PRA Letter Shares Insights from Supervisory Review of Solvency II Data
PRA issued a letter to chief risk officers of general insurance firms, setting out insights from its supervisory review work. The letter focuses on reserving and exposure management, including some observations on uncertainty in light of the COVID-19 crisis. PRA believes that the insights will be useful as firms prepare for the year-end reserving exercise and plan for the 2021 underwriting year. PRA expects the board and reserving committee to reflect the observations presented in this letter appropriately and explicitly as part of setting the year-end Solvency II and booked reserves.
In the letter, PRA highlights that two of the areas of concern—bias in reserve estimates and possible weakening in case reserve estimates—persist in the analysis of the latest Solvency II reporting as at year-end 2019. The analysis indicates that reserving assumptions may have weakened over time, while data show that the claims experience continues to deteriorate. The board is encouraged to satisfy itself that the key assumptions related to the rate of future claims development remain appropriate, that the case reserving has not weakened over time, and that there is no unjustified anchoring to optimistic business plan loss ratios. In addition, PRA notes that COVID-19 has given rise to additional complexity and uncertainty in estimating ultimate losses, which has been grouped into four key areas:
- Data—A number of firms have not been able to accurately identify and track COVID-19 exposed policies. Firms should ensure that this uncertainty is reflected in the reserve estimates and that, where possible, appropriate procedures are put in place to identify and track exposed policies.
- Discontinuities in historical trends—A number of firms’ estimates for COVID-19 losses on casualty classes may be optimistic. Consequently, PRA encourages firms to make sufficient allowance for the uncertainty related to both the direct impact of COVID losses as well as the indirect impacts on claims arising from the downturn in the wider economy.
- Appropriateness of common reserving methodologies—Given that the historical claims experience may not be a good guide for estimating future COVID-19 losses, alternative approaches such as the use of benchmarking and exposure-based analyses will be particularly useful to consider alongside more common reserving methodologies.
- Reinsurance adequacy—Where there is a material reliance on reinsurance to protect against losses, be it intragroup or third party, PRA encourages the board to satisfy itself that those arrangements are adequate. It would be prudent to stress-test the assumptions related to reinsurance recoveries to understand the impact of reinsurance not responding as expected, and then to ensure sufficient allowance is made for this uncertainty when setting reserves.
With respect to the exposure management frameworks across market, PRA has observed that the frameworks for non-property classes of business are less mature than for property classes. Another observation is that the state of man-made catastrophe risk assessment remains significantly behind that of the natural catastrophe risk assessment. Firms can expect PRA to increase its focus on firms that are materially exposed to man-made catastrophe risk and where progress toward better practice remains slow. In the letter, PRA is also encouraging firms to actively consider whether current risk and capital management frameworks—including current stress and scenario testing—sufficiently address the risks posed by contract uncertainty and unintended exposures. It may be useful to consider the identification, definition, and monitoring of all risk related to contract wording, including any key assumptions related to expected coverage. This includes the risk related to reinsurance contract wordings where coverage may not fully align with all assumed perils or events detailed in the underlying insurance contracts.
Related Link: Letter
Keywords: Europe, UK, Insurance, Reinsurance, COVID-19, Reserving, Exposure Management, Solvency II, Reporting, Benchmarking, Stress Testing, PRA
Featured Experts
Laurent Birade
Advises U.S. and Canadian financial institutions on risk and finance integration, CCAR/DFAST stress testing, IFRS9 and CECL credit loss reserving, and credit risk practices.
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Nicolas Degruson
Works with financial institutions, regulatory experts, business analysts, product managers, and software engineers to drive regulatory solutions across the globe.
Previous Article
SRB Publishes MREL Dashboard for Second Quarter of 2020Related Articles
BIS and Central Banks Experiment with GenAI to Assess Climate Risks
A recent report from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub details Project Gaia, a collaboration between the BIS Innovation Hub Eurosystem Center and certain central banks in Europe
Nearly 25% G-SIBs Commit to Adopting TNFD Nature-Related Disclosures
Nature-related risks are increasing in severity and frequency, affecting businesses, capital providers, financial systems, and economies.
Singapore to Mandate Climate Disclosures from FY2025
Singapore recently took a significant step toward turning climate ambition into action, with the introduction of mandatory climate-related disclosures for listed and large non-listed companies
SEC Finalizes Climate-Related Disclosures Rule
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has finalized the long-awaited rule that mandates climate-related disclosures for domestic and foreign publicly listed companies in the U.S.
EBA Proposes Standards Related to Standardized Credit Risk Approach
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has been taking significant steps toward implementing the Basel III framework and strengthening the regulatory framework for credit institutions in the EU
US Regulators Release Stress Test Scenarios for Banks
The U.S. regulators recently released baseline and severely adverse scenarios, along with other details, for stress testing the banks in 2024. The relevant U.S. banking regulators are the Federal Reserve Bank (FED), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
Asian Governments Aim for Interoperability in AI Governance Frameworks
The regulatory landscape for artificial intelligence (AI), including the generative kind, is evolving rapidly, with governments and regulators aiming to address the challenges and opportunities presented by this transformative technology.
EBA Proposes Operational Risk Standards Under Final Basel III Package
The European Union (EU) has been working on the final elements of Basel III standards, with endorsement of the Banking Package and the publication of the European Banking Authority (EBA) roadmap on Basel III implementation in December 2023.
EFRAG Proposes XBRL Taxonomy and Standard for Listed SMEs Under ESRS
The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), which plays a crucial role in shaping corporate reporting standards in European Union (EU), is seeking comments, until May 21, 2024, on the Exposure Draft ESRS for listed SMEs.
ECB to Expand Climate Change Work in 2024-2025
Banking regulators worldwide are increasingly focusing on addressing, monitoring, and supervising the institutions' exposure to climate and environmental risks.