IAIS published a statement from its Secretary General Jonathan Dixon on the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) monitoring period. The statement informs about the IAIS expectations regarding participation in the monitoring period, the ultimate goal of a single global capital standard for Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIGs), and the refinement process of the ICS during the monitoring period. The draft definition of comparable outcomes and high-level principles will be subject to a public consultation later this year, as will the draft comparability criteria in 2021.
IAIS is developing the ICS as the global standard to be used as a prescribed capital requirement for Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIGs), based on a common set of principles. US members have indicated that their supervisory framework does not support a group-wide consolidated approach to a prescribed capital requirement. Therefore, the US and other interested jurisdictions are developing an Aggregation Method that follows a different approach than the ICS; they aim to use this approach for their implementation of the ICS on an outcome-equivalent basis. The Aggregation Method is not part of the ICS Version 2.0, nor is it being developed by IAIS as an alternate global standard.
The assessment of whether the Aggregation Method provides comparable outcomes to the ICS will be a technical assessment undertaken by IAIS. As a first step, IAIS has published a draft definition of comparable outcomes and considerations that will guide the development of high-level principles and criteria for the comparability assessment. IAIS has made it clear that this will be a robust and credible technical assessment that does not provide the Aggregation Method a free pass, while providing a viable path for the Aggregation Method to be deemed an outcome equivalent approach. This draft definition of comparable outcomes and high-level principles will be subject to a public consultation later this year, as will the draft comparability criteria in 2021.
The aim is to monitor the performance of the ICS over a period of time, rather than the capital adequacy of IAIGs. Active participation of IAIGs in the monitoring period is important for providing effective feedback on the ICS. IAIS does not have the legal power to directly mandate IAIGs to report the ICS results during the monitoring period. However, IAIS member supervisors collectively agreed to make participation as large as possible across different jurisdictions and business models, to ensure that the ICS captures risk appropriately. In addition to the feedback from supervisors, the IAIS will consider feedback from stakeholder engagement, a public consultation, and the results of an economic impact assessment, all of which could result in changes to the ICS Version 2.0. In the coming months, IAIS will collectively review the level of IAIG participation and discuss appropriate actions as necessary.
Keywords: International, Americas, US, Insurance, ICS, ICS Version 2, IAIG, Aggregation Method, Capital Adequacy, IAIS
Previous ArticleBoE Updates Version 1.1.0 of Taxonomy for Form AS and Form FV
BIS Innovation Hub published the work program for 2021, with focus on suptech and regtech, next-generation financial market infrastructure, central bank digital currencies, open finance, green finance, and cyber security.
In an article published by SRB, Mairead McGuinness, the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability, and Capital Markets Union, discussed the progress and next steps toward completion of the Banking Union.
EBA finalized the two sets of draft regulatory technical standards on the identification of material risk-takers and on the classes of instruments used for remuneration under the Investment Firms Directive (IFD).
EC published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a notification that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has published a special report on resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism.
BoE published a scenario against which it will be stress testing banks in 2021, in addition to setting out the key elements of the 2021 stress test, guidance on the 2021 stress test, and the variable paths for the 2021 stress test.
PRA published a consultation paper (CP3/21) proposes rules regarding the timing of identity verification required for eligibility of depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
FSB published the work program for 2021, which reflects a strategic shift in priorities in the COVID-19 environment.
FCA announced that 50% firms have started using the new data collection platform RegData, which is slated to replace the existing platform known Gabriel.
Bundesbank published Version 5.0 of the derivation rules for completeness check at the form level, with respect to the data quality of the European harmonized reporting system.
FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.