Regulatory Consultation Paper Round-up
|
|
- Mae Hawkins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Regulatory Consultation Paper Round-up Both the PRA and EIOPA have issued consultation papers in Q some of the changes may have a significant impact for firms if they are implemented as currently drafted. Executive Summary Over the past few months the PRA and EIOPA have issued a number of consultation papers: PRA CP21/17 Solvency II Matching Adjustment PRA CP22/17 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment PRA CP24/17 Solvency II: Internal models modelling the matching adjustment EIOPA-CP : Consultation paper on EIOPA s second set of Advice to the European Commission on specific items in the Solvency II Delegated Regulation These consultations are the next step in formalising existing advisory guidance and they introduce some changes that could have an impact on firms. We encourage firms that are affected by the changes to provide consultation responses to the PRA or EIOPA, and PwC are able to help draft responses and provide our insight for clients submissions. We note that the draft Supervisory Statements included in the PRA consultation papers may cover all of the changes recommended in the Treasury Select Committee Report on EU insurance regulation. We think it is reasonable for firms to expect further guidance on key topics in coming months as the PRA seeks to react to feedback on these recent consultation papers, the Treasury Committee s expectations and the evolving view on the UK s regulatory relations with the EU, following Brexit. The sections below take each consultation paper in turn and outline: Important parts of recent consultations, particularly where there are changes to existing standards; Which firms are likely to be affected by each consultation; The impact on firms if the proposed changes are implemented as presented; How PwC can help to assist clients looking to draft responses to consultations, or implement the suggested changes into their existing processes. Contacts Shazia Azim William Gibbons Daryl Boxall Patricia Wan T: +44 (0) T: +44 (0) T: +44 (0) T: +44 (0) E: shazia.azim@pwc.com E: william.gibbons@pwc.com E: daryl.boxall@pwc.com E: patricia.wan.yan.keong@pwc.com This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, its members, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. In this document, PwC refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a limited liability partnership in the United Kingdom), which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity KD-OS
2 CP21/17 Solvency II: Matching Adjustment Topics Covered Who should pay attention Issue Date 25 th October 2017 Response Deadline 31 st January 2018 Asset eligibility, liability eligibility, calculation of MA, liquidity plans, ongoing management of MA portfolio All firms currently using or considering using the Matching Adjustment. Likely to affect any firms looking to revised MA application within the next year Much of the guidance on MA portfolios to date, is contained in various Director s and Executive Director s letters issued by the PRA between 1 April 2013 and 15 February CP21/17 consolidates this into one draft Supervisory Statement - we highlight below only the areas that are new or add clarity to existing guidance. The new guidance in the draft Supervisory Statement is likely to affect a number of Firms over the next year, especially those who are considering to add additional assets to the MA portfolio or adapt the MA to a revised business strategy post solvency II implementation. Asset eligibility The PRA has reiterated that it does not have a closed list of MA eligible assets rather that Regulation 42 outlines the features that assets must have in order to be considered eligible and each asset is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. CP21/17 sets out that asset cash flows for which the timing is uncertain, but bounded, can be regarded as fixed for the purpose of demonstrating cash flow matching, provided other MA criteria are satisfied 1. This could widen MA eligibility criteria to include certain assets which firms have found difficult to demonstrate eligibility in the past (e.g. some infrastructure loans with a construction phase ). Firms may now be able to benefit from the MA on these assets from the point of investment, instead of holding them outside the MA portfolio until the timing of repayments has been confirmed. Many firms would welcome some relaxation of MA asset eligibility criteria, but this clarification may not go as far as they would have hoped. Its application is limited to a fairly small opportunity set and may not have a significant impact on MA portfolios as a result. Firms should consider providing feedback to the PRA around other assets that they believe reasonably satisfy the MA principles but are currently not eligible and might warrant further consideration by the PRA. Trading in the MA portfolio The PRA recognises that some trading in the MA portfolio may be required to facilitate a change in firms overall risk and investment strategy for example, to de-risk or re-risk the MA portfolio in line with a change in the overall risk policy 2. Where it is specifically for the purposes of good risk management, the PRA have provided guidance that trading an asset for one with the same yield but lower risk, or a higher-yielding asset with the same risk, is not necessarily precluded - as long as Firms can demonstrate robust risk management and governance processes around the trading policy. 1 CP21/17: paragraph CP21/17: paragraph 7.14 &
3 We expect firms may wish to revisit their MA portfolio trading rules and consider adding flexibility to the trading policy in light of this clarification. Changes to the MA portfolio The PRA expects that any material change to MA portfolios after approval has been granted will require a new application 3. We note that the PRA s definition of material changes include: Addition of new asset or liability types into the MA portfolio; Entering into new risk transfer arrangements, or making changes to existing ones; Restructurings and M&A activity; We expect a number of firms will be therefore be required to make new applications in 2018, due to changes in either their asset or liabilities in the MA portfolio. In particular, firms consider adding new liabilities to their MA portfolios may find it beneficial to engage with their regulatory teams at an early stage to avoid any potential delay to the application process which may occur if a number of firms seek to make changes at the same time. PwC view and further support At first glance, this consultation paper appears to do little more than consolidate previous guidance into a single draft Supervisory Statement. We expect that any firm making changes to their MA portfolios in the coming year will be required to consider how the draft supervisory statement impacts their MA application. Given the number of firms looking to add new assets classes and liabilities to their business, this will likely apply to a significant number of firms. Having supported a large number of firms with their Solvency II applications, PwC has deep experience supporting clients with all aspects of an MA application, including trading and liquidity policies. If you would like to discuss any part of this consultation paper, we would be more than happy to discuss these topics with you. 3 CP21/17: paragraph
4 CP22/17 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment Topics Covered Who Should Pay Attention Purpose of the VA, Financial Guarantees, ORSA, Earning VA in practice All VA firms Issue Date 3 rd November 2017 Response Deadline 9 th February 2018 The last significant statement on the volatility adjustment was SS23/15 published in June 2015, and the draft Supervisory Statement contained in CP22/17 is intended to update certain parts of this - we highlight below only the areas that are new or add clarity to existing guidance. We believe that, in the short term, the PRA may not enforce the changes on to firms that already have approval to use the volatility adjustment. However, any new or pending applications may be affected and it might be possible that firms are asked to revisit the appropriateness of how they apply the VA in their ORSA. Intended purpose of VA The PRA has reinforced the principle that the purpose of the VA is intended to mitigate Firms exposure to artificial short-term balance sheet volatility, and using the VA in a different way could give rise to undue capital relief 4. We expect that the PRA will ask Firms to provide a qualitative and quantitative rationale for the appropriateness of different blocks of business included in VA application This might be of particular concern to some blocks of business where this might be difficult to justify the use of the VA. Regardless, it may still be appropriate to use the VA for assessing these blocks if firms can demonstrate that they have sufficient liquidity to avoid having to liquidate assets at depressed prices to meet claims. Under-valuation of financial guarantees CP22/17 raises the critical point of firms using the VA to calculate the cost of providing financial guarantees 5. This is particularly important for Firms that issue products with financial guarantees. Reserves for financial guarantees should be based on the value of options strategies that replicate the product features if these options are valued including the VA it may result in under-valuing the guarantees. Holding reserves for financial guarantees based on the VA may significantly undervalue the cost of purchasing those guarantees in the market, and may not reflect the true risk of providing these guarantees. The PRA are clear that they expert firms to identify, manage monitor and report risks associated with using the VA 6, and this is one particular area where Firms may wish to review their existing processes. 4 CP22/17: paragraph CP22/17: Appendix Proposed amendments to Supervisory Statement 23/15 Solvency II: supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment Paragraph 3.8A1 6 CP22/17: Appendix Proposed amendments to Supervisory Statement 23/15 Solvency II: supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment Paragraph 3.8A2 4
5 Earning the VA in practice CP22/17 also outlines that the PRA expect firms to demonstrate that they can earn the VA in practice 7. Firms should review achieved yields on assets backing VA business, and consider the level of reliance on assets with uncertain yields and how this may impact the ability to earn the VA in the future. The VA, in principle is a long-term yield measure and it is not clear over what time period is reasonable for the PRA to expect Firms to demonstrate compliance. Firms which rely heavily on uncertain returns, or would require management actions to earn the VA should consider how they will justify their approach to the PRA if challenged. Depending on how vigorously the PRA intend to test this, it could potentially result in some changes to investment and risk management processes in VA business, or even a change in eligibility for some books if firms are unable to demonstrate the ability to generate sufficient returns. PwC view and further support The additional guidance outlined in CP22/17 is not definitive is some areas, and remains open to interpretation. We think that firms should use this consultation paper as an opportunity to provide the PRA with feedback before the PRA have crystalized their views. Firms that have new or pending VA applications may particularly be affected by the draft Supervisory Statement, and we expect that firms will be asked to reflect on the points raised in their ORSA. PwC would be happy to discuss how the draft changes may affect their business. 7 5
