Solvency Assessment and Management: Capital Requirements Discussion Document 58 (v 3) SCR Structure Credit and Counterparty Default Risk
|
|
- Mavis Carter
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 default risks in separate modules of the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR). The discussion document deliberates why there has been a move away from this approach for asset stresses with specific reference to the appropriate treatment of risk mitigating instruments or contracts. Many of the deliberations around the structure of the module originated around the nature of the South African credit market and that the design of the counterparty default module should also be applied to a wider range of assets. The first principle which was agreed upon was that credit risk on assets should not be allowed for in different modules. In order to simplify the allowance for counterparty default risk in the SAM implementation, the Capital Requirements Task Group tested an alternative approach in SAQIS2 whereby an implicit allowance for counterparty default risk is made in each of the various market and underwriting risk sub-modules. This was also driven by the need to have a consistent treatment of assets exposed to credit risk. Those that were previously included in the counterparty default risk module were included in the credit risk sub-module of market risk, leaving only the relatively complex calculations relating to risk mitigating instruments in the counterparty default risk module. The disadvantages of this method are that There could be a degree of double counting the default risk attached to risk-mitigating contracts that covers more than one risk Having instruments to the same counterparty residing in different modules makes it difficult to apply CSAs and netting agreements that are in place There is no explicit allocation to counterparty default risk anymore and similarly the various market and underwriting risk modules do not reflect a pure view of the single risk but include a portion of default risk. Participants noted that risk mitigation converts the underlying risk exposure to a degree of credit risk exposure. This approach complicates the management of credit risk exposures as it is spread across a range of modules. The calibration of the allowance for counterparty default risk would require significant adjustment for this type of calculation as the implied concentration risk component will be over-stated (as there are a relatively smaller number of counterparties per submodule) The main advantages of this approach are that: it supports the view that counterparty default risk relating to risk mitigating instruments is mainly driven by extreme events in the risks it is intended to mitigate, and
2 that the counterparty default risk associated with these risk mitigating contracts are correlated with other risk types using the aggregation structure of the underlying risk types. The Solvency II consultation papers have, however, acknowledged that the prescribed formulae associated with their approach are computationally burdensome and have therefore proposed simplifications that are allowed if the result of the counterparty default module is less than 20% of the total SCR. It is the Capital Requirements Task Group s view that these simplifications can reduce the complexity in the standard formula significantly and that, in terms of complexity, these simplifications are no more complex than the approach tested in SAQIS2. In addition this would remove any concerns with doublecounting recoverables/collateral if risk mitigating instruments affect more than one module and as such an amended version of this approach was re-considered. Even with such a simplification, the SCR would require at least two additional rounds of calculation. For all other assets which contribute to credit risk exposure the Solvency II structure applies either a credit shock within the market risk module (which incorporates all factors that could changes the credit spread vs the risk-free rate) or a counterparty default shock to be applied to assets where the former approach would not result in a shock (a probability of default/loss-given-default approach is used for these exposures). Although there is no consensus yet on the ultimate approach to be adopted in the stress itself, a strong preference has been expressed not to separate credit risk exposure into different modules/sub-modules. The Capital Requirements Task Group recommends the following structure: All credit risk exposures (including those relating to the basic exposure relating to risk mitigating instruments) are included in an appropriately calibrated module of the BSCR. The working assumption is that this would be a sub-module of market risk, as this should be correlated with credit markets and should not require any diversification effects with other modules that are different to other market risk. Any additional credit risk exposure to risk mitigating instruments resulting from shocks in the SCR sub-modules are to be included as an allowance in the various sub-modules via a re-calculation of the counterparty default component following a stress. 1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Solvency II Level I Directive distinguishes between counterparty default risk, spread risk and market risk concentrations and refers to these risks collectively as credit risk. It furthermore clearly sets out the structure of the standard formula for the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), in which counterparty default risk is included as one of the main modules in the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR) while spread risk and market risk concentrations are addressed as sub-modules of the market risk module. The Directive provides some examples of types of credit exposures that should be allowed for in either the counterparty default or spread modules, but some clarification of the exact split would have to be addressed in the Level II Implementation Measures. The Directive does, however, make it clear that all credit exposures should be addressed in either the counterparty default module or the spread and concentration risk modules. The method for calculating the counterparty default risk module recommended by the CEIOPS consultation papers and tested in QIS5, involved very sophisticated and onerous calculations. The industry feedback suggested that the counterparty default risk module was Page 2 of 10
