General Information & Client Services
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518
May 2014

At the heart of the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) is the forward-looking solvency assessment. This article discusses how insurers should look beyond the next year, and build a capability to project solvency capital requirements under a range of scenarios – helping link capital with strategic business decisions.

Over the past year it has been apparent how global the ORSA has become, as it has been embraced across Europe, Asia, and the US. Indeed, the ORSA concept will be implemented in many countries before Solvency II actually goes live. For example, in North America the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has mandated that insurers must have an ORSA in place by January 1, 2015. Another example is the South African Financial Services Board‘s (FSB) Solvency Assessment and Management (SAM) framework, which includes ORSA requirements based not only on European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), but also experiences from the Canadian regulator (OSFI), the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA), the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA), and International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) principles.

The ORSA is viewed as an absolutely critical part of an insurer’s risk management and is featured strongly in their model developments. The ORSA is a generic requirement – it is not intended to be a prescriptive regulatory calculation, but instead asks firms to describe how they manage risk and capital across their enterprise. The reference to “own” in the title highlights the fact that the ORSA is meant to reflect the unique risk management characteristics and profile of an insurer.

From looking at the guidance published by EIOPA, NAIC, and OSFI, it is clear that the ORSA should include:

  • Identification and assessment of all material risks
  • Sufficiency of capital to cover those risks on a forward-looking basis
  • A risk management framework to monitor and control risk
  • A risk management culture embedded within the business to support decision-making

The building blocks for the ORSA are typically the insurer’s existing risk and capital processes. The insurer should have a sound approach for risk identification and, alongside that, have a set of risk appetite statements consistent with this and approved by the board. The ORSA should encompass all material risks, including those not listed in the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR). Insurers should consider additional risks types, such as model risk, strategic risk, reputational risk, and regulatory risk. Also, the risk identification should evaluate the major risks facing the company; not just now but over the business-planning period, which is typically a three to five year horizon.

Figure 1. Global map of ORSA regulations
Global map of ORSA regulations
Source: Moody's Analytics

Quantitative modeling capabilities needed

Many insurance firms have identified a range of quantitative modeling capabilities they will need to support the objectives of the ORSA. These might include:

  • Real-time monitoring of current regulatory capital requirements.
  • The firm’s own assessment of the economic capital requirements of the business. This could be calculated under a definition of capital that is specific to the business and different from regulatory capital requirements, such as Solvency II Pillar I’s one-year 99.5% VaR capital or the CTE 90 run-off capital used in the US principle-based approach to reserving and capital.
  • A capability to make a multi-year projection of the insurer’s business plan under a range of different financial and business scenarios, with an assessment of the solvency requirements generated in those scenarios.

The last point refers to a key principle of the ORSA, namely that it should look beyond developments in the next year – meaning the ORSA must be forward looking. This requires a capability to project solvency capital requirements under a range of scenarios. This helps link capital with the big strategic decisions on the running of a company. It also presents an interesting technical challenge – how to take the current “time zero” solvency calculations and develop them to understand how capital behaves not only today, but how it may evolve over time – across a range of different scenarios including, of course, potential adverse economic scenarios.

Depending on the nature of the assets and liabilities, the projection can be very complex. Typically, capital requirements are assessed using stochastic simulation. Whether the capital requirement is one-year VaR or CTE run-off, a similar technical challenge arises – a large number of stochastic simulations are in theory needed to measure the capital requirements not just in current conditions, but also at several future time steps in a number of scenarios.

Figure 2. Solvency Capital Requirements under a range of scenarios
Solvency Capital Requirements under a range of scenarios
Source: Moody's Analytics

This general projection process involves two distinct stages:

1. Determine the multi-year scenarios in which the business is to be projected. These could be stochastic scenarios, but are more likely to be a handful of deterministic scenarios. In both cases, the scenario model is typically done at a “macro” level. Even when the macroeconomic scenarios have been selected, mapping them to an insurer’s individual risk exposure is not always straightforward.

2. Calculate the capital requirements along the scenario paths (i.e., the capital metric). There may be more than one metric, such as the business may be interested in the regulatory, economic, and ratings capital.

