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 Bank of England (BoE) published the Statistical Notice 2021/09 requiring additional information from firms and software vendors to assist in the onboarding and testing phases for migrating statistical reporting to the BEEDS portal.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the final rules on the Investment Firms Prudential Regime (IFPR) to streamline and simplify the prudential requirements for solo-regulated UK firms authorized under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).
The working groups of the Climate Financial Risk Forum (CFRF) published a second round of guides (or Session 2 guides), written by the industry for the industry, to help financial firms manage climate-related financial risks.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the final Policy Statement PS24/21 that contains the new Non-Performing Exposures Securitization Part of the PRA Rulebook and an updated Supervisory Statement SS10/18 on the general requirements and capital framework with respect to securitizations.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published version 5.1 of the filing rules for supervisory reporting.
The European Central Bank (ECB) Guideline 2021/1829 on the procedures for the collection of granular credit and credit risk data has been published in the Official Journal of European Union.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final draft regulatory technical standards on disclosure of investment policy by investment firms, under the Investment Firms Regulation (IFR).
The European Council adopted conclusions inviting the European Union (EU) and the member states to further develop the cybersecurity crisis management framework.
The European Commission (EC) adopted the work program for 2022.