3 very onerous and the effort disproportionate, given the relatively small contribution of the counterparty default risk module to the total SCR. During the SAQIS1 exercise, the structure employed was similar to that used in EIOPA s QIS5 exercise. In addition, an alternative to the spread risk sub-module of market risk was tested similar to the approach adopted by OSFI (Canadian approach). This latter approach was more consistent with the approach in the counterparty default module and illustrated how the potential alignment between the credit risk exposure calculations in the SCR. Industry feedback was consistent with that from EIOPA s QIS5 exercise. Some participants believed that the Canadian approach is more suitable to the South African market whilst others believed the Solvency II approach was more appropriate, save for the calibration issues related to international credit ratings. The latter is expanded on in DD99. Based on this industry feedback and the desire to simplify the SAM implementation where possible and appropriate, the SAQIS2 technical specifications aimed to simplify the requirements relating to the credit risk associated with risk mitigating instruments. This was done by removing the counterparty default risk module and replacing it with impairments in each of the market risk and underwriting modules where the risk mitigating effects of the various counterparties would have been captured. This meant that the counterparty default risk was not quantified separately. This change tested in SAQIS2 was a material deviation from the Solvency II structure, with the main aim being to simplify the calculation. At the time, there were no other fundamental or principle based reasons for deviating from the Solvency II structure. On further investigation, the working group is now of the opinion that the simplifications already allowed for in Solvency II s QIS5 are no more burdensome than the formulae set out in SAQIS2. For other assets, insurers were asked to distinguish between liquid and illiquid assets and stress these accordingly. The absence of a single standard of classification that could be applied across the market for the purposes of a standard formula resulted in stresses being applied inconsistently between market participants. In response to this, the SAQIS3 specification was amended to have a single approach as the default, but also test the feasibility of an industry standard used to distinguish between assets. The purpose of this discussion document is to consider the merits of allowing for counterparty default risk implicitly in the various market- and underwriting risk sub-modules, as opposed to following the Solvency II approach. This discussion document also considers the relative calculation burden of the SAQIS2 approach compared to the simplification already allowed for in Solvency II s QIS5. In addition the discussion will also discuss the merits of having allowance for credit risk in a single module as opposed to separate modules/sub-modules. Any detail regarding the formulae and calibrations of the counterparty default risk module, as well as the aggregation structure is outside the scope of this document. 2. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS: IAIS ICPs ICP Types of risk to be addressed Page 3 of 10
4 The supervisor should address all relevant and material categories of risk - including as a minimum underwriting risk, credit risk, market risk, operational risk and liquidity risk. This should include any significant risk concentrations, for example, to economic risk factors, market sectors or individual counterparties, taking into account both direct and indirect exposures and the potential for exposures in related areas to become more correlated under stressed circumstances. ICP Dependencies and interrelations between risks The assessment of the overall risk that an insurer is exposed to should address the dependencies and interrelationships between risk categories (for example, between underwriting risk and market risk) as well as within a risk category (for example, between equity risk and interest rate risk). This should include an assessment of potential reinforcing effects between different risk types as well as potential second order effects, i.e. indirect effects to an insurer s exposure caused by an adverse event or a change in economic or financial market conditions.47 It should also consider that dependencies between different risks may vary as general market conditions change and may significantly increase during periods of stress or when extreme events occur. Wrong way risk, which is defined as the risk that occurs when exposure to counterparties, such as financial guarantors, is adversely correlated to the credit quality of those counterparties, should also be considered as a potential source of significant loss e.g. in connection with derivative transactions. Where the determination of an overall capital requirement takes into account diversification effects between different risk types, the insurer should be able to explain the allowance for these effects and ensure that it considers how dependencies may increase under stressed circumstances. This discussion document deals with the structure that would be most suitable to allow for these second order effects. ICP Allowance for risk mitigation Any allowance for reinsurance in determining regulatory capital requirements should consider the possibility of breakdown in the effectiveness of the risk transfer and the security of the reinsurance counterparty and any measures used to reduce the reinsurance counterparty exposure. Similar considerations would also apply for other risk mitigants, for example derivatives. This discussion document deals with the structure that would best capture the credit risk associated with risk mitigating instruments/contracts. 3. EU DIRECTIVE ON SOLVENCY II: PRINCIPLES (LEVEL 1) The Directive requires that an explicit allowance be made for counterparty default risk. This is specified separately from the allowances for spread risk and market risk concentrations. It requires that counterparty default risk module form part of the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement and that the spread risk and market risk concentration sub-modules form part of the market risk module. This is evident from the following extracts form the Directive: Article 104 Page 4 of 10
