IAIS published a report that provides the aggregate assessment results and observations from the peer review process on the thematic topic of mandate for supervisors and supervisory powers. The peer review process covered the IAIS Insurance Core Principle (ICP) 1 on objectives, powers, and responsibilities of the supervisor and ICP 2 on supervisor. The assessment covers ICPs 1 and 2 that were adopted in October 2011. This report highlights useful practices reported by IAIS members. This report also includes a description of the peer review process (Annex 1), a list of the participating IAIS members (Annex 2) and a list of aggregated ICPs 1 and 2 results by IAIS region (Annex 3). IAIS also published a questionnaire related to the peer review process.
A total of 72 authorities participated in the peer review process. Out of this, 19 responses came from the IAIS members in FSB jurisdictions and 32 responses came from the IAIS members in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) jurisdictions. The results of the peer review process show that general awareness and observance of ICPs 1 and 2 is high. Compared to the last assessment results for ICPs 1 and 2 (a self-assessment and peer review in 2012), IAIS observes a positive trend to a higher level of observance:
- For ICP 1, all 72 members have been assessed as either Observed (42 members) or Largely Observed (30 members). This is a positive trend compared to the self-assessment and peer review of 2012, when only 24 out of the 82 members observed ICP 1. Of the four standards in ICP 1, Standard 1.4 on correction powers in legislation shows the lowest level of observance. Based on answers provided, the IAIS Expert Team feels that jurisdictions may have found this standard difficult to interpret.
- ICP 2 was Observed or Largely Observed by the majority of members (70 members). The IAIS Expert Team notes that only 10 members Observed the standard (14%), 60 members (83%) Largely Observed it, and two members (3%) Partly Observed it. Of the 13 standards in ICP 2, Standard 2.6 (on regular review of procedures and consultation) has the lowest level of observance and Standard 2.11 (on resources) has the second lowest level of observance. The IAIS Expert Team also identified room for improvement in Standards 2.4 (on undue interference), 2.5 (on clear and transparent procedures), and 2.9 (on confidentiality obligations).
In addition to simply assessing compliance, the IAIS Expert Team also approached respondents with additional questions and asked for examples of the implemented supervisory approaches or “useful practices” to gather ideas on which practices helped them reach a good level of observance. The Expert Team was particularly interested in examples of where observance can present challenges. The report includes a synthesis of useful practices for situations where observance can present challenges. These practices provide insights on how IAIS members who participated in the peer review process effectively implement the standards of ICPs 1 and 2. IAIS members may consider the useful practices described in this report as a tool to better understand and effectively implement these standards. As a new element of the peer review process, the information on overall observance levels for ICPs 1 and 2 of each member is also available; however, this information is not publicly available, is confidential, and is disclosed to IAIS members only.
Keywords: International, Insurance, Peer Review Process, ICP 1, ICP 2, Observance of ICP, Insurance Supervision, IAIS
Previous ArticleEIOPA Consults on Guidelines on ICT Security and Governance
The European Commission (EC) published a public consultation on the review of revised payment services directive (PSD2) and open finance.
The European Commission (EC) has issued two letters mandating the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to jointly propose amendments to the regulatory technical standards under Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation or SFDR.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its annual report on convergence of supervisory practices for 2021. Additionally, following a request from the European Commission (EC),
The Farm Credit Administration published, in the Federal Register, the final rule on implementation of the Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) methodology for allowances
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) looks set to intensify focus on crypto-assets and cyber risk and extended the comment period on the proposed rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced reduction in the aggregate Committed Liquidity Facility and issued an update on the operational preparedness for zero and negative market interest rates.
The Commission for the Financial Market (CMF) in Chile published capital adequacy ratios (as of February 2022, January 2022, and December 2021) for 17 banks and for the banking system.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) issued a statement on the European Banking Authority (EBA) guidelines on management of non-performing exposures (NPEs) and forborne exposures.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) updated the implementing technical standards that specify the data collection for the 2023 supervisory benchmarking exercise in relation to the internal approaches used in market risk, credit risk, and IFRS 9 accounting.
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published a feedback statement on the responses received to the consultation on blockchain and smart contracts in insurance.