Tuesday, 8 November 2011

ORSA Consultation Paper from EIOPA - bon effort!

As I don't expect everyone had the time, inclination or even the document to see how the pre-consultation team of CEA/AMICE/CRO Forum/CFO Forum etc got on with the ORSA document, I had a cross-cast of the two to see if any substantive changes were made. The following caught my eye in the public consultation paper released yesterday;
  • Almost complete removal of the participation of the supervisory authorities in ORSA - this is now being left to Supervisory Review Process guidelines (it was shoehorned in to the pre-consultation in a way that made its removal inevitable sadly).
  • ORSA Policy content trimmed down in one respect (removing some actuarial-themed material, which will inevitably end up in the ORSA Report), but added in a section on data quality.
  • Made the section on checking SCR assumptions to make sure they fit one's Risk Profile much more confusing by neglecting to state whether "SCR Calculation" in the paper means "Yours" or "Theirs" - it does eventually come out in the wash that they are talking about any mismatch in reality between the assumptions one uses to generate their SCR (whether internal model, partial model, some USPs or full standard formula) and those which would actually fit the business, but it is a poor piece of drafting.
  • More rigorous on being able to justify frequency of regular ORSAs
  • New section on applying the proportionality principle for methodological complexity, frequency and granularity of ORSA
  • Finally had the courage to write the words "ORSA" and "Report" in the same sentence! This was skilfully avoided in the pre-consultation, I guess to enforce the (still legitimate) fact that ORSA is a process, not a boiler-plate report production job
  • Having removed the pieces on supervisory participation, they naturally had to lose a piece on how the ORSA output would make its way to the regulator. It was planned to put it in with RSR (and was very convoluted), but now there will seemingly be an opportunity (not guaranteed) to put forward the internal ORSA Report to satisfy regulatory obligations
  • More explicit on covering less-than-easily quantifiable risks, and allows for mitigants other than capital to be used in their regard over the business planning period, provided they are not material. I hasten to add here that they have changed the language on reputational and strategic risk from being "less quantifiable" to "non-quantifiable", which is a bit of a cop-out.
  • Much more explicit on capital management, both planning and execution over the business planning period - I guess this is a result of pressure from both the SIFI angle as well as Eurozone/Credit Crunch
  • Leaves an open ended question on whether the ORSA Process includes or uses the outputs of tests which are associated with ongoing compliance with Articles 120-125, but the option is there for both
  • Spectacular typo on page 25 - looks like one of the bullet points has not made the cut, as we jump from A to C!
  • Late Psot Script - missed the omission of the requirement to independently assess the ORSA Process - no doubt everyone's internal audit functions are breathing a sigh of relief!
All in all, a good attempt and I feel more than prescriptive enough for the public consultation to drive it further forward. Perhaps a missed opportunity on the regulatory requirements front to iron out what they ought to get out of the industry's ORSA reports from a wide range of stakeholders, but hey, you can't have everything...

1 comment:

  1. very intresting, good work!