FSI published a paper on proportionality in the application of insurance solvency requirements. This paper is based on a survey of 16 insurance authorities, of which eight have adopted a proportionate approach, thus allowing certain insurers to apply simplified regulatory requirements. The paper describes how the authorities identify insurers that are eligible for simplified solvency rules and also provides specific examples. This analysis provides insights on the key issues that the relevant authorities may need to consider in adopting a proportionate approach to the application of solvency requirements.
The paper notes that insurance authorities have increasingly been taking a risk-based approach to prudential regulation and supervision, since the 1990s. In the process, the complexity of solvency requirements has increased significantly. Against this backdrop, some jurisdictions have taken a proportionate approach in applying such requirements. Under this type of regime, smaller or less complex insurers are eligible for simplified solvency rules, provided that the core prudential objectives of protecting policyholders' interests and maintaining financial stability are not compromised.
To develop a sound proportionate solvency framework, insurance regulators need to consider several critical issues. These include the extent to which simplified regulatory requirements may weaken incentives for insurers to manage their business properly, the trade-off between simplification and risk-sensitivity, and the absolute minimum level of complexity that may be needed to achieve prudential objectives. In addition, insurers should not be able to cherry-pick between the standard and proportionate requirements.
Keywords: International, Insurance, Solvency Requirements, Proportionality, Regulatory Requirements, Solvency II, FSI
Previous ArticleIMF Reports Assess the Stability of Financial System in Brazil
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
FED is proposing to temporarily revise the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M) to implement the changes necessary to conduct stressed analysis in connection with the re-submission of capital plans, using data as of June 30, 2020.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the information collection under the market risk capital rule (FR 4201; OMB No. 7100-0314).
EBA published a voluntary online survey seeking input from credit institutions on their practices and future plans for Pillar 3 disclosures on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks.