EIOPA published a peer review report assessing how national competent authorities supervise and determine whether an insurer's setting of key functions fulfills the legal requirements of Solvency II, with an emphasis on proportionality. The report includes findings from a comparative analysis of the key functions, identifies best practices and, presents an overview of recommended actions addressed to the national competent authorities and EIOPA.
The peer review examines the practices regarding the following:
- Combining key functions under one holder
- Combining key functions with administrative, management, or supervisory body (AMSB) membership or with carrying out operational tasks
- Subordination of one key function under another key function
- Split of one key function among several holders
- Assessment of the fitness of key function holders
- Outsourcing of key functions
The review finds that the national competent authorities have adopted similar approaches in assessing how insurers manage key functions and applied the principle of proportionality in their assessment. Four best practices have been identified, providing guidance to the national competent authorities for a more systematic approach on the principle of proportionality and ensuring consistent and effective supervisory approaches. Additionally, the report identifies certain weaknesses and presents the resulting recommendations for the national competent authorities. It was found that certain national competent authorities had not yet assessed key functions according to the Solvency II requirements. Other national competent authorities had weaknesses regarding the depth assessment and mitigating measures demanded from insurers—for example, in cases where combinations exist.
The areas of recommended actions have been linked with the supervisory approach of national competent authorities, the different combinations of key function holders including the internal audit function and AMSB membership, and the fitness of the key function holders and outsourcing. Consequent to this peer review, many national competent authorities have already undertaken actions to improve supervisory practices. These improvements will be taken into consideration in the follow-up to this review. The period examined under the scope of this peer review was 2016 but also covered supervisory practices executed before 2016 in the preparatory stage of Solvency II. The peer review was conducted among national competent authorities from the European Economic Area on the basis of the EIOPA Methodology for conducting Peer Reviews.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Insurance, Solvency II, Peer Review, Supervisory Practices, Proportionality, EIOPA
Previous ArticleACPR Publishes Draft Version of LCB-FT Taxonomy for Reporting
HKMA is consulting on revisions to the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
PRA provided further information on the application of regulatory capital and IFRS 9 requirements to payment holidays granted or extended to address the challenges arising from COVID-19 outbreak.
HKMA announced the publication of a report on fintech adoption and innovation in the banking industry in Hong Kong.
BIS published a working paper that examines the drivers of cyber risk, especially in context of the cloud services.
ECB launched consultation on a guide specifying how the Banking Supervision expects banks to consider climate-related and environmental risks in their governance and risk management frameworks and when formulating and implementing their business strategy.
ECB published an opinion (CON/2020/16) on amendments to the prudential framework in EU in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
EBA published a report that examines the interlinkages between recovery and resolution planning under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD).
SRB published the final Minimum Requirements for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) policy under the Banking Package.
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) published a final rule that makes technical changes to the March 31, 2020 interim final rule that provides a five-year transition period for the impact of the current expected credit loss (CECL) methodology on regulatory capital.
ECB published results of the March 2020 survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets.