The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that examines the regulatory approaches being used for climate risk assessment in the insurance sector, in particular through enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworks. The paper describes how some supervisory authorities have undertaken climate risk assessment exercises, focusing on the stress test and the scenario analysis approaches. The paper finds that risk-quantification techniques and models that consider climate risks are more advanced for physical risks, but are still at an early stage for transition and liability risks. Other key policy issues that require consideration include the impact of climate risks on access and affordability of insurance products and the potential use of capital requirements to address climate risks.
Although efforts have been made by insurance supervisors and insurers in some jurisdictions to better understand climate risks, further efforts are needed. This paper covers climate risk assessment from both regulatory and supervisory perspectives. Based primarily on a survey of 18 insurance authorities, the paper describes the range of regulatory approaches that specify how insurers are expected to assess their climate risk exposures and techniques that supervisors can use to conduct their own assessment of climate risks. Using tools such as stress testing and scenario analysis, supervisors can take steps to better understand how climate risk could impact the financial and solvency position of insurers as well as the financial system.
The paper highlights that undertaking climate risk modeling and the associated governance processes can facilitate helpful discussion on risk strategy within an insurer, which some may argue as being more important than the numerical results from the models. Although, at present, few authorities undertake supervisory or system-wide stress tests that explicitly cover climate risk, supervisors appear to have a growing interest in including climate-related events in such exercises. Despite technical and operational challenges in undertaking climate risk assessment by insurers and supervisors, it is important to take the first step while recognizing that initial efforts will not be perfect. It remains unclear if capital adequacy requirements are appropriate to address climate risk exposures of insurers. Climate risk scenario analyses or stress tests undertaken by supervisors are not aimed at determining any capital buffers that might be required against longer-term climate risk exposures. Rather, they are used as a learning tool to help insurers prepare themselves for potential future climate scenarios.
As climate risk quantification techniques mature and insurer risk assessment becomes more accurate, certain policy issues will need to be carefully considered. Looking ahead, there is room to enhance international cooperation among insurance supervisors and other climate-related forums to improve understanding of climate risks and their potential impact on insurers, policyholders, and financial stability. Such initiatives can build on the work done by IAIS, the Sustainable Insurance Forum, and the Network for Greening the Financial System. Supervisors can enhance their technical expertise by taking advantage of the capacity building efforts offered by various international bodies.
Related Link: Paper
Keywords: International, Insurance, Stress Testing, Capital Requirements, Governance, ERM, Physical Risks, Transition Risks, Climate Change Risks, FSI, BIS
FCA and PRA in the UK, FED in the US, and the authorities in Singapore have fined Goldman Sachs for risk management failures in connection with the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
BCBS announced that OSFI and the Bank of Canada hosted the 21st International Conference of Banking Supervisors (ICBS) virtually on October 19-22, 2020.
FCA proposed guidance on how firms should continue to seek to help customers who hold insurance and premium finance products and may be in financial difficulty because of COVID-19, after October 31, 2020.
EBA issued an opinion on prudential treatment of the legacy instruments as the grandfathering period nears an end on December 31, 2021.
ESRB published the fifth issue of the EU Non-bank Financial Intermediation Risk Monitor 2020 (NBFI Monitor).
HM Treasury announced that the new Financial Services Bill has been introduced in the Parliament.
APRA announced that it has increased the minimum liquidity requirement of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank for failing to comply with the prudential standard on liquidity.
PRA published the consultation paper CP17/20 to propose changes to certain rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).
US Agencies adopted a final rule that applies to advanced approaches banking organizations and aims to reduce interconnectedness in the financial system as well as to reduce contagion risks associated with the failure of a global systemically important bank (G-SIB).
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) adopted a final rule that implements the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) for certain large banking organizations.