IRM on Internal Model Validation - Red Card or Green Card?

Cyclic Validation - Quelle horreur...

Just back from Paris, where I spent a weekend queueing behind selfie-taking tourists before taking out a second mortgage to buy bottled water. A beautiful place, though I found Depardieu was much quieter off-screen...

Onto the topic in hand, the PRA were pretty vicious back in the day on Validation efforts in their infancy, with Julian Adams lambasting both progress ("significantly behind") and validation scope ("narrow"). Given that the Solvency II sabbatical which bridged half of 2012 and all of 2013 gave firms time to catch up and widen, you might think that those with internal model ambitions would be pretty tidy by now. The PRA have even told firms how they believe "good" model application paperwork to look, carving out for themselves and the Validators of the world an easy-to-read "model reviewer" level of detail (p1).

In those salad days, Internal Model Validation felt to me like it would be the chernozem of the nascent Risk Management profession in insurers; a skill set that a quant or a non-quant could acquire, apply, and ultimately ease through the promotional path within insurance entities, given the depth and breadth of technical and strategic information the process challenges...

...but the moves never came. Despite the actuarial world themselves happily disassembling the complexities of quantitative modelling into easy-to-digest IM Validation themes, the non-quant world has waited patiently to see if anything of substance would emerge from one of its representative bodies.

And this week it arrived! The Institute of Risk Management has delivered, as part of its Internal Model Industry Forum (IMIF), a white paper on the validation cycle.

The IRM have been active in this area prior to the formation of the IMIF. I have covered an ERM in Insurance event at the start of 2014 here, while this more volumous slide pack featuring a number of the Billy and Betty Big Biscuits of the field emerged from summer of last year, when the IMIF seemed to come to fruition. This white paper itself appears to move along the concepts and ideas inside an IRM slide deck from last Christmas.

Given that the IRM is not-for-profit, there is always a likelihood that sponsors will unduly influence the products (indeed the IRM Chair notes in this that they rely on "enlightened industry support" to knock these documents out).

Sadly in this case, the sponsors include Three of the "Big 4" (with the fourth on the IMIF steering committee) , leaving the document dripping with consultancy hallmarks rather than pragmatic solutions to execute the tasks in hand.

That view is reinforced somewhat by this follow-on presentation to the IMIF from last week by this white paper's workstream lead and supporting consultant - one selected industry comment on slide 8 (presumably from a chocolate bar shortly before it ate itself) reads, "validators should really be experienced modellers"!

A few general points jump out of the white paper;

• That a firm's IM is "...at the heart of risk and capital evaluation" - I thought it was supposed to "inform" this evaluation, not dominate it (slide 3 here, as well as Julian Adams's speech from a couple of years ago [p4]).
• Is the insurance industry "...increasingly reliant on sophisticated models" - maybe in terms of AUM/Market Cap, but given the UK IMAP queue is down to approximately 40 firms out of over 400 (p4), and that number has steadily reduced over the last 3 years, feels a touch disingenuous. I've no doubt the firms represented on the Steering Group are "...increasingly reliant" though
• The document claims to set out "best practice principles" - not sure if "practice" and "principle" share the same bed, but that aside, would anyone find it remotely acceptable to have the consultancy world fund a document which details "best practice" on IM Validation?

And a few stand out elements from the proposed Validation Cycle, which is heavily influenced by EIOPA's guidelines:

• "Best practice now requires firms to demonstrate, with evidence, that the cycle...[is] being actively and effectively carried out" - how can best practice "require" anything from anyone?
• "...resulting best practice that is emerging" (p4)  - how is any practice considered "best" at this stage of proceedings, when we are literally practising! Against what criteria?
• References to "model risk impact assessment" and the "model risk assessment process" (p5) seem to come from nowhere. Alluding to something formal, but not very clear
• Lot of coverage of "triggers" of IM Validation, which feels like a fishing expedition for the paper sponsors, rather than direct address of L2 Art 241 - the number of areas of "change" to consider as IM Validation triggers covers pretty much any change, anywhere, both inside and outside of an insurer (p8)! Most would also be ad-hoc ORSA triggers in my experience, so this potentially sets up insurers for a bucketload of work every time they hear a pin drop.
• Formulaic and periodic IM Validation a "needless cost"? Surely periodic validation, no matter how badly executed, is compulsory (L1 Art 125)?
• The Trigger Impact Assessment stage (p10) is barely legible - "The trigger impact assessment against model risk appetite stage" - and terminologically it is all well above legislative requirements.
• "Unexpected triggers" (p12) get a mention. Again, not making sense to me - you either know your triggers or not.
• "Model validation is complex" and "less than black and white" (p16) - certainly is if you try and follow this process! A focus on plain questions and less quant can only help the models non-expert users (slide 7).
• If the validation cycle, processes and execution are "continuously evolving" (p18), are they reliable? Feels difficult to meet L2 Art 241.3, at least from a planning and execution perspective, if the process is constantly being tinkered with 
• "Developing a communications strategy" (p20) as part of the validation scoping and planning stage feels terribly over-elaborate.
• "Robust planning" expected to be common (p22), which doesn't necessarily marry up with the expectation of dynamic rather than cyclic validation in future (p10)

I think it is right to take the hump to a certain extent here. The PRA have been cunningly silent on capital add-ons to date, but given the implication that they will not be applied and renewed ICG-style (slide 13), there is likely to be many more less monied Partial IM applicants to follow over the next couple of years. Having the most influential consultancy firms decide on what is "best" in the validation world (and for it to have this many bells, whistles and legislative off-roads) feels like setting those firms up for either a fall, or another bill.

The PRA actually delivered something with much less padding to the IRM back at the end of 2013, so I'm struggling to see why that has justifiably been turbo-charged. Given they have three of their finest involved with the IMIF, but are continuing to be directly vocal on this topic (as recently as March 2015), it sends a worrying message to the capital add-on brigade that the IMAP early birds will be setting disproportionately high bars for 2017 and beyond when they deliver their PIMs.

Ultimately, I was disappointed by the publication, which reads more like a flannel manual, and is certainly not the kind of Risk Profession contribution that the topic so badly needs if the PRA's dreams of Board's "directing" and "owning" the IM valdiation process (slide 9) are ever going to come true. The 200 page novella world of Validation Reporting feels closer than ever...

EIOPA's Implementing Technical Standards on Internal Model Approval - ready to "submit"?