6 CP24/17 Solvency II: Internal models modelling the matching adjustment Topics Covered Who Should Pay Attention MA in the SCR, Framework for determining MA in SCR, MA compliance under stress, validation All MA Firms Issue Date 10 th November 2017 Response Deadline 9 th March 2018 The PRA recognises that the MA requirements were finalised later than other elements of the Solvency II Directive and this presented challenges for firms looking to reflect the MA on day one. The purpose of CP24/17 is to support firms looking to make changes to their models by providing clarity on the PRA s expectations for the modelling of the MA within the SCR calculation. Once the guidance in the new Supervisory Statement has been put in place, it is likely that Firms will be asked to consider how the guidance in the draft Supervisory Statement is reflected in any new model change applications. We think that this is likely to affect a number of Firms in the next year, and would encourage Firms to consider how they will be affected and provide feedback to the PRA. This consultation paper draws together guidance previously shared by the PRA, previous Supervisory Statements and also expands on the PRA s expectations in a number of areas. We focus only the areas that are new or add clarity to existing guidance. Validation of the matching adjustment model To date, Firms will have validated their matching adjustment calculation using different methods. In this consultation paper, the PRA has provided specific areas they expect to see addressed in the validation of the MA calculation. In a number of places in the paper, the PRA have made it clear that they expect firms with illiquid assets in the MA portfolio to adopt a bespoke approach for assessing the MA under stress for these assets 8. For example, in regards to corporate bonds, a comparison should be made using the Firm s fundamental spread stress at the 50 th percentile level and the EIOPA FS methodology 9. In the event results are not similar, firms need to assess what impact this has on the SCR. When considering the impact of defaults and downgrades, the PRA makes clear that it expects Firms to validate the stressed transition matrices against historic stress events. 10 In particular, the 1-in-200 transition matrix should be assessed against experience post 1930 s Great Depression (particularly 1932 and 1933). The MA benefit firms achieve needs to be validated using a method which is independent to that used to calibrate the stressed FS 11. An example of this might be the use of historical data to validate stressed a stress MA where the calibration method is heavily reliant on expert judgement. 8 CP24/17: paragraph 4.19, CP24/17: paragraph CP24/17: paragraph CP24/17: paragraph 6.8 6
7 We expect that Firms will have to make some changes to their model validation process to include these specific assessments particularly Firms that make use of illiquid assets in the MA portfolio. Granularity of modelling The PRA expects firms to be able to determine the credit rating of each asset under the modelled stress 12. Similarly, the starting point for appropriate granularity for FS and MA modelling is to match the current EIOPA FS tables 13 - to the extent that stressed FS and MA are calculated at a lower level of granularity, Firms will need to justify their approach. In addition, Firms with material exposure outside of corporate bonds (e.g. Illiquid assets), will also require their own calibration for these assets individually, in terms of having an appropriate methodology to assign a credit rating and an appropriate FS for these asset classes. We are aware that some firms currently do not model the credit rating of individual assets under stress and adopt an average credit rating or median rating approach. We therefore expect that some Firms will need to significantly develop their existing modelling sophistication to meet these criteria. Completeness of risks The PRA make clear their expectations that Firms carefully consider all quantifiable risks, and whether these risks are retained by the Firms in a stressed scenario. At the very least, Firms should consider: 1) downgrade and default risk 2) basis risk 3) concentration risk. More in-depth considerations will be required for Firms with material exposures to illiquid assets which have more sources of risk. With regards to concentration risk, this should be assessed using a number of different approaches 14 including: 1. Analysing current portfolio concentrations by sector, single name exposures and also considering any concentration limits specified in investment mandates. 2. Assess using quantitative measures (e.g. Herfindahl index is suggested) 3. Stress and scenario testing to understand potential concentration risk under stress. We anticipate most Firms will have assessed concentration risk for their current MA portfolio. However, we expect many will need to extend this analysis to include quantitative measures and stress and scenario testing. Firms should also explicitly consider the impact of underwriting risk stresses 15 (e.g. longevity) on the MA portfolio liabilities, and any risks arising from additional long-dated assets. 12 CP 24/17: paragraph CP 24/17: paragraph CP24/17: paragraph 4.13, CP24/17: paragraph 6.4 7
