NBB published a presentation on the results of the 2019 stress tests on insurance undertakings. Also published was the data on the seven Belgian insurance companies that have participated in all parts of the NBB insurance stress test for 2019. Overall, the results of the exercise reveal that the largest Belgian insurance companies are resilient toward increases in Belgian sovereign bond (OLO) spread. Most insurers have risk mitigation techniques in place to mitigate some of the impact (spread lock derivatives, retaining foreseeable dividends).
In 2019, a significant part of the Belgian insurance sector was subject to a stress test consisting of two scenarios. The first scenario (Belgian Adverse) assessed the impact of a repricing of the Belgian sovereign debt on the solvency positions of insurers. The Belgian Adverse scenario consisted of three parts: 100 basis points increase of the OLO spread; 200 basis points increase of the OLO spread; and the Reverse stress, whereby the insurer has to determine the OLO spread increase at which its solvency ratio drops below 100%. The second scenario (Low Yield) assessed the impact of a continued decline in the risk-free rates on the solvency positions of insurers. The aim of the stress test was to assess the impact of OLO spread increase on the solvency of the largest Belgian insurers and to assess the functioning of the volatility adjustment mechanism, should an idiosyncratic OLO spread increase occur.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Belgium, Insurance, Stress Testing, Adverse Scenario, Low Yield Scenario, Volatility Adjustment, Belgian Sovereign Bond, OLO, NBB
Previous ArticleEBA Issues Opinion on Implementation of Deposit Guarantee Directive
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.