EIOPA have kicked into life at the end of October like Freddy Krueger on laughing gas, releasing a swarm of consultation papers and summaries. While the releases on Colleges of Supervisors or the calculation of the risk-free interest rate will be of interest to some, my own interest was in a subset of their draft Implementing Technical Standards on Solvency II Approval Processes

I have tried to cover the distinction between ITS and the other weaponry in the hands of EIOPA and legislators here. The aggregated feedback received by EIOPA on the suite of Solvency II approvals covered by ITS is neatly summarised in this doc, with EIOPA adding dollops of proportionality into the summary, to effectively remind supervisors not to treat the applications of giants and pygmys with the same vigour. Given the audience reaction to the UK regulator's industry event a couple of weeks ago, I think 'proportionality' may need to become the PRA's middle name (though it probably works better as its first name...)

Clearly, two big moans have been common threads in the responses received, and both have been rebuffed. The concept of supervisory requests for supplementary information "stopping the clock" on one's approval window has been retained, while the idea of "no answer in 6 months equals approval" has been firmly rejected.

Internal Model approval
- "Easy, Easy"

Of more interest to me than the other approvals covered by the consultation is the Big Daddy himself, Internal Model Approvals. From a UK perspective I have covered this in multiple posts previously (here, here, here and here for a start) , and was interested to see if any more whistles and bells had been added to what is already an area causing serious fatigue within the UK's potential applicants, not to mention a few dozen corpses from the c.100 interested parties back in 2011 (slide 4 here).

I thought the following was worth highlighting;

• Given that the Delegated Acts are already loaded with granular Documentation requirements for IM applications (articles 243 & 244), the ITS insists on a few more pieces! Having cross-referenced between the DAs and the ITS, I reckon the items listed in Article 3 d, h, j, p, q and r are all new requirements, though none would be a stretch to produce.
• Expectations that your model has been in use prior to application (Art 2 (3 a ii)), and is integrated into your current system of governance (Act 2 (c)) - perhaps this is the effort which firms with capital add-ons will be compelled to do in 2016 & 2017 in advance of model applications?
• Results of your "last" Validation Process must be submitted in a Model application (Art 2 (m)) - again, suggests there will need to be a year's worth of "live" modelling in advance of making an application
• The supervisors have 30 days to assess the "completeness" of an application - this feels weirdly generous, given those 30 days count towards the overall 6-month assessment window (provided the application is complete).
• Despite the PRA's firm assertion on Oct 17th (slide 8) that conditional approval for Model applications is not available, Articles 3 (8) and 5 (4 b) both suggest otherwise, namely that proposed "adjustments" or "terms and conditions" can be accounted for in their decision. 
• As much prominence being given to Model Change process and Model Change policy as the initial Model Application process - applications can actually be rejected on the strength of the change policy (Art 5 (2)). Despite that, the articles designated for these areas (Arts 7 & 8) are relatively straightforward.

There is no real reason why these ITS for IM approval won't sail through at the Commission, so best to prepare accordingly. However, UK applicants with 2016 modelling ambitions will of course need to wait further for EIOPA's Common Application Package before they can finalise this montagne de papier.

PRA's Countdown to Solvency II Implementation Event - When I Need U(SPs)

PRA Implementation countdown
- "Feel like dancing" now?

So along with the entire UK Solvency II sticky-beak brigade, I had the unbridled pleasure of attending the PRA's 'Leo Sayer' on Friday, confidently titled Countdown to Implementation, despite going on to list a range of matters which have probably given both Internal Model and Standard Formula firms plenty of enthusiasm to try and turn the clock backwards rapidly!

Paul Fisher, Julian Adams' replacement as Executive Director of Insurance at the PRA, kicked off with a set of Solvency II vox-pops;

• Solvency II is the "main game in town"
• "The end is in sight"
• The PRA are "not gold-plating the Directive"

A nice bit of reassurance at kick-off time then - unfortunately, the clarity which was to follow from the technical specialists on a range of topics was probably not what everyone wanted to hear, given the tone of some of the audience questioning that followed! In particular (and with everything in full quotation marks below having been said by a PRA rep on the day);

• That the PRA will "have to prioritise" if everyone in the IMAP queue for 'from 2016' approval drops their applications in at the end of June, and that applicants should be "striving to submit" sooner. Suggests to me that the smaller firms in IMAP may get bumped to squeeze in the big boys.
• The reinforcement of Mark Carney's message from the other week that they will have no problem refusing permission to use models, though this was couched by Fisher in the more appropriate context of failure to meet any of the TSIMs simply "cannot be allowed".
• That, although over 90% of the UK industry was down for using Standard Formula, the PRA will be equally aggressive when challenging their preparedness as they will for IM firms.

I didn't hang around for the afternoon sessions as I had a hot date with BA, so pull whatever you can out of the Other Approvals and Regulatory Reporting slideshows. However, I would draw attention to the following from the earlier sessions:

Implementation and Policy overview

• The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street protested through multiple speakers about how they recognise that bank and insurance internal models are different, and how Insurance Supervision is now "embedded into the Bank" - I would assume to justify the credit crunch-influenced aggression now being taken by the PRA on assessing capital models (visible from Adams's speech around the time of BOE/FSA merger right through to Bailey's speech at Mansion House on Thursday night).
• An interesting slide 3 about how much more work Solvency II will generate for the PRA from go-live!
• Referred to FLAOR only once before switching to ORSA, suggesting that this disposable acronym is as much of a pain in the neck for the supervisor as it is for firms!
• Highlight what "Good" and "Bad" ORSAs have contained to-date. Clearly some firms are box-ticking, leaving an unusable report which is only skin-deep compliant as output. They were particularly scathing on Stress and Scenario Testing efforts, and implored that Reports should not be written for the PRA's benefit (though naturally must cover what the DAs and EIOPA have already set out).
• A nice piece was discussed around the expected depth of director-level knowledge of their internal models. Andrew Bulley made a useful distinction between "conceptual" and "technical" knowledge, where your dithering 80 year-old INED from the fishing industry might not be expected to understand correlation matrices, but should probably know their significance, and alternatives to them.
• For model applications to date, far too big ("encyclopedic" in cases), with too much process description, and not enough on assumptions and expert judgements.
• That it is a firm's responsibility to "ensure compliance" with the Delegated Acts, and given their lessening proximity to the legislators, the PRA flag in advance that they will not be able to give "concrete advice" to firms in future.

Standard Formula

A particularly good ground-setter, given the dearth of work published previously on Standard Formula firms and the PRA's expectations. Calendar included on the slide pack, which will be of massive use to your PM/PMO staff!

