EC published report on the application of Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC) on the taking and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance with regard to group supervision and capital management within a group of insurance or reinsurance undertakings. This report identifies issues and assesses the benefit of enhancing group supervision and capital management within a group of insurance or reinsurance undertakings, as required under Article 242(2) of the Solvency II Directive. EC has invited EIOPA to provide, by June 30, 2020, technical advice on the issues identified in this report as well as other related issues that may be detrimental to policyholder protection, as part of the 2020 review of the Solvency II Directive. Unless stated otherwise, the report uses data up to the end of 2017, covering the 28 member states of EU.
Overall, the prudential framework of group supervision is proving to be robust, laying emphasis on capital management and governance and allowing for a better understanding and monitoring of risks at the group level. However, some areas of the framework may not ensure a harmonized implementation of rules by groups and national supervisory authorities, with potential impact on the level playing field and on capital management strategies. The report highlights that the diverging implementations of Solvency II on group supervision may be detrimental to policyholder protection, depending on how national supervisory authorities determine the scope of supervision and exercise supervision at the level of parent holding companies. In addition, in light of the wide differences between the supervisory powers of the different national supervisory authorities, it is necessary to assess the appropriateness of the powers of early intervention embedded in Solvency II.
The report identifies a number of legal uncertainties and diverging supervisory practices that can have a significant impact on group solvency. These concern the group own funds, the group Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), and group Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR). The use of group internal models may raise additional issues. First, a different implementation of the same internal model at solo level and at group level on key aspects such as the dynamic volatility adjustment can affect group risk management. In addition, the use by a group of a partial internal model could generate regulatory arbitrage regarding the way to integrate in the group solvency the entities out of the scope of the model. The report illustrates the wide margin of interpretations regarding the provisions on group governance. With regard to Pillar 3 requirements, the definition and scope of intra-group transactions to be reported is considered by EIOPA and national supervisory authorities as insufficiently clear and exhaustive. However, there are divergent views among supervisors regarding the appropriate level of harmonization of the reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentrations as well as of the quantification of diversification effects.
The report also provides a brief overview of developments in the fields of mediation of supervisory disputes and insurance guarantee schemes (IGS), which are not directly related to group supervision. The widely fragmented landscape of the insurance guarantee schemes in Europe can affect policyholder protection. EIOPA is further investigating the need for potential moves toward harmonization of the insurance guarantee schemes, following a discussion paper it published in 2018. The report has identified a number of important issues that may need to be addressed, potentially including via legislative changes. However, further analysis is needed on the impact of those potential changes in the rules. Therefore, EC deems it appropriate to include group supervision in the scope of the general review in 2020 of the Solvency II Directive.
Related Link: Report (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Insurance, Solvency II, Group Supervision, Reinsurance, Reinsurance, SCR, MCR, Internal Models, Pillar 3, Solvency II Review, Call for Advice, EIOPA, EC
Previous ArticleDubai FSA Updates Several Modules of Its Rulebook
BIS published a paper that provides an overview on the use of big data and machine learning in the central bank community.
APRA finalized the reporting standard ARS 115.0 on capital adequacy with respect to the standardized measurement approach to operational risk for authorized deposit-taking institutions in Australia.
ECB published a guide that outlines the principles and methods for calculating the penalties for regulatory breaches of prudential requirements by banks.
MAS and The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) jointly issued a paper that sets out good practices for the management of operational and other risks stemming from new work arrangements adopted by financial institutions amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACPR announced that a new data collection application, called DLPP (Datalake for Prudential), for collecting banking and insurance prudential data will go into production on April 12, 2021.
BCB announced that the Financial Stability Committee decided to maintain the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) for Brazil at 0%, at least until the end of 2021.
EIOPA has launched a European-wide comparative study on non-life underwriting risk in internal models, also kicking-off of the data collection phase.
SRB published an overview of the resolution tools available in the Banking Union and their impact on a bank’s ability to maintain continuity of access to financial market infrastructure services in resolution.
EBA is consulting on the implementing technical standards for Pillar 3 disclosures on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks, as set out in requirements under Article 449a of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
ESAs Issue Advice on KPIs on Sustainability for Nonfinancial Reporting