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) announced plans to defer the application of 13 regulatory technical standards under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (2019/2088) by six months, from January 01, 2022 to July 01, 2022.
The Bank of England (BoE) published a consultation paper on approach to setting minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), an operational guide on executing bail-in, and a statement from the Deputy Governor Dave Ramsden.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is seeking preliminary input on standardization of the proportionality assessment methodology for credit institutions and investment firms.
Certain regulatory authorities in the US are extending period for completion of the review of certain residential mortgage provisions and for publication of notice disclosing the determination of this review until December 20, 2021.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the policy statement PS18/21, which introduces an amendment in the definition of "higher paid material risk taker" in the Remuneration Part of the PRA Rulebook.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its annual report on asset encumbrance in banking sector.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a methodological guide to mystery shopping.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released a letter to authorized deposit-taking institutions to provide an update on key policy settings for the capital framework reforms, which will come into effect from January 01, 2023.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a report that assesses the business continuity planning activities of financial market infrastructures or FMIs.
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has responded to the IFRS consultation on targeted amendments to the IFRS Foundation constitution to accommodate an International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to set IFRS Sustainability Standards.