• PRA will review ALL firms ahead of 2016 for SF appropriateness - "priority" firms assessed by Q1 2015, everyone else by end of 2015.
• While SF SCR is apparently close to current ICG numbers for GENERAL insurers in the UK, it is noticeably larger in LIFE firms 
• PRA is "not promoting" SF ahead of internal models
• Vigorously directed all attendees to EIOPA's Underlying Assumptions of SF Paper - expectation that some firms won't read it, and just expect SF plus any add-ons?
• Very vocal on the "significance of the deviation" between SF SCR and one's own Risk Profile - as we know, the Delegated Acts quantify what 'significant' is in the context of capital add-ons
• An expectation that ORSAs will be used in the assessment of SF appropriateness - qualitative for sure, possibly quant elements as well?
• Range of examples of where significant divergences are being found, by Risk Category, and by Life vs General Insurer.
• A lot of emphasis on Capital Add-ons being used "only as a temporary measure", which will ultimately allow firms to PIM/IM or de-risk. They are however "patient and realistic" on how quickly that change can be done, so it sounds on the face of it like 2016 and 2017 will be targeted for Capital Add-on elimination.
• In the following session on models, a piece came up on Capital Add-ons, where the PRA confirmed that their process for handling these in future is "still developing", though they expect them to be "a lot, lot rarer" than the existing regime of ICG.

Internal Models

Calendar also provided for IM firms (slide 4), showing how tight their schedule is, and explaining why they threw the earlier curveball about all firms expecting to drop their applications in on 30th June 2015. They also touched on the following:

• Highlighting weak areas identified to-date such as over-optimistic (new?) business plans being used in capital calculations; ENIDs; omission of certain "Key Risks", and suspiciously low correlations
• That Use Test is "fundamentally important", and is an opportunity for firms to "put their money where their mouth is". They do not expect to see either end of the use spectrum i.e. no use, or blind use!
• Too much technical actuarial validation seen. Usefully suggested that validation questions may be better posed as "where might this model be inadequate", rather than "why is it OK".
• Confirmed that the PRA's SAT has now been replaced by EIOPA's CAT, which won't arrive until the back end of this year - surprisingly, no-one laughed when they said this "might create some work" for existing IMAP programmes!
• Importantly, they stressed that their powers are to Approve or Reject applications, with no "conditional" powers whatsoever. Attendees were therefore encouraged to delay applications which were thought to be unlikely to succeed, both now and in future.

Though they instinctively feel like they could have been supplied sooner, the clarifications provided in the presentations I witnesses will be hugely welcome by programme directors and PM's alike. I would venture a guess that they will be less welcome by executive committees, who may have hoped for more flexibility on the risk quantification front post-2016.

PRA on Solvency II Approvals - One in the "IMAP"

The PRA today released a consultation paper on applying for Solvency II approvals (with the checklists for firms thinking of applying here), covering such juicy topics  as;

• Matching adjustments
• Ancilliary own funds
• USPs
• Group shenanighans (single ORSA for Groups, and excluding entities from Groups)
• SFCR dispensations

And of course the big man on campus - Internal Model Approval.


I had covered on here back in March that EIOPA intened to bring in a common internal model application package (press release here), whilst also noting that while EIOPA "expected" NCAs to accept and use it, it was not compulsory.

IMAP - waste not want not

With the UK being the largest Internal Model application handler by some distance, the stupendous amount of money, management time and administrative effort which had been injected into the IMAP Process since 2011, there was at least a theoretical possibility that the PRA might say "no thanks", and ask its applicants to continue as they were, albeit with an Excel template amended to reflect the Directive and Delegated Acts as they currently stand

Therefore the rather vicious tearing of hair and gnarling of teeth coming from the UK today is the sound of 60-odd internal model applicants finding out that 3 years of IMAP work is now redundant! Section 2.11 of today's CP states;

EIOPA is expected to publish an internal model application template which the PRA will require all firms to use for their formal internal model applications.

...[firms] will be expected to transpose data onto the new EIOPA template when they make their formal application. The PRA will not be updating the SAT to align with EIOPA's application template

Perhaps I am being a touch harsh to call IMAP efforts to-date "redundant". The UK will naturally have dominated EIOPA discussions around what a template should contain, and how it should be structured to assess applications with maximum efficiency, as they have had the Chair of the Internal Model Committee since 2009!

There is an implication in the CP though that the transposition between the two "templates" will not be as seamless as I had imagined back in March, so I suspect that internal model applicants will need to go back to the market looking for expensive IMAP cajolers in the not too distant future. A shame for UK plc, who will rightly feel they have spent a lifetime's money on this topic already.

 

EIOPA's "Common Application Package" for Internal Model Applications - UK back to the drawing board?

The release of an EIOPA Opinion today may very well raise the heckles of the UK Insurance Industry, regarding a move towards a "Common Application Package" to be used across Europe for assessing internal model applications. This appears on the face of it to be disjoined from the internal model-related ITS already scheduled in EIOPA's calendar (p12) over the next couple of months.

Their "package", to be published after consultation with the National Competent Authorities themselves, will comprise of;

•  Instructions 
•  A self-assessment 
•  Background Information 
•  An inventory of internal documentation 
•  An explanatory document 

Worth remembering at outset;

• This is an EIOPA Opinion. In their own words, "This opinion is aimed at proposing to NCAs the use of such common application package", so their proposal is non-binding (p10 here as well)!
• The UK has seemingly (and based on number of applicants, rightly) been in the box seat on this particular topic within EIOPA, so it is likely that their approach won't be far away from the UK's existing one! The suite of Internal Model Application (IMAP) materials in the UK is available here for example, and isn't far away from EIOPA list, in form at least.

That said, a combination of EIOPA's desire for convergence, and the recently released and revised Delegated Acts may have a particularly destructive effect on existing IMAP efforts within the Solvency II Programmes of UK insurers. I have therefore had a deeper trawl through the Delegated Acts in order find out what the practical implication of any changes in the redrafted Delegated Acts might be.

As anyone who has worked in the UK IMAP space will (un)happily tell you;

• The PRA's approach to assessing internal model applications (inherited from its predecessor) involves deconstructing Solvency II Directive and Delegated Act text into sentences, and in some cases sentence fragments. This created over 300 "requirements".
• Those are transferred into a spreadsheet list, within which firms are asked to list evidence of their ability to address each item (or why the requirement is not relevant).
• That spreadsheet list is housed on an Excel workbook known as the SAT Template, which contains various other worksheets, all of which require manual population of some kind.
• A fully populated SAT Template is required by the PRA for IMAP participants, along with some ancilliary documents (listed here), supplemented by any further documentation which the legislation or EIOPA deem is compulsory.

It's not a tick-box exercise though...

