solvency ii what does it really mean n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Solvency II, What does it really mean? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Solvency II, What does it really mean?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

Solvency II, What does it really mean? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 161 Views
  • Uploaded on

AIRMIC CONFERENCE. Solvency II, What does it really mean?. Sue Loney Casualty Underwriting Director, RSA. Angus Jordan UK MI & Solvency II Director, RSA. Seamus Gallagher Director of Consulting , Willis Global Captive Practice Nigel Goodlad

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Solvency II, What does it really mean?' - elan


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide2

Sue Loney

CasualtyUnderwriting Director, RSA

Angus Jordan

UK MI & Solvency II Director, RSA

Seamus Gallagher

Director of Consulting, Willis Global Captive Practice

Nigel Goodlad

Managing Director, Willis Management (Malta) Limited

agenda
AGENDA
  • What is Solvency II?
  • RSA’s approach to Solvency II compliance
  • Willis - Solvency II impact on Captives
slide4

From what you know at the moment about the increased level of disclosure, the greater uniformity of reporting and potential impacts for captives,

  • “Is SII a good thing for a
  • Risk Manager"?
slide5

What is Solvency II?

By Angus Jordan

RSA, UK MI & Solvency II Director

slide6

Pan-European regulatory regime for capital adequacy - effective from Jan 2016

  • Evaluation of capital levels tailored to the risks within the organisation
  • Requires firms to have in place an effective risk management and governance system
  • Better risk based management of Capital
  • Change to the basis of calculating insurance liabilities for all insurers with assets and liabilities valued on a market consistent basis

What is Solvency II?

  • Firms can use either a standard formula or a bespoke internal model to calculate capital requirements
  • Greater clarity for customers and investors
  • Internal models subjected to stringent tests before approval and must be integrated to the business
  • Increase in regulatory reporting requirements both in terms of content and reduced timescales
slide7

Standard Formula (SF)

  • The Standard Formula is being developed by the European Commission and EIOPA
  • Generic “one size fits all” model geared towards smaller businesses
  • To date there have been issues with overly prudent calibrations
  • Overly complex although simpler than using an internal model. Anticipate higher capital requirements because it does not properly allow for diversification

What is Solvency II?

Companies may calculate solvency capital requirements using a standard formula

The Formula!

slide8

Stochastic Model

Trials

1

Probability

What is Solvency II?

Alternatively companies may calculate solvency capital requirements using a bespoke internal model

Internal Model (IM)

  • In our case that means basing a model on our existing Individual Capital Assessment (ICA) models already implemented throughout the RSA Group
  • Tailored to the company’s business and risk profile
  • Anticipate that IM will result in lower capital requirements – although there are a number of minimum floors to consider
  • Model will have to be integrated into the business at an entity level

1,000

25,000

Impact £30m £40m £50m £100m

Process managed via an Internal Model Approval Process (IMAP), which is still developing in many locations. This shouldn’t be underestimated in its rigour and requirements in terms of both time and amount of documentation.

slide9

ANNUAL REPORTS

Regular Supervisory Report (RSR)

  • Akin to the existing ICA report. This is not public and holds more detailed disclosures enabling analysis of our Solvency position - @ 250 pages per entity here alone!

Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)

As part of the risk management system this report gives an assessment of solvency needs of the specific undertaking, demonstrate compliance with the SCR and monitor assumptions in the SCR against actual risk profile. This is not public

What is Solvency II?

Solvency and Financial Conditions Report (SFCR)

This is a new public report disclosing information regarding our solvency position – around another 100 pages here

(Annual) Quantitative Reporting Templates (QRT’s)

56 forms, some multiplied by each LoB for Claims and major currency development triangles

NEW QUARTERLY REPORTS ARE INTRODUCED

Quarterly Quantitative Templates (QRT’s)

Again by Entity. Another 17 forms here

slide11

RSA’s approach to Solvency II compliance

By Angus Jordan

RSA, UK MI & Solvency II Director

slide12

Set up a Group Programme sponsored by both the Group Risk and Finance Directors, with series of Regional Programmes – not just in the EEA!

  • Proactive involvement with EIOPA, the PRA, the ABI and our College of Regulators

How has RSA runs it’s programme to implement Solvency II?

