"Dear Deidre" - Cross border insurance flogging under General Good provisions

One for giggles more than anything else. The other day I spotted a response from Lord Hill, the esteemed EC Commissioner for Financial Stability, to a question arising from Deidre Clune, a relatively new Irish member of the European Parliament.

Good question, wrong Deidre...

Specifically, the question related to a Maltese-licenced insurer which hit the skids back in 2014, with the CBoI's summary information here. It seemingly only wrote business in Ireland (hence I suspect it was cheekily named after Ireland's TV sports channel to aid sales!), and therefore left every White Van Man/Woman without cover, until Ireland's Insurance Compensation Fund stepped in.

A few things stood out about this exchange;

• The then prospective MEP used the incident as political currency in the election campaign - "Vote me in, and I'll personally fix the EU insurance industry...", she almost said!
• That Ireland, the log-term epicentre of EU cross-border distribution and birthplace of Quinn (which almost turned over the UK White-Vanners back in 2010), would have the brass to nibble at the hand that feeds it! Only 3 months ago, the CBoI's Sylvia Cronin was warning of a likely "...increase in cross-border activity", and at the same time EIOPA's Sr. Bernadino left a not-too-subtle hint that "In the specific case of the Irish insurance market, special attention needs to be devoted to the fulfilment of the general good provisions of host countries by the companies selling cross-border."
• That it took 6 months to get an answer to Deidre's very basic question (at least according to her first public mention of a response in this media article). It took an extra two months for that answer to be published formally.
• That in that article she was reported to believe that the measures spelled out by Lord Hill were to "...prevent this from happening again" (as opposed to enhance policyholder protection while facilitating orderly failures when they occur, etc etc). To be clear though, that is quoting the article, not the member!

Does anyone think that now, even after EIOPA's efforts to-date, that supervisory colleges will be effective enough to prevent these kind of events, or do we just buy local and hope for the best?

Reactions magazine - CRO Risk Forum - Solvency II and ERM opinion

I covered the last one of these releases from Reactions magazine this time last year on the basis that it had some good all round coverage of ERM and Solvency II from Europe's highest profile risk executives, and again they haven't disappointed.

This recent release again has a veritable Who's Who of European CROs providing their take on a range of matters, so is definitely worth your time. It covers most of today's hot topics, including SIFIs, ERM, Solvency II, ORSA (in US), Internal Modelling and Emerging Risk.

I've taken the following from it;

Hannover Re CRO

• "...experiencing increasing requirements for internal model approval" - strange one this, as they have already converted to a Societas Europaea, potentially driven by a wish to escape a more onerous challenge in this respect from Bafin and the FSA - doesn't therefore sound like that tactic is of much use!
• Their internal model is currently S&P ECM III-approved - detail on the significance of that available here for those not familiar with their methodology etc, but of course a positive review of an ECM will impact both S&P's assessment of a company's ERM framework, as well as the amount of capital required to sustain a particular rating.
• The CRO uses the cost of the Risk Function against the capital savings from an approved model as a demonstration of the function's value - in the absence of a range of alternatives, I guess it's worth a shot.
• As CRO, has a veto of decision making at executive committee level
• Comments in a rather peeved manner that current draft Level 3 proposals insist upon separately staffed and operationally independent compliance, risk and actuarial functions (they appear to have everything balled up into a second line of defence 'risk control unit'  - bit confused by this, but I'm guessing he has seen something behind closed doors, and rightly doesn't appreciate EIOPA determining how a company should be departmentally structured.

SCOR CRO

• The financial crisis "...has shown that the diversification of financial risks disappears in extreme situations"

Kiln CRO

• "Every generation of activity since [Level 1] has produced ever increasing requirements for documentation"
• "We are wallowing in paperwork"
• As with Hannover Re, they cite S&P internal model approval positively against the developing EIOPA/national requirements - only 40 pages required to evidence a standard sufficient for S&P 'model approval'
• They differentiate between Strategic Risk and Emerging Risk, with the latter seen positively as product development opportunities.

KPMG's Solvency II Readiness Survey for CEE - the flaw in EIOPA's plan?

