin has not necessarily been included in the change to NAV calculations on which the SCR is based, but here we have a technical provision that we know will facilitate the establishment of a deferred tax asset to some extent. The Risk Margin itself could not be assumed to contribute in its entirety as the SCR is calculated on a going concern basis which would require a Risk Margin to be set up following the stress events as well. The exception to this would be where companies are in run-off. In addition, the risk margin includes some allowance for expected tax outflows (as per DD113) which would not be able to be offset against losses. 2. The tax asset could be accessible to a third party buying out the insurer. Counter argument: There is no market consistent way of assessing whether other insurers would be able to access losses, so this may not be a valid argument for the SCR calculation. 3. The first approach aligns with the technical provision calculation in that no new business is allowed for, but some SCR components, especially non-life underwriting risk does in fact allow for new business (which could be a source of basic own funds on the SAM balance sheet). In addition, the SCR structure is based on the implicit assumption that some new business is written during the course of the next year to replace existing business. So some allowance needs to be made for any new business included in the SCR calculation, which the first approach does not support. Where business with short contract boundaries are written and the expectation is that this business will continue to be written, profits from this business would also be able to contribute to the unwinding of deferred tax assets. The second approach would address the points above. The main disadvantage of the second approach is that significant judgement as well as supporting calculations would be required to assess recoverability so as to address the counter arguments above. Performing the calculations to support the creation of a deferred tax asset post an event of the magnitude of the SCR in a robust fashion could result in either significant practical difficulties and/or significant reliance being placed on simplifying assumptions. The complexity and discretion employed may be beyond what would otherwise be required in a standard formula context. This may lead to a variety of approaches employed by industry. By way of an example, the QIS3 exercise demonstrated a range of approaches followed by industry, ranging from the first approach to a spread of: a) new business, b) the risk margin or c) tax loss transfer or d) combinations of the above Page 9 of 11
10 used across industry. The use of DTAs to absorb losses was more prevalent in the nonlife (re) insurance industry. In addition, proposal have been put forward that recoverability should be assessed at a product or tax fund level as opposed to an entity level, but these proposals were not developed further based on feedback from the first version of this discussion document Impact of the approaches on EU 3 rd country equivalence The first approach is more conservative than the approach adopted under Solvency II. It should nevertheless not impact 3 rd country equivalence. The conservatism may help to demonstrate capital adequacy for individual insurers. The second approach is directly comparable with the Solvency II approach and should not impact 3 rd country equivalence Comparison of approaches with prevailing framework The prevailing framework does not make explicit allowance for the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes where the latter relates to differences between the taxation basis and the basis on which technical provisions are calculated. The impact of tax is not explicitly considered in the CAR calculations set out in SAP104. Any loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes allowed for in the calculation would be subject to the same judgement governing the application of any other part of the standard Conclusions on preferred approach The second approach is preferred as: 1. It does not introduce additional conservatism 2. It can be consistent with calculations where additional own funds are incorporated in the SCR calculation (to the extent that new business is allowed for) The second approach would require projections which support recoverability on a SAM basis which introduces a range of practical difficulties and/or simplifying assumptions which need to be tested for appropriateness. Additional guidance relating to what should be considered would need to be developed as this was a major concern for a variety of industry participants during the QIS3 exercise. A particular area of judgement is the extent to which new business should be allowed for following the stress event and how this needs to be different to the base case assumption. The calculations would relate to the level at which an entity is taxed, i.e. license level. 7. RECOMMENDATION Page 10 of 11