8 We are aware that a number of Firms do not currently assess how changes in longevity impact the MA under stress, and will need to make potentially significant changes to their modelling in order to account for longevity risk. Maintaining MA Compliance in Stress Conditions In most cases Firms will need to take management actions to restore the MA portfolio to compliance following a stress event. Firms should be able to demonstrate how the actions they propose to take to re-establish matching reflect the source, nature and the severity of the stress event 16 (e.g. a credit default, migration, longevity). Firms that intend to inject assets into the MA as part of the rebalancing process should ensure that they have performed a detailed assessment of the asset concentration and correlation following the rebalancing actions 17. In addition, Firms should also assess the impact of not being able to purchase the required assets in a stress scenario, and perform sensitivity tests to show, for example, the impact on MA benefit if gilts were bought instead of higher yielding assets 18. We understand that in the past, several Firms have demonstrated MA compliance post-stress, by assuming that they will be able to source replacement assets of a similar yield to their current portfolio. Firms may wish to re-interpret their approach in light of the new Supervisory Statement. Firms are expected to hold capital to allow for expected transaction costs for rebalancing trades 19. This approach might require firms to revise the modelling of their expected rebalancing trades and associated trading costs in a stress event to account for this requirement. We anticipate that this approach will need further consideration in the future, and that the requirements for demonstrating compliance post-stress are likely to be more quantifiable in the future. PwC view and further support The additional guidance outlined in CP24/17 could result in material changes to models and processes for a number of firms if the Supervisory Statement is implemented as drafted. Given the importance of the MA offset in SCR calculations, we expect that firms will want to understand the impact of these changes promptly, and where they may have a different perspective to the PRA, we would encourage them to respond to the consultation. PwC has deep experience in model build and validation, and has helped a number of Firms to establish MA portfolio investment guidelines and policies, and would be well-placed to assist Firms looking to assess how the draft Supervisory Statement may affect their future applications. 16 CP24/17: paragraph CP24/17: paragraph CP24/17: paragraph CP24/17: paragraph
9 EIOPA Consultation Title Topics Covered Who Should Pay Attention Issue Date 6 th November 2017 Response Deadline 5 th January 2018 EIOPA-CP : Consultation paper on EIOPA s second set of Advice to the European Commission on specific items in the Solvency II Delegated Regulation Interest Rate Risk, Market Risk Concentration, Currency Risk, Unrated Debt, Unlisted Equity, Counterparty Risk, Defaults, Look-through, Risk Margin All Solvency II firms, but mainly Standard Formula firms The second set of advice includes all items arising from the calls for technical advice not yet covered in the first set of Advice. The changes are mainly relevant to Standard Formula firms, but it could also impact Internal Model firms, to the extent that models now deviate significantly from the revised Standard Formula approach. We think this would be most relevant for firms which don t currently allow for negative interest rates in their internal models, as they will clearly be behind the EIOPA standards. In the sections below, we focus on the relevant changes within the Market Risk module that are likely to be of interest to Firms. Interest rate risk EIOPA views the current approach to interest rate shocks (calculated as a percentage of the current interest rate) as persistently underestimating interest rate risk. Two approaches are being considered: Approach A ( Minimum shock approach with a static floor ) A floor to the relative shock will be introduced whereby a minimum absolute shock of 200bps will apply for durations of up to 20 years, decreasing linearly to 0bps for durations of 90 years and above. The assumed minimum interest rate will be -2% for a duration of 1 year decreasing linearly to -1% for durations of 20 years and above. Approach B ( Combined approach ) Under which Approach A will apply in high and moderate yield environments and an affine stress will apply in low interest rate environments (which will lead to lower shocks than under approach A). Firms should think about the revised interest rate shocks and assess the impact on their SCR calibrations (under standard formula or internal model), including how it would affect their MA under stress. Market risk concentration EIOPA proposes to apply an average risk factor approach to exposure to groups that include insurers or credit or financial institutions so that the insurer s solvency position would be taken into account in respect of group exposures. For Firms with large exposures to companies within financial groups, it will be important to think about how the proposed change will affect the market risk SCR. We expect Firms may wish to clarify how the average risk factor approach will be applied. Currency risk at group level 9
10 Groups will be permitted to select a local currency other than the one used for consolidated accounts based on objective criteria such as currency in which material amounts of own funds or technical provisions are denominated. Firms will therefore have the flexibility to hold capital in currencies other than their reporting currency, where they have significant exposure in terms of own funds or technical provisions. Firms may also wish to revise their hedging strategy after the proposed change as well where appropriate (hedge at solo level or group level). Finding an appropriate measure is key and can vary from firm to firm. Unrated debt Proposed changes to the approach taken for unrated debt could be significant as it may be possible to be assign unrated debt (where both the debt and the internal credit assessment process meet certain conditions) to CQS2. This is a significant change to the existing treatment of unrated bonds. Where an insurer co-invests in unrated debt with a bank which has an approved internal model, where certain conditions are met the insurer may assigned a credit quality step to the debt based on the output of the banks internal model. The sum of the amounts included under both approaches above may not exceed 5% of the insurer s investments. We anticipate that this will be attractive for firms, but the 5% cap may introduce a practical limit where the relief is not worth the implementation cost for