The recent versions of the Delegated Acts which have been creeping around are therefore of some significance to this work. Over the last couple of years, firms will have populated a SAT Template which contained deconstructed sentences from the Solvency II Directive pre-Omnibus II, and the Delegated Act text from November 2011, both of which have now been superseded (without being too presumptuous!).

How do the changes affect the contents of firm's existing IMAP templates, and indeed does it matter? Well, it goes without saying that the SAT Template will need to be amended and reissued by the PRA, regardless of what EIOPA produce. The question for UK firms, having spent considerable money and resource on populating the template in 2011/2012, is whether or not to start from scratch, now that time is something of a luxury, and the end-game is more definitive.

With 2013 being something of a write-off for both Solvency II programmes and the PRA's IMAP campaign (although the costs suggest otherwise!), it is likely that existing SAT templates, crammed with bespoke explanatory text and document references, have either gathered dust for a month or twelve, or received only minimal maintenance.

To see exactly how much of those early efforts will be salvageable, I have taken a look at the Delegated Act articles from January 2014* regarding the Tests and Standards for Internal Model Approval (or 'TSIM', after the acronym allocated to these articles by the draughtsmen), and compared it against the November 2011 version of the same text, and found some significant changes in form and substance, which may render some of your earlier SAT population efforts chocolate-fireguard useful.

The 24 original TSIMs, once deconstructed, respresent over 200 (almost two-thirds) of the "requirements" listed within the SAT template, so any changes in them could massively impact the recyclability of existing content.

IMAP Changes - has EIOPA gone Gaga?

I found, of those 24;

• 6 are unchanged verbatim
• 2 have minor definitional tweaks, but are otherwise unchanged
• 2 have been merged
• 2 'new' articles have been introduced into the section, though neither are labelled "TSIM" at this point.
• All others have been changed in at least form, and in the majority of cases, substance

IMAP candidate firms have therefore been left to contend with more awkward changes than a Lady Gaga concert in a broom cupboard...

Those which have received the most aggressive reworking include;

• Article 225 TSIM 15 - Management Actions
• Article 229 TSIM 18 - Model Validation Process
• Article 230 TSIM 19 - Validation Tools
• Article 232 TSIM 21 - Minimum content of the documentation

It is fair to say therefore that UK-centred internal model applicants may struggle to recycle their existing IMAP drafting efforts without re-engaging Business-As-Usual staff in a substantial way, and that is before we even get to what EIOPA may propose in the "common application package". It also remains to be seen how the other European countries react to the likely Anglicisation of internal model assessment.

If you need help with this on your Solvency II Programme, don't be afraid to get in touch at allan@governance-matters.co.uk


* Just for reassurance, the TSIM text doesn't change between the January 2014 and March 2014 versions, but unless someone published the March version online, you'll have to take my word for that!

PRA on General Insurer Technical Provisions under Solvency II - Taking the "TPs"?

Allow me to take a quantum leap outside of my comfort zone while I pick my way through the PRA's latest Insurance Industry aide memoire, via a consultation paper on the calculation of technical provisions in General Insurers.

This looks specifically at TP calculations with Solvency II in mind, and is aimed specifically at GI firms currently in IMAP. That said, the tone and technical matter covered is an excellent heads-up to Actuarial, Risk and model validation personnel currently active in this space about how the PRA approach to assessing Solvency II compliance is developing.

The document itself reads very much like their last consultation paper release on Deferred Tax Assets, insofar as it is a laundry list of "what not to do" - look at how many times the expression "should not" appears! They have leaned on their findings from both thematic reviews of TP calculations (Life and GI-specific Questionnaires were sent out a year ago) as well as from IMAP and ICAS, so their finding will be well supported by most recent practices in the UK.

The consultation window is pretty short as well, with a mid-April shut-down scheduled, so if you don't like the cut of their jib, you'd better speak soon.

Stand-out points for me included;

Generic


ENID - TP accommodation required

• Expectations of Delegated Acts content are cited throughout, but in terms of the exact date of their public provision, they can only go with "Q3 2014". From what I have seen, there is nothing cited which isn't in the November 2011 draft.
• The abandonment of the term "binary events", replacing it with "Events not in data" or "ENID" - the fait accompli of "binary" (that events which are not in a data set must therefore be extreme and/or rare) is confirmed as unacceptable.  The PRA don't appear to be wedded to the old term in any case, and while the actuarial profession used it liberally in the past (here and here for example), they began a transition away from it late last year (p45 of this).
• "Any data that can have an impact on the outputs of the internal model should be considered to be 'used for the internal model'" (3.19) - important IMAP message across sectors I think!
• There is evidently some concern that firms are thinking of relying on the work of external model providers to meet Solvency II standards, with the PRA confirming that firms may not rely on "...generic validation performed by the model vendor" (3.25). This means that the model validation relationship between IMAP candidates and their third-party providers needs to be much more invasive and aggressive, and needs to start pretty soon!

Technical Provision-Specific

• A large number of points made in the paper relate to over-simplifications, which should help anyone who is struggling with the concepts of materiality and proportionality. These include methods relating to ENID, Risk Margin calculations, Approximations and  the emergence of risk over one year
• Similarly a few tricks of the trade appear to have been scuppered, such as using optimistic business plans for setting provisions, "actuary in a box" methods and assuming improved underwriting performance
• Some substantial focus around the quality and quantity of challenge applied to External Models (focused on third party Catastrophe models in this instance), in particular the challenge of  assumptions used by the provider (3.16-17 and 3.26-28)
• The concept of "cumulative materiality" is introduced in the context of multiple approximations, a concept which I suspect many firms are still struggling with in the context of Internal Model change (2.9)
• An interesting take on the justification of assumptions, with the PRA taking umbridge with firms using "industry standard" or "established good practice" as a supporting argument, rather than using their own risk profile as the basis for support (3.15)
• A section which seems to advocate conservatism, if not prudency, in the setting of sensitive parameters (3.10), as well as advocating the use of stress and scenario testing to make up for ENID when setting parameters (3.2)

Certainly lessons for both Life and GI internal model applicants in here, and the PRA should be congratulated for getting this paper out in good time. I'm not necessarily convinced though that third-party providers of internal model inputs will happily acquiesce with the demands which the industry are being asked to make of them here.

Model Validation - benchmarks and best practices from the IRM, PRA and Lloyds

Models - seeking validation

Bearing in mind we have passed the 2013 financial year end, and all of the internal modellers amongst us will be trying out their new processes and technology in the production of a balance sheet for the first time, a few very timely pieces of material on internal model validation have been released, which should help anyone who is curious about what their neighbours are up to!

