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 ArticleMAS Consults on Regulatory Approach for Payment Token Derivatives
EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020.
In response to questions from a member of the European Parliament, the ECB President Christine Lagarde issued a letter clarifying the possibility of amending the AnaCredit Regulation and making targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) dependent on the climate-related impact of bank loans.
IASB started the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9 on financial instruments and added the review as a project to its work plan.
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions.
EBA published a report on the benchmarking of national loan enforcement frameworks across 27 EU member states, in response to the call for advice from EC.
FSB published a letter from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, along with two reports exploring various aspects of the market turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 event.
RBNZ launched a consultation on the details for implementing the final Capital Review decisions announced in December 2019.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, which are responsible for the governance and oversight of IASB, have announced the appointment of Dr. Andreas Barckow as the IASB Chair, effective July 2021.
HKMA issued a letter to consult the banking industry on a full set of proposed draft amendments to the Banking (Capital) Rules for implementing the Basel standard on capital requirements for banks’ equity investments in funds in Hong Kong.
ESRB published an opinion assessing the decision of Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) to extend the application period of a stricter measure for residential mortgage lending, in accordance with Article 458 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).