11 The adjustment for the loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes should be equal to the change in the value of deferred taxes of undertakings that would result from an instantaneous loss of an amount that is equal to the following amount: SCRshock = BSCR + SCRpart + SCROp where BSCR is the Basic SCR and SCROp denotes the capital requirement for operational risk. The adjustment above relates to the loss-absorbing capacity of reduced taxes on future profits (as recognised on the relevant tax basis). For asset shocks within modules, the effect of investment return taxation (i.e. not the tax on profits) should be allowed for in the shock itself. The rate to be applied to this shock should be no higher than the effective rate of taxation used to establish the deferred tax position on the balance sheet. Additional guidance relating to the rate employed may be required once there is more clarity on the ultimate tax basis. No limits should be applied to the loss-absorbing capacity, but when setting up deferred tax assets in the SCR calculation, the following items should be considered when assessing recoverability: The impact of new business (discretion as to how much is allowed for); Any recourse to payables from previous periods. The task group recommends that the following should not be allowed for when assessing recoverability: Any credit already used to demonstrate recoverability of deferred tax assets in the base case balance sheet so as to avoid double-counting of the credit on the postshock balance sheet. Any element that is not expected to be released into surplus on the projected basis following the stress, including an appropriate allowance for the impact of new business on these elements. A specific example of the above bullet would relate to the release of the risk margin, which should not be allowed for. Page 11 of 11
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
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper (v 4) Life SCR - Retrenchment Risk
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 108 1 (v 4) Life SCR - Retrenchment Risk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document discusses the structure and calibration of the proposed Retrenchment
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 information1. 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
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 89 1 (v 2) Calculation of SCR on total balance sheet
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 89 1 (v 2) Calculation of SCR on total balance sheet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Solvency II, and the specifications for the QIS1 exercise, require
More informationWe 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
More information1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 1 - Sub Committee Capital Requirements Task Group Discussion Document 75 (v 4) Treatment of risk-mitigation techniques in the SCR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As per Solvency
More information1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 1 Sub Committee Capital Requirements Task Group Discussion Document 74 (v 3) Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Having compared the IAIS ICPs
More information1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 1 - Sub Committee Technical Provisions Task Group Discussion Document 87 (v 6) Future Management Actions in Technical Provisions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION
More informationQIS5 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.
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 34 1 (v 5) Own Risk and Solvency Assessment
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 34 1 (v 5) Own Risk and Solvency Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to present
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 2 - Sub Committee ORSA and Use Test Task Group Discussion Document 35 (v 3) Use Test
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 2 - Sub Committee ORSA and Use Test Task Group Discussion Document 35 (v 3) Use Test EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The purpose of this document
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 44 1 (v 4) Concentration Risk
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 44 1 (v 4) Concentration Risk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document discusses the structure and calibration of the concentration risk sub-module
More informationCEIOPS-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.
More informationDiscussion Document 105 (v 3) was approved as a Position Paper by Steering Committee on 12 September
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 1Sub Committee Capital Requirements Task Group Position Paper 105 1 (v 3) Market Risk SCR Structure and Correlations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document discusses
More informationTax in Solvency II. Ayesha Patel. 10 June Tel: June 2014
Tax in Solvency II Ayesha Patel Email: ayesha.patel@uk.pwc.com Tel: 020 7212 1239 June 2014 10 June 2014 Agenda 1 Background 2 The three Pillars 3 Pillar I in detail 4 Survey 5 Summary 6 Questions 2 Background
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 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 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 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
More informationCP3/14 Solvency II: recognition of deferred tax. Institute and Faculty of Actuaries consultation response to the Prudential Regulation Authority
CP3/14 Solvency II: recognition of deferred tax Institute and Faculty of Actuaries consultation response to the Prudential Regulation Authority 19 March 2014 About the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries
More informationSolvency II Frequently Asked Questions
Solvency II Frequently Asked Questions Results of Year-End 2016 Quality Assurance exercise www.gfsc.gi This document provides answers to those issues which commonly arose during the PwC Solvency II Balance
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 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 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 informationTax after Solvency II
Highlights of the Life Conference 2011 Seminar - Edinburgh The Actuarial Profession Tax Working Party Matthew Taylor and Andrew Rendell Tax after 7 March 2012 Tax after Solvency 2 Overview Background (Andrew)
More informationCEIOPS-Secretariat Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors Westhafenplatz Frankfurt am Main Germany
CEIOPS-Secretariat Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors Westhafenplatz 1 60327 Frankfurt am Main Germany The European Insurance CFO Forum Solvency II Working Group C/O
More informationSAM Reporting for Insurance Groups with Participations in Non-equivalent Jurisdictions
SAM Reporting for Insurance Groups with Participations in Non-equivalent Jurisdictions In November 2016 the FSB published the proposed Financial Soundness Standards (FS) for initial public comment. These
More informationConsultation Paper CP24/17 Solvency II: Internal models - modelling of the matching adjustment
Consultation Paper CP24/17 Solvency II: Internal models - modelling of the matching adjustment November 2017 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP24/17 Solvency
More informationCEIOPS-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
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 68 1 (v 4) SCR: Simplifications for First Party Insurance Structures
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 68 1 (v 4) SCR: Simplifications for First Party Insurance Structures 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This document contains the proposed
More informationCOVER 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
More informationSolvency 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
More informationPRA RULEBOOK: SOLVENCY II FIRMS: SOLVENCY CAPITAL REQUIREMENT - GENERAL PROVISIONS INSTRUMENT 2015
PRA RULEBOOK: SOLVENCY II FIRMS: SOLVENCY CAPITAL REQUIREMENT - GENERAL PROVISIONS INSTRUMENT 2015 Powers exercised A. The Prudential Regulation Authority ( PRA ) makes this instrument in the exercise
More informationGuidance on the Actuarial Function MARCH 2018
Guidance on the Actuarial Function MARCH 2018 Disclaimer No responsibility or liability is accepted by the Society of Lloyd s, the Council, or any Committee of Board constituted by the Society of Lloyd
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 informationRegulatory Consultation Paper Round-up
Regulatory Consultation Paper Round-up Both the PRA and EIOPA have issued consultation papers in Q4 2017 - some of the changes may have a significant impact for firms if they are implemented as currently
More informationFinal Report. Public Consultation No. 14/036 on. Guidelines on the loss-absorbing. capacity of technical provisions and.
EIOPA-BoS-14/177 27 November 2014 Final Report on Public Consultation No. 14/036 on Guidelines on the loss-absorbing capacity of technical provisions and deferred taxes EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz
More information4. This letter sets out our key regulatory priorities for 2017 for insurance companies and covers the following areas:
15 March 2017 Dear CEO, Key areas of focus for insurance company Boards Gibraltar Financial Services Commission PO Box 940 Suite 3, Ground Floor Atlantic Suites Europort Avenue Gibraltar Tel (+350) 200
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 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 informationLIFE INSURANCE & WEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICE COMMITTEE
Contents 1. Purpose 2. Background 3. Nature of Asymmetric Risks 4. Existing Guidance & Legislation 5. Valuation Methodologies 6. Best Estimate Valuations 7. Capital & Tail Distribution Valuations 8. Management
More informationComparison of the sectoral rules for the eligibility of capital instruments into regulatory capital
Interim Working Committee on Financial Conglomerates IWCFC-DOC-07/01 3 January 2007 Comparison of the sectoral rules for the eligibility of capital instruments into regulatory capital I. Introduction Background
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 informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
Guidance Paper No. 2.2.x INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS GUIDANCE PAPER ON ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT FOR CAPITAL ADEQUACY AND SOLVENCY PURPOSES DRAFT, MARCH 2008 This document was prepared
More informationGuidance on the Actuarial Function April 2016
Guidance on the Actuarial Function April 2016 Disclaimer No responsibility or liability is accepted by the Society of Lloyd s, the Council, or any Committee of Board constituted by the Society of Lloyd
More informationUsing Solvency II to implement IFRS 17
www.pwc.co.uk 4 Using Solvency II to implement IFRS 17 September 2017 How can you make the best use of existing Solvency II systems and processes to ensure as smooth and efficient a transition to IFRS