smaller firms. Unlisted equity Portfolios of EU/EEA unlisted equities (either directly held or through funds on a look-through basis) meeting certain risk and diversification conditions may qualify as Type 1 equities. The possible approaches that EIOPA is considering cover different possibilities for insurers to invest in unlisted equities: direct investment, private equity ( PE ) fund and PE fund of funds. We expect Firms with significant EEA unlisted equity holdings to respond to EIOPA in terms of the proposed change in equity risk charge and get further clarification on the expansion of the definition of Type 1 equities. Simplification of the counterparty default risk EIOPA s advice is to clearly define a risk-mitigating derivative. An amended definition of financial risk mitigating technique has been proposed to capture the economic effect of hedging strategies. It also proposes that all derivatives to be treated as Type 1 exposures irrespective of whether they are riskmitigating or not. New simplifications are also proposed regarding the below: the calculation of the capital requirement for Type 1 exposures (to reduce volatility where the standard deviation is around 7% of the sum of the losses given default); and the calculation of the risk-mitigating effect of reinsurance contracts which affect only one line of business We expect that firms will welcome clarity around the treatment of derivatives included in the counterparty risk module, especially under EMIR where there are more requirements around reporting, collateral, grouping of exposures. 10
11 We expect Firms will need to consider how the proposed changes would affect the way they classify and report their derivatives. Firms might need to review their current reporting packs and also adjust their SCR calculation based on the new treatment of derivatives. Treatment of exposures to CCPs and changes resulting from EMIR Two options are being considered to separately calculate the probability of default and recovery rate in the counterparty default risk module for derivatives meeting the requirements set out in Articles 305(2) or 305(3) of the Capital Requirements Regulation. Consideration is also being given to a change in the calculation of loss given default. We anticipate that this approach will need further consideration in the future, and that firms might need to adjust their credit risk models and ultimately their SCR calibrations to account for the potential change in the calculation of loss given default. Simplification of the look-through approach Currently an approach to look-through using data groupings for target asset allocations is limited to 20% of the assets of the insurer. It is proposed to carve-out assets for linked products from this threshold provided they either do not significantly contribute to SCR or do not significantly impact available own funds. Where look-through cannot be applied, an ability to use the last reported asset allocation of the fund will be introduced, as will an additional qualitative condition for the application of a simplified look-through. We anticipate that this simplification will provide Firms with additional flexibility around the look-through approach, although firms will need to consider whether their approach is insufficient and would need to meet a qualitative assessment instead. Risk margin No change has been proposed in terms of the risk margin. We expect that some firms may not be satisfied with this, given the Treasury Committee has mentioned that this is an area where change is needed in its recent Treasury Select Committee Report on EU insurance regulation. Firms may wish to respond to the PRA with regards to this. PwC view and further support The changes outlined in the EIOPA consultation are numerous; there are some key elements that may impact all firms, but specifically Standard Formula firms, or Internal Model firms that do not currently allow for negative interest rates. In addition, in terms of the proposition that the risk margin will not change, this might lead to further discussions with the PRA. PwC also has deep experience in both standard formula and internal model build and can help firms to implement the changes mentioned in the consultation when the time is right to do so. 11
Consultation 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 informationFS Regulatory Centre of Excellence, 2 December Hot Topic. Solvency II requirements published. 3. Provisional equivalence of third countries.
Hot Topic Hot Topic Solvency II requirements published The publication of the Omnibus II text provides much needed clarity to the market on some key topics FS Regulatory Centre of Excellence 2 December
More informationHot Topic. EIOPA publishes interim technical guidelines and launches stress testing exercise. Summary. FS Regulatory Centre of Excellence
Hot Topic FS Regulatory Centre of Excellence 2 nd May 2014 EIOPA publishes interim technical guidelines and launches stress testing exercise Summary On 30 April 2014 the European Insurance and Occupational
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 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 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 informationHot Topic EIOPA publishes interim technical guidelines and launches stress testing exercise
Hot Topic EIOPA publishes interim technical guidelines and launches stress testing exercise FS Regulatory Centre of Excellence 12 May 2014 Summary On 30 April 2014, the European Insurance and Occupational
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 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 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 informationFinal Report. Public Consultation No. 14/036 on. Guidelines on undertaking-specific. parameters
EIOPA-BoS-14/178 27 November 2014 Final Report on Public Consultation No. 14/036 on Guidelines on undertaking-specific parameters EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel.