5 Design of the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement 1. The Basic Solvency Capital Requirement shall comprise individual risk modules, which are aggregated in accordance with point 1 of Annex IV. It shall consist of at least the following risk modules: (a) non-life underwriting risk; (b) life underwriting risk; (c) health underwriting risk; (d) market risk; (e) counterparty default risk. [..] Article 105 Calculation of the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement [..] 5. The market risk module shall reflect the risk arising from the level or volatility of market prices of financial instruments which have an impact upon the value of the assets and liabilities of the undertaking. It shall properly reflect the structural mismatch between assets and liabilities, in particular with respect to the duration thereof. It shall be calculated, in accordance with point 4 of Annex IV, as a combination of the capital requirements for at least the following sub-modules: (a) [..] (d) the sensitivity of the values of assets, liabilities and financial instruments to changes in the level or in the volatility of credit spreads over the risk-free interest rate term structure (spread risk); (e) [..] (f) additional risks to an insurance or reinsurance undertaking stemming either from lack of diversification in the asset portfolio or from large exposure to default risk by a single issuer of securities or a group of related issuers (market risk concentrations). It should be noted that an earlier definition of credit risk does not distinguish between these components: Article 13 - Definitions For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: [ ] (32) credit risk means the risk of loss, or of adverse change in the financial situation, resulting from fluctuations in the credit standing of issuers of securities, counterparties and any debtors to which insurance and reinsurance undertakings are exposed, in the form of counterparty default risk, or spread risk, or market risk concentrations; [ ] 4. MAPPING ANY PRINCIPLE (LEVEL 1) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IAIS ICP & EU DIRECTIVE No differences. 5. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE (LEVELS 2 & 3) Page 5 of 10
6 3.1 CEIOPS CPs (consultation papers) CEIOPS-DOC-23/09 - Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: SCR standard formula - Counterparty default risk module (former CP 28 and 51) Both the CP and QIS5 distinguish between type 1 and 2 exposures, for which different formulae for calculating counterparty default risk are provided. The detail of these formulae is outside the scope of this document. The areas of concern in this discussion document are around the aspects of these formulae that makes the calculation burdensome. This relates to type 1 exposures, more specifically risk mitigating contracts such as derivatives and reinsurance. As a high level overview, the calculation of the counterparty default risk in respect of such risk mitigating contracts is based on Probability of Default (PD) and Loss Given Default (LGD) calculations. The onerous part of this calculation relates to the LGD that requires the Risk Mitigating effect (RM) of these contracts to be calculated as the difference between two hypothetical capital requirements, one with and one without the benefit from the risk mitigating contract. Furthermore, this needs to be done separately for each independent counterparty. An insurer with numerous risk mitigating contracts in place would therefore have to do numerous SCR calculations simply to calculate the counterparty default risk module. The CP acknowledges these practical challenges and both the CP and QIS5 present acceptable simplifications as an alternative where counterparty default risk is not a material portion (less than 20%) of the SCR. The simplification that addresses most of the calculation burden is in relation to the number of counterparties. It specifies that instead of performing the above mentioned calculations separately for each independent counterparty, such counterparties be grouped in disjoint subsets that are then treated as single counterparties for the purpose of the above mentioned calculations. In order to derive a probability of default for the subset, the highest probability of default of the counterparties in the subset is used. This calculation would always be conservative, as it ignores the diversification benefit between the independent counterparties within each subset. 6. ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE APPROACHES GIVEN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT There are several available approaches in respect of how counterparty default risk can be addressed in the SCR structure. The alternatives considered are: 1. The approach tested in SAQIS2 and SAQIS3; 2. The approach followed by Solvency II ; 3. An amended Solvency II approach; 4. An amended approach based on SAQIS3. The approach tested in SAQIS2 was to remove counterparty default risk as a separate module. Instead, the risk mitigating effect from risk mitigating contracts such as reinsurance and derivatives was reduced / impaired with a counterparty default risk adjustment in each of the relevant market and underwriting risk modules. Allowances for default exposures to other types of counterparties that are not considered to be risk mitigating contracts, was moved to the spread / credit default risk sub-module in the market risk module. Page 6 of 10
7 The amendment to the Solvency II approach uses a single module to capture all forms of credit risk, but follows a more generalised approach relating to risk mitigation (allowing grouping of counterparties). The decision to include the model in either the BSCR or as submodule of market risk will be driven by the targeted diversification benefit. This will be discussed in DD111. This approach would still follow Solvency II in that the credit risk charge resulting from risk mitigating instruments or contracts is based on the impact on the SCR, resulting in a before and after calculation for each exposure (or in this case group of exposures). This means the SCR would require re-calculation based on the number of exposures/groups. The amended SAQIS3 approach is as follows: 1. Include all credit exposures on the base balance sheet in a single sub-module: This would mean that type 1 exposures in the counterparty default component of the credit risk sub-module would include the base case exposures resulting from risk mitigating contracts. 2. Take the difference between: a) the counterparty default risk assessment following the specific stress envisaged within the specific module (e.g. equity stress or mortality stress) for all instruments to which the company is exposed (i.e. both those providing risk mitigating benefits and those unaffected by the specific event), and b) the base counterparty default risk assessment (i.e. prior to the stress within the module being considered). c) it is important to note that the full counterparty default risk is assessed in each of a) and b) but there is no re-calculation of the SCR to arrive at a), merely a re-calculation of the exposure following a stress. 3. The difference between these two events should then be added to the specific submodule in question (prior to aggregation) to reflect the impact of counterparty default on the risk mitigating instruments while the counterparty default risk charge on the base remains in the in the credit risk module. This differs from the approach followed in SAQIS2 and SAQIS3 in the way that the base case is allowed for and removes the need to associate specific risk mitigating contracts/instruments with specific sub-modules. The counterparty default risk assessment would be re-performed based on the number of sub-modules. 