NBB published a presentation on the results of the 2019 stress tests on insurance undertakings. Also published was the data on the seven Belgian insurance companies that have participated in all parts of the NBB insurance stress test for 2019. Overall, the results of the exercise reveal that the largest Belgian insurance companies are resilient toward increases in Belgian sovereign bond (OLO) spread. Most insurers have risk mitigation techniques in place to mitigate some of the impact (spread lock derivatives, retaining foreseeable dividends).
In 2019, a significant part of the Belgian insurance sector was subject to a stress test consisting of two scenarios. The first scenario (Belgian Adverse) assessed the impact of a repricing of the Belgian sovereign debt on the solvency positions of insurers. The Belgian Adverse scenario consisted of three parts: 100 basis points increase of the OLO spread; 200 basis points increase of the OLO spread; and the Reverse stress, whereby the insurer has to determine the OLO spread increase at which its solvency ratio drops below 100%. The second scenario (Low Yield) assessed the impact of a continued decline in the risk-free rates on the solvency positions of insurers. The aim of the stress test was to assess the impact of OLO spread increase on the solvency of the largest Belgian insurers and to assess the functioning of the volatility adjustment mechanism, should an idiosyncratic OLO spread increase occur.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Belgium, Insurance, Stress Testing, Adverse Scenario, Low Yield Scenario, Volatility Adjustment, Belgian Sovereign Bond, OLO, NBB
Previous ArticleEBA Issues Opinion on Implementation of Deposit Guarantee Directive
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