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 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 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 informationMAS reviews Risk-Based Capital framework
www.pwc.com MAS reviews Risk-Based Capital framework 29 June 2012 In the light of evolving market practices and global regulatory developments, MAS is reviewing the risk-based capital framework for insurers
More informationSupervisory Statement SS23/15 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment. October 2018 (Updating June 2015)
Supervisory Statement SS23/15 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment October 2018 (Updating June 2015) Supervisory Statement SS23/15 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility
More informationEU publications Online survey for assessment of insurance based investment products Page 2
Insurance Regulatory Update October 2016 European regulatory developments of interest to insurers, reinsurers, asset managers and other market participants Summary EU publications Online survey for assessment
More informationPolicy Statement PS25/17 Solvency II: Data collection of market risk sensitivities. October 2017
Policy Statement PS25/17 Solvency II: Data collection of market risk sensitivities October 2017 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Policy Statement PS25/17 Solvency II: Data collection
More informationPRA Solvency II update James Orr. 29 April 2015
PRA Solvency II update James Orr 29 April 2015 Agenda 1. 2015 Update 2. What is standard formula? 3. Internal models 4. Matching adjustment 5. ORSA 6. System of governance 7. Regulatory reporting 1. 2015
More informationConsultation Paper CP9/18 Solvency II: Internal models modelling of the volatility adjustment
Consultation Paper CP9/18 Solvency II: Internal models modelling of the volatility adjustment April 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP9/18 Solvency II:
More informationConsultation Paper CP22/17 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment
Consultation Paper CP22/17 Solvency II: Supervisory approval for the volatility adjustment November 2017 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP22/17 Solvency
More information12 June Errata to the Technical Specifications for the Preparatory Phase
12 June 2014 Errata to the Technical Specifications for the Preparatory Phase Version of 30 April 2014 Reference Wording in Technical Specifications Corrected Wording 1 TS (II) - 1.2.2.1 The adjustment
More informationPolicy Statement PS24/18 Solvency II: Updates to internal model output reporting. October 2018
Policy Statement PS24/18 Solvency II: Updates to internal model output reporting October 2018 Policy Statement PS24/18 Solvency II: Updates to internal model output reporting October 2018 Bank of England
More informationSolvency 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 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 informationEIOPA Proposal for Guidelines on the preparation for Solvency II. October Milliman Solvency II Update
EIOPA Proposal for Guidelines on the preparation for Solvency II October 2013 EIOPA s final guidelines for the preparation of Solvency II look set to require firms and supervisors to put in place elements
More informationSupervisory Statement SS7/18 Solvency II: Matching adjustment. July 2018
Supervisory Statement SS7/18 Solvency II: Matching adjustment July 2018 Supervisory Statement SS7/18 Solvency II: Matching adjustment July 2018 Bank of England 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate
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 informationConsultation Paper CP23/14. Solvency II approvals
Consultation Paper CP23/14 Solvency II approvals October 2014 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office: 8 Lothbury, London EC2R 7HH.
More informationHot Topic Publication of final EIOPA guidelines signals renewed effort towards Solvency II finalisation
Hot Topic Publication of final EIOPA guidelines signals renewed effort towards Solvency II finalisation FS Regulatory Centre of Excellence 10 October 2013 Summary On 27 September 2013 EIOPA published its
More informationSyndicate SCR For 2019 Year of Account Instructions for Submission of the Lloyd s Capital Return and Methodology Document for Capital Setting
Syndicate SCR For 2019 Year of Account Instructions for Submission of the Lloyd s Capital Return and Methodology Document for Capital Setting Guidance Notes August 2018 Contents Introduction 4 Submission
More informationPolicy Statement PS7/18 Model risk management principles for stress testing. April 2018
Policy Statement PS7/18 Model risk management principles for stress testing April 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Policy Statement PS7/18 Model risk management principles
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 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 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 informationCOMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No /.. of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.10.2015 C(2015) 7245 final COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No /.. of 26.10.2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
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 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 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 informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper (v 3) Loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes
Solvency Assessment and Management: Steering Committee Position Paper 112 1 (v 3) Loss-absorbing capacity of deferred taxes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SAM introduces a valuation basis of technical provisions that
More informationEBA REPORT ON RESULTS FROM THE SECOND EBA IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF IFRS July 2017
EBA REPORT ON RESULTS FROM THE SECOND EBA IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF IFRS 9 13 July 2017 Contents Executive summary 3 Content of the report 3 1. Main observations of the impact assessment exercise 4 1.1 Qualitative
More informationTechnical Specifications part II on the Long-Term Guarantee Assessment Final version
EIOPA/12/307 25 January 2013 Technical Specifications part II on the Long-Term Guarantee Assessment Final version Purpose of this document This document contains part II of the technical specifications
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 informationClient Alert August 2016
Financial Services Regulatory Singapore Client Alert August 2016 For further information please contact Stephanie Magnus Principal +65 6434 2672 Stephanie.magnus@bakermckenzie.com Selwyn Lim Senior Associate
More information1. Amended standards Transfers of investment property Amendments to IAS 40, Investment property... 8
Introduction Since March 2017, the IASB has issued the following: IFRS 17, Insurance contracts Amendments to IFRS 9, Financial instruments Prepayment features with negative compensation Amendments to IAS
More informationEIOPA15/ Nov 2015
EIOPA15/821 19 Nov 2015 Call for evidence concerning the request to ΕΙΟΡΑ for further technical advice on the identification and calibration of other infrastructure investment risk categories i.e. infrastructure
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 informationConsultation Paper CP10/18 Solvency II: Updates to internal model output reporting
Consultation Paper CP10/18 Solvency II: Updates to internal model output reporting April 2018 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Consultation Paper CP10/18 Solvency II: Updates
More informationMAS consults on Enterprise Risk Management ( ERM )
www.pwc.com/sg MAS consults on Enterprise Risk Management ( ERM ) for insurers Following the MAS consultation paper on RBC 2 in August 2012, the expected consultation paper on ERM has now been published
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 informationPwC Solvency II Life Insurers Risk Capital Survey
www.pwc.co.uk/fsrr PwC Solvency II Life Insurers Risk Capital Survey Summary Report PwC s risk capital survey covers the data and methodologies adopted by firms in determining risk capital under Solvency
More informationIntroduction to Solvency II SCR Standard Formula for Market Risk. Erik Thoren 11 June 2015
Introduction to Solvency II SCR Standard Formula for Market Risk Erik Thoren 11 June 2015 Agenda Introduction to Solvency II Market risk module Asset allocation considerations Page 2 Introduction to Solvency
More informationRe: Possible Solvency and Financial Condition Report components subject to assurance
Ms Sandra Hack European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) Westhafenplatz 1 D-60327 Frankfurt am Main 10 January 2012 Ref.: INS/PRJ/SKU/IDS Dear Ms Hack, Re: Possible Solvency and Financial
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 informationFSRR Hot Topic. European Banking Authority Brexit opinion: what does it mean for firms Brexit plans?