So KPMG released this little gem in the same time period as Solvency II preparedness became something of a moot point!

Drawing in responses from 84 people, with around three-quarters EU-based and 70% under £100m in GWP, the questions were posed in Q2 2012, so with Omnibus II missing the last plenary before summer holidays, the writing was already on the wall - despite that, KPMG reckon most respondees would have been working to a 2014 go-live date. It expands on their 2010 work in this area, where 44% or respondents hadn't got started on their Solvency II projects, so progress on that front would be considered a good start!

I gleaned the following from it;

• 31% not expecting to be "Solvency II compliant" before 2014 - one problem that's gone away then!
• Almost half do not have a risk management function in line with the Directive, with smaller companies the main culprits
• Only 19% (down from 40% in 2010) will be using IM or PIM for SCR calculation. Attributed to the realities of building them as well as Groups rethinking their IMAP strategies over the last few years.
• 62% of companies not even planning an ORSA dry run until 2013 at the earliest, with 14% not planning for one at all as it stands.
• Only 14% electing to use more than 3 years as their "business planning period" for ORSA - two thirds settling for 3 years - supports the anecdotal trend of 3-5 years as par for the course
• 20% reported that their internal models allow for multiple year calculations to project for the ORSA - not sure if that is stochastic or deterministic though, didn't think any of the kernel technologies out there could do multi-year projections
• Half of companies have 50% or less of the data required to populate their QRTs
• Extraordinary perceptions on staffing requirements for both project and BAU, which even KPMG are drawn into calling "excessively pessimistic and indeed unrealistic" - it may be led in some respects by subsidiaries using shared Group services, but is still shocking in its naivety.
• Three quarters would like "more interpretation" from their regulator on Level 1 and 2 texts - not sure what there is to "interpret", so maybe its the Pillar 2 and 3 elements that they are struggling with (the other stats here would certainly lend weight to that).
• More than half of model applicants strugglinbg with Validation, highlights assumption setting and expert judgement as problem areas (no surprises there)
• 70% looking to define "new roles and responsibilities" around Data Governance - as referenced in my earlier post, not convinced that will end happily. Over a quarter don't plan to compile their data dictionaries until mid-2013.
• Only a third looking to do full SCR calculations quarterly, and over 50% look like they will struggle to generate the SCR calculation faster than 8 weeks.
• 20% have a dedicated Solvency II team - explaining a lot of the shortfalls in preparedness relative to Western Europe, but given the delays and uncertainty, a financially astute move.

What should worry EIOPA is the results around control function preparedness, or lack of it. If Sr Bernadino thinks that the low hanging fruit of Pillar 2 is ripe for picking before 2016, a quick review of those stats would suggest that a decent number of the 27 countries are in no such state.

Ernst and Young European Solvency II survey - the storm before the calm...

So Ernst and Young have decided to join the party with one of the more noble attempts to gather EU-wide industry opinion on progress towards Solvency II compliance, and kindly published those findings recently. Yes, I understand that this survey came out over a week ago, but I left my notes in the Isle of Man last Monday, and I'm not so enthusiastic that I fancied another turbo-prop into Ronaldsway Airport to 'go fetch'.

There was naturally plenty of media comment on its content (here, here and here for a start, but I'm sure you can do better), but bearing in mind it was released with a backdrop of 2015/2016 and the moveable feast that is UK IMAP, one could be forgiven for not caring less about the results that point to preparedness 'by 2014'. However, the E&Y guys obviously stayed up all night to do it, so I gave it the once-over and noted the following;

Sample - 160+ respondents from 19 countries, about as volumous as I have come across, though clearly weighted towards medium/large firms (€100m+ premium income per annum), and what we might call "old" Europe.

