IAIS published an application paper on liquidity risk management for insurers. As part of the holistic framework for systemic risk in the insurance sector, IAIS enhanced the enterprise risk management requirements in ICP 16 to more explicitly address liquidity risk. The paper provides guidance on supervisory material related to liquidity risk management in the Insurance Core Principles (ICPs) and ComFrame. The guidance relates to the material in ICP standards 16.8 and 16.9 (ICP 16 on enterprise risk management for solvency purposes) and ComFrame 16.9.a–16.9.d.
The key topics covered in the paper include governance, liquidity risk identification, liquidity stress testing, liquidity shortfalls in stress, contingency funding plan, liquidity risk management report, and supervisory review and reporting. The paper includes guidance and examples on the following:
- Considerations on applying liquidity risk management measures in a proportionate way and the ways that supervisors may tailor requirements
- Detailed components of the four elements for “more detailed risk management processes” in ICP standard 16.9: liquidity stress testing, maintenance of a portfolio of unencumbered highly liquid assets, a contingency funding plan, and the submission of a liquidity risk management report to the supervisor
- Integration of liquidity risk into the enterprise risk management framework for insurers, as described in ICP Standard 16.8, including recommendations for governance
The paper specifies that an insurer should report regularly to the supervisor on its liquidity management and planning. Moreover, an Internationally Active Insurance Group should be required to report this annually or more frequently in the event of material changes to its liquidity plan or liquidity risk profile. The report and other related information may be shared within the insurer’s supervisory college, where relevant. The insurer should ensure consistency between its liquidity risk management report and all other required supervisory documents, such as recovery and resolution plans or Own Risk and Solvency Assessments (ORSAs). However, to the extent that elements of the report are incorporated in other material, the supervisor may allow an insurer to satisfy the reporting requirement by reference to those other risk management materials and/or the ORSA. The application paper should be read in the context of the proportionality principle, which acknowledges the flexibility among supervisors to tailor the application of supervisory requirements to achieve the outcomes stipulated in the principle statements and standards.
Keywords: International, Insurance, ICP 16, ComFrame, Proportionality, Stress Testing, Governance, Liquidity Risk, Enterprise Risk Management, Reporting, IAIS
Previous ArticleESMA Responds to EC Consultation on Digital Finance Strategy
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.
MAS published the guidelines on individual accountability and conduct at financial institutions.
APRA published final versions of the prudential standard APS 220 on credit quality and the reporting standard ARS 923.2 on repayment deferrals.
SRB published two articles, with one article discussing the framework in place to safeguard financial stability amid crisis and the other article outlining the path to a harmonized and predictable liquidation regime.
FSB hosted a virtual workshop as part of the consultation process for its evaluation of the too-big-to-fail reforms.
ECB updated the list of supervised entities in EU, with the number of significant supervised entities being 115.
OSFI published the key findings of a study on third-party risk management.
FSB is extending the implementation timeline, by one year, for the minimum haircut standards for non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions or SFTs.