www.pwc.co.uk/fsrr October 2017 Stand out for the right reasons Financial Services Risk and Regulation FSRR Hot Topic European Banking Authority Brexit opinion: what does it mean for firms Brexit plans?
More informationNumber Date Reference
Number Date Reference 1 28/09/2015 0 2 28/09/2015 Preparatory phase reporting template S.34.01.g 3 08/12/2015 S.34.01 Final Solvency II template 4 19/01/2016 DPM and Taxonomy 2.0.1, Annotated Templates
More informationSyndicate SCR For 2019 Year of Account Instructions for Submission of the Lloyd s Capital Return and Methodology Document for Capital Setting
Syndicate SCR For 2019 Year of Account Instructions for Submission of the Lloyd s Capital Return and Methodology Document for Capital Setting Guidance Notes June 2018 Contents Introduction 4 Submission
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 informationCOMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 8.3.2019 C(2019) 1900 final COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of 8.3.2019 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 supplementing Directive 2009/138/EC of the European
More informationThis technical advice shall be delivered by 28 February Context. 1.1 Scope
Ref. Ares(2017)932544-21/02/2017 REQUEST TO EIOPA FOR TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE REVIEW OF SPECIFIC ITEMS IN THE SOLVENCY II DELEGATED REGULATION AS REGARDS UNJUSTIFIED CONSTRAINTS TO FINANCING (Regulation
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 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 informationBackground information about Guidelines on preparing for Solvency II
1 Background information about Guidelines on preparing for Solvency II 1. Why is EIOPA issuing Guidelines? The Guidelines follow EIOPA s Opinion on interim measures regarding Solvency II published on the
More informationCompromise proposal on Omnibus II
Compromise proposal on Omnibus II On 25 November 2013 a compromise proposal on the Omnibus II Directive was published. This was based on a provisional agreement from the European Parliament, the European
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 informationPreserving regulatory certainty: The review of insurers capital requirements
Keynote Speech Gabriel Bernardino Chairman of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) Preserving regulatory certainty: The review of insurers capital requirements Public Hearing
More informationReport on long-term guarantees measures and measures on equity risk
EIOPA REGULAR USE EIOPA-BoS-17/334 20 December 2017 Report on long-term guarantees measures and measures on equity risk 2017 1/171 Table of Contents Executive summary... 3 I. Introduction... 6 I.1 Review
More informationLife under Solvency II Be prepared!
Life under Solvency II Be prepared! Moderator: Hugh Rosenbaum, Towers Watson Speakers: Tomas Wittbjer, Global Head of Insurance, IKANO SA Lorraine Stack, Marsh Management Services Dublin Session Overview
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 informationORSA An International Development
ORSA An International Development 25.02.14 Agenda What is an ORSA? Global reach Comparison of requirements Common challenges Potential solutions Origin of ORSA FSA ICAS Solvency II IAIS ICP16 What is an
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 informationResponse to EIOPA consultation on corrections and amendments to implementing technical standards on reporting and disclosure
Response to EIOPA consultation on corrections and amendments to implementing technical standards on reporting and disclosure General comments Insurance Europe welcomes the opportunity to comment on the
More informationConsultation Paper. Draft Regulatory Technical Standards
JC 2018 15 04 May 2018 Consultation Paper Draft Regulatory Technical Standards Amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 on risk-mitigation techniques for OTC-derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP
More informationRelated topic Subtopic No. Para. Your question Answer
25 June 2014 Related topic Subtopic No. Para. Your question Answer Valuation V.2.5. Risk margin TP5.4 Under the risk margin transfer scenario there is an assumption that the receiving entity invests its
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 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 informationHow to review an ORSA
How to review an ORSA Patrick Kelliher FIA CERA, Actuarial and Risk Consulting Network Ltd. Done properly, the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) can be a key tool for insurers to understand the evolution
More informationEUROPEAN STANDARD OF ACTUARIAL PRACTICE 2 (ESAP 2) ACTUARIAL FUNCTION REPORT UNDER DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC
ACTUARIAL ASSOCIATION OF EUROPE ASSOCIATION ACTUARIELLE EUROPÉENNE 4 PLACE DU SAMEDI B-1000 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM TEL: (+32) 22 17 01 21 FAX: (+32) 27 92 46 48 E-MAIL: info@actuary.eu WEB: www.actuary.eu EUROPEAN
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 informationReal estate lending under Solvency II CONSULTING LLP
Real estate lending under Solvency II CONSULTING LLP!1 Solvency II and IORP Solvency II A fundamental reform of the capital adequacy regime for the European insurance industry. It aims to establish a revised
More informationkpmg KPMG response to Consultation Paper CP104 Consultation on External Audit of Solvency II Regulatory Returns / Pubic Disclosures
KPMG response to Consultation Paper CP104 Consultation on External Audit of Solvency II Regulatory Returns / Pubic Disclosures 29 July 2016 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Key observations.. 3 3. General
More informationIt is our understanding that an intercompany loan should be treated as a financial instrument and subject to market stresses as appropriate.
