Delegate Pack Solvency II: event on technical issues for life insurers intending to use an internal model
|
|
- Loren Bridges
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Delegate Pack Solvency II: event on technical issues for life insurers intending to use an internal model Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate, London EC2R 6DA
2 Contents Plenary 1. Solvency II: technical issues for life insurers intending to use an internal model Sid Malik and Johann Meeke Workshops 2. Invested credit risk modelling Jemima Ayton and Daniel Curtis 3. Dependency and aggregation Vanessa Leung and Dan Georgescu 4. Longevity risk modelling Jemima Ayton and Rajeev Shah 5. Market risk Min Wei Chan, Niall Kavanagh and Manuel Sales 6. Proxy modelling validation Vanessa Leung and Dan Georgescu Additional information 7. QR code and website details
3 Solvency II: technical issues for life insurers intending to use an internal model Sid Malik Johann Meeke Date: 2 April
4 Aims for the afternoon a. Assist firms in improving the quality (not quantity) of submissions b. Discuss methods by which work done and judgements made can be effectively justified and communicated c. Be an open and transparent regulator Continued focus on fairness and consistency Experiences from reviews shared in response to requests Opportunity for firms to ask questions and discuss technical issues The PRA wants to help life insurers improve the quality of their internal model submissions Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 3 Overview of the afternoon Time Topic Location 12:30-13:15 Plenary session Auditorium 13:15-14:45 Workshop session one Market risk Longevity risk Dependencies Meet Kieran Barnes outside the front left door of the Auditorium Meet Laurienne Sherriff outside the front right hand door of the Auditorium Remain in the Auditorium 14: Coffee Outside Auditorium :35 Workshop session two Market risk Proxy models Credit Risk Meet Kieran Barnes outside the front left door of the Auditorium Meet Laurienne Sherriff outside the front right hand door of the Auditorium Remain in the Auditorium 16:35-17:30 Refreshments Outside Auditorium 17:30 Close Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 4
5 Agenda: plenary session 1. Framework 2. The PRA context 3. My team at the PRA 4. Focus on achieving fairness and consistency 5. Observations from review work to date 6. Key messages 7. Workshop logistics Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 5 1. Framework The material provided today is offered on the following basis: We have prepared these slides on the basis of the information available at this time. This workshop is being held in order to facilitate readiness, but it should be acknowledged that this discussion is not taking place against the background of final adopted texts and firms should ensure they familiarise themselves with all obligations as they are published. The delegated acts have not yet been published and there are still Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) and Regulated Technical Standards (RTS) and guidelines to come (see the EIOPA website for a timeline). Ultimately, the adopted Level 2 regulations (delegated act and EIOPA ITS and RTS) will set out definitively what is required to comply with the Solvency II regime. Unless expressly permitted to do so by the Solvency II regime, the PRA will not be placing interpretations or other requirements on firms. Therefore: providing firms are complying with the Level 2 regulations they will have complied with their obligations under EU law; and as Level 2 regulations are directly applicable, firms do not need to seek out a PRA view or interpretation of the provisions in order to comply. The comments made in these slides and during the workshops do not represent a statement of PRA policy. None of the comments made in these slides or during the workshops should be taken to mean that the PRA considers that Level 2 should apply in advance of its formal coming into effect. There may be discussion about actions firms can take in readiness for the Solvency II regime, but this does not create any legal obligation to comply earlier than the implementation date of 1 January Any emphasis on a particular provision in the Solvency II regime in these materials or at the workshops should not be taken to imply that it is a priority or an area of particular supervisory concern for the PRA, or vice versa. The PRA will have a duty to supervise the entire Solvency II regime consistently with the obligations in Level 1 and 2 texts. Where approaches for compliance with Level 2 are discussed, they merely represent a possible method of complying with Level 2 obligations and should not be interpreted as representing the only way which the PRA will accept. Approaches are put forward for consideration rather than to be prescriptive. Presenters may mention certain good practices based on reviews to date for a sample of firms. More good practices or even better practices may emerge as other firms models are reviewed. In addition, what is considered as a good practice for a particular type of firm may not necessarily be considered such for all other firms. Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 6
6 2. The PRA context The PRA has two statutory objectives: To promote the safety and soundness of the firms it regulates, focusing on the adverse effects that they can have on the stability of the UK financial system. A specific objective to insurance firms, to contribute to ensuring that policyholders are appropriately protected. And a secondary objective: Facilitate effective competition The PRA has a risk assessment framework which: focuses on issues of the most importance; pays particular attention to reducing the impact of firm failure, and; is an assessment backed by proactive intervention framework which provides a ladder of intervention Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 7 3. My team at the PRA (1/2) Life Insurance and Pensions Risk Department within the PRA Made up of 40 plus risk specialists Line staff with firm knowledge supplemented by specialist teams Our support to Supervision covers both Groups and Retail Life firms Collaborative Other technical specialists Supervisory colleagues Bank and FCA colleagues Technical Issues for Life Insurers Plenary Session 8
7 3. My team at the PRA (2/2) Our role is to: ensure that firms follow principles and practices which do not threaten the PRA s statutory objectives ensure compliance with Solvency II use our knowledge and expertise to provide technical support to internal stakeholders lead on capital assessments and support other firm initiated activities The PRA s actuarial experts treat firms fairly and consistently Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 9 4. Focus on achieving fairness and consistency (1/2) Specialisms Dedicated teams with expertise and deep knowledge of key risks Developed PRA approach on methodology and calibrations and trained staff Lead and support on firm internal model reviews Multi-disciplinary review teams Supervision and risk specialists supported by Prudential Legal Function and Insurance Policy Focused on correct interpretation and application of Solvency II Knowledge sharing Quality assurance and peer review Peer review two-fold: within specialist reviews for each firm as a whole Audit trail Management challenge Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 10
8 4. Focus on achieving fairness and consistency (2/2) Developed tool to identify key risk drivers in firms complex stochastic models and informs individual capital guidance Role of benchmarks Independent panel process A discipline for bringing together the views of the PRA on a firm in one place Senior level challenge Enables consistency between firms Technical issues for life insurers plenary session Observations from review work to date Documentation Quality not quantity Complete, clear and easy to follow Evidence to justify the conclusions Expert judgement Justify clearly Qualify the experts Gold-plating Not allowed Taken very seriously at PRA Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 12
9 6. Key messages a. Enhance the quality (not quantity) of submissions b. Work done and judgements made need to be justified and communicated c. Open and transparent regulator Experiences from reviews shared in response to requests Opportunity for firms to ask questions and discuss technical issues Continued focus on fairness and consistency Feel free to ask questions and make comments and observations both during the workshops and throughout the day. Technical issues for life insurers plenary session Workshop logistics Time Topic Location 13:15-14:45 Workshop session one Market risk Longevity risk Dependencies Meet Kieran Barnes outside the front left door of the Auditorium Meet Laurienne Sherriff outside the front right hand door of the Auditorium Remain in the Auditorium 14: Coffee Outside Auditorium :35 Workshop session two Market risk Proxy models Credit Risk Meet Kieran Barnes outside the front left door of the Auditorium Meet Laurienne Sherriff outside the front right hand door of the Auditorium Remain in the Auditorium 16:35-17:30 Refreshments Outside Auditorium 17:30 Close Technical issues for life insurers plenary session 14
10 Solvency II: technical issues for life insurers intending to use an internal model Sid Malik Johann Meeke Enjoy the workshops 2 April