More informationInternational Financial Reporting Standard 4 Insurance Contracts. Objective. Scope IFRS 4
International Financial Reporting Standard 4 Insurance Contracts Objective 1 The objective of this IFRS is to specify the financial reporting for insurance contracts by any entity that issues such contracts
More informationAssociation of British Insurers
Association of British Insurers ABI response CP20/16 Solvency II: Consolidation of Directors letters The UK Insurance Industry The UK insurance industry is the largest in Europe and the third largest in
More informationSupervisory Statement SS3/17 Solvency II: matching adjustment - illiquid unrated assets and equity release mortgages. July 2018 (Updating July 2017)
Supervisory Statement SS3/17 Solvency II: matching adjustment - illiquid unrated assets and equity release mortgages July 2018 (Updating July 2017) Supervisory Statement SS3/17 Solvency II: matching adjustment
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management (SAM)
Solvency Assessment and Management (SAM) 1. Solvency Assessment and Management (SAM) The FSB is in the process of developing a new risk-based solvency regime for South African shortterm and long-term insurers,
More informationSolvency 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
More informationSolvency 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
More informationLloyd s Minimum Standards MS13 Modelling, Design and Implementation
Lloyd s Minimum Standards MS13 Modelling, Design and Implementation January 2019 2 Contents MS13 Modelling, Design and Implementation 3 Minimum Standards and Requirements 3 Guidance 3 Definitions 3 Section
More informationThe Society of Actuaries in Ireland. Actuarial Standard of Practice INS-1, Actuarial Function Report
The Society of Actuaries in Ireland Actuarial Standard of Practice INS-1, Actuarial Function Report Classification Mandatory MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT THEY MUST ALWAYS COMPLY WITH THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
More informationOpinion of the European Banking Authority in response to the European Commission s Call for Advice on Investment Firms
EBA/Op/2017/11 29 September 2017 Opinion of the European Banking Authority in response to the European Commission s Call for Advice on Investment Firms Background and legal basis 1. The EBA competence
More informationSolvency and financial condition report 2017
Solvency and financial condition report 2017 The Standard Life Assurance Company 2006 Contents Summary 2 A Business and performance 4 A.1 Business 4 A.2 Underwriting performance 5 A.3 Investment performance
More informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
Guidance Paper No. 2.2.6 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS GUIDANCE PAPER ON ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT FOR CAPITAL ADEQUACY AND SOLVENCY PURPOSES OCTOBER 2007 This document was prepared
More informationSupervisory Statement SS6/16 Recalculation of the transitional measure on technical provisions under Solvency II
Supervisory Statement SS6/16 Recalculation of the transitional measure on technical provisions under Solvency II May 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation
More informationThe CEA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Consultation Paper (CP) No. 30 on TP - Treatment of Future Premiums.
Reference Introductory remarks Comment The CEA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Consultation Paper (CP) No. 30 on TP - Treatment of Future Premiums. It should be noted that the comments in this
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 informationCEA 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
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 informationCRO Forum DTA in SCR. Industry Paper
CRO Forum DTA in SCR Industry Paper October 2016 Full Members: Aegon, Allianz, Aviva, AXA, Achmea, Ageas, Generali, Groupama, Hannover Re, ING, Munich Re, Prudential, Swiss Re, Zurich Financial Services
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 informationEIOPA 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
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 informationConsultation 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;
More informationCONTACT(S) Roberta Ravelli +44 (0) Hagit Keren +44 (0)
STAFF PAPER IASB meeting October 2018 Project Paper topic Insurance Contracts Concerns and implementation challenges CONTACT(S) Roberta Ravelli rravelli@ifrs.org +44 (0)20 7246 6935 Hagit Keren hkeren@ifrs.org
More informationRe: Consultation Paper on Commercial Insurer s Solvency Self Assessment ( CISSA CP )
December 8, 2010 Dear Insurers, Re: Consultation Paper on Commercial Insurer s Solvency Self Assessment ( CISSA CP ) The Bermuda Monetary Authority ( the Authority ) wishes to thank the stakeholders for
More informationCEIOPS-DOC January 2010
CEIOPS-DOC-72-10 29 January 2010 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions Article 86 h Simplified methods and techniques to calculate technical provisions (former
More informationBERMUDA MONETARY AUTHORITY
BERMUDA MONETARY AUTHORITY CONSULTATION PAPER ECONOMIC BALANCE SHEET FRAMEWORK FOR LONG-TERM INSURERS AUGUST 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 3 II. BACKGROUND... 4 III. PRINCIPLES AND GUIDANCE...