27 Oct 2014 Related topic Subtopic No. Para. Keywords Your question Answer SCR.5.8. Mktsp spread SCR.5.82 Credit Rating It is our understanding that an intercompany loan should be treated as a financial
More informationGuidance consultation FSA REVIEWS OF CREDIT RISK MANAGEMENT BY CCPS. Financial Services Authority. July Dear Sirs
Financial Services Authority Guidance consultation FSA REVIEWS OF CREDIT RISK MANAGEMENT BY CCPS July 2011 Dear Sirs The financial crisis has led to a re-evaluation of supervisory approaches and standards,
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 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 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 informationSociety of Actuaries in Ireland Solvency II for Beginners. Mike Frazer. 19 May 2011
Society of Actuaries in Ireland Solvency II for Beginners Mike Frazer 19 May 2011 1 Agenda Why has Solvency II been created? Structure of Solvency II The Solvency II Balance Sheet Pillar II & III Aspects
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 informationEIOPA's Supervisory Assessment. of the. Own Risk and Solvency Assessment. - First experiences -
EIOPA-BoS/17-097 19 June 2017 EIOPA's Supervisory Assessment of the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment - First experiences - EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel. + 49 69-951119-20;
More informationEUROPEAN STANDARD OF ACTUARIAL PRACTICE 2 (ESAP2) ACTUARIAL FUNCTION REPORT UNDER DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC
EUROPEAN STANDARD OF ACTUARIAL PRACTICE 2 (ESAP2) ACTUARIAL FUNCTION REPORT UNDER DIRECTIVE 2009/138/EC FINAL MODEL STANDARD including considerations and reference to regulatory requirements Date: 31 January
More informationCover note for the draft consultation papers on the Guidelines and ITS for Solvency II (set 2)
EIOPA-BoS-14/229 27 November 2014 Cover note for the draft consultation papers on the Guidelines and ITS for Solvency II (set 2) 1/10 1. Introduction 1.1. EIOPA invites comments from stakeholders on the
More informationGuidance for (Re)Insurance Undertakings on the Head of Actuarial Function Role
2016 Guidance for (Re)Insurance Undertakings on the Head of Actuarial Function Role Guidance for (Re)Insurance Undertakings on the Head of Actuarial Function Role 2 Contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. General
More informationInterest Rate Risk in the Banking Book. Taking a close look at the latest IRRBB developments
Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book Taking a close look at the latest IRRBB developments Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book Interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB) can be a significant risk
More informationProposal for the Quality Assurance of the Solvency II capital requirements, own funds and balance sheet
Proposal for the Quality Assurance of the Solvency II capital requirements, own funds and balance sheet Date of Paper : 21 November 2016 Version Number : V2.0 Table of Contents 1 Overview... 3 2 Solvency
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 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 informationPwC Solvency II Life Insurers Capital Model Survey
www.pwc.co.uk/fsrr PwC Solvency II Life Insurers Capital Model Survey Summary Report November 208 PwC's capital models survey covers the key data and methodology decisions taken by firms in determining
More informationInternal model outputs (Non-life) Log (for templates NL.IMS.01-NL.IMS.10)
Internal model outputs (Non-life) Log (for templates NL.IMS.01-NL.IMS.10) General comments This LOG relates to the PRA s supervisory statement SS25/15 ( Solvency II: regulatory reporting, internal model
More informationFinal Report on public consultation No. 14/049 on Guidelines on the implementation of the long-term guarantee measures
EIOPA-BoS-15/111 30 June 2015 Final Report on public consultation No. 14/049 on Guidelines on the implementation of the long-term guarantee measures EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt
More information