11 Invested credit risk modelling Daniel Curtis Jemima Ayton 2 April Objectives Discuss key elements of the modelling process for invested credit risk. Share examples of what the PRA has seen to date in internal model reviews. Discuss and share views. No matching adjustment discussion, the focus is purely asset-side models. Feel free to ask questions and make comments and observations during the workshop Invested credit risk modelling workshop 18
12 Agenda 1. Key modelling choices 2. More detailed model mechanics 3. Credit-specific discussion of over-arching topics 4. Conclusions 5. Questions and comments Invested credit risk modelling workshop Key modelling choices a. Reconciliation of short-term and long-term views of invested credit risk b. Should the credit model include the asset model? c. Risks included in the credit model d. Role of risk identification in optimal model design Invested credit risk modelling workshop 20
13 1a. Reconciliation of short-term and long-term views of invested credit risk All the models the PRA has seen to date are reduced-form spread models designed to capture the change in asset value over one year There are challenges in reconciling these models with a long-term view of default risk which is the usual perspective adopted by annuity writers ORSA can act as a bridge between these two views of the world Firms should consider how they can reconcile their short and longer term views of invested credit risk Invested credit risk modelling workshop 21 1b. Should the credit model include the asset model? A spread model in isolation cannot provide an updated asset value Firms typically use asset terms and conditions models or proxy models, to which spread is an input To date the PRA has seen insufficient attention placed on either the documentation or validation of the asset models, or the links between the asset and spread models Discussion: Should the credit model include the asset model? Invested credit risk modelling workshop 22
14 1c. Risks included in the credit model Solvency II Directive (Article 101) requires firms to take into account all material and quantifiable risks in their SCR calculation To date the PRA has seen limited evidence of firms undertaking risk identification exercises and so cannot be sure that firms are meeting the Article 101 requirements Examples of invested credit sub-risks include (but are not necessarily limited to): Spread Transition Default Callability Subordination/ranking Explicit risk modelling may not be appropriate in all cases Credit models should include all material and quantifiable risks Invested credit risk modelling workshop 23 1d. Role of risk identification in model design Lack of good risk identification processes poses challenges in terms of model design The PRA has seen limited evidence of assets being split into homogenous risk groups and then modelled using a model appropriate to the risk characteristics Some examples of what we have seen in this area: Standard spread models used for all assets, including non-vanilla bonds Standard spread model with uplifts for more complex assets Development of non-spread models for material holdings of non-standard asset classes Stresses applied to the valuation models Firms should consider how good risk identification work can aid model design Invested credit risk modelling workshop 24
15 2. More detailed model mechanics a. Calibration hot topic: Data Invested credit risk modelling workshop 25 2a. Calibration hot topic: Data (1/2) Firms should consider how they can obtain a complete, accurate and appropriate set of data to model credit risk and how data can be supplemented by expert judgement What data set should be used when calibrating a credit model? Areas where firms have been considering this issue include: Modelling UK exposures using US data? The extent to which data should be split by duration? The extent to which data should be split by sector? Length of the dataset to use i.e. credibility vs. appropriateness Should regime changes be reflected in the data? Invested credit risk modelling workshop 26
16 2a. Calibration hot topic: Data (2/2) There are usually differences between a firm s asset holdings and the calibration data used Duration Type Geography Sector It is unlikely that any data set will be entirely free from basis risk Firms should consider the extent to which the data they have chosen are adequately reflective of their own portfolio Invested credit risk modelling workshop Credit-specific discussion of over-arching topics a. Use test b. Validation Invested credit risk modelling workshop 28
17 3a. Use test (1/3) Model design There are many ways in which invested credit risk can be modelled including: Reduced form vs. structural Simple vs. complex Asset by asset vs. portfolio level Point-in-time vs. through-the-cycle There is no right answer to model design but the model chosen should be justifiably appropriate for the risk profile of the firm Invested credit risk modelling workshop 29 3a. Use test (2/3) Model granularity Model granularity (or lack thereof) limits the ability of the model to be useful in a firm s risk management and system of governance Overall model granularity is a function of asset and spread model granularity Detailed asset model + spread modelled purely at rating model = relatively non-granular risk modelling Spread modelled using rating, duration and sector + single-factor proxy model = relatively non-granular risk modelling The PRA has seen limited evidence for, and demonstration that, the level of granularity used is appropriate for uses other than calculating the SCR Invested credit risk modelling workshop 30
18 3a. Use test (3/3) Discussion: How far should firms push the invested credit risk component of their internal model to meet a range of uses vs. using stand-alone specialised credit models? Potential uses: Calculate required economic capital Allocate required economic capital Set risk limits Monitor risk limits Set investment mandates Monitor investment mandates Test new asset strategies? Invested credit risk modelling workshop 31 3b Validation Validation has tended to focus on model input parameters rather than outputs The PRA have seen the following tools used: Scenario analysis Back-testing Comparison with risk appetite Sensitivities Firms senior management are likely to be significantly interested in how the model outputs compare to recent extreme events Discussion: What are the views of the audience on what good validation would look like for the invested credit risk component of an internal model? Invested credit risk modelling workshop 32
19 4. Conclusions Firms key modelling decisions may include: How to reconcile short and long-term views of credit risk The role of the asset model in the overall credit model How to ensure all material and quantifiable risks are included How to use risk identification to its best advantage A key hot topic in calibration is data. There are generic as well as portfolio-specific considerations. Use test and validation are important Invested credit risk modelling workshop Final comments/questions Invested credit risk modelling workshop 34
20 Dependency and aggregation Vanessa Leung Dan Georgescu 2 April
21 Objectives Talk over key issues in dependency and aggregation modelling Share examples of what the PRA has seen in the reviews conducted to date Discuss and share views Feel free to ask questions and make comments and observations during the workshop Dependency and aggregation workshop 37 Agenda 1. Overview of dependency/aggregation methodologies commonly adopted by firms 2. Specific considerations a) Correlation matrix aggregation approach b) Gaussian copula dependency structure 3. Calibration techniques a) Data analysis b) Expert judgment 4. Conclusions 5. Final questions and comments Dependency and aggregation workshop 38
22 1. Overview of dependency/aggregation methodologies commonly adopted by firms 1. The use of a variance/covariance approach (also known as correlation matrix approach) a) Single stage b) Multi-stage (e.g SII standard formula) c) Risk geographies 2. The use of fully stochastic models a) Copula + marginal distributions approach b) Structural economic scenario generators The PRA does not prefer a particular modelling approach for dependency but asks firms to consider the appropriateness and limitations of their chosen approach. 39 Agenda 1. Overview of dependency/aggregation methodologies commonly adopted by firms 2. Specific considerations a) Correlation matrix aggregation approach b) Gaussian copula dependency structure 3. Calibration techniques a) Data analysis b) Expert judgment 4. Conclusions 5. Final questions and comments Dependency and aggregation workshop 40
23 2a. Specific considerations - Correlation matrix approach 1. The implicit assumptions of this technique can be summarised as : A: the relationship between risk and capital are linear and additive, B: all of the individual risks are normally distributed (or elliptically distributed); and C: the relationship between risks is assumed to be the same in moderate and extreme scenarios. 2. Some firms use non-linearity adjustments to address the above simplifications Discussion: How effective are non-linearity adjustments in addressing the deficiencies in this aggregation technique? Are there remaining material limitations and how are these addressed? Dependency and aggregation workshop 41 2a. Specific considerations - Correlation matrix approach 1. How do you calculate the PDF at other percentiles a) Explicit considerations for the appropriateness of the assumptions and calculation for each percentile to the same rigour as the 99.5 th percentile? b) Consistency between the assumptions made in the calculation for other points and that made for the 99.5 th percentile? 2. Implications given low richness of the probability distribution forecast a) Risk management b) Capital allocation c) Model validation Firms should consider whether the chosen aggregation methodology allows them to generate a PDF that is rich and accurate enough to capture all relevant characteristic of the risk profile and support decision making Dependency and aggregation workshop 42