6.1 Discussion of inherent advantages and disadvantages of each approach SAQIS2 Approach The advantage of the SAQIS2 approach is that it is less burdensome than the sophisticated version of the Solvency II approach. The reason being that the Loss Given Default does not require a full SCR calculation, but is instead dependant only the risk mitigating effect of a specific risk module. The disadvantages include: The allowance for counterparty default risk is now implicit and not explicitly visible in the SCR structure There could be a degree of double counting the default risk attached to risk-mitigating contracts that covers more than one risk, e.g. o Reinsurance contracts that cover both mortality and lapse risk would attract default risk impairment in both the mortality and lapse modules. Page 7 of 10
8 It is a deviation from Solvency II without a fundamental justification for why it would be more appropriate given South African circumstances. The only justification being practicality. It is not necessarily less cumbersome to calculate than the simplifications already allowed for under Solvency II. Not clear how to assess the effect of risk mitigation where risk mitigating contracts provide protection under more than one insurance or market risks. The calibration would require significant adaptation as the calibration currently employed was based on a group of credit exposures. When applied to a single submodule, the number of exposures decreases significantly, increasing the concentration component of the calibration. If this approach were to be adopted, significant effort would be required to re-calibrate the associated capital charges so as to adapt the concentration risk component of this charge. Solvency II approach Using the Solvency II approach for SAM has the following advantages: Consistency with Solvency II Explicit allowance for counterparty default risk Underwriting and market modules are pure, i.e. it does not include a default risk component Simplifications allowed for under Solvency II are not overly cumbersome. The disadvantages include: Reliance on classification to determine capital requirement which may result in significant diversified differences depending on whether instrument are included in spread risk (sub-module of market risk) or counterparty default risk module. This is also true of the QIS2 approach. Cumbersome calculations required by the sophisticated version of the standard formula (as opposed to the simplifications allowed). Adapted Solvency II approach 1 The advantages of this approach are similar to the Solvency II approach. The amendments should remove some of the disadvantages of the Solvency II approach, mainly relating to the number of times the SCR would need to be re-calculated. There would still be some reliance on classification, although this would be limited to the difference as calculated within the module similar diversification effects would be applied. This may yet be removed if a single capital requirement calculation is used for all forms of credit risk or at least for instruments with similar liquidity features. This paragraph should be read in conjunction with DD 111. Disadvantage The disadvantage of using a single module for all credit risk is that the current counterparty default module allows for some concentration risk. This means that either the module would need to be recalibrated so as reduce this impact or that only some of the assets in this module would require inclusion in the concentration risk sub-module. The need to calculate the SCR at least twice to determine the diversified risk mitigating impact. Having single correlation factor between credit and the other market risks may not capture the relationships between these risks adequately. Adapted SAQIS3 approach Page 8 of 10
9 Advantages This method addresses both the internal credit specific aggregation concerns (concentrations and level of diversification) It retains the appropriate overall (all risk types) aggregation methodology of the BSCR, hence there isn t a need to re-calibrate the correlation matrix. Explicit allowance for counterparty default risk Disadvantages The calculation could be cumbersome due the need to calculate the credit default risk sub-module several times.. Credit risk being captured in more than one sub-module. The default risk impairments within each sub-module assume 100% correlation between the default event and the risk of the sub-module. This is not considered implausible. The calibration of the counterparty default module was not designed with this application in mind and the inflection point of the formulae due to the relative credit quality of counterparties changing makes for anomalies. This can be addressed by either not allowing the inflection point to change the quality of the credit distribution or by removing it altogether, but Some re-calibration effort is needed to ensure that this work around does not have unintended consequences. 6.2 Impact of the approaches on EU 3 rd country equivalence Keeping the Solvency II approach would not impact on the EU 3 rd country equivalence. It is not clear whether the SAQIS2 approach or the amended SAQIS3 approach would have an impact thereon, but there is no reason to believe that it will. 6.3 Conclusions on preferred approach Solvency II allows for credit and counterparty default risks in separate modules of the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR). The working group was unanimous in that all direct asset stresses (i.e. excluding risk mitigating instruments) should be included in a single module forming part of the market risk module. (This module may or may not have a number of components so as to calibrate appropriate stresses for different types of asset.) The main reason for this approach is to reduce the impact that classification of assets may have on the capital requirement associated with it, given that separate modules would reduce capital requirements through diversification. Similarly, consideration was given to the counterparty default charge on risk mitigating instruments reverting to the Solvency II approach. The calculation thereof may be computationally burdensome, given that it requires a recalculation of a hypothetical Solvency Capital Requirement both with and without allowing for the benefits of risk mitigating contracts. These calculations also need to be done separately per independent counterparty. The QIS1 exercise indicated that in general the magnitude of these capital requirements are proportionally small in the context of the total Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) and the relative complexity of the calculations. The approach followed in SAQIS2/SAQIS3 was discounted mainly due to the potential double-counting of the recoverable and collateral relating risk mitigating instruments if these are allowed for in multiple sub-modules, whilst restricting their impact to a single sub-module may overstate capital requirements. In addition, the Page 9 of 10
