EIOPA published the findings of a peer review on the Regular Supervisory Report. The peer review examined how and, to what extent, the proportionate approach set out under the Delegated Regulation 2015/35, which supplements Solvency II Directive, has been implemented among national competent authorities. EIOPA suggested a number of recommended actions that the national competent authorities should take to bring about greater convergence in their approaches and a more consistent implementation of the principle of proportionality. National competent authorities are expected to have implemented the recommended actions targeting supervisory shortcomings by 2022.
In the peer review, EIOPA analyzed the legal and regulatory frameworks, along with the national supervisory practices, across 31 national competent authorities. The reference period for the peer review was from the entry into force of Solvency II to the end of March 2019. Given that the reference period for this peer review concluded before January 31, 2020, the UK PRA also participated in full and its results are included in the report. EIOPA issued 51 recommended actions, addressed to national competent authorities in 26 countries. A full list of the recommended actions and countries to which they have been issued can be found in Annex IV of the report on findings of peer review. The recommended actions can be grouped into four categories:
- Proportionality—EIOPA issued 36 recommended actions in the area of proportionality. Most of the recommended actions in this area relate to achieving a more appropriate implementation of the principle of proportionality by requiring submission of the Regular Supervisory Report more frequently than the minimum of every three years. These recommended actions involve either a change to the local legislation or the adoption of an internal policy to accelerate the process of introducing different frequencies of submission of the full Regular Supervisory Report. Some of these recommended actions relate to the use of a risk-based approach when deciding on the different frequencies of submission of the Regular Supervisory Report, in particular when there is a lack of any IT or risk assessment system underpinning decision-making.
- Communication of material changes—EIOPA issued nine recommended actions in this area. To enhance the effectiveness of supervision, recommended actions have been issued to all of the national competent authorities that do not require undertakings to submit a formal notification of "no material change" to ensure that in future they do so.
- Communication of the decision—Three recommended actions have been issued in this category. The recommended actions have been issued to national competent authorities that are group supervisors and that do not collect information on and do not communicate the frequency of submission of the Regular Supervisory Report to ensure that in future they do so.
- Country-specific recommended actions—EIOPA has issued four country-specific recommended actions. Some recommended actions were issued to France, Luxembourg, Malta, and Poland to address specificities observed in individual countries’ practices.
EIOPA has concluded, based on the issues observed in several countries in relation to proportionality in setting the frequency of submission of the Regular Supervisory Report, that the Solvency II legislation needs to be further clarified. As a result of the findings of the peer review, EIOPA will take the following actions:
- Introduce supervisory guidance by keeping the minimum requirement for submission of the full Regular Supervisory Report as once every three years but requiring a mandatory assessment by national competent authorities and communication of the frequency of the Regular Supervisory Report.
- Include in its guidelines or supervisory handbook guidance on issuing exemptions from annual or biennial submission of the full Regular Supervisory Report based on a list of events that are specific to the undertaking (e.g. mergers/acquisitions).
- Develop further guidance in relation to the communication to the group supervisor and college in the context of Guideline 23, paragraph 1.58, of the EIOPA guidelines on supervisory review process, by either updating this guideline or including this aspect in the supervisory handbook.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Insurance, Solvency II, Regular Supervisory Report, Peer Review, Proportionality, Supervisory Practices, EIOPA
Previous ArticleEBA Revises Technical Standards on Passport Notifications
ECB published Guideline 2021/975, which amends Guideline ECB/2014/31, on the additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral.
EIOPA published a report, from the Consultative Expert Group on Digital Ethics, that sets out artificial intelligence governance principles for an ethical and trustworthy artificial intelligence in the insurance sector in EU.
HKMA published the seventh and final issue of the Regtech Watch series, which outlines the three-year roadmap of HKMA to integrate supervisory technology, or suptech, into its processes.
EC launched a targeted consultation to improve transparency and efficiency in the secondary markets for nonperforming loans (NPLs).
BIS, Danmarks Nationalbank, Central Bank of Iceland, Norges Bank, and Sveriges Riksbank launched an Innovation Hub in Stockholm, making this the fifth BIS Innovation Hub Center to be opened in the past two years.
FDITECH, the technology lab of FDIC, announced a tech sprint that is designed to explore new technologies and techniques that would help expand the capabilities of community banks to meet the needs of unbanked individuals and households.
EC released the EU Taxonomy Compass, which visually represents the contents of the EU Taxonomy starting with the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act.
FDIC is seeking comments on a rule to amend the interagency guidelines for real estate lending policies—also known as the Real Estate Lending Standards.
EIOPA published its annual report, which sets out the work done in 2020 and indicates the planned work areas for the coming months.
The ESRB paper that presents an analytical framework that assesses and quantifies the potential impact of a bank failure on the real economy through the lending function.