24 2b. Specific considerations - Gaussian copula dependency structure Firms may want to consider the appropriateness of the Gaussian copula for the dependency of their own risks: a) Do you allow for tail dependency? b) Do you allow for dependency between risks which varies according to the direction of the risks? c) Where the same assumptions are used for both Group and solo, do you consider the appropriateness of the assumptions for each entity separately? d) How do you ensure that PSD (or other mechanical) adjustment does not materially change key assumptions against your views from initial analysis? Discussion: How well does a Gaussian copula reflect the underlying dependency modelled across all risks? Are key features in the dependency between specific risks captured by this copula? Dependency and aggregation workshop 43 Agenda 1. Overview of dependency/aggregation methodologies commonly adopted by firms 2. Specific considerations a) Correlation matrix aggregation approach b) Gaussian copula dependency structure 3. Calibration techniques a) Data analysis b) Expert judgment 4. Conclusions 5. Final questions and comments Dependency and aggregation workshop 44
25 3a. Calibration techniques - Data analysis Actual data suggests ve correlation suggests +ve correlation Change in interest rate (%) Scatter plot % -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% Oct 87-2 Change in equity Dependency and aggregation workshop 45 3a. Calibration techniques - Data analysis Scatterplots of the data at the start of data analysis Effect of correlations varying through time and according to market conditions Rationale behind the choice of calibration window Forward-looking calibration Tail effects Copulas are approximations to the empirical joint distribution of the data Expert judgement overlay Goodness-of-fit tests Sensitivity testing Communication to senior managers Dependency and aggregation workshop 46
26 3b. Calibration techniques Expert judgement Doc. Criteria to identify Assess Validation Challenge Governance Evidence, rationale Dependency and aggregation workshop 47 Agenda 1. Overview of dependency/aggregation methodologies commonly adopted by firms 2. Specific considerations a) Correlation matrix aggregation approach b) Gaussian copula dependency structure 3. Calibration techniques a) Data analysis b) Expert judgment 4. Conclusions 5. Final questions and comments Dependency and aggregation workshop 48
27 4. Conclusions Correlation matrix approach - Consider the assumptions - Document limitations and deficiencies - Assess effectiveness of adjustments (e.g. for non-linearity) - Consider whole PDF Copula approach - Document methodology for copula selection for material risk pairs - Assess effectiveness, ongoing appropriateness - Triggers for recalibration Calibration techniques - Where there is data: analyse it, use recognised statistical techniques to calibrate, assess fit, communicate appropriation to audience - Where there is little data and expert judgment is used, it should be appropriately documented so that it is visible to the users of the expert judgment Dependency and aggregation workshop Final questions and comments Dependency and aggregation workshop 50
28 Longevity risk modelling Jemima Ayton Rajeev Shah 2 April
29 Objectives Talk over key elements of the longevity risk modelling process Share examples from the internal model reviews conducted to date Discuss and share views Feel free to ask questions and make comments and observations during the workshop Longevity risk modelling workshop 53 Agenda 1. Key modelling choices 2. More detailed model mechanics 3. Longevity-specific discussion of over-arching topics 4. Conclusions 5. Questions and comments Longevity risk modelling workshop 54
30 1. Key Modelling Choices a. Risk definition and risk identification b. Granularity of modelling c. Consistency with technical provisions Longevity risk modelling workshop 55 1a. Key modelling choices: risk definition and risk identification The definition of longevity risk used and identification of relevant sub-risks is important as it is likely to drive the modelling approach taken. The PRA has seen two broad definitions to date: i. Longevity risk defined in terms of actual outcomes ii. Longevity risk defined in terms of changes in assumptions These definitions tend to map to one of two different modelling approaches: i. The run-off method for actual outcomes ii. The direct one-year or expectations-based method for changes in assumptions The PRA does not prefer a particular modelling approach for longevity risk but asks firms to ensure all relevant sub-risks are captured in their chosen approach. Longevity risk modelling workshop 56
31 1b. Key modelling choices: granularity of modelling Firms generally break longevity risk into sub-components for modelling purposes. Most firms reviewed to date have split risks in two ways: i. Base mortality risk - The risk that current mortality experience differs from the base table used for the best estimate assumption. This can then split into various sub-risks such as random volatility, parameter uncertainty, anti-selection, relevance and identification. ii. Trend risk - The risk that future improvements in annuitant mortality differ from the assumed improvements used to set technical provisions. This can also split down further. The PRA does not mandate any particular split of longevity risk into component parts, but notes that firms should think about how they will demonstrate compliance with Article 101(3) for longevity risk. Longevity risk modelling workshop 57 1c. Key modelling choices: consistency with technical provisions (1/2) The market for longevity risk is not deep and liquid. Firms cannot therefore refer to a market price for longevity risk when constructing their ICA/SII balance sheets. Instead an assumption about current and future longevity risk experience should be made to determine best estimate liabilities. Firms should consider what consistency with the methods used to calculate technical provisions means for longevity risk Longevity risk modelling workshop 58
32 1c. Key modelling choices: consistency with technical provisions (2/2) Discussion: When calculating the SCR how closely should the process for determining the longevity risk distribution relate to the best estimate assumption setting process? 1. Should the longevity risk model be applied at the same level of granularity at which the technical provisions are set? Why? 2. Should different modelling approaches be used for setting technical provisions and for determining the SCR/ICA? 3. Should different modelling approaches be used for setting technical provisions and for determining the SCR/ICA? 4. What difference should one expect between the actual best estimate and the best estimate implied by the capital model and should it matter? Longevity risk modelling workshop More detailed model mechanics a. Longevity risk data b. Longevity risk models Longevity risk modelling workshop 60
33 2a. More detailed model mechanics: Longevity risk data A balance often has to be struck between using expert judgement and using data. Internal data vs. external data: Firms generally do not have sufficient internal data particularly for modelling future improvements in longevity. External data are more plentiful but may pose challenges regarding completeness, accuracy and appropriateness. Common appropriateness issues in respect of data include use of males data for modelling females etc. Firms should ask what role data can, and should, play in their longevity risk modelling Longevity risk modelling workshop 61 2b. More detailed model mechanics: Longevity risk models There are a range of longevity risk modelling approaches available. Considerations that we have seen being made when choosing a model or models include: Is the model picking up all of the features of the data? Is model error being allowed for? How up-to-date is the approach? Is the model too complex? Is it well understood? What are its limitations? How risk responsive is the model? Firms should consider whether all appropriate considerations are being taken into account when they select their longevity risk models Longevity risk modelling workshop 62
34 3. Longevity-specific discussion of over-arching topics a. Expert judgement b. Validation c. Use of the longevity model Longevity risk modelling workshop 63 3a. Longevity-specific discussion of over-arching topics: Expert judgement Discussion: What makes a good longevity risk expert judgement? Who should the experts be? What does the expert need to know? Are there enough skills outside the expert group to challenge and validate expert judgements? Longevity risk modelling workshop 64
35 3b. Longevity-specific discussion of over-arching topics: Validation Discussion: What amount and type of validation is required for longevity risk modelling? Who carries out the validation? What needs to be validated for longevity risk? Data Risk identification and definition Modelling methodology Material assumptions (implicit and explicit) Calibrations Other? Longevity risk modelling workshop 65 3c. Longevity-specific discussion of over-arching topics: Use of the longevity model Discussion: What does use mean for the longevity risk component of an internal model? How should use of the model relate to the materiality of the risk? How should the longevity risk model link to the firm s management of longevity risk? How does the quality of the modelling impact use? How do the insights obtained depend on the modelling approach used? Longevity risk modelling workshop 66