10 approach which applies the current calibration per sub-module would require significant re-calibration work. The amended SAQIS2/SAQIS3 approach would address most of the disadvantages of the SAQIS3 approach. The main drawback is that it has some portions of credit risk (that associated with the benefit of risk mitigating contracts) reflected with submodules as opposed to in a single module. The approach supports the view of additional credit risk relating to these instruments being driven by underlying risk factors as opposed to credit market volatility. In principle, the approach is only different to Solvency II in the order in which counterparty default charges and diversification is applied. (This can be shown numerically). The task group preferred the latter approach as it does not introduce structural changes to other aspects of the SAM framework. Limited feedback was provided on the practicability of the amended Solvency II vs the amended SAQIS2/SAQIS3 approach, but the consensus was that the latter is more practicable. A practical consideration relates to the formulae calculating the counterparty default risk introducing an inflection point. The calibration impact would be considered in DD111, but the preferred approach to resolving this issue is to not have the higher charge applied. (The instances where participants changed between regimes is where the average credit quality of counterparties improved following a stress.) 7. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is to allow for all credit and counterparty default risk, whether these relate to investment assets or risk mitigating contracts in a single module as far as possible. The working assumption is that this would be a sub-module of market risk. (Strong evidence as to why this is not appropriate would be required given that the treatment of additional credit risk from risk mitigating instruments following a shock event.) Additional credit risk exposure to risk mitigating contracts/instruments resulting from shocks should be included in the sub-modules driving these shocks prior to diversifying along with the underlying risk in BSCR calculations. Counterparties relating to risk mitigating instruments/contracts may be grouped provided the lowest credit rating is used for the group in question. The calibration of the modules considered 8. QUESTIONS TO INDUSTRY 1. Would the alternative approach to allowing for the credit risk charge relating to counterparty default risk be a more practicable solution than the amended Solvency II approach? Page 10 of 10
1. 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 Assessment and Management: Pillar 1Sub Committee Capital Requirements Task Group Discussion Document 59 (v 3) Life SCR - Lapse Risk
Solvency Assessment and Management: Pillar 1Sub Committee Capital Requirements Task Group Discussion Document 59 (v 3) Life SCR - Lapse Risk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document discusses the structure and
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 informationCEIOPS-DOC-36/09. (former CP 42) October 2009
CEIOPS-DOC-36/09 Final CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical Provisions Article 86 (d) Calculation of the Risk Margin (former CP 42) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz
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 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 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 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 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 informationIRSG Response to IAIS Consultation Paper on Basic Capital Requirements (BCR) for Global Systemically Important Insurers (G-SIIS)
EIOPA-IRSG-14-10 IRSG Response to IAIS Consultation Paper on Basic Capital Requirements (BCR) for Global Systemically Important Insurers (G-SIIS) 1/10 Executive Summary The IRSG supports the development
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 informationCentral 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 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 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 and catastrophe
Solvency II and catastrophe risks: Measurement approaches for propertycasualty insurers Country-specific requirements or standard formula? Authors: Dr. Kathleen Ehrlich Dr. Norbert Kuschel Contact solvency-solutions@munichre.com
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 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 informationSCOR inform - April 2012. Life (re)insurance under Solvency II
SCOR inform - April 2012 Life (re)insurance under Solvency II Life (re)insurance under Solvency II Author Thorsten Keil SCOR Global Life Cologne Editor Bérangère Mainguy Tel: +33 (0)1 58 44 70 00 Fax:
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 informationCEIOPS-DOC-45/09. (former CP 53) October 2009
CEIOPS-DOC-45/09 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: SCR standard formula - Article 111 (f) Operational Risk (former CP 53) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt
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 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 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 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 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 informationAn update on QIS5. Agenda 4/27/2010. Context, scope and timelines The draft Technical Specification Getting into gear Questions
A Closer Look at Solvency II Eleanor Beamond-Pepler, FSA An update on QIS5 2010 The Actuarial Profession www.actuaries.org.uk Agenda Context, scope and timelines The draft Technical Specification Getting
More informationNovember 2010 Declan Lavelle Aidan O Donnell Daniel Pender David Roberts Dick Tulloch
The Solvency II ORSA Process November 2010 Declan Lavelle Aidan O Donnell Daniel Pender David Roberts Dick Tulloch TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction... 3 2.0 What is the ORSA?... 4 3.0 Interaction with
More informationFair Value Measurement
Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 113 Fair Value Measurement (This Indian Accounting Standard includes paragraphs set in bold type and plain type, which have equal authority. Paragraphs in bold type