The Institute of Risk Management's rebadged Solvency II Special Interest Group held a get-together in December on IM Validation, and a couple of interesting documents have emerged.

One from a PRA Validation guru is particularly useful for anyone in the IMAP space who has any uncertainty about the PRA's approach to assessing the quality of one's validation processes and reports, covering;

• The purpose of validation
• The PRA's approach - Life and GI-specific SME groups
• An overview of IMAP findings - 40+ reviews conducted to date, and they also state what your evidence "should" demonstrate
• Their observations - Noting that Validation Reports are generally deficient
• A schematic view of what they consider the Validation process to be
• A bullet point list of how validation effectiveness can be demonstrated

I guess the odd thing for me is why this kind of material isn't presented/circulated more widely by the PRA, as it is surely of benefit to IMAP participants, who wouldn't always be in attendance at a pre-Christmas IRM event!

The other useful benchmarking item from this event is the survey on participants' experiences to date in the validation field. While the sample is small in absolute terms at 18, and is a touch heavy on the GI side (over half of respondents), this is as good a benchmarking aid as you will see for a while, so it is worth noting the following;

• Just over half have transitioned Validation into BAU
• Only 3 respondents had a Validation-specific steering committee to help govern the process, with others choosing to use existing committees or the CRO/Risk function
• Over 80% use the SCR contribution of each risk driver to determine the depth of validation activity. Other determinants include regulator feedback, risk registers and previosu validation reports
• Over 40% say that their independent validation work is identifying flaws in their "dependent" validation work, while over a quarter say that independent validation has been scaled back due to the quality of "dependent" work!
• Less than a quarter say that validation of external models (ESGs etc) has been effective
• Around two-thirds use peer review and sensitivity analysis to validate expert judgements. Horrifically, two respondents said they haven't been able to validate expert judgement at all!
• Over half are still using external contractors/consultants for independent validation
• Page 12 covers the popularity of certain sections of a Validation Report. Less than half include a section on benchmarking
• Most are keeping the Validation Report to under 100 pages, with management feedback being the main catalyst for changing the length.

Finally, a survey from LCP Consulting was published this week covering the progress of Lloyds syndicates in their Validation activity. This was an area which Lloyds acknowledged as "work to do" back in May last year, particularly around validation testing and documentation.

The findings appear to be positive on the whole, with most firms saying they are at least halfway towards their "ideal process". Unsurprisingly, dependency modelling and validating expert judgement make the list of "key challenges" remaining.

PRA - Q&A from December's Industry Briefing

Following on from the PRA's Industry Briefing on Solvency II prior to Christmas, they have released a set of Questions and Answers, which appear to have prompted by questions asked on the day as opposed to being more generic. A useful document to push around your programmes in the UK in particular, even if you are not part of ICAS+/IMAP.

I was particularly interested to see if they had rowed back on any topics where they have previously expressed an opinion, as well as any new insights which aren't necessarily made public as a matter of course. The Q&A is broken out into topics, so I have grouped my thoughts accordingly.

Proportionality

• For ICAS+, the PRA are "...focusing in on those areas which move the dial the most", referring specifically to the ICA calculations.
• They will therefore apply "a relatively higher view" in some areas than others (later referred to in terms of their intensity of focus).
• They use their IMAP approach as an example of this, where they have grouped the 300+ requirements into 15 categories.
• My common-sense read of this is, to be proportionate in the above context, the first 7 consecutive categories on the IMAP template would receive less time and attention than the following 8, all of which have the potential to numerically "move the dial".
• They are already looking prospectively at firm's risk profiles during planning sessions, in advance of ORSA, so that they work and plan proportionally, but with the future in mind.
• They suggest that firms provide their own opinions on materiality if they wish for the favourable application of the proportionality principle (though they don't guarantee it!).

Documentation-specific proportionality

• Confirm that "...there is definitely a need for an improvement in the quality of documentation".
• Seem to specifically align the calibration requirements of Solvency II with the need for additional documentation, therefore a good area to be elaborate in your work.
• On expert judgement, they suggest that documenting why a judgement was made, and what were the alternatives will help firms currently falling short.
• "...no aspiration" to revisit documentation review work already conducted and concluded.

PRA's Supervisory Statement

• They confirm that letters confirming whether a firm is covered by the reporting guidelines will be sent this month. They suggest categories 1-3 (p20) will be the bulk of participants
• There are national-specific reporting templates to come, currently under consideration. While they are not certain on submission format for those, they reiterate that xBRL is required for QRT submission.
• QRTs can be submitted incomplete, but they reserve the right to intervene if you take too many liberties!
• Acknowledge that, due to most firms' ORSA Processes operating around year-end balance sheets, that they expect to receive a flood of ORSA Supervisory Reports, and that this will delay feedback (presumably worse in 2015 than this year?).
• A question regarding 'who is the ORSA for' was answered rather dismissively. However, bearing in mind the content of their "good and bad documentation" letter (which constantly refers to "the reader", which for me meant "the PRA"), it felt like a reasonable question. Clearly if the PRA do not like your style, it will add to your review time.
• They seem to indicate that the amount of time one's Board should spend on reviewing/using their ORSA is not subject to any periodic expectations. That means if you are planning for annual intensive interaction, or something more regular and fluid, you should get a fair hearing from the PRA.

Standard Formula

• Without much subtlety, they seem to be encouraging firms to look at the appropriateness of Standard Formula asap, encouraging further by stressing "...that internal models do not need to be overly complex". This feels like early positioning for their planned SF work with the industry, where no doubt they will find a few firms ripe for USPs/PIMs during the next 18 months. 

Early Warning Indicators (EWIs)

• Following on from a post in October, they are evidently still stuggling to calibrate them!
• They confirm that the purpose of automatic capital add-ons (in the event of a future EWI breach) is to freeze the modelled capital figure to prevent distribution

Trilogue

• Question 29 is a good example of the PRA showing where their hands are now tied, and where EIOPA will be the provider of guidance.
• Interesting confirmation that the Commission has apparently asked that as little as possible of the Draft Implementing Measures be changed. Those of us working on non-mathematical areas can perhaps take some comfort from that!

"Comply or Explain" responses to EIOPA's preparatory guidance - UK oddities?

Isle of Man - "Call that a flood"

Happy New Year (or Blein Vie Noa as we say on the relatively unflooded Isle of Man). I hope you all took the opportunity to fall ill and get fat like I did, so we can recommence battle in 2014 with overflowing sinuses and bursting belt buckles...

I managed to take a look at some of the responses that EIOPA have received regarding whether or not the 32 National Competent Authorities (NCA) currently invested in the Solvency II game are planning to follow EIOPA's Preparatory Guidance over the next 2 years. Please serve yourselves from this central location.