36 4. Conclusions The PRA does not mandate a particular modelling approach or split of risks for longevity. To date longevity reviews have shown positive progress from firms towards meeting the Solvency II tests and standards. Areas that require further consideration include: Achieving consistency with the approach used to set technical provisions Use of data Range and type of models used The role of expert judgement The validation that should be undertaken for longevity risk What use means in a longevity risk context Longevity risk modelling workshop Final comments/questions Longevity risk modelling workshop 68
37 Solvency II industry conference Market risk workshop Min Wei Chan Niall Kavanagh Manuel Sales 2 April
38 Objectives Highlight some key points of interest in our internal model market risk methodology reviews Share the PRA s observations and some examples from our reviews of firms methodologies to date Discuss and share views Feel free to ask questions and make comments and observations during the workshop Market risk workshop 71 Agenda 1. Key modelling choices 2. Methodology 3. Validation 4. Summary 5. Questions and discussion Market risk workshop 72
39 1. Key modelling choices Risk identification Basis risk Granularity of modelling Market risk workshop Key modelling choices Risk identification (e.g. analysis of own exposures) What characteristics of the firm and exposures are being taken into account? What are the asset and liability profiles? Proportionate to the materiality of the risk Basis risk To what extent is there a risk that actual investment exposure differs from exposure assumed in the model, especially in stressed conditions? Granularity Is it sufficient for the model to be useful e.g. use-test, risk management? How are private equities, hedge funds etc. treated? Market risk workshop 74
40 1. Key modelling choices Risk identification (e.g. analysis of own exposures) What characteristics of the firm and exposures are being taken into account? What are the asset and liability profiles? Proportionate to the materiality of the risk Basis risk To what extent is there a risk that actual investment exposure differs from exposure assumed in the model, especially in stressed conditions? Granularity Is it sufficient for the model to be useful e.g. use-test, risk management? How are private equities, hedge funds etc. treated? Market risk workshop Key modelling choices Risk identification (e.g. analysis of own exposures) What characteristics of the firm and exposures are being taken into account? What are the asset and liability profiles? Proportionate to the materiality of the risk Basis risk To what extent is there a risk that actual investment exposure differs from exposure assumed in the model, especially in stressed conditions? Granularity Is it sufficient for the model to be useful e.g. use-test, risk management? How are private equities, hedge funds etc. treated? Market risk workshop 76
41 1. Key modelling choices Risk identification (e.g. analysis of own exposures) What characteristics of the firm and exposures are being taken into account? What are the asset and liability profiles? Proportionate to the materiality of the risk Basis risk To what extent is there a risk that actual investment exposure differs from exposure assumed in the model, especially in stressed conditions? Granularity Is it sufficient for the model to be useful e.g. use-test, risk management? How are private equities, hedge funds etc. treated? Analysis of exposures and basis risk is important because it demonstrates a firms understanding of its risks and informs their modelling approach. The model should be proportionate but granular enough to be useful. Market risk workshop Methodology a. Choice of model b. Choice of data c. Model fitting Market risk workshop 78
42 2a. Choice of model What is being modelled and why? Equities: absolute returns, log returns, returns in excess of risk free rate, etc. Interest rates: approaches to modelling the yield curve; absolute or multiplicative changes? What are the implications of these choices? Justification for choice of model How well does it capture the underlying characteristics of the risk / data? Justification for a conditional or unconditional modelling approach How are the model assumptions appropriate? Governance process to ensure the model remains adequately calibrated? Market risk workshop 79 2a. Choice of model What is being modelled and why? Equities: absolute returns, log returns, returns in excess of risk free rate, etc. Interest rates: approaches to modelling the yield curve; absolute or multiplicative changes? What are the implications of these choices? Justification for choice of model How well does it capture the underlying characteristics of the risk? Justification for a conditional or unconditional modelling approach How are the model assumptions appropriate? Governance process to ensure the model remains adequately calibrated? Market risk workshop 80
43 2a. Choice of model What is being modelled and why? Equities: absolute returns, log returns, returns in excess of risk free rate, etc. Interest rates: approaches to modelling the yield curve; absolute or multiplicative changes? What are the implications of these choices? Justification for choice of model How well does it capture the underlying characteristics of the risk? Justification for a conditional or unconditional modelling approach How are the model assumptions appropriate? Governance process to ensure the model remains adequately calibrated? Market risk workshop 81 2a. Choice of model What is being modelled and why? Equities: absolute returns, log returns, returns in excess of risk free rate, etc. Interest rates: approaches to modelling the yield curve; absolute or multiplicative changes? What are the implications of these choices? Justification for choice of model How well does it capture the underlying characteristics of the risk? Justification for a conditional or unconditional modelling approach How are the model assumptions appropriate? Governance process to ensure the model remains adequately calibrated? The PRA is interested in the justification for the choice of model, why it was chosen over others and the process to ensure it remains appropriate. The PRA does not prefer a particular type of model. Market risk workshop 82
44 2b. Choice of data Market risk workshop 83 2b. Choice of data Choice of data How closely does it reflect own exposures? Alternatives? Length of data period Equities relevance and impact of older data? Interest rates consideration of regime changes? Justification for adopting a shorter or longer data period? Data enrichment Non-overlapping or overlapping? What are the limitations and/or biases of each approach? Market risk workshop 84
45 2b. Choice of data Choice of data How closely does it reflect own exposures? Alternatives? Length of data period Equities relevance and impact of older data? Interest rates consideration of regime changes? Justification for adopting a shorter or longer data period? Data enrichment Non-overlapping or overlapping? What are the limitations and/or biases of each approach? Market risk workshop 85 2b. Choice of data Choice of data How closely does it reflect own exposures? Alternatives? Length of data period Equities relevance and impact of older data? Interest rates consideration of regime changes? Justification for adopting a shorter or longer data period? Data enrichment Non-overlapping or overlapping? What are the limitations and/or biases? Market risk workshop 86
46 2b. Choice of data Choice of data How closely does it reflect own exposures? Alternatives? Length of data period Equities relevance and impact of older data? Interest rates consideration of regime changes? Justification for adopting a shorter or longer data period? Data enrichment Non-overlapping or overlapping? What are the limitations and/or biases? The PRA is interested in how firms strike a balance between the range of available data to inform their calibration. Market risk workshop 87 2c. Model fitting Choice of fitting method Is the consideration of appropriate method focussed on material risks? What are the advantages, disadvantages and limitations? How sensitive is the calibration to alternative choices? How good a fit to the data can be achieved (across the pdf)? The PRA is interested in the justification for the choice of model fitting approach over others especially as the choice can have an impact on the final calibration. The PRA does not prefer a particular model fitting approach. Market risk workshop 88
47 3. Validation a. Validating overall approach b. Sensitivity testing c. Goodness of fit Market risk workshop 89 3a. Validating overall approach Key considerations Risk identification Data (e.g. choice of dataset, period, overlapping / non-overlapping etc.) Modelling methodology Material assumptions and expert judgements Calibrations A good approach to independent validation covers each key step of the model calibration process, including the initial risk identification/exposure analysis stage and calibration of the final output. Market risk workshop 90