General

• 90% reckoned they could be compliant by 2015 (though E&Y say that is the date proposed by the EC, rather than to it)
• High level of confidence around Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 preparedness, though shockingly two-thirds of respondents did not use the draft L2 rules when producing their balance sheet, which makes you wonder what constitutes "ready" in some countries! 
• 80% not meeting Pillar 3 "requirements", with loose use of the expression "all requirements" for (as mentioned for Pillar 1, is this 'Level 1 plus draft Level 2', or 'Level 1 plus EIOPA advice'?). One of the worst affected areas is the development of a Disclosure Policy, which I find as understandable as I do sad.
• Almost 70% have only met some of the data quality requirements - I'm sure the national regulators, in particular the FSA, would wince at that, even factoring in an extension.
• Very interesting stat on the number of respondents developing Partial Internal Models (around half), with half of that number again looking for, what was at the time, "Day 1 approval". I wonder if the likely shift of "Day 1" to 2015 or 2016 allows these figures to flex, and if the national regulators are staffed to cope with it?
• "Range of capital optimisation strategies" will be applied by the majority of respondents in 2013 - curious to know why firms would not optimise their capital deployment as a matter of course!
• Larger organisations said to be tailing off expenditure during 2013 and have delivered compliance by mid-2014. Will an extension simply elongate existing expenditure plans or require fresh budget, and indeed how many times can one go 'back to the well' on this?
• ORSA is by some distance the biggest laggard in the Pillar 2 space, with only 30% "mostly" meeting requirements as they stand. Can only imagine the question was asked before EIOPA came back on the L3 public consultation in June, as EIOPA were pretty clear on what to do next.
• Some pretty flabby words on Data and IT readiness, but easy to get the general picture of "not very good" progress, particularly in the end-user computing space (three-quarters

E&Y angles

• Clearly lobbying for recalibrating long-duration debt (p5)
• Bit of scaremongering for smaller companies on their resource estimates (p6) - shake them down all you want, they just can't afford you!
• Strange bit of touting done around a lack of formal assessment around the effectiveness of one's Risk Management System (p12) - don't believe this is compulsory, only that your Risk Management System is effective.
• Also fishing hard for what was previously low hanging fruit around documentation, data governance and use test (p20).

Internal Model - specific

• Two thirds of French and half of German internal model applicants not fishing for "Day 1" approval - not sure if this is due to BAFIN and the ACP playing hardball (already seen an instance of a modeller fleeing Germany), but an extension to 2016 puts them back in the game for "Day 1" surely.
• Some expected discontent, though not in the majority, around the current SF risk calibrations (Op risk too low, underwriting and market too high). Even number found credit risk too high and too low, perhaps reflecting thought on long duration corporate debt and Eurozone government debt respectively.
• Nearly 80% of respondents expect the IM SCR to be at least 10% lower than SF SCR.

Worth adding as a footnote that 14% of UK respondents thought they'll be ready for implementation "in the course of 2012" - without Level 2 kiddies, are you sure!

Omnibus II moves again - accelerating the inevitable?

No sooner has the holiday season drawn to a close (and by that I mean everyone else's holiday season, as we don't 'do holidays' at Governance Matters...) than our good friend Omnibus II has jogged down the road another month - the procedure file has just been updated to show it will be hitting the November parliamentary Plenary (by my count, the 5th postponement since 2011).

Not entirely sure of the rather abrupt nature of this movement, bearing in mind the main players are probably still wearing their 'budgie smugglers' in the Med at the moment, but Gideon over on the Wire picked up on an issue which may have led to an early concession that October was simply too early, with an impact assessment on LTGs likely to roll off the back of the next trialogue.

We are also close enough to the finish line (don't laugh) to be getting into the national political cesspits, so a whiff of sabotage and national interest may also be coming to bear. Not only have the UK political opposition decided that Solvency II is controversial enough to start point scoring on, but last month Sharon Bowles (current Chair of ECON) gave an astonishingly frank interview to Risk.net (subscription only I'm afraid) where Das Küchenspüle was thrown at the German contingent. Quotes included;

• "...certain leading German MEPs have publicly said that Solvency II is never going to happen anyway" and
• "...I think there is a subtext here that the Germans - and I think this is well known - are trying to jettison the whole of Solvency II"

Well if Der Wahnsinn really is eine schmale brücke like the song says, its probably best not to cross it!

