BaFin published an "interpretation decision" related to the Solvency II supervisory regime and this decision is addressed to all insurers subject to the Solvency II supervisory regime. The decision makes the clarifications about how insurance companies should examine the appropriateness of the valuation methodology for insurance reserves.
The interpretation decision addresses, inter alia, the notion of "error" used in Article 56 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/35 on Solvency II, which plays a central role in assessing the adequacy of the method. It also highlights the consequences of applying Article 56 to other areas as well as specifics of application for life assurance obligations. Within the Solvency II framework, actuarial provisions must be formed for all insurance obligations to policyholders and beneficiaries. The methods used to calculate the provisions must be appropriate in relation to the nature, extent, and complexity of the risks underlying the insurance obligations. When determining an appropriate method of calculation, undertakings shall carry out an audit in accordance with Article 56 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35. In doing so, entities should examine risks of the underlying obligations and assess errors in the results of the method that may result from differences between the underlying assumptions of the method and the risks identified.
Related Links (in German)
Keywords: Europe, Germany, Insurance, Solvency II, Interpretation Decision, Underwriting Provisions, BaFin
Previous ArticleFCA Publishes Feedback on Smarter Digital Regulatory Reporting
EIOPA submitted—to the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and EC—its 2020, fifth, and last annual report on long-term guarantee measures and measures on equity risk.
The BIS Innovation Hub Swiss Centre, SNB, and the financial infrastructure operator SIX announced the successful completion of a joint proof-of-concept (PoC) experiment as part of the Project Helvetia.
EBA published the final draft regulatory technical standards for calculation of own funds requirements for market risk, under the standardized and internal model approaches of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) framework.
EIOPA published discussion paper on a methodology for the potential inclusion of climate change in the Solvency II (sometimes also written as SII) standard formula when calculating natural catastrophe underwriting risk.
EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, corrigenda to the Directive and the Regulation on the prudential requirements and supervision of investment firms.
MAS proposed amendments to certain regulations, notices, and guidelines arising from the Banking (Amendment) Act 2020.
PRA published a statement that explains when to expect further information on the PRA approach to transposing the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5), including its approach to revisions to the definition of capital for Pillar 2A.
RBNZ launched consultations on the scope of the Insurance Prudential Supervision Act (IPSA) 2010 and on the associated Insurance Solvency Standards.
SRB published the work program for 2021-2023, setting out a roadmap to further operationalize the Single Resolution Fund and to achieve robust resolvability of banks under its remit over the next three years.
EIOPA is consulting on the relevant ratios to be mandatorily disclosed by insurers and reinsurers falling within the scope of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive as well as on the methodologies to build these ratios.