More informationAgenda. Diversification - Definitions. GIRO Convention. 23-26 September 2008 Hilton Sorrento Palace Solvency II - Diversification
GIRO Convention 23-26 September 2008 Hilton Sorrento Palace Solvency II - Diversification Agenda Introduction to diversification Definition and areas where it arises In pre-ica un-modelled world In the
More informationThe package of measures to avoid artificial volatility and pro-cyclicality
The package of measures to avoid artificial volatility and pro-cyclicality Explanation of the measures and the need to include them in the Solvency II framework Contents 1. Key messages 2. Why the package
More informationPublic Report. November 2007
CEIOPS-DOC-19/07 CEIOPS Report on its third Quantitative Impact Study (QIS3) for Solvency II Public Report November 2007 CEIOPS e.v. - Westhafenplatz 1 60327 Frankfurt am Main Germany Tel. + 49 69-951119-20
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 informationBriefing note. Currency risk
Briefing note Currency risk March 2013 Introduction This paper focuses on how currency risk is of particular relevance to insurers and reinsurers and why the current Solvency II approach by contravening
More informationSA QIS3 Key changes and challenges The end is in sight
SA QIS3 Key changes and challenges The end is in sight December 2013 Contents Introduction 1 Balance sheet 2 Assets and liabilities other than technical provisions 3 Technical provisions 4 Segmentation
More informationIASB/FASB Meeting Week beginning 11 April 2011. Top down approaches to discount rates
IASB/FASB Meeting Week beginning 11 April 2011 IASB Agenda reference 5A FASB Agenda Staff Paper reference 63A Contacts Matthias Zeitler mzeitler@iasb.org +44 (0)20 7246 6453 Shayne Kuhaneck skuhaneck@fasb.org
More informationCEIOPS Preparatory Field Study for Life Insurance Firms. Summary Report
CEIOPS-FS-08/05 S CEIOPS Preparatory Field Study for Life Insurance Firms Summary Report 1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1 Introduction CEIOPS has been asked to prepare advice for the European
More informationSolvency II overview
David Payne, FIA Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar 15 September 2011 INTNL-2: Solvency II Update Antitrust Notice The Casualty Actuarial Society is committed to adhering strictly to the letter and spirit of
More informationInsurance Guidance Note No. 14 System of Governance - Insurance Transition to Governance Requirements established under the Solvency II Directive
Insurance Guidance Note No. 14 Transition to Governance Requirements established under the Solvency II Directive Date of Paper : 31 December 2013 Version Number : V1.00 Table of Contents General governance
More informationSolvency II Standard Model for Health Insurance Business
Solvency II Standard Model for Health Insurance Business Hanno Reich KPMG AG, Germany kpmg Agenda 1. Solvency II Project 2. Future regulatory framework (Solvency II) 3. Calculation of Solvency Capital
More informationBasel Committee on Banking Supervision. Basel III counterparty credit risk - Frequently asked questions
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Basel III counterparty credit risk - Frequently asked questions November 2011 Copies of publications are available from: Bank for International Settlements Communications
More informationCash Management Group Solvency II and Money Market Funds
Cash Management Group Solvency II and Money Market Funds The opinions expressed are as of June 2012 and may change as subsequent conditions vary. Managing cash and short term investments is an essential
More informationGuidelines on look-through approach
EIOPA-BoS-14/171 EN Guidelines on look-through approach EIOPA Westhafen Tower, Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany - Tel. + 49 69-951119-20; Fax. + 49 69-951119-19; email: info@eiopa.europa.eu site:
More informationSolvency 2 Preparatory Phase. Comparison with LTGA specifications. June 2014
Solvency 2 Preparatory Phase Comparison with LTGA specifications June 2014 Summary This document presents: An analysis of the main changes between the Technical Specifications of the Long Term Guarantee
More informationThe standard formula requires further adjustments
EIOPA publishes the results of the fifth quantitative impact study (QIS5) The standard formula requires further adjustments Authors Martin Brosemer Dr. Kathleen Ehrlich Dr. Norbert Kuschel Lars Moormann
More informationIFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement
May 2011 International Financial Reporting Standard IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement International Financial Reporting Standard 13 Fair Value Measurement IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is issued by the International
More informationCONSULTATION PAPER P003-20
CONSULTATION PAPER P003-20 20 Re ramework Insur PREFACE The Risk-Based Capital ( RBC ) framework for insurance companies was first introduced in Singapore in 2004. It adopts a risk-focused approach to
More informationFifth Quantitative Impact Study of Solvency II (QIS5)
Fifth Quantitative Impact Study of Solvency II (QIS5) Guidance on the treatment of German accident insurance with guaranteed premium repayment in the solvency balance sheet of QIS5 Introduction The UBR
More informationFSA UK Country Report
Financial Services Authority FSA UK Country Report The fifth Quantitative Impact Study (QIS5) for Solvency II March 2011 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Participation 6 3 Quality 8 4 Preparedness and resourcing
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 informationHot Topic FS Regulatory Centre of Excellence, 2 December 2013. Hot Topic. Solvency II requirements published
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 informationAgenda reference 10. IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets - discount rate
IFRS Interpretations Committee Meeting Staff Paper Agenda reference 10 Date November 2010 Project Topic New items for initial consideration IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets
More informationA Primer for Calculating the Swiss Solvency Test Cost of Capital for a Market Value Margin
A Primer for Calculating the Swiss Solvency Test Cost of Capital for a Market Value Margin 26. April 2006 Philipp Keller Federal Office of Private Insurance Philipp.Keller@bpv.admin.ch 1. Introduction
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 informationCEIOPS-QIS5-06/10 6 September 2010
CEIOPS-QIS5-06/10 6 September 2010 Manual for the completion of the QIS5 spreadsheet (for solo undertakings) Please note that this manual is not part of the formal QIS5 documentation as issued by the European
More informationCEIOPS-DOC-70/10 29 January 2010. (former Consultation Paper 74)
