Featured Product

    EIOPA Publishes Opinion on Supervision of Remuneration Principles

    April 07, 2020

    EIOPA published an opinion on the supervision of remuneration principles in the insurance and reinsurance sectors in EU. The opinion addresses how to ensure consistent practices in application of the remuneration principles included in Solvency II and offers guidance to national supervisory authorities on how to challenge the application of certain principles. EIOPA also published a feedback statement on the comments received on the opinion. EIOPA will start monitoring the application of this opinion by the supervisory authorities two years after its publication. Supervisory authorities should collect qualitative and quantitative data, enabling them to perform supervisory review of the remuneration principles in accordance with this opinion. Instruments for data collection might be either the regular supervisory reporting or a specific request.

    EIOPA delivered this opinion on the basis of Solvency II Directive and the Commission Delegated Regulation in line with the relevant provisions of Directive 2017/828/EC on remuneration. While the Solvency II framework provides for provisions of remuneration for sound and prudent management, the remuneration principles defined in the Delegated Regulation are high-level and leave considerable discretion to undertakings and supervisory authorities. To promote a proportionate approach, the opinion focuses on the staff members identified as potential higher profile risk-takers, including those whose annual variable remuneration exceeds EUR 50,000 and represents more than one-third of the total annual remuneration. These include administrative, management, and supervisory body members, other executive directors who effectively run the undertaking, key function holders as defined in the EIOPA Guidelines on System of Governance, and categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the undertakings' risk profile. Among others, the opinion states the following:

    • Where remuneration schemes have fixed and variable components, these components should be in such a proportion that the employees do not become overly dependent on the variable components.
    • When assessing the adequacy of the deferral period with regard to the nature of the undertakings’ business, its risks, and the activities of the employees in question, supervisory authorities should keep in mind that undertakings have different deferral periods depending on the risks they enter into and that deferral period may or may not vary depending on the categories of staff.
    • Where variable remuneration is performance-related, the total amount of variable remuneration has to be based on a combination of the assessment of the individual’s performance, the performance of the business unit concerned, and the overall result of the undertaking or group to which the undertaking belongs.
    • Financial and non-financial criteria should be appropriately balanced. For instance, where the criteria is 80% financial and 20% non-financial, supervisory authorities may come to the conclusion that the assessment framework is not appropriately balanced.
    • For the supervisory dialog with undertakings, supervisory authorities should consider, as part of the term downward adjustment, all kind of adjustments—for example, malus clawback and in-year adjustments.
    • The supervisory assessment of the undertakings’ remuneration policies should cover the policy for the possible use of termination payments, which should contain guidance of the maximum payment or the criteria for determining the amount of the payment.

    For members of the administrative, management, and supervisory body and the most highly paid employees of global systemically important undertakings, besides the guidance provided in this opinion, supervisory authorities should take into account the FSB Principles and Standards for sound compensation practices if these principles and standards apply in the respective jurisdiction. The benchmarks or thresholds included in this opinion should be considered for supervisory dialog and not as hard targets for the practical implementation of the remuneration principles. These indicative benchmarks or thresholds do not in any way restrict the supervisory authorities from having stricter practices—that is, lower benchmarks or thresholds—to trigger a supervisory dialog with undertakings if it is deemed appropriate based on a risk-based approach. In this context, supervisory authorities may also adopt a proportionate and more flexible approach in the supervision of the remuneration principles when undertakings are categorized as low risk, including the design of the remuneration policy.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: Europe, EU, Insurance, Solvency II, Remuneration Principles, Reporting, FSB, EIOPA

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    EBA Clarifies Use of COVID-19-Impacted Data for IRB Credit Risk Models

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) published four draft principles to support supervisory efforts in assessing the representativeness of COVID-19-impacted data for banks using the internal ratings based (IRB) credit risk models.

    June 21, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EP Reaches Agreement on Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive

    The European Council and the European Parliament (EP) reached a provisional political agreement on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

    June 21, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Consults on Model Risk Management Principles for Banks

    The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched a consultation (CP6/22) that sets out proposal for a new Supervisory Statement on expectations for management of model risk by banks.

    June 21, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Regulation Amends Standards for Calculating Credit Risk Adjustments

    The European Commission (EC) published the Delegated Regulation 2022/954, which amends regulatory technical standards on specification of the calculation of specific and general credit risk adjustments.

    June 21, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS Hub Updates Work Program for 2022, Announces New Projects

    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub updated its work program, announcing a set of projects across various centers.

    June 17, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA Issues Cyber Underwriting Proposal, Statement on Open Insurance

    The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published two consultation papers—one on the supervisory statement on exclusions related to systemic events and the other on the supervisory statement on the management of non-affirmative cyber exposures.

    June 17, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Senate Members Seek Details on SEC Proposed Climate Disclosure Rule

    Certain members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs issued a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

    June 16, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA Consults on Review of Securitization Framework in Solvency II

    The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published a consultation paper on the advice on the review of the securitization prudential framework in Solvency II.

    June 16, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    UK Authorities Issue Regulatory and Reporting Updates for Banks

    The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) issued a statement on PRA buffer adjustment while the Bank of England (BoE) published a notice on the statistical reporting requirements for banks.

    June 15, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BCBS Issues Climate Risk Principles while HKMA Expresses Its Support

    The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) issued principles for the effective management and supervision of climate-related financial risks.

    June 15, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 8280