  • Embedded the Risk Management system further in the business with explicit Risk Appetites and Risk Tolerances applied
  • Participated in all 5 Quantitative Impact Studies (QIS) and we are now engaged in the EIOPA Stress tests
  • Undertook an Entity Simplification programme, removing 18 Regulated Insurance Entities
  • We are applying for Internal Model Approval for the principal entities but not necessarily in all cases
  • Significant investment in Technology programmes – mostly about automating production of reconciled data in a timely enough manner. (Like many others, took the opportunity to invest in wider reporting processes)
slide13

PROGRAMME HAS BEEN RUNNING SINCE 2010

  • Long way down the line of Remediation (notwithstanding the lack of clarity at times partial mothball along the way) ... but not yet finished

Where are we now?

  • Re-running Gap Analysis activity against updated text
  • Already seeing considerable changes in the UK, with the PRA now looking at what we have termed "ICA Plus" type reporting
  • Engaged in active discussions in connection with IMAP, theoretical decision of lead regulator but the reality is that we have to talk and present to multiple regulators, even though we run a central model
  • Many elements now moving into BAU process, with the Reporting going through varying stages of testing and dry runs under increasingly tighter and SII Compliant timetables
slide14

Legislation goes live January 2016

Late 2014/ into 2015

  • 2015

IMAP

SII

Where are we now?

  • 2014
  • 2016
  • 2017

EIOPA

  • First full Annual reporting Q1 2017 based on Year End 2016 data
  • Annual QRT of 2014 year end data to be delivered in July 2015
  • Quarterly QRT’s for Q3 2015
sii impact on captives
SII Impact on Captives

Seamus Gallagher, Director of Consulting, Willis Global Captive Practice

Nigel Goodlad, Managing Director,

Willis Management (Malta) Limited

outline
OUTLINE
  • Which captives are affected?
  • What is required of EU captive owners and by when?
  • Impact on Capital, Governance and Reporting (Pillars 1, 2 and 3)
  • How prepared are captive owners?
  • Which areas are causing concern?
  • Ways of mitigating capital requirements
  • What support can you expect from your captive manager?
  • Is SII positive or negative for captive owners?

16

slide17

EU CAPTIVES

Which captives are affected?

  • Directly subject to Solvency II regulation in each EU domicile
  • Reinsurance to unrated reinsurers in non-SII equivalent domiciles will be penalised by large counterparty charge in SII capital formula

OFFSHORE CAPTIVES (predominantly favoured by AIRMIC members)

  • Not directly affected as most domiciles have opted out of SII (but are introducing other forms of risk-based capital rules)
  • Will offshore regulation be seen as “too light” compared to SII? Probably not:
    • Still need to conform to IAIS Core Principles, but perhaps with more proportional approach being taken by regulators

17

slide18

What is required of EU captive owners and by when?

2014

2015

2016

  • Required:
  • Implementation of Functions:
    • Actuarial
    • Risk
    • Compliance
    • Internal Audit
  • Implementation of Forward Looking Assessment
  • of Own Risk (FLAOR)
  • Preparation for Pillar 3 Reporting
  • Requirements
  • Required:
  • Pillar 1 (Capital):
  • Capital and Solvency Calculations in accordance with technical specifications
  • Pillar 2 (Governance):
  • Implementation of System of Governance
  • Actuarial Function
  • Risk Function
  • Compliance Function
  • Internal Audit Function
  • Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)
  • Pillar 3 (Reporting):
  • Reporting on quarterly basis for MCR and SCR Capital Requirements

Required:

Forward Looking Assessment of Own Risk (FLAOR)

System of Governance and Risk Management

Optional:

Updated Standard Model

Calculation of Capital

Requirements (recommended)

slide20

FLAOR – As part of Pillar 2

Board of Directors

Risk Management Function

Where does the FLAOR fit in the overall Solvency II project?