CEIOPS-DOC-70/10 29 January 2010 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: SCR STANDARD FORMULA Article 111(d) Correlations (former Consultation Paper 74) CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz
More informationSolvency Assessment and Management Third South African Quantitative Impact Study (SA QIS3)
CONTACT DETAILS Physical Address: Riverwalk Solvency Assessment and Management Third South African Quantitative Impact Study (SA QIS3) Draft Technical Specifications Part 4 of 6: SCR Life Underwriting
More informationEIOPA-BoS-15-223. 29 September 2015
EIOPA-BoS-15-223 29 September 2015 Final Report on Consultation Paper no. 15/004 on the Call for Advice from the European Commission on the identification and calibration of infrastructure investment risk
More informationBasel Committee on Banking Supervision. Working Paper on the IRB Treatment of Expected Losses and Future Margin Income
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Working Paper on the IRB Treatment of Expected Losses and Future Margin Income July 2001 Working Paper on the IRB Treatment of Expected Losses and Future Margin
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 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 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 information2015 No. 575 FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS. The Solvency 2 Regulations 2015
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2015 No. 575 FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS The Solvency 2 Regulations 2015 Made - - - - 6th March 2015 Laid before Parliament 9th March 2015 Coming into force in
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 informationSystem of Governance
CEIOPS-DOC-29/09 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: System of Governance (former Consultation Paper 33) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany Tel.
More informationFourth study of the Solvency II standard approach
Solvency Consulting Knowledge Series Your contacts Kathleen Ehrlich Tel.: +49 (89) 38 91-27 77 E-mail: kehrlich@munichre.com Dr. Rolf Stölting Tel.: +49 (89) 38 91-52 28 E-mail: rstoelting@munichre.com
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 informationCEIOPS-DOC-47/09. (former CP 55) October 2009
CEIOPS-DOC-47/09 Final CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Article 130 Calculation of the MCR (former CP 55) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany
More informationFinance for growth, the role of the insurance industry
Finance for growth, the role of the insurance industry Dario Focarelli Director General ANIA Visiting Professor, Risk Management and Insurance, 'La Sapienza' Roma Adjunct Professor, 'Tanaka Business School',
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 informationSCHEDULE TO INSURANCE GROUP SUPERVISION AMENDMENT RULES 2015 SCHEDULE 3 (Paragraph 30) SCHEDULE OF FINANCIAL CONDITION REPORT OF INSURANCE GROUP [blank] name of Parent The schedule of Financial Condition
More informationEmbedded Value 2014 Report
Embedded Value 2014 Report Manulife Financial Corporation Page 1 of 13 Background: Consistent with our objective of providing useful information to investors about our Company, and as noted in our 2014
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 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 informationInsurance Roadshow London, October 2008. Solvency 2 Update
Insurance Roadshow London, October 2008 Solvency 2 Update Agenda Progress to date Overview of key component of Solvency 2 Further issues for discussion Impact on ratings Solvency 2 - What s new? Progress
More informationGN46: Individual Capital Assessment
GN46: Individual Capital Assessment Classification Recommended Practice MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT THEY MUST ALWAYS COMPLY WITH THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT STANDARDS (PCS) AND THAT GUIDANCE NOTES IMPOSE ADDITIONAL
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 informationLiquidity Coverage Ratio
Liquidity Coverage Ratio Aims to ensure banks maintain adequate levels of unencumbered high quality assets (numerator) against net cash outflows (denominator) over a 30 day significant stress period. High
More informationRisk-Based Capital. Overview
Risk-Based Capital Definition: Risk-based capital (RBC) represents an amount of capital based on an assessment of risks that a company should hold to protect customers against adverse developments. Overview
More informationACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD DECEMBER 2004 FRS 27 27LIFE ASSURANCE STANDARD FINANCIAL REPORTING ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD
ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD DECEMBER 2004 FRS 27 27LIFE ASSURANCE FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD Financial Reporting Standard 27 'Life Assurance' is issued by the Accounting Standards
More informationLife Insurance (prudential standard) determination No. 7 of 2010
Life Insurance (prudential standard) determination No. 7 of 2010 Prudential Standard LPS 2.04 Solvency Standard Life Insurance Act 1995 I, John Roy Trowbridge, Member of APRA: (a) (b) under subsection
More informationNon-Bank Deposit Taker (NBDT) Capital Policy Paper
Non-Bank Deposit Taker (NBDT) Capital Policy Paper Subject: The risk weighting structure of the NBDT capital adequacy regime Author: Ian Harrison Date: 3 November 2009 Introduction 1. This paper sets out,
More informationSolvency II Revealed. October 2011
Solvency II Revealed October 2011 Contents 4 An Optimal Insurer in a Post-Solvency II World 10 Changing the Landscape of Insurance Asset Strategy 16 Capital Relief Through Reinsurance 21 Natural Catastrophe
More informationSolvency II Standard Formula and NAIC Risk-Based Capital (RBC)
Solvency II Standard Formula and NAIC Risk-Based Capital (RBC) Report 3 of the CAS Risk-Based Capital (RBC) Research Working Parties Issued by the RBC Dependencies and Calibration Working Party (DCWP)
More informationCEIOPS-DOC-33/09. (former CP 39) October 2009
CEIOPS-DOC-33/09 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Technical provisions Article 86 a Actuarial and statistical methodologies to calculate the best estimate (former CP 39)
More informationInsurance Core Principles
ICP 16 Enterprise Risk Management for Solvency Purposes The supervisor establishes enterprise risk management requirements for solvency purposes that require insurers to address all relevant and material
More informationConsultation Paper on the Proposal for Guidelines on submission of information to national competent authorities
EIOPA-CP-13/010 27 March 2013 Consultation Paper on the Proposal for Guidelines on submission of information to national competent authorities Page 1 of 268 Table of Contents Responding to this paper...