48 3b. Sensitivity testing Sensitivity testing of alternative choices As part of calibration process: How is this being quantified? How does this inform the final calibration? As part of validation process: How is it used to inform independent validation? How are key sensitivities made known to senior management? Sensitivity testing can form an important and informative part of both the model calibration and validation process. Market risk workshop 91 3c. Goodness of fit Does the model achieve a good overall fit to the underlying data? Broader qualitative considerations Does the model fit well at the key percentiles of interest? Why is it acceptable for the model to fit less well at certain points? What are the issues and limitations of the goodness of fit tests used? What happens if the goodness of fit tests fail? How does the model compare to past events? A good approach to assessing goodness of fit takes account of broader qualitative considerations, i.e. it is more than just a statistical pass or fail. The PRA does not have a preference for particular goodness of fit tests. Market risk workshop 92
49 4. Summary A number of alternative approaches are likely to meet Solvency II requirements The PRA has seen good progress by firms Areas for further consideration by firms may include: Risk identification understanding of exposure and how this informs approach Basis risk how material this is, and whether specific allowance should be made Model choice why was it was chosen, and how will it remain appropriate Data choice how a balance is achieved between all relevant data Model fitting justification for choice, especially if choice affects calibration Validation including evidence of independent validation of risk ID and calibration Sensitivity testing how this informs the calibration and validation process Goodness of fit consider this to be more than just a pass or fail test Market risk workshop Questions and discussion Market risk workshop 94
50 Proxy modelling Validation Dan Georgescu Vanessa Leung 2 April
51 Objectives Talk over the key features of validation of proxy models Share examples of observations the PRA has made in the reviews conducted to date Feel free to ask questions and make comments and observations during the workshop Proxy modelling workshop 97 Agenda 1. What is a proxy model and the role of validation? 2. Out-of-sample testing 3. Evaluating the results from out-of-sample tests 4. Other considerations 5. Summary 6. Questions and comments Proxy modelling workshop 98
52 Agenda 1. What is a proxy model and the role of validation? 2. Out-of-sample testing 3. Evaluating the results from out-of-sample tests 4. Other considerations 5. Summary 6. Questions and comments Proxy modelling workshop What is a proxy model and the role of validation? What is a proxy model? A model which approximates the results of the technical provision models For example, replicating portfolios or replicating formulae Most firms have developed some form of proxy model to produce a probability distribution forecast of changes in basic own funds and calculate capital requirements. Proxy modelling workshop 100
53 1. What is a proxy model and the role of validation? Relevant articles from the SII Directive A121(1): The internal model, and in particular the calculation of the probability distribution forecast underlying it, shall comply with the criteria set out in paragraphs 2 to 9. So, the whole PDF must comply with SQS not just the biting scenario Proxy modelling workshop What is a proxy model and the role of validation? Relevant articles from the SII Directive A121(2): The methods used to calculate the probability distribution forecast... shall be consistent with the methods used to calculate technical provisions. Proxy modelling workshop 102
54 1. What is a proxy model and the role of validation? A124: The model validation process shall include an effective statistical process for validating the internal model which enables the undertakings to demonstrate to their supervisory authorities that the resulting capital requirements are appropriate. The statistical methods applied shall test the appropriateness of the probability distribution forecast compared not only to loss experience but also to all material new data and information relating thereto. The model validation process shall include an analysis of the stability of the internal model and in particular the testing of the sensitivity of the results of the internal model to changes in key underlying assumptions. Proxy modelling workshop 103 Agenda 1. What is a proxy model and the role of validation? 2. Out-of-sample testing 3. Evaluating the results from out-of-sample tests 4. Other considerations 5. Summary 6. Questions and comments Proxy modelling workshop 104
55 2. Out-of-sample testing An example of a statistical process Out-of-sample (OOS) testing Scenarios (not used in fitting) are evaluated using both the TP model and the proxy model. OOS are a good way to demonstrate that there is an effective statistical process for validating the proxy model Proxy modelling workshop Out-of-sample testing Scatterplot of OOS testing Light (change in BoF m) Heavy (change in BoF m) # Light Heavy H minus L 1 (796) (764) 32 2 (927) (1008) (81) 3 (981) (1055) (74) 4 (960) (1167) (207) 5 (832) (484) (1018) (1153) (135) 7 (981) (942) 39 8 (1054) (1109) (55) 9 (985) (991) (6) 10 (1147) (1108) (1072) (1041) (927) (797) (1010) (1044) (34) 14 (962) (1030) (68) 15 (869) (801) (1041) (902) (972) (901) (911) (1025) (114) (1060) (1058) 2 20 (913) (801) 112 Proxy modelling workshop 106
56 2. Out-of-sample testing The PRA has observed that some firms perform a substantial amount of out-of-sample testing with carefully chosen scenarios to rigorously test the fit of their proxy models. Discussion: Factors which should drive level of OOS testing Proxy modelling workshop Out-of-sample testing Choosing scenarios Combined scenarios, from the neighbourhood of the SCR Risk driver scenarios, from the risk driver distribution At different levels of aggregation Covering the majority of the pdf Proxy modelling workshop 108
57 Agenda 1. What is a proxy model and the role of validation? 2. Out-of-sample testing 3. Evaluating the results from out-of-sample tests 4. Other considerations 5. Summary 6. Questions and comments Proxy modelling workshop Evaluating the results from out-of-sample tests 3a. Defining success 1. In order to assess whether the proxy model is fit for purpose, there is a need to define what a pass or fail means on the validation carried out. 2. Considerations on setting the success/acceptance criteria a) Linking this to the materiality/confidence interval for the SCR b) Group/solo entity c) Different types of businesses d) Errors measured with respect to the Assets/Liabilities alone or the net asset value/loss Discussion: How do you define your acceptance criteria? Proxy modelling workshop 110
58 3. Evaluating the results from out-of-sample tests 3b. Investigating errors 1. How should the errors be investigated? a) Individually? b) averaging fitting errors? 2. Investigating the outliers a) What are outliers? b) Do they point to more systematic issue? Example of a SCR calculation with 10 scenarios only: A. Heavy model produces: 3, 1, 6, 4, 10, 9, 16, 18, 24, 26 B. Proxy model produces: 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 20, 22, 28 Average difference is zero, the 90 th percentile would be understated Firms should consider how the errors are investigated and whether further insights can be drawn from the results Proxy modelling workshop 111 Agenda 1. What is a proxy model and the role of validation? 2. Out-of-sample testing 3. Evaluating the results from out-of-sample tests 4. Other considerations 5. Summary 6. Questions and comments Proxy modelling workshop 112
59 4. Other considerations Communicating the suitability of the proxy models to the users of the model How well do you articulate the percentiles and situations where the fit of the model is good and where it is poor/uncertain? Do the validation reports clearly identify the percentiles/situations tested? What are the limitations of the model, and are they well understood by users and reviewers of the model? Firms should consider how the appropriateness and limitations of the proxy model can be communicated to users of the model Proxy modelling workshop Other considerations Failure resolution and frequency of recalibration 1. If the validation indicates that the proxy models are not fit to be used for the reporting cycle, then what is the process to be followed? a) What is plan B? b) What further developments would need to be carried out? c) Should not ignore the bad news 2. How often should the proxy models be recalibrated? a) Linked to frequency of calculation of SCR? b) What other circumstances could require a recalibration of the proxy models? Firms should plan for the eventuality that the proxy model is not fit for purpose Proxy modelling workshop 114
60 5. Summary The PRA does not prescribe how to validate proxy models The discussions today have highlighted areas firms may consider when validating their proxy models: The use of out-of-sample testing Coverage of the out-of-sample tests scenarios Interpreting the results from the validation tests Communication and failure resolution Proxy modelling workshop Final questions and comments Proxy modelling workshop 116
61 QR code and website details
Central Bank of Ireland Guidelines on Preparing for Solvency II Pre-application for Internal Models
2013 Central Bank of Ireland Guidelines on Preparing for Solvency II Pre-application for Internal Models 1 Contents 1 Context... 1 2 General... 2 3 Guidelines on Pre-application for Internal Models...