Omnibus II - Plenary vote delayed by 3 months

The worst kept secret has finally been revealed, namely that the EU Parliament's Plenary session to clear Omnibus II has been postponed by 3 months to July (good spot Gideon) - obviously makes that session more of a coronation if they are going to get it cleared before the summer holidays, so lets hope the guys in ECON get their job done later this month and the 'Trialogers' don't waste too much time between then and July.

EIOPA's Bernadino on a "clear timeline" for Solvency II

Picked up on by a number of outlets (here, here and here), Sr Bernadino had some choice words to exchange with the folks at Goethe University (available here) regarding a desire to avoid further Solvency II timeline slippage, citing his earlier "hurry up" letter to Mr Barnier.

From a forthcoming EIOPA output perspective, the paper on Colleges of Supervisors action plans for 2012 should be an interesting read, however, the indeterminate delay in Parliament clearly leaves them stymied regarding the big public consultations that practitioners are waiting for.

Solvency II - Another year (or two) later?

As flagged by Reuters earlier, the German FT has cited an "industry insider" as having whispered that a move to 2015, or even 2016, is a possibility.

While the general chatter in the FT article covers some supportibng argument on the quant front, the legislative timetable argument is a lot more compelling. Bearing in mind that the ECON vote has moved, but the plenary vote currently remains unchanged, should any delays or differences of opinion hold up Omnibus II clearance above and beyond the summer recess, the knock on effects would perhaps support this (i.e. bifurcation or not, Jan 2014 would not be achievable).

As ever, I guess the parliamentary vote date is the one to look out for!

Late post script - Reuters ponied up with another article today which touches on the story but brings in Peter Skinner's explanation of the delay

Omnibus II delay - ECON moves, Plenary stays still?

No doubt you all enjoyed Gideon's reportage from Friday (leapt upon by the other outlets shortly afterwards) that the sign-off on Omnibus II from the specialist EU parliamentary committee ECON, scheduled for this month before moving on to a full plenary (i.e. all of the EU Parliament) vote in April, had been yet again postponed. For you Brits, the FSA have commented on this development as well.

Easy to speculate on the causes of this (indeed the recent snub by David Cameron on the bail-out front is cited here as perhaps having weakened the UK's lobbying power at a time where they perhaps have the most to lose), but fair to assume it is still on the numbers front as opposed to Pillar II or III.

Worth flagging here that, while the ECON vote has now been changed to end of March on the Europarl website, the full plenary vote is still as it stood previously (mid-April). This could be the reason why most public comment since Gideon broke the story has been reluctant to say that this delay might shift the go-live date.

Good news then I guess...

Additional delay to EU Parliament vote on Omnibus II - change in priorities?

Having blogged late last week on the reasons for the EU Parliament being a notable no-show at the ABI Solvency II conference last week, I was pretty shocked today to see that the delay on voting on Omnibus II (mooted by Sr. Montalvo only last week by the same publication to be a delay until the end of Jan 2012), has now apparently been moved back to April 2012.


This would clearly be a dreadful result for both the industry (on the uncertainty front) and EIOPA (on producing technical standards), and bearing in mind the disdain and petulance currently being displayed by the Parliament and head of the Commission towards the UK, might we expect to see some last minute shenanighans from the Parliament to the detriment of the UK industry regarding, say, transitional measures or the illiquidity premium?


Look forward to hearing what the other institutions themselves have to say about it - delaying the parliamentary vote to January is one thing, April is surely stretching their patience, regardless of the competing priorities at present.

Post script - proof of the pudding is in the eating

ABI Conference today - reason why the EU Parliament stayed away?

Still very early after the ABI conference today (I wasn't there, so relied on some heavy duty tweeting from Elliot Varnell and Insurance ERM).

All the great and good were there (van Hulle, Montalvo, ABI, FSA, and all the CROs in the UK who blagged a day off!), however there was no representation from the EU Parliament which, bearing in mind we are in trialogue season and there is plenty of debate still to be had, is conspicuous to say the least. A Burkhard Balz or a Peter Skinner would surely have been a good attendee to get the right balance.

However, Insurance Times flagged this from Sr. Montalvo at the conference today - looks like the EU Parliament have missed the pre-Christmas window for discussion Omnibus II, and, looking at a late January debate now, have left almost no wriggle room between debate and the Omnibus II vote.