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 informationCEIOPS-DOC-52/09. (former CP 60) October 2009
CEIOPS-DOC-52/09 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: Assessment of Group Solvency (former CP 60) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt Germany Tel. + 49
More informationPNB Life Insurance Inc. Risk Management Framework
1. Capital Management and Management of Insurance and Financial Risks Although life insurance companies are in the business of taking risks, the Company limits its risk exposure only to measurable and
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 informationFair Value Measurement
AASB Standard AASB 13 September 2011 Fair Value Measurement Obtaining a Copy of this Accounting Standard This Standard is available on the AASB website: www.aasb.gov.au. Alternatively, printed copies of
More informationChris Moulder Director, General Insurance Prudential Regulation Authority T 020 3461 7885 chris.moulder@bankofengland.co.uk.
Chris Moulder Director, General Insurance Prudential Regulation Authority T 020 3461 7885 chris.moulder@bankofengland.co.uk 25 April 2016 Letter sent to CEOs of participating firms Dear CEO General Insurance
More informationMarket Value Margin: Practical calculations under the Solvency II Cost of Capital approach
March 2012 N 18 Market Value Margin: Practical calculations under the Solvency II Cost of Capital approach By Mouna Daya-Viossat Centre d'études actuarielles Winner of the French «Young Actuaries Prize»
More informationCEIOPS-DOC-43/09. (former CP 50) October 2009
CEIOPS-DOC-43/09 CEIOPS Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: SCR standard formula - underwriting risk module (former CP 50) October 2009 CEIOPS e.v. Westhafenplatz 1-60327 Frankfurt
More informationFRAMEWORK FOR CONSULTATION OF CEIOPS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ON SOLVENCY II
Annex 1 to MARKT/2506/04-EN FRAMEWORK FOR CONSULTATION OF CEIOPS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ON SOLVENCY II Purpose of this document The purpose of this paper is to consult the Insurance Committee on a framework
More informationCapital Adequacy: Asset Risk Charge
Prudential Standard LPS 114 Capital Adequacy: Asset Risk Charge Objective and key requirements of this Prudential Standard This Prudential Standard requires a life company to maintain adequate capital
More informationQIS5 Workshops. Mark Burke, Graham Cherry, Dermot Marron
QIS5 Workshops Mark Burke, Graham Cherry, Dermot Marron 8 th 14 th September 2010 Agenda Overview Technical Provisions Assets and Other Liabilities SCR Own Funds Closing Remarks Discussion QIS5 Overview
More informationOwn Risk and Solvency Assessment Within the Solvency II Framework and its Interplay with the Quantitative Solvency Capital Requirements
Prof. Dr. Helmut Gründl and Prof. Dr. Jens Gal Own Risk and Solvency Assessment Within the Solvency II Framework and its Interplay with the Quantitative Solvency Capital Requirements Policy Letter Series
More informationNewsletter. Solvency II update. Solvency II requirements published. 1. Further clarification on the Long-Term Guarantee Package;
www.pwc.lu/insurance www.pwc.lu/insurance Newsletter Solvency II update Solvency II requirements published Summary FS Regulatory Centre of Excellence 10 December 2013 On 25 November 2013 the Council of
More informationSTATUTORY INSTRUMENTS. S.I. No. 485 of 2015 EUROPEAN UNION (INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE) REGULATIONS 2015
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS. S.I. No. 485 of 2015 EUROPEAN UNION (INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE) REGULATIONS 2015 2 [485] S.I. No. 485 of 2015 EUROPEAN UNION (INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE) REGULATIONS 2015 1. Citation
More information