More informationSolvency II: recognition of deferred tax
Supervisory Statement SS2/14 Solvency II: recognition of deferred tax April 2014 (Last updated on 20 February 2015) Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority,
More informationSOLVENCY II HEALTH INSURANCE
2016 Solvency II Health SOLVENCY II HEALTH INSURANCE 1 Overview 1.1 Background and scope The key objectives of Solvency II were to increase the level of harmonisation of solvency regulation across Europe,
More informationSolvency II: An update on implementation
Solvency II: An update on implementation Introduction Solvency II will apply from 1 January 2016. Firms have made significant progress towards compliance with the new regime. The PRA will publish a consultation
More informationSOLVENCY II LIFE INSURANCE
2016 Solvency II Life SOLVENCY II LIFE INSURANCE 1 Overview 1.1 Background and scope The key objectives of Solvency II were to increase the level of harmonisation of solvency regulation across Europe,
More informationSociety of Actuaries in Ireland
Society of Actuaries in Ireland Information and Assistance Note LA-1: Actuaries involved in the Own Risk & Solvency Assessment (ORSA) under Solvency II Life Assurance and Life Reinsurance Business Issued
More informationSolvency II Preparation and IMAP James Latto
and James Latto Contents 2 1 Balancing priorities Insurers need to balance priorities over the next year: Main focus is often on Pillar 3 and external reporting needs sufficient focus Ensure smooth transition
More informationSupervisory Statement SS43/15 Non-Solvency II insurance companies Capital assessments. November 2015
Supervisory Statement SS43/15 Non-Solvency II insurance companies Capital assessments November 2015 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered
More informationEIOPACP 13/011. Guidelines on PreApplication of Internal Models
EIOPACP 13/011 Guidelines on PreApplication of Internal Models EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1 60327 Frankfurt Germany Tel. + 49 6995111920; Fax. + 49 6995111919; site: www.eiopa.europa.eu Guidelines
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 informationSOLVENCY II LIFE INSURANCE
SOLVENCY II LIFE INSURANCE 1 Overview 1.1 Background and scope The current UK regulatory reporting regime is based on the EU Solvency I Directives. Although the latest of those Directives was implemented
More informationSOLVENCY II HEALTH INSURANCE
2014 Solvency II Health SOLVENCY II HEALTH INSURANCE 1 Overview 1.1 Background and scope The current UK regulatory reporting regime is based on the EU Solvency I Directives. Although the latest of those
More informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
Standard No. 13 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS STANDARD ON ASSET-LIABILITY MANAGEMENT OCTOBER 2006 This document was prepared by the Solvency and Actuarial Issues Subcommittee in consultation
More informationThe Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP)
Supervisory Statement SS5/13 The Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) December 2013 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate
More informationBERMUDA MONETARY AUTHORITY
BERMUDA MONETARY AUTHORITY INSURANCE SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT GUIDANCE NOTES STANDARDS AND APPLICATION FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF INTERNAL CAPITAL MODELS FOR REGULATORY CAPITAL PURPOSES - REVISED - September
More informationGN47: Stochastic Modelling of Economic Risks in Life Insurance
GN47: Stochastic Modelling of Economic Risks in Life Insurance Classification Recommended Practice MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT THEY MUST ALWAYS COMPLY WITH THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT STANDARDS (PCS) AND THAT
More informationGuidelines on the valuation of technical provisions
EIOPA-BoS-14/166 EN Guidelines on the valuation of technical provisions EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel. + 49 69-951119-20; Fax. + 49 69-951119-19; email: info@eiopa.europa.eu
More informationImplementation of Solvency II: The dos and the don ts
KEYNOTE SPEECH Gabriel Bernardino Chairman of EIOPA Implementation of Solvency II: The dos and the don ts International conference Solvency II: What Can Go Wrong? Ljubljana, 2 September 2015 Page 2 of
More informationIMPLEMENTATION NOTE. Validating Risk Rating Systems at IRB Institutions
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE Subject: Category: Capital No: A-1 Date: January 2006 I. Introduction The term rating system comprises all of the methods, processes, controls, data collection and IT systems that support
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management: Capital Requirements Discussion Document 58 (v 3) SCR Structure Credit and Counterparty Default Risk
Solvency Assessment and Management: Capital Requirements Discussion Document 58 (v 3) SCR Structure Credit and Counterparty Default Risk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Solvency II allows for credit and counterparty
More informationSolvency II for Beginners 16.05.2013
Solvency II for Beginners 16.05.2013 Agenda Why has Solvency II been created? Structure of Solvency II The Solvency II Balance Sheet Pillar II & III Aspects Where are we now? Solvency II & Actuaries Why
More informationGuidance on the management of interest rate risk arising from nontrading
Guidance on the management of interest rate risk arising from nontrading activities Introduction 1. These Guidelines refer to the application of the Supervisory Review Process under Pillar 2 to a structured
More informationQuestions and answers collated at the PRA s Solvency II industry briefings on 12 December 2013
Questions and answers collated at the PRA s Solvency II industry briefings on 12 December 2013 Notes: 1. The responsibility for understanding the requirements of Solvency II and demonstrating that the
More informationSolvency II Data audit report guidance. March 2012
Solvency II Data audit report guidance March 2012 Contents Page Introduction Purpose of the Data Audit Report 3 Report Format and Submission 3 Ownership and Independence 4 Scope and Content Scope of the
More informationRole of Actuaries in Solvency II Tamsin Abbey
Role of Actuaries in Solvency II Tamsin Abbey Objective To consider the broad ranging roles that actuaries are expected to play under Solvency II To set out suggested next steps prior to Go-Live Broad
More informationORSA for Insurers A Global Concept
ORSA for Insurers A Global Concept Stuart Wason, FSA, FCIA, MAAA, CERA Senior Director, Actuarial Division Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada (OSFI) Table of Contents Early developments
More information1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 1 - Sub Committee Capital Requirements Task Group Discussion Document 73 (v 2) Treatment of new business in SCR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As for the Solvency II Framework
More informationSolvency II. Solvency II implemented on 1 January 2016. Why replace Solvency I? To which insurance companies does the new framework apply?
Solvency II A new framework for prudential supervision of insurance companies 1 Solvency II implemented on 1 January 2016. 1 January 2016 marks the introduction of Solvency II, a new framework for the
More informationScenario Analysis Principles and Practices in the Insurance Industry
North American CRO Council Scenario Analysis Principles and Practices in the Insurance Industry 2013 North American CRO Council Incorporated chairperson@crocouncil.org December 2013 Acknowledgement The
More informationEIOPA-CP-11/008 7 November 2011. Consultation Paper On the Proposal for Guidelines on Own Risk and Solvency Assessment
EIOPA-CP-11/008 7 November 2011 Consultation Paper On the Proposal for Guidelines on Own Risk and Solvency Assessment EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel. + 49 69-951119-20;
More informationSolvency II Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)
Solvency II Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) Guidance notes September 2011 Contents Introduction Purpose of this Document 3 Lloyd s ORSA framework 3 Guidance for Syndicate ORSAs Overview 7 December
More informationFinancial Services Industry 2012. Solvency II How to conduct the ORSA Requirements, EIOPA responses and Industry views
Financial Services Industry 2012 Solvency II How to conduct the ORSA Requirements, EIOPA responses and Industry views Content Table 3 Foreword 5 ORSA overall considerations 6 ORSA key components, requirements
More informationTreatment of technical provisions under Solvency II
Treatment of technical provisions under Solvency II Quantitative methods, qualitative requirements and disclosure obligations Authors Martin Brosemer Dr. Susanne Lepschi Dr. Katja Lord Contact solvency-solutions@munichre.com
More informationCapital Adequacy: Advanced Measurement Approaches to Operational Risk
Prudential Standard APS 115 Capital Adequacy: Advanced Measurement Approaches to Operational Risk Objective and key requirements of this Prudential Standard This Prudential Standard sets out the requirements
More informationCEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Articles 120 to 126. Tests and Standards for Internal Model Approval
CEIOPS-DOC-48/09 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Articles 120 to 126 Tests and Standards for Internal Model Approval (former Consultation Paper 56) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v.
More informationPreparing for ORSA - Some practical issues Speaker:
2013 Seminar for the Appointed Actuary Colloque pour l actuaire désigné 2013 Session 13: Preparing for ORSA - Some practical issues Speaker: André Racine, Principal Eckler Ltd. Context of ORSA Agenda Place
More informationConsultation Paper CP7/13. Capital extractions by run-off firms within the general insurance sector
Consultation Paper CP7/13 Capital extractions by run-off firms within the general insurance sector September 2013 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority,
More informationSAI Solvency II Forum. Grace von Offenberg Sweeney Graham Cherry
SAI Solvency II Forum Grace von Offenberg Sweeney Graham Cherry Solvency II Aiming to have a better understanding of Risk 2 Agenda 1. SCR calculations 2. ORSA Process 3. Volatility Adjustments 3 Agenda
More informationLIFE INSURANCE CAPITAL FRAMEWORK STANDARD APPROACH
LIFE INSURANCE CAPITAL FRAMEWORK STANDARD APPROACH Table of Contents Introduction... 2 Process... 2 and Methodology... 3 Core Concepts... 3 Total Asset Requirement... 3 Solvency Buffer... 4 Framework Details...
