DNB published results of the EIOPA stress testing exercise for the Dutch pensions sector. The results show that the financial position of the Dutch pensions sector is vulnerable to financial market shocks. A highly adverse stress scenario, which involves sharp equity price declines and rapidly widening spreads, showed that the year-on-year impact of a financial market shock on the Dutch economy through the pension funds is limited, but will be felt for many years.
DNB disclosed the list of the stress test participants, which represent 60% of the Dutch pensions sector. The results of the stress test, which looks at the figures as of year-end 2018, show that Dutch pension assets appear to be vulnerable under a major shock. In such a scenario, the capital positions of Dutch pension funds are severely hit. This impact is due to the large portfolio of variable-yield investments they maintain to fund their indexation ambition. On average, the funding ratio of participating pension funds drops by nearly 23 percentage points, which roughly equals their required own funds. This means that the pension funds could have absorbed the impact of the shock almost fully using their buffers, had they maintained the required own funds. With the buffer lacking and the assumed funding ratio averaging 99%, the shock forces them to apply immediate benefit curtailments.
The stress scenario sees assets of the Dutch premium pension institutions, or PPIs, drop by nearly 30%, primarily due to the equity shock. The premium pension institutions tend to allocate a large proportion of their investments to variable-yield assets on account of the relatively high share of young pension scheme members they represent. The stress test also considered the impact of the stress scenario on replacement ratios (excluding state pensions). The outcomes showed a large variety because the premium pension institutions differ widely.
Related Link: DNB Analysis of Results
Keywords: Europe, Netherlands, Insurance, Pensions, Stress Testing, Defined Benefit, Own Funds, Defined Contribution, DNB
Previous ArticlePRA Keeps Systemic Risk Buffer Rates for Ring-Fenced Banks Unchanged
BCBS amended the guidelines on sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism (ML/FT).
EBA finalized the guidelines on treatment of structural foreign-exchange (FX) positions under Article 352(2) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
FSB published a statement on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global benchmark transition.
IAIS published the list of Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIGs) publicly disclosed by group-wide supervisors.
FED has temporarily revised the reporting form on consolidated financial statements for holding companies (FR Y-9C; OMB No. 7100-0128).
EC launched a consultation on the review of the key elements of Solvency II Directive, with the comment period ending on October 21, 2020.
ECB launched a consultation on the guide that sets out supervisory approach to consolidation projects in the banking sector.
PRA published a letter that builds on the expectations set out in the supervisory statement (SS3/19) on enhancing banks' and insurers' approaches to managing the financial risks from climate change.
US Agencies (Farm Credit Administration, FDIC, FED, FHFA, and OCC) finalized changes to the swap margin rule to facilitate implementation of prudent risk management strategies at banks and other entities with significant swap activities.
IAIS published technical specifications, questionnaires, and templates for 2020 Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) and Aggregation Method data collections.