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 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 informationRISK BASED CAPITAL AND SOLVENCY
RISK BASED CAPITAL AND SOLVENCY 1 1 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 N E I L TAV E R N E R, S E N I O R A C T U A R Y AIMS OF RISK BASED CAPITAL AND SOLVENCY WORKSTREAM Establish a high level of observance of IAIS
More informationSolvency 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
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 informationPension obligation risk: treatment under the Individual Capital Adequacy Standards (ICAS) for insurers
Supervisory Statement LSS5/13 Pension obligation risk: treatment under the Individual Capital Adequacy Standards (ICAS) for insurers April 2013 Supervisory Statement LSS5/13 Pension obligation risk: treatment
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 47 1 (v 4) Equity Risk
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 47 1 (v 4) Equity Risk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This discussion document considered the IAIS standards and guidance,
More information2.1 Pursuant to article 18D of the Act, an authorised undertaking shall, except where otherwise provided for, value:
Valuation of assets and liabilities, technical provisions, own funds, Solvency Capital Requirement, Minimum Capital Requirement and investment rules (Solvency II Pillar 1 Requirements) 1. Introduction
More informationEVOLVING INSURANCE REGULATION
EVOLVING INSURANCE REGULATION A CONSULTATION PAPER ON THE REVISION OF THE REGULATIONS, RULES AND CODES FOR LICENSED INSURERS 24 September 2013 1 P age The Guernsey Financial Services Commission invites
More informationConsultation Paper CP20/16 Solvency II: consolidation of Directors letters
Consultation Paper CP20/16 Solvency II: consolidation of Directors letters May 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8 Lothbury,
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 informationSOLVENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE QUÉBEC CHARTERED LIFE INSURERS
SOLVENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE QUÉBEC CHARTERED LIFE INSURERS March 2008 volume 4 FRAMEWORK FOR A NEW STANDARD APPROACH TO SETTING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS SOLVENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
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 informationAppendix 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
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 informationInsurance Contracts. IFRS Standard 4 IFRS 4. IFRS Foundation
IFRS Standard 4 Insurance Contracts In March 2004 the International Accounting Standards Board (the Board) issued Insurance Contracts. In August 2005 the Board amended the scope of to clarify that most
More informationEIOPA 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
More informationCEIOPS-DOC-27/09. (former CP32) October 2009
CEIOPS-DOC-27/09 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions - Assumptions about Future Management Actions (former CP32) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz
More informationIASB/FASB Meeting April 2010
IASB/FASB Meeting April 2010 - week beginning 19 April IASB agenda reference FASB memo reference 3D 43D Project Topic Insurance contracts Discounting Purpose of this paper 1. Both boards previously decided
More informationENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT, INTERNAL MODELS AND OPERATIONAL RISK FOR LIFE INSURERS DISCUSSION PAPER DP14-09
ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT, INTERNAL MODELS AND FOR LIFE INSURERS DISCUSSION PAPER DP14-09 This paper is issued by the Insurance and Pensions Authority ( the IPA ), the regulatory authority responsible
More informationPage 1. LongTerm Guarantees Assessment EIOPA/13/067. Questions & Answers as of 13 Feb 2013
LongTerm Guarantees Assessment s & s as of 13 Feb 2013 EIOPA/13/067 New questions and answers are marked with blue font. 13 February 2013 TS part I TP Segmentation 1005a TS part I TP ( Segmentation TP
More information1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 1 Life Underwriting Risk Sub Committee Capital Requirements Task Group Discussion Document 62 (v 3) Life SCR - Catastrophe Risk (for Mortality and Morbidity)
More informationInsurance Contracts. International Financial Reporting Standard 4 IFRS 4
IFRS 4 International Financial Reporting Standard 4 Insurance Contracts This version includes amendments resulting from IFRSs issued up to 31 December 2008. IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts was issued by the
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management. Report on the results of 1 st South African Quantitative Impact Study ( SA QIS1 )
Solvency Assessment and Management Report on the results of 1 st South African Quantitative Impact Study ( SA QIS1 ) DECEMBER 2011 C O N T A C T D E T A I L S Physical Address: Riverwalk Office Park, Block
More informationInternational Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) Public Consultation: Risk-based Global Insurance Capital Standard Version 2.
Document 218148 International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) Public Consultation: Risk-based Global Insurance Capital Standard Version 2.0 Please note that the CIA did not respond to all questions
More informationACTUARIAL ADVICE TO A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OR FRIENDLY SOCIETY
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD 200 ACTUARIAL ADVICE TO A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OR FRIENDLY SOCIETY INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Application 3 1.2 About this standard 3 1.3 Other relevant documents 4 1.4 Background
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 informationProgress report Equivalence assessment of the Bermudian supervisory system in relation to articles 172, 227 and 260 of the Solvency II Directive
EIOPA-BoS-15/176 31 July 2015 Progress report Equivalence assessment of the Bermudian supervisory system in relation to articles 172, 227 and 260 of the Solvency II Directive EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz
More information