This highlights an important rule in a well-functioning principle-based risk assessment – the risk management strategy must drive the risk measurement methodology, rather than vice versa.

Projection scenarios

For multi-year scenarios, insurers can decide whether to use thousands of stochastic scenarios or a handful of deterministic scenarios. The stochastic approach will allow firms to examine the robustness of their business across a wide range of future possible economic outcomes. However, it is a significant computational challenge to assess future capital levels in thousands of different scenario paths, particularly where the business includes complex liabilities that are valued stochastically. Firms are therefore using deterministic scenarios in the projection of their business for the ORSA. The difficulty is then how to select the scenarios. Firms will need to decide on the appropriate stress scenarios given the nature and risk exposure of the business. There is no standard set of stress conditions that all insurers should run. The scenarios could be:

  • Top-down macroeconomic scenarios capture the insurer’s systematic exposures to adverse economic and financial market outcomes; for example, stresses expressed as a fall in equity markets, movements in interest rates, and changes in credit spreads. These top-down macroeconomic scenarios are perhaps easiest to envisage. Identification of the scenarios may rely on the input of economists to help pinpoint the key risks to the global economy. These are likely to be thematic scenarios, such as a global depression, war in the Middle East, disorganized euro sovereign debt default, and so on. Typically, the modeling of such scenarios would first involve some expert economic judgment on what their impact would have on macroeconomic factors (e.g., inflation, GDP growth, or corporate profit margins). Then econometric models would be used to estimate how unexpected shocks to those macroeconomic variables could impact high-level financial market behavior, such as equity returns and yield curves.
  • Bottom-up scenarios are specific to the insurer based on their risk exposures, arising from their unique strategic and operational profile (e.g., unexpected legal liabilities or operational failures).
  • Systematic insurance risk scenarios could include unexpected increases in longevity or pandemics.

The specific risk exposures and risk management strategies of a firm may place particular demands on the type of scenarios that are required in the prospective solvency assessment process. This will naturally impact the relevant financial and economic variables that need to be projected, but it may also impact the level of detail of the modeling. For example, if a firm's risk management strategy involves the weekly rebalancing of a significant delta hedging strategy, its risk robustness will not be well assessed using annual projection time steps in its multi-year projection. Rather, it will be important to capture the specific risks left behind by their risk management strategy – in this case, it will have exposure to high volatility in weekly equity returns, rather than overall weakness in annual equity performance. This highlights an important rule in a well-functioning principle-based risk assessment: the risk management strategy must drive the risk measurement methodology, rather than vice versa.

Figure 3. Typical ORSA output
Typical ORSA output
Source: Moody's Analytics

Calculating future capital requirements

The ORSA requires the insurer to project its future position, including its projected economic and regulatory capital, to assess its ability to meet the regulatory capital requirement. This is often computationally challenging, particularly where the liabilities have embedded options and guarantees. Therefore, every valuation requires a full set of risk-neutral economic simulations. If a firm were to consider, say, five stress tests each with five annual steps, capital requirements would need to be reassessed in 25 different scenarios. The Standard Formula is also calculation-intensive as each capital requirement calculation will require multiple stressed market-consistent liability valuations. For Solvency II firms intending to calculate the capital requirement produced by their internal model SCR methodology, the complexity is compounded by the need to create an algorithmic description of how their internal model methodology and its implementation is applied in a wide range of different scenarios.

Proxy modeling is a possible solution to making the demanding problem of projecting capital requirements more manageable. The industry has been through a learning process in the area of proxy modeling as applied to the one-year VaR calculation. The advanced techniques that have been developed to solve the one-year VaR calculations, such as Least-Squares Monte Carlo (LSMC), are naturally extendable to calculating capital requirements over a longer horizon. Although technically challenging, we expect firms to start developing multi-period capital proxy functions that are capable of describing how capital requirements behave over multiple time horizons as a function of multiple risk factors.