It became evident over December that there was likely to be some non-compliance (both the French and British put their heads above the parapet), though as this was a "comply or explain" exercise, this was not necessarily grave - we are after all in the business of 'preparing' at this juncture - but I was curious to see precisely how different countries "explained" themselves.

In response to each guideline within the 4 EIOPA documents, the options for each NCA were to respond;

1. Yes - we already comply
2. Yes - we intend to comply
3. No - we do not and will not comply
4. Not applicable (though I'm not certain why this is an option)

They were also given space to provide text/links to prove how they are compliant with each guideline, and som space to provide explanations (questionnaire template here).

I was therefore surprised to see the British approach (which was generally "yes") also involved;

• Not providing an explanation when they have said "No" to a guideline (which admittedly is only in one case!)
• Unnecessarily using a copy/paste piece of text as an explanation for a number of guidelines where they have said they "Intend to comply"
• Unexpectedly answering "Not Applicable" to no fewer than 10 articles within the System of Governance guidance, some of which definitely featured in the feedback on the PRA's recent Supervisory Statement as bones of contention (the actuarial function's responsibilities for example).

Obviously no surprises that the French will not be attempting to comply anything in the System of Governance world after their earlier warning, though their rationale is expanded upon in this Risk.net article. That the strict definition of "AMSB" is an issue for the French industry is surely old news at this juncture, and it is ludicrous that such a matter has yet to be dealt with by the Commission's draftsmen. It certainly hasn't posed an issue for Germany (who intend to comply with all of Sys Gov), who operate dual boards.

While more may emerge over the next few weeks on what has been submitted here across the countries, I am more immediately interested in why the UK have elected to respond "not applicable" to so many System of Governance guidelines. It seems to fly in the face of their Supervisory Statement, and I can't imagine EIOPA are satisfied with that response. 

PRA on "good" and "bad" documentation for IMAP - restart or refresh?

As an welcome aside from the PRA's activity day on the 12th, they also delivered on a promise to provide examples of what constitutes "good" and "bad" documentation in the context of the internal model approval process (IMAP). Bearing in mind it has been quite some time since the PRA publicly pronounced on the matter - indeed, they were called something else the last time they did - the industry welcomed this in like a lottery-winning prodigal son.

Bad documentation
- reform or execute?

There have certainly been enough apocryphal tales spewed out by the industry over the last couple of years to suggest that the production of documentation to support participation in IMAP had transformed from a small cottage industry into something of a palatial Georgian Mansion house with a granny annex.

Whether or not this kind of advice is therefore timely enough to save the Solvency II Programmes of the UK from using documentation in their revitalised IMAP preparations that is neither good for man nor beast is another thing, bearing in mind there is three years worth of accumulated flotsam currently kicking around the servers of UK insurers which, given this message, will need to be revisited as a matter of urgency.

Regardless, as the UK still appear to hold the whip hand in EIOPA's model sub-committee, the PRA's views on model documentation are relevant to readers across the continent, so the document is well worth a read for anyone in pre-application.

I took the following from it;

• They have 3 principles of "good documentation" - accessibility, evidence and quality control
• "It is helpful to have a clear separation of policy, methodology and results"
• The document refers throughout to giving consideration to "the reader". Feels a little disingenuous if they mean "the PRA", and after reading their document a couple of times, I can't imagine who else they have in mind.
• Following on from that point, a reference to a bad example suggests that "...the author is not thinking carefully about the audience" - it is equally fair to suggest that the author may be assuming a level of technical/commercial knowledge at the PRA end which is lacking?
• The PRA are evidently not happy to have to "seek clarification" on matters, which suggests the time allocated to assessments is tightly planned, or indeed the level of technical knowledge held by the assessors is limited.
• Interested to know if these principles hold firm for Standard Formula firms if viewed conversely e.g. does paperwork for the justification to not use an internal model need to be of a similar standard?
• The reiteration that the PRA "...will rely, in large part, on the submitted documents" when assessing the model - just in case your friendly executive committee reckon they can talk their way in!
• A lofty aim to improve "accessibility" of documentation, by having levels covering; executive summaries; model reviewer/validator level info; and model user/operator level technical documentation. The PRA only want the first two levels as a matter of course, which would suggest that procedures and technical documentation should be used as supporting evidence only.
• Tabling up references to the Directive and Implementing Measures within documents is viewed favourably.
• Their "useful rule of thumb" feels instinctively unwieldy - they suggest better documents contain one-third 'what has been done' with the rest covering 'why and how'. That said, expert judgements are clearly not being evidenced anywhere near the level desired.
• A convoluted and potentially frightening reference to "self-validation" testing, which the PRA view favourably, but which seems to point towards a preference to see suites of documentary evidence for each assumption applied in the modelling process. 
• To conclude, readers are redirected to Julian Adams's letters from  mid- 2012 (here and here) - important to note that this guidance remains relevant, regardless of the passing of time.

I suspect that most model applicants will find they have re-work to do off the back of this, both with the pen and with the sickle. Expert judgement and assumptions documentation remain the unquenchable thirst though, so one's best endeavours would be well spent in that field in early 2014.

The PRA Consultation on EIOPA's Preparatory Guidance - priorities for 2014 and 2015

After 10 years, it's finally getting interesting - the PRA today have dropped out a consultation paper on applying EIOPA's preparatory guidelines to PRA-authorised firms (CP 9/13). You can get at the EIOPA materials through this post for convenience.

The content will, subject to any intense lobbying by industry, be adopted as a supervisory statement (section 233) to cover the 2014 and 2015 calendar years, with the expectation remaining that 2016 is our "go-live" date. It covers the following aspects of the preparatory phase;

• The PRA's expectations of firms as they prepare for Solvency II;
• The PRA's approach to implementing the guidelines; and
• The PRA's interpretation of aspects of the guidelines.

They are at pains to highlight that these are "preparatory" guidelines, and provide the traditional spiel on "nature, scale and complexity", so incremental progress is to be expected during the period in question. What that means in practice is perhaps another thing - can you show measurable 'incremental progress' for materials which are only on an annual review cycle, for example? - but that aside, it's worth picking the bones out for your respective programmes, and perhaps most importantly, getting your feedback in by November 15th if you don't like it!

Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of this CP is that in no way is it suggestive of the PRA rejecting any of EIOPA's guidance (remember, they have until the end of November to voice any protest). That of course makes preparatory work much easier to plan for, as the UK will seemingly be doing it all!

