IAIS is consulting on the draft definition of comparable outcomes and the high-level principles to inform the criteria that will be used to assess whether the Aggregation Method provides comparable outcomes to the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS). Following a consideration of the comments received on the draft definition and draft high-level principles, IAIS will develop the draft criteria that will be used to assess whether the Aggregation Method provides comparable outcomes to the ICS. More detailed criteria will be developed for each high-level principle and in such a manner that the Aggregation Method is neither precluded at the outset as an outcome equivalent approach to the ICS for measuring group capital, nor given a free pass. The consultation period on draft definition and high-level principles ends on January 22, 2021.
As defined in the consultation paper, "comparable outcomes to the ICS means that the Aggregation Method would produce similar, but not necessarily identical, results over time that trigger supervisory action on group capital adequacy grounds." Based on this definition, IAIS has developed the draft high-level principles to inform the criteria that will be used to assess whether the Aggregation Method provides comparable outcomes to the ICS. The overarching approach agreed to in November 2019 was used as a basis to develop the following six high-level principles:
- Aggregation Method and ICS results are significantly correlated in that they change similarly in response to the changing economic and financial market conditions over the business cycle, not short-term market fluctuations, although the quantum of change may differ.
- Individual elements of a group solvency approach—that is, valuation, capital resources, and capital requirement—will be analyzed; however, the decision on comparable outcomes will consider the elements in totality.
- Aggregation Method could be more but not less prudent than the ICS, which is being developed as a minimum standard.
- Aggregation Method and ICS use the same scope of the group, consistent with the scope set out in ComFrame.
- A representative sample of Volunteer Groups, covering a diversity of business models, provide both ICS and Aggregation Method data under various economic and financial market conditions over the business cycle.
- Aggregation Method and ICS are similarly transparent, in terms of facilitating understanding and comparability, within and across jurisdictions, of the group solvency position through public disclosure and reporting to group-wide supervisors.
In November 2017, IAIS had set out an agreement on the implementation of ICS Version 2.0, including a unified path to convergence of group capital standards in furtherance of its ultimate goal of a single ICS that achieves comparable outcomes across jurisdictions. The agreement acknowledges the development by the United States of the Aggregation Method to a group capital calculation. In November 2019, IAIS had agreed on a process and timeline for developing criteria to assess whether the Aggregation Method provides comparable outcomes to the ICS. IAIS agreed on a draft definition of comparable outcomes and an overarching approach to guide the development of high-level principles and criteria. Based on the draft definition and overarching approach, IAIS has developed the draft high-level principles to inform the criteria that will be used to assess whether the Aggregation Method provides comparable outcomes to the ICS. This consultation was previously scheduled for mid-2020, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, IAIS has rescheduled the consultation to provide operational relief.
Comment Due Date: January 22, 2021
Keywords: International, Insurance, ICS, ComFrame, Aggregation Method, ICS Version 2, IAIS
Previous ArticleIAIS Consults on Development of Insurance Liquidity Metric
APRA finalized the reporting standard ARS 115.0 on capital adequacy with respect to the standardized measurement approach to operational risk for authorized deposit-taking institutions in Australia.
EBA is consulting on the implementing technical standards for Pillar 3 disclosures on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks, as set out in requirements under Article 449a of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
ESAs Issue Advice on KPIs on Sustainability for Nonfinancial Reporting
EU published Directive 2021/338, which amends the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II and the Capital Requirements Directives (CRD 4 and 5) to facilitate recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.
The EBA Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) tool updates for this month include answers to ten questions.
ESMA updated the set of questions and answers (Q&A), along with the reporting instructions and an XML schema for the templates set out in the technical standards on disclosure requirements, under the Securitization Regulation.
EU published Regulation 2021/337, which amends the Transparency Directive (2004/109/EC), regarding the use of the single electronic reporting format for annual financial reports.
The Standing Committee of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) recommended that a systemic risk buffer level of 4.5% for domestic exposures can be considered appropriate for addressing the identified systemic risks to the stability of the financial system in Norway.
In a recent statement, PRA clarified its approach to the application of certain EU regulatory technical standards and EBA guidelines on standardized and internal ratings-based approaches to credit risk, following the end of the Brexit transition.
In a recently published letter addressed to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, the FSB Chair Randal K. Quarles has set out the key FSB priorities for 2021.