ORSA output

If an insurer has established a methodology and process to implement the prospective requirements of the ORSA, then alongside a stress testing framework, the output from the ORSA can feature firmly in decision-making within the business. Figure 3 is a typical ORSA output.

Although it is time-consuming to derive and quantify the impact of the scenarios, it can be insightful for an insurer to go through the process of discussing possible scenarios, their financial impacts, and possible management actions. The output from stress testing may suggest that it is necessary to reduce specific risk exposures – possibly by hedging risk or potentially exiting product lines. Reverse stress testing should also be performed to identify and quantify those scenarios that could result in business failure, breach of economic solvency, breach of SCR and Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR), and other circumstances considered appropriate by senior management and the board.

It is correct to refer to the ORSA as a process, but it should be viewed as more than that. The output from the ORSA and the insights it provides should trigger management actions and decisions. For instance, the ORSA should play an important part in the running of the business. At the heart of the ORSA is the forward-looking solvency assessment. For this reason, we recommend that firms invest in the development of a robust methodology to project the balance sheet, supported by a forward-looking stress testing framework.

As Published In:
Related Insights

The Challenges as Solvency II Reporting Goes Live

This paper is the first in a series of short whitepapers where Brian Heale examines the major challenges and issues insurers face for report production, data management, and SCR calculation for Solvency II. The series of papers also examines the approaches insurers have taken in their Solvency II projects to date.

June 2016 Pdf Brian Heale

A New Advice and Distribution Paradigm in Financial Services

The way insurance and investment products are distributed and managed in the future will undoubtedly change, but firms can benefit from the new paradigm. This article addresses how financial institutions can remain competitive by delivering intuitive customer journeys at a low cost using the latest technology.

December 2015 WebPage Philip Allen, Brian Heale

Latest Developments in the Quantitative Reporting Templates

In this paper, we look at the latest developments in the Quantitative Reporting Templates. We consider how insurers can address the challenge of maintaining Solvency II reporting systems to keep pace with the changing and emerging regulatory requirements.

September 2015 Pdf Brian Heale

Using Analytical Data for Business Decision-Making in Insurance

This article details the organizational and data challenges that insurers face when harnessing the historical and forward-thinking information needed to create interactive dashboards.

May 2015 WebPage Brian Heale

Solvency II and Asset Data

In this White Paper, we look at the challenges that insurers, fund managers and market data providers face in providing and aggregating the asset data required for the completion of the QRT templates and the SCR calculation.

December 2014 Pdf Brian Heale

Challenges Impacting the Global Insurance Industry in 2015 and Beyond

In this interview, Moody's Analytics Senior Director Brian Heale shares his unique expertise on insurance and Solvency II. Learn how global regulations, demographic trends, and technology will impact insurers over the next few years and how they can best prepare for the changes.

November 2014 WebPage Brian Heale

Data: The Foundation of Risk Management

This article focuses on developing an effective data management framework for the analytical data used for regulatory and business reporting.

November 2014 WebPage Brian Heale

Automating the Solvency Capital Requirement Calculation Process

This Whitepaper explores how the Solvency II Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) calculation process can be automated to facilitate efficient and timely regulatory reporting. The SCR calculation process is complex, requiring significant data consolidation, cleansing and transformation to produce accurate and consistent results.

July 2014 Pdf Brian Heale

Learn The Three Steps to Solvency II Pillar III Reporting

As the deadline for Solvency II approaches, many insurers are assessing the best approach to delivering the Pillar III reports required by EIOPA. Many recognize the challenges of data consolidation, data cleansing, calculating accurate results and formatting reports to submit to the regulators.

June 2014 WebPage Brian Heale

Solving the Data Challenges of Solvency II

This publication addresses the full spectrum of data challenges: data governance, data quality, tactical and strategic reporting,

May 2014 Pdf Brian Heale

Data Quality is the Biggest Challenge

This article looks at the inherent analytical data quality problems in the insurance industry and how to improve them.

May 2014 WebPage Brian Heale

The Benefits and Challenges of Adopting Internal Models

This article provides an overview of how internal models are used to calculate the Solvency Capital Requirement and the advantages and disadvantages of adopting this approach.