More informationConsultation Paper CP43/15 Solvency II: external audit of the public disclosure requirement
Consultation Paper CP43/15 Solvency II: external audit of the public disclosure requirement November 2015 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered
More informationSolvency II Own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA)
Solvency II Own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA) Guidance notes MAY 2012 Contents Introduction Page Background 3 Purpose and Scope 3 Structure of guidance document 4 Key Principles and Lloyd s Minimum
More informationFINMA s model review approach and future challenges
FINMA s model review approach and future challenges Hansjörg Furrer Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA 2 Agenda Components of the Swiss Solvency Test (SST) Validation of internal models
More informationSolvency II in practice. Speaker: Tim O Hanrahan Deputy Head, Insurance, Central Bank of Ireland 16 March 2016
1 Solvency II in practice Speaker: Tim O Hanrahan Deputy Head, Insurance, Central Bank of Ireland 16 March 2016 1 Recap on Solvency II Regulatory Framework under Solvency II Pillar I - Capital Pillar II
More informationORSA - The heart of Solvency II
ORSA - The heart of Solvency II Groupe Consultatif Summer School Gabriel Bernardino, EIOPA Lisbon, 25 May 2011 ORSA - The heart of Solvency II Developing the regulatory framework for Solvency II ORSA it
More informationSolvency II Technical Provisions under solvency II Detailed Guidance. March 2011 update
Solvency II Technical Provisions under solvency II Detailed Guidance March 2011 update CONTACT DETAILS For technical queries: Henry Johnson, Market Reserving & Capital 020 7327 5235 henry.johnson@lloyds.com
More informationFinal Report on Public Consultation No. 14/017 on Guidelines on own risk and solvency assessment
EIOPA-BoS-14/259 28 January 2015 Final Report on Public Consultation No. 14/017 on Guidelines on own risk and solvency assessment EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel.
More informationDiscussion Paper On the validation and review of Credit Rating Agencies methodologies
Discussion Paper On the validation and review of Credit Rating Agencies methodologies 17 November 2015 ESMA/2015/1735 Responding to this paper The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) invites
More informationOpinion. of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority of 24 November 2014 on
EIOPA-BoS-14/120 24 November 2014 Opinion of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority of 24 November 2014 on Sound principles for Crisis Prevention, Management and Resolution preparedness
More informationSolvency II. Impacts on asset managers and servicers. Financial Services Asset Management. www.pwc.com/it
Financial Services Asset Management Solvency II Impacts on asset managers and servicers The Omnibus II proposal will amend the Solvency II Directive voted in 2009. It would probably defer full Solvency
More informationSolvency II and Money Market Funds
Solvency II and Money Market Funds FOR INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY NOT FOR USE BY OR DISTRIBUTION TO RETAIL INVESTORS Background The new European insurance regulatory framework, Solvency II, will require
More informationSolvency II model assurance. 12 April 2012
Solvency II model assurance Zdeněk Roubal, Manager 12 April 2012 Solvency II assurance Organizations might want or even need to obtain assurance that their design and Solvency II implementation is on track.
More informationIMAP Independent Review Guidelines
IMAP Independent Review Guidelines Version 1: August 2011 Introduction Under the Solvency Assessment and Management (SAM) regime, insurers may calculate their Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) using a
More information02/06/2014. Solvency II update. Agenda. Recap: Solvency II three pillar approach. Nick Ford
Solvency II update Nick Ford 02 June 2014 Agenda Intro and brief recap Pillar 1 Main issues Impacts on products Pillar 2 Main issues Internal Model Approval Pillar 3 Actuarial forms and concerns Timelines
More informationEIOPACP 13/09. Guidelines on Forward Looking assessment of own risks (based on the ORSA principles)
EIOPACP 13/09 Guidelines on Forward Looking assessment of own risks (based on the ORSA principles) EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1 60327 Frankfurt Germany Tel. + 49 6995111920; Fax. + 49 6995111919;
More informationSolvency II benchmarking survey
INSURaNce Solvency II benchmarking survey Life Insurers November 2011 kpmg.co.uk/solvencyii 2 SoLveNcy II benchmarking SURvey - LIfe INSUReRS SoLveNcy II benchmarking SURvey - LIfe INSUReRS 3 Contents
More informationCRO Forum Paper on the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA): Leveraging regulatory requirements to generate value. May 2012.
CRO Forum Paper on the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA): Leveraging regulatory requirements to generate value May 2012 May 2012 1 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the paper In this discussion paper
More informationHigh level principles for risk management
16 February 2010 High level principles for risk management Background and introduction 1. In their declaration of 15 November 2008, the G-20 leaders stated that regulators should develop enhanced guidance
More informationConsultation Paper CP22/16 Solvency II: Monitoring model drift and standard formula SCR reporting for firms with an approved internal model
Consultation Paper CP22/16 Solvency II: Monitoring model drift and standard formula SCR reporting for firms with an approved internal model May 2016 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R
More informationIndustry Briefing on Central Bank Guidelines on Preparing for Solvency II
Industry Briefing on Central Bank Guidelines on Preparing for Solvency II 25 November 2013 Agenda 1. Central Bank Guidelines on preparing for Solvency II 2.Q&A session Central Bank Guidelines on preparing
More information1. This Prudential Standard is made under paragraph 230A(1)(a) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (the Act).
Prudential Standard LPS 110 Capital Adequacy Objective and key requirements of this Prudential Standard This Prudential Standard requires a life company to maintain adequate capital against the risks associated
More informationFeatured article: Evaluating the Cost of Longevity in Variable Annuity Living Benefits
Featured article: Evaluating the Cost of Longevity in Variable Annuity Living Benefits By Stuart Silverman and Dan Theodore This is a follow-up to a previous article Considering the Cost of Longevity Volatility
More informationRegulations in General Insurance. Solvency II
Regulations in General Insurance Solvency II Solvency II What is it? Solvency II is a new risk-based regulatory requirement for insurance, reinsurance and bancassurance (insurance) organisations that operate
More informationSolvency II and key considerations for asset managers
120 Solvency II and key considerations for asset managers Thierry Flamand Partner Insurance Leader Deloitte Luxembourg Xavier Zaegel Partner Financial Risks Leader Deloitte Luxembourg Sylvain Crepin Director
More informationExecutive Director Insurance Supervision Prudential Regulation Authority. 9 March 2015. Solvency II: internal model and matching adjustment update
Executive Director Insurance Supervision Prudential Regulation Authority 9 March 2015 Solvency II: internal model and matching adjustment update On 1 April 2015 firms will be able to start making formal
More informationEffective Techniques for Stress Testing and Scenario Analysis
Effective Techniques for Stress Testing and Scenario Analysis Om P. Arya Federal Reserve Bank of New York November 4 th, 2008 Mumbai, India The views expressed here are not necessarily of the Federal Reserve
More informationSolvency II Technical Provisions under solvency II Detailed Guidance. March 2010
Solvency II Technical Provisions under solvency II Detailed Guidance March 2010 CONTACT DETAILS For technical queries: Henry Johnson, Market Reserving and Capital 020 7327 5235 henry.johnson@lloyds.com
More informationKey functions in the system of governance Responsibilities, interfaces and outsourcing under Solvency II
Responsibilities, interfaces and outsourcing under Solvency II Author Lars Moormann Contact solvency solutions@munichre.com January 2013 2013 Münchener Rückversicherungs Gesellschaft Königinstrasse 107,
More informationCapital extractions by run-off firms within the general insurance sector
Supervisory Statement SS4/14 Capital extractions by run-off firms within the general insurance sector April 2014 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority,
More informationStand out for the right reasons Financial Services Risk and Regulation. Hot topic. Solvency II Long Term Guarantee Package Update
www.pwc.co.uk/fsrr 26 March 2015 Stand out for the right reasons Financial Services Risk and Regulation Hot topic Solvency II Long Term Guarantee Package Update Highlights On 20 March 2015 the PRA published
More informationObjective and key requirements of this Prudential Standard
Prudential Standard LPS 110 Capital Adequacy Objective and key requirements of this Prudential Standard This Prudential Standard requires a life company to maintain adequate capital against the risks associated
More informationThe APRA Supervision Blueprint
The APRA Supervision Blueprint May 2015 www.apra.gov.au Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Contents Introduction 3 Section 1: Principles and approach 4 APRA s mission and supervisory approach 4
More informationInternational Financial Reporting for Insurers: IFRS and U.S. GAAP September 2009 Session 25: Solvency II vs. IFRS
International Financial Reporting for Insurers: IFRS and U.S. GAAP September 2009 Session 25: Solvency II vs. IFRS Simon Walpole Solvency II Simon Walpole Solvency II Agenda Introduction to Solvency II
More informationGuidelines on ring-fenced funds
EIOPA-BoS-14/169 EN Guidelines on ring-fenced funds EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel. + 49 69-951119-20; Fax. + 49 69-951119-19; email: info@eiopa.europa.eu site: https://eiopa.europa.eu/
More informationThis section outlines the Solvency II requirements for a syndicate s own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA).