Capital Management Decisions

Risk Management Strategy & Appetite

UW Policy

Reinsurance Policy

Op Risk Policy

Strategic Risk Policy

FLAOR Process

ALM Policy

Liquidity Risk Policy

Investment Policy

Risk Register

slide21

Capital Impact (Pillar 1)

INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE

  • ECIROA 2011 study – 132 EU captives reviewed:
    • 30% were below 100% of the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR)
    • 20% were below 75% of the SCR
  • EIOPA 2011 – survey of 175 captives found that they “performed well”

Impact of Quantitative Impact Study 5 (QIS5) on capital levels

WILLIS EXPERIENCE

  • QIS5’s completed in late 2010 on a small sample:
    • Almost 50% were projected to have a capital shortfall, but many have addressed this since
    • Property captives fared worse than liability captives due to impact of SII capital formula on typical captive structures (large gross lines with very substantial reinsurance)

21

slide22

Governance Impact

(Pillar 2)

  • Captive owners must convince regulators that governance arrangements are adequate

- All have accepted outsourcing of most tasks to captive managers (with appropriate board oversight)

- Some have acknowledged that certain captives are not complex and low-risk and the framework can be proportionate to this

  • Principle of proportionality will be applied by regulators:
  • Additional workload will increase costs
  • Captive owners are required to assess and understand risks, to document and implement governance frameworks
  • Preparation of FLAOR’s and ORSA’s requires some input from captive owners, but not unduly onerous with managers’ help

22

slide23

Reporting Impact

(Pillar 3)

  • Reporting requirements are inevitably more onerous for a risk-based capital regime (60+ reporting templates), but again proportionality implies that less complex captives will have fewer templates to complete:0

- for example, reporting for a monoline captive with simple investment arrangements will not be overly demanding

  • Captive managers are implementing systems to automate the reporting process - this granularity could help captives in the long run

23

slide24

How prepared are captive owners?

  • Well informed by captive managers and good understanding of what SII is about
  • Expect increased activity to ensure conformance as Jan 1 2016 date looms
  • Most have started in earnest on QIS5 capital adequacy assessments and many have taken action in response to the findings
  • Work in relation to Pillar 2, governance arrangements, is in progress
  • In relation to Pillar 3, reporting, managers are undertaking gap analyses on client data to assess current versus required reporting

24

slide25

Which areas are causing concern?

  • SII principles and processes are generally acknowledged and accepted
  • The need to implement systems and process with attendant costs is understood
  • Extensive reporting requirements are a concern, but expectation is that captive manager will provide almost all of the services, subject to proper board oversight
  • Questions have been raised that public disclosure of reporting could entail requirements that are not fully known at this stage
  • Potential capital impact may be the most immediate concern

25

slide26

Move from EU to Offshore

Ways of mitigating capital requirements

  • Industry indications imply moves are negligible to date
  • No Willis clients have moved offshore due to SII, although some have restructured
  • Poor economy has driven strategic reviews, not SII in isolation
  • More creative use of Tier 2 and 3 options, for example unpaid capital
  • Up to 50%/15% of the SCR can be in Tier 2/Tier 3 funds
  • Restructure Reinsurance
  • Counterparty Default Risk charge can be punitive unless addressed
  • Applying minimum ratings for counterparties (e.g. minimum A- rating) or use additional reinsurers to diversify can dramatically reduce default charge
  • For particularly large exposures, e.g. where high limits are written on property insurance, replacing captive reinsurance arrangements with net lines to captive without reinsurance – removes any counterparty concerns
  • Restructure Investments
  • Low-risk investments (e.g. AAA rated, bond or money-market type instruments) achieve larger capital credit
  • Restructure Capital

26

slide27

What support can you expect from your captive manager?

  • Captive managers work in tandem with boards – developing and implementing policies and frameworks and ensuring continued management of the compliance programmes
  • Captive boards are ultimately responsible for compliance, but with proper oversight can delegate most tasks to the captive managers
  • Captive managers can normally be expected to provide all SII services except Internal Audit

27

slide28

Is SII positive or negative for captives?

  • Provided that the new regulatory framework is proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of captives, SII should ensure that captives are appropriately capitalised with enhanced oversight and governance
  • SII regulations will require EU captive owners to invest more time assessing, understanding and managing risks, but most of the work can be outsourced to captive managers subject to boards retaining ultimate oversight and responsibility
  • Regulators in many captive domiciles (not just in the EU) are implementing more robust risk-based capitalisation and governance frameworks, which should ultimately benefit the captive industry provided that they are not unduly onerous

28

slide30

From what you know at the moment about the increased level of disclosure, the greater uniformity of reporting and potential impacts for Captives,

  • “Is SII a good thing for a
  • Risk Manager"?