May 2014 WebPage Gavin Conn

Implementation of Least-Squares Monte Carlo (LSMC) in a Life Insurance Context – A Case Study

This case study first introduces Value-at-Risk (VaR) and its use for assessing economic capital, and focuses on the challenges of its implementation in the insurance sector. It then provides a high-level overview of the proxy fitting methods and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

May 2014 WebPage Craig Turnbull

Using Analytical Data to Support the Decision-Making Process

This article discusses the ways in which insurers can use their analytical and operational data to measure risk and performance, and support their business decision-making processes.

May 2014 WebPage Brian Heale

Illiquid Assets and Capital-Driven Investment Strategies

The risk-based nature of Solvency II creates an opportunity for asset managers to play a more strategic role in insurance asset management — capital-driven investment could be for the insurance industry what liability-driven investment has been for pension funds. In this paper we look at how to measure the illiquidity premiums on offer across the increasingly diverse range of asset classes that a long-term illiquid liability writer such as a fixed annuity business can consider investing in. These risk-adjusted return measures are then used alongside a Solvency II-style capital model to generate capital-driven investment metrics.

March 2014 Pdf Harry Hibbert, Craig Turnbull, Gavin Conn

Multi-year Modeling of Greeks Using Least Squares Monte Carlo: An Exotic Option Case Study

In this paper we extend the analysis contained in a previous case study by considering a more complex example: a lookback option. We show that the methodology can produce a similar quality of fitting performance for the lookback option as in the vanilla option case. We also discuss the methodology adjustments necessary for the Greeks fitting strategy in order to accurately fit to forms of path-dependent, exotic options such as lookbacks.

January 2014 Pdf Aubrey Clayton, Steven Morrison, Craig Turnbull, Karthik Vijayapalan

Dynamic Hedge Projection and the Multi-period Modeling of Greeks

To obtain recognition for the risk mitigation benefits of hedging in their regulatory capital assessments, variable annuity writers in North America and Europe must perform stochastic projections of the behaviour of their dynamic hedging programs over the lifetime of these long-term liabilities However, the computational difficulties of this calculation result in many firms being either unable to obtain realistic levels of capital relief, or undertaking enormous complex nested stochastic calculations that are expensive, unwieldy and that may involve arbitrary simplifications that undermine confidence in their results. We believe this paper breaks new ground by introducing an entirely different methodology for addressing the highly demanding modeling required in this area, and one which is significantly more efficient, accurate and objective than those applied in industry up until now.

November 2013 Pdf Steven Morrison, Aubrey Clayton, Craig Turnbull, Oldrich Alfons Vasicek, Karthik Vijayapalan

Making the Most of Analytical Data in Decision Making

In this paper, Brian Heale discusses the many ways in which insurers can use analytical data to support their strategic risk and capital decision-making processes. He also addresses how this can be integrated with the Own Risk Solvency Assessment (ORSA) and Use Test processes.

November 2013 Pdf Brian Heale

ORSA: A Capital Adequacy Assessment Process for Insurers

ORSA introduces a new risk and capital management environment for insurers. This article details the origins of ORSA and offers a framework for financial institutions seeking to execute an ORSA.

November 2013 WebPage Brian Heale

Multi-year Projection of 1-yr VaR Capital Requirements and Free Surplus

A recent research report presented methodologies and case studies for the development of proxy functions for use in efficient multi-year projection of the market-consistent liability values of complex life liabilities. This report further extends the applicability of these methodologies to a third application: the multi-year projection of 1-year VaR capital requirements. We examine how to fit multi-year liability value functions for use in the calculation of projected 1-year Value-at-Risk capital requirements as well as liability valuation.

November 2013 Pdf Steven Morrison, Craig Turnbull, Naglis Vysniauskas

Proxy Function Fitting: Some Implementation Topics

In this case study we consider two of the practical challenges faced by insurers in implementing proxy functions: incorporating demographic risk factors and yield curve mapping. We demonstrate the approaches that can be adopted to resolve both issues.