Section 9: ORSA Overview This section outlines the Solvency II requirements for a syndicate s own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA). The ORSA can be defined as the entirety of the processes and procedures
More informationDATA AUDIT: Scope and Content
DATA AUDIT: Scope and Content The schedule below defines the scope of a review that will assist the FSA in its assessment of whether a firm s data management complies with the standards set out in the
More informationValidation of Internal Rating and Scoring Models
Validation of Internal Rating and Scoring Models Dr. Leif Boegelein Global Financial Services Risk Management Leif.Boegelein@ch.ey.com 07.09.2005 2005 EYGM Limited. All Rights Reserved. Agenda 1. Motivation
More informationFeedback on the 2012 thematic review of technical provisions
Feedback on the 2012 thematic review of technical provisions Introduction Background In late 2012 the FSA published a question bank 1 on Solvency II (SII) technical provisions for completion by general
More informationSolvency II: Implications for Loss Reserving
Solvency II: Implications for Loss Reserving John Charles Doug Collins CLRS: 12 September 2006 Agenda Solvency II Introduction Pre-emptive adopters Solvency II concepts Quantitative Impact Studies Internal
More informationOWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT AND ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT
OWN RISK AND SOLVENCY ASSESSMENT AND ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT ERM as the foundation for regulatory compliance and strategic business decision making CONTENTS Introduction... 3 Steps to developing an
More informationConsultation Paper CP42/15 Capital extractions by run-off firms within the general insurance sector
Consultation Paper CP42/15 Capital extractions by run-off firms within the general insurance sector November 2015 Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority,
More informationERM-2: Introduction to Economic Capital Modeling
ERM-2: Introduction to Economic Capital Modeling 2011 Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar, Las Vegas, NV A presentation by François Morin September 15, 2011 2011 Towers Watson. All rights reserved. INTRODUCTION
More informationSupervisory Statement SS18/13. Recovery planning. December 2013. (Last updated 16 January 2015)
Supervisory Statement SS18/13 Recovery planning December 2013 (Last updated 16 January 2015) Prudential Regulation Authority 20 Moorgate London EC2R 6DA Prudential Regulation Authority, registered office:
More informationSolvency II Introduction to Pillar 3. Friday 20 th May 2016
Solvency II Introduction to Pillar 3 Friday 20 th May 2016 Disclaimer The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter(s) and not necessarily of the Society of Actuaries in Ireland Introduction
More informationSolvency Management in Life Insurance The company s perspective
Group Risk IAA Seminar 19 April 2007, Mexico City Uncertainty Exposure Solvency Management in Life Insurance The company s perspective Agenda 1. Key elements of Allianz Risk Management framework 2. Drawbacks
More informationInsurance Groups under Solvency II
Insurance Groups under Solvency II November 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 2 2. Defining an insurance group... 2 3. Cases of application of group supervision... 6 4. The scope of group supervision...
More informationList of critical errors in internal models of insurance undertakings
List of critical errors in internal models of insurance undertakings Warsaw, 7 April 2015 Contents Contents... 2 Introduction... 3 USE TEST... 5 Critical error 1... 5 Critical error 2 (effective 1 January
More informationData governance for ERM. InsuranceERM Seminar, Thursday, 16 May 2013 Andrew Hitchcox, CRO, Kiln Group
Data governance for ERM InsuranceERM Seminar, Thursday, 16 May 2013 Andrew Hitchcox, CRO, Kiln Group Different sorts of data in an insurance company Data for transactions with clients: Sales / conduct
More informationFrom ICAAP/ORSA to ERM: Board and Senior Management Oversight. Leon Bloom, Partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP lebloom@deloitte.ca
From ICAAP/ORSA to ERM: Board and Senior Management Oversight Leon Bloom, Partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP lebloom@deloitte.ca Agenda Basel II ICAAP Solvency II ORSA ERM From ICAAP/ORSA to ERM: Governance
More informationSolvency II Detailed guidance notes
Solvency II Detailed guidance notes March 2010 Section 1 - System of governance Section 1: System of Governance Overview This section outlines the Solvency II requirements for an effective system of governance,
More informationGuidance for the Development of a Models-Based Solvency Framework for Canadian Life Insurance Companies
Guidance for the Development of a Models-Based Solvency Framework for Canadian Life Insurance Companies January 2010 Background The MCCSR Advisory Committee was established to develop proposals for a new
More informationCapital Management in a Solvency II World & the Role of Reinsurance
Capital Management in a Solvency II World & the Role of Reinsurance Paolo de Martin CEO SCOR Global Life IAA Colloquium Oslo June 2015 Overview Why I Focus today on Capital Management? Reminder key objectives
More informationLDA at Work: Deutsche Bank s Approach to Quantifying Operational Risk
LDA at Work: Deutsche Bank s Approach to Quantifying Operational Risk Workshop on Financial Risk and Banking Regulation Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington DC, 5 Feb 2009 Michael Kalkbrener
More informationMaking it clear Reporting and disclosure in the Solvency II world
Making it clear Reporting and disclosure in the Solvency II world The Solvency II Directive is built around the 3 pillars of quantitative requirements (Pillar 1), supervisory review (Pillar 2) and disclosure
More informationInternal Model Approval Process (IMAP) Contents of Application (CoA) Template. August 2011 Version 1.0
Internal Model Approval Process (IMAP) Contents of Application (CoA) Template August 2011 Version 1.0 C O N T A C T D E T A I L S Physical Address: Riverwalk Office Park, Block B 41 Matroosberg Road (Corner
More informationING Insurance Economic Capital Framework
ING Insurance Economic Capital Framework Thomas C. Wilson Chief Insurance Risk Officer Kent University, September 5, 2007 www.ing.com Objectives of this session ING has been using economic capital internally
More informationSubject SA2. CMP Upgrade 2015/16. CMP Upgrade
SA2: CMP Upgrade 2015/16 Page 1 Subject SA2 CMP Upgrade 2015/16 CMP Upgrade This CMP Upgrade lists the most significant changes to the course material since last year so that you are aware of the differences
More informationSolvency II and Predictive Analytics in LTC and Beyond HOW U.S. COMPANIES CAN IMPROVE ERM BY USING ADVANCED
Solvency II and Predictive Analytics in LTC and Beyond HOW U.S. COMPANIES CAN IMPROVE ERM BY USING ADVANCED TECHNIQUES DEVELOPED FOR SOLVENCY II AND EMERGING PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS METHODS H o w a r d Z
More informationJanuary 6, 2010. The financial regulators 1
ADVISORY ON INTEREST RATE RISK January 6, 2010 MANAGEMENT The financial regulators 1 are issuing this advisory to remind institutions of supervisory expectations regarding sound practices for managing
More informationThe Role of Risk Analytics
Global Risk Management Webcast Wednesday February 15, 10AM EST Speakers: Curt Burmeister, Vice President, Algorithmics Gordon Burnes, Worldwide Marketing Leader, IBM s Risk Analytics business Moderator:
More informationNOTICE 158 OF 2014 FINANCIAL SERVICES BOARD REGISTRAR OF LONG-TERM INSURANCE AND SHORT-TERM INSURANCE
STAATSKOERANT, 19 DESEMBER 2014 No. 38357 3 BOARD NOTICE NOTICE 158 OF 2014 FINANCIAL SERVICES BOARD REGISTRAR OF LONG-TERM INSURANCE AND SHORT-TERM INSURANCE LONG-TERM INSURANCE ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 52
More information