Who this compromises the most out of the troika is unclear (EIOPA I suspect, being the unelected body), but Parliament's absence surely saved the event from a seasonably frosty atmosphere!

ABI Conference this week - who's off the Christmas card list?

I had a look through the ABI agenda for their meeting later this week (sadly won't be going). I may be missing something, but it appears that everyone got an invite except for someone from the EU Parliament.

A deliberate snub, or was rapporteur Balz or one of his lieutenants not available to ensure that at least one representative from each of the trialogue parties was present?

ABI - Solvency II Bulletin for October 2011

The ABI have put their Solvency II Bulletin out today (link is to the pdf version, as there is something weird going on with their HTML version!).

Plenty of goodies in here, in particular;

• Omnibus II update - confirms that the trialogues are in the offing, but also that Parliament will not have its text for bringing to the negotiation table until late November. Any danger this is a bit late, and that February 2012 might be a push for Parliament to sign off on the negotiated text with their plenary vote?
• Also confirms that the 'outsourcing' of drafting Level 2 measures by the Commission to EIOPA via ITS or RTS also needs to be agreed with Parliament (who would of course lose the right to reply on some of the content subsequently produced.
• Decent timeline diagram for anyone who needs one (p3)
• Reporting templates consultation coming in November - also mentions that their will need to be national-specific templates (highlighting importance of with-profits business in the UK, but same for other countries and their favoured savings vessels).
• Confirms that the ORSA consultation is also about to kick off with the Level 3 guidance paper soon to be released (most of the industry has of course seen the early draft of this, so it will be interesting to see what has changed).

ABI Conference - Single European Regulator?

EIOPA's Chief Exec kindly planted the seed of the single EU regulator at the ABI today - bearing in mind how the EU functions are struggling with consensus for Omnibus II right now, this is one matter best pushed to the back of the cabinet!

Insurance Day Summit 2011 - Bermuda shorts

Exceptional pun in the headline aside (?), there was a few tasty pieces from the Insurance Day summit in chilly Bermuda at the end of last week. Not sure if these are free or not, but I didn't struggle this morning;

Bermuda Monetary Authority
- their man Jeremy Cox spoke, emphasising how mutually beneficial the Bermuda/EU market is, and why it justifies increased headcount spend to ensure equivalence. He also spoke of their 3 year roadmap to equivalence, as well as 6 areas where they have expanded their output to achieve equivalence.

Mike McGavick speech
- CEO of XL Capital chipped in with a more industrial quality speech, albeit making the salient point that, should Solvency II inadvertently lead to mergers and larger insurers, it would not be a systematically great thing.

He comments (ironically, bearing in mind my last two posts about soft launching) that because the EU like their version of the rulebook, then "everyone else should follow suit".

He followed that with "...why is it that we just have to swallow your [the EU's] proposal" - again, this seems a little misguided, bearing in mind the IAIS have xeroxed most of the Solvency II text and obligations, so this is not far off being international best-in-class, as opposed to being EU-centric.

Certainly didn't stay on the fence, and should be applauded for that at least.

NAIC CEO speech

Pretty blunt speech from the head of the National Association of Insurance Commisioner in the US - that, while she likes soome parts of Solvency II ("ORSA and some of those Pillar II things"), the Pillar I stuff will not wash over there. In particular, quite scathing about regulatory capital being used to incentivise good risk management.

Insurance Mediation Directive responses - done deal?

Having read through the mercifully brief responses on IMD consultation today (and having plenty of experience in cross border selling under the directive), I noted the following;

• UK and Ireland pitched in with around half the responses - guess we know where the beneficiaries are!
• Standard arguments on distributor pay, policyholder hidden charges and coverage of the directive to include bancassurers and PRIPs all in
• Amusing piece from (I guess) the IFA industry on lower commission possibly leading to lower quality of advice
• Little drive on efficiency of process, though some support for a central permissions bureau, which from my experience would be an excellent idea.

Strangely, no cross references to Solvency II, despite both pieces of legislation being ostensibly for the benefit of EU insurance consumers