October 2013 Pdf Gavin Conn

Pillar III Reporting: Avoiding the Pitfalls

Insurers face considerable challenges complying with Solvency II's Pillar III. In this paper, Brian Heale assesses both tactical and strategic approaches for addressing the Pillar III requirements, and proposes a hybrid approach that both satisfies immediate needs and can grow into a strategic solution over time.

September 2013 Pdf Brian Heale

Stress and Scenario Testing: How Insurers Compare with Banks

In this article, we compare the bank and insurance industries, to not only highlight how they are being brought closer together, but also to gain a new perspective on stress testing practices.

September 2013 WebPage Brian Heale

Multi-year Projection of Run-off Conditional Tail Expectation (CTE) Reserves

In this paper we describe and demonstrate how the capability to efficiently produce robust and accurate proxy functions for CTE(70) run-off reserve behavior across a wide range of multi-timestep, multi-risk-factor scenarios can significantly enhance firms' forward solvency projection analytics. This can be extremely useful for firms to project their balance sheets and reserving and capital requirements as part of ORSA and other business planning requirements.

July 2013 Pdf Steven Morrison, Craig Turnbull, Karthik Vijayapalan

Analytical Data: How Insurers can Improve Quality

There is little doubt that analytical data is a foundation, not only for Solvency II and IFRS programs, but also better informed capital/risk decision making. In the second in a series of papers focusing on key data topics, Brian Heale gives his view on the types of analytical data required for Solvency II and capital/risk decision making with a particular focus on the techniques for improving quality.

July 2013 Pdf Brian Heale

Podcast: Moody's Analytics Solvency II Survey and Data Problems

An interview with Brian Heale - Senior Director, Moody's Analytics - discussing the Moody's Analytics Solvency II Survey. Topics include issues and trends uncovered by the survey, why data is an important issue for insurers, and ways insurers can address the data challenge.

June 2013 WebPage Brian Heale

ORSA: Prospective Solvency Assessment and Capital Projection Modelling

Insurers need a modelling capability that meets two key requirements. The first is the ability to determine appropriate multi-year scenarios (deterministic stress tests or stochastic) in which to project the insurer's business. The second is the ability to accurately assess the capital requirements that would be created within these scenarios. In this report we provide you with an overview of the fundamental challenges of ORSA and practical guidance on the approach you might take.

June 2013 Pdf Craig Turnbull, Andy Frepp

Data governance best practice: smoothing the way for Solvency II

The first in a series of four papers which focuses on key data topics. Brian Heale gives his view on the obstacles that insurers have to clear in order to get their data management and governance house in order in preparation of Solvency II, and for other regulatory regimes such as ORSA.

April 2013 Pdf Brian Heale

Validation of Risk Factor Modelling in 1-Year VaR Capital Assessments

This paper discusses the validation of the risk factor element of firms' internal models, particularly in the context of 1-year VaR capital models. Examples of back-testing, sensitivity testing and stress and scenario testing of equity, interest rate and credit models are developed to illustrate the challenges that a rigorous validation process must address.

April 2013 Pdf Gavin Conn, Craig Turnbull, Sandy Sharp

Multi-year Projection of Market-consistent Liability Valuations

Insurance groups, motivated by ORSA and wider business planning requirements, are increasingly interested in making medium-term forward projections of their regulatory and economic capital requirements across a range of future economic and business conditions. This paper presents the technical methodologies required to support this type of multi-year projection capability for market-consistent liability valuations, together with a case study that illustrates the applications of this capability in multi-year stochastic simulations, reverse stress testing and stress and scenario testing.

April 2013 Pdf Steven Morrison, Craig Turnbull, Naglis Vysniauskas

One-year projection of run-off conditional tail expectation (CTE) reserves

This paper discusses whether the quantitative techniques that have been successfully applied to the nested stochastic challenge arising in one-year VaR in insurance economic capital can also be applied to another nested stochastic problem: that of making a one-year projection of run-off CTE reserve requirements.

March 2013 Pdf Steven Morrison, Laura Tadrowski, Craig Turnbull