My thoughts on the specifics were as follows;

System of Governance (SOG)

• Emphasise that the SFCR requirements around SOG are also catered for in EIOPA's work (3.7), so a smart move would be to factor that into your drafting plans during 2014
• General governance requirements "largely consistent with SYSC", though individuals holding key functions might expect a personal visit in the next two years (3.10)
• Similar position for Risk Management Systems (3.12), stressing the commonality of requirements with existing PRA obligations, but stressing in particular that firms should be "...including suitable mechanisms and methodology for connecting to their ORSAs and for carrying out regular stress and scenario tests" during the preparatory phase.
• That Prudent Person Principle is not a new concept to the PRA, but firms would be expected to review investment strategies in line with PPP over the next couple of years. A concession is seemingly made regarding the provision and review of third-party data by investment functions for smaller firms. 
• On the (new) requirement for a Capital Management Policy/Medium Term Capital Plan (3.16), they are not moving, despite the howls of protestation - "The PRA regards the development and implementation of such policies and plans as an integral part of sound risk and capital management for all firms, especially as their management and Boards assess the implications of the forthcoming Solvency II own funds and capital requirements"
• On internal controls, they appear to be fishing for firms to analyse whether their existing framework is Solvency-II ready, and then piggy-back of that self-assessment (3.17)
• Same for Internal Audit function readiness! (3.18)
• Actuarial function get a more bespoke treatment (3.19), with all firms asked to "carefully consider" the functional structure to avoid conflicts of interest. They also reserve the right to "...review firms’ analysis of the areas required for improvement, and understand the actions the firm is taking to resolve these".
• Outsourcing similarly gets additional treatment by the PRA (3.22), who are "particularly interested" in changes made specifically with Solvency II readiness in mind

Useful quotes

...the PRA articulates its expectations of firms in the preparatory period, including that firms should read, assess and implement the substantive provisions of the guidelines in order to achieve the intended outcomes (2.5)

The guidelines and this statement are designed to work towards a consistent and convergent approach in preparations for Solvency II and not its early implementation (2.6)

 The PRA expects firms, when asked, to be able to explain what governance changes they need to make to satisfy the guidelines, how they plan to make those changes, what progress there has been to date and any particular difficulties they face (3.4)

The PRA expects firms to be able to document their overall approach to outsourcing, including contingency plans in the event of a service provider failure, to ensure that the efficiency of the service remains unimpaired and uninterrupted. (3.22)

During the preparatory period, the work of the actuarial function will now focus on co-ordinating the calculation of technical provisions, providing an opinion on the underwriting policy and reinsurance arrangements and contributing to the development and performance of the internal model in the pre-application stage where relevant (3.19)

During the preparatory period, the PRA encourages firms to consider how to manage the transition to the new regime and to assess the impact on existing asset portfolios of Solvency II requirements. This need not necessarily mean that changes have to be made to firms’ investment strategies or portfolios but firms are encouraged to work on an incremental basis towards demonstrating that they meet the requirements of the PPP (3.14)

During the preparatory period firms should review their existing policy for assessing fitness and propriety and whether it needs updating in advance of Solvency II (3.11)

FLAOR/ORSA

• PRA only planning to review assessments "...on a proportionate basis" during preparatory phase - they elaborate further by stating "Due to the high number of ORSAs which will be submitted, the PRA expects that it may have to stagger its review of these during the preparatory period in a way that is risk based and proportionate". Does that mean "Top Ten & Lloyds & IMAP" get the works, with everyone else getting a lite-touch?
• Expectation that improvements are identifiable between the 2014 and 2015 FLAORs - the PRA will contact firms individually if they are within the threshold limits which enact guidelines 14-16.
• On ORSA documentation, "...firms should recognise the need for effective documentation and record keeping", for both Policy and Report (4.7)
• Note that the Board's involvement in ORSA is "...far more extensive than setting risk appetites and tolerances", and leave an open threat to go through Board packs/agendas to ensure this is the case (4.8)
• Smaller firms get permission to use their internal ORSA Report as the ORSA Supervisory Report, provided it has enough detail. Larger/riskier firms may conversely be asked to supplement whatever they submit. (4.10)
• PRA actually considering issuing a "summary sheet" to firms in order to help gather information consistently (4.11). Here comes the ORSA Template!
• Expectation that 2014 projection work is done on existing basis, and 2015 (ideally) on Solvency II basis (4.15)

Useful quotes

The preparatory period is a time of development for firms in designing, compiling and trialling these assessments (4.3)

To help capture [ORSA] data and information in a consistent way from firms and facilitate review the PRA is considering whether it may be beneficial to provide a summary sheet to firms (4.11)

The PRA does not intend to prescribe when firms should submit their ORSA...Firms should inform the PRA when their ORSA will be submitted well in advance of the submission date (4.19)

The PRA expects the Board to play an active part at various stages, providing initial steering on how the ORSA should be designed and documented, challenging on risk identification and mitigation along the way and culminating in the Board approving and communicating the finished product. (4.8)

The PRA expects all firms to develop a qualitative process to develop an ORSA which can be documented and reviewed by the PRA in line with its overall proportionate approach.(4.6)

Submission of Information

• Confirms that XBRL is required prior to 2016 as submission format for QRTs (5.7)
• Suggest that policies and procedures around reporting in firms may need "potentially significant revision" in light of Solvency II. (5.15)
• Rather obscurely, they write, "The PRA does not expect that preparatory reporting will be subject to a requirement for external audit but it may draw upon audited inputs" - as I recall the participation of external auditors in QRT-type reporting has been a massive bone of contention in Brussels (indicated within these IRSG comments from last year, but I'm sure there's a more recent story), but potentially not a welcome development.

Internal Model Pre-Application

• They isolate the Model Change policy as an example of something which should already be tested for its appropriateness (6.5)
• Still expect firms to come forward and brief them on "significant" changes during pre-application.
• Surprisingly, very little else,

Useful quotes

...it is important that where models are sufficiently stable, firms are beginning to demonstrate their use and continue to refine their models with the benefits of experience (6.5)

I may fire some feedback in, but ultimately I suspect this lady is not for changing...

Pre-application for Internal Models - EIOPA's FINAL preparatory guidance for national supervisors

So the March consultation document for internal model pre-application brought a few eye-openers for those countries partaking in a less onerous application process than that favoured by the UK, with the detail in it suggesting that the UK very much had the whip hand in its drafting.

On the basis that there were still areas which even the most hardened IMAP-veteran may have winced at, it was interesting to see if anything got dropped in the lobbying stampede. On that basis, the final guidance for internal model pre-application covers the following in the preamble;

• 3.10 - That it is not in the NCAs gift to conduct pre-application preparation along the lines of provisional approval or to provide "roadmaps" to compliance (which may explain the PRA's caginess with the industry). It is purely about a firm's preparedness and suitability to submit an application
• 3.33 - On request, EIOPA have introduced a compulsion for NCAs to provide "regular feedback" to firms
• 3.35 - Confirms that not all model changes need to be reported to NCAs during pre-application, just those considered "relevant" by firms themselves

It is fair to say that the lobbying in this space has been noticeably more successful than for ORSA or System of Governance, no doubt due to the smaller sub-set of affected stakeholders having a more concentrated relevance. That said, there were still a number of rebuffs from EIOPA, particularly where the lobbying looked more like whinging about paperwork volumes! Highlights below;

Model Change Policy

3.38 - No danger of EIOPA supporting the recommendation to "fast track" model change approvals if a "major change" is required at short notice. They instead recommend "proactivity" with NCAs. Not sure what this does for the world of opportunistic acquisitions though

3.40 - Fudged the question as to whether parameter changes are considered "major", offering an answer of 'it depends' which, for me at least, leans more towards 'yes they are'.

Use Test

3.42 - Confirms that evidencing "use" is not compelling use of model outputs over and above other techniques

Assumptions and Expert Judgement

3.46 - Documentation and validation of assumption setting and expert judgements considered "crucial" in order for undertakings to counter the lack of data and subjectivity in those processes

3.47 - A guideline has also been amended to confirm that the materiality principle applies for this topic

3.48 - Only the most material assumptions will need AMSB sign-off

Methodological Consistency/PDF/Calibration

A number of changes made to clarify guidance in these areas

Profit and Loss Attribution

3.64 - No escaping the requirements to produce P&L attribution granularity at Legal Entity level, as well as by risk driver

Validation

3.68 - EIOPA do not accept that those who build models may also validate them

Documentation

3.70 - That the guidance around the documentation of the internal model should provide "...[protection] from key-person risk", which I have never seen offered as justification from the supervisory end before

Ultimately, there have been no huge concessions from the position in March, which one would think will cause a number of the more liberal EU regulators to give serious consideration to "explaining" rather than "complying" - that said, with this having been written in Union Jack ink, my British cousins should simply get their transition planning updated accordingly.

EIOPA's FINAL preparatory guidance for national supervisors - it's on at last!

Sporting less change than a busker's flatcap, EIOPA have published their final version of the preparatory guidance for the EU's National Competent Authorities (NCAs) to get themselves ready for Solvency II ahead of the anticipated implementation date of 2016. You can catch my post on EIOPA's consultation papers here if you want to dig out their position prior to the consultation, which saw over 4,000 comments offered.

EIOPA - Thanks for the feedback,
here's your change...

Over the last week, while I have been recuperating from yet another rugby injury, there is plenty of chatter recently about the kick-off date, Omnibus II's progression through trilogues (and hopefully parliament before the May 2014 elections), etc elsewhere, so I've just had a run through the final guidance to see what got lobbied out, and whether that is a win for all stakeholders, or just the industry. As the PRA have already made it clear that should the go-live date move, their expectations on supervisory reporting will also move (p3), whether it is 2016, 2017, etc. is kind of a moot point.

The mainstream press has trumpeted the big wins as being in the reporting space which, judging by the IRSG's scathing take on that topic, should be no surprise to anyone. However, it would appear that EIOPA have refused to bend for much else, adopting a relatively sniffy tone in response to stakeholders concerns/complaints.


Below are links to separate blog posts covering the more contentious highlights for each of EIOPA's 4 hot topics, while Mike Claffey and the Milliman crew have quickly summarised the changes here;

System of Governance - Final Guidance (EIOPA Doc)

ORSA/Forward Looking Risk Assessment - Final Guidance (EIOPA Doc)

Reporting/Submission of information to NCAs - Final Guidance (EIOPA Doc)

Pre-application for Internal Models - Final Guidance (EIOPA Doc)

FTSE and European Insurers - Economic Capital and Solvency II trends - money pit filled?

Interim Results season - without question, the most exciting time of the summer for me (although to qualify that, I do live on the Isle of Man and blog in my spare time). As good an opportunity as any to peer review where the big boys are at in the UK and Europe, both on Solvency II preparations/costs and economic captial positions.

Solvency II project costs - on the wane?

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, the FTSE-listed insurers have gone noticeably quiet on both Solvency II and, in the UK's case, the havoc it was inevitably going to wreak in its 2012 form - while the 2013 silence "speaks volumes" as to the priority of the dossier, it is a smart idea to see what impact the threat of a 2014 start has had to EC positions of major insurers over the last 12 months (i.e. after last year's whingeing, did any of them actually do substantive capital-related activity!)

A few notes for each below;

Aviva

• Solvency II project costs of £44m - well down on £77m in 2012 year-to-June
• "...there is still significant uncertainty over the detailed requirements [of Solvency II]"
• Pro-forma economic capital surplus of 175%, up from 172% in December
• IGD coverage 1.8 times, up from 1.7 times in December

Axa

• Nothing on Solvency II at all or project costs
• Solvency ratio down to 218% (from 233%) since December - interest rated attributed
• Economic solvency ratio (calibrated to 1-in-200 VaR) down to 204% (from 206%) since December - dividend and market risk elements attributed

Allianz

• Nothing on project costs
• Solvency ratio (based on FCD) of 177%, down from 197% this time last year - change in accounting standards attributed
• "...Allianz continues to be exposed to two external forces that adversely affect our risk profile and would not normally be associated with our core operating activities: the European sovereign debt crisis and regulatory developments – especially the European solvency directive, Solvency II"
• No reference to economic capital or modelling

Legal and General

• "Investment projects and expenses" (which covered Solvency II last year) were £20m - £23m in 2012 year-to-June
• "...remains uncertainty both to the implementation timescales of Solvency II and the final calibrations that will be used for long term business"
• IGD surplus unchanged at £4.1bn, coverage ratio down to 226%

Old Mutual

• No mention of Solvency II project costs, same as last year
• EC coverage of "over 160%", calibrated to VaR 99.93%
• FGD surplus of 160%
• Dividend outweighed operational cash flows in the 6 month period, though this was due to the special dividend paid last year after a massive disposal

Resolution

• Solvency II project costs of £10m for the half year - well down on the £48m for 2012 comparable!
• "Proposals for Solvency II continue to be the subject of debate"
• EC Coverage of 192% - (194% in Dec - quantum increased by £200m though)
• IGCA coverage of 221% (222% in Dec) - sold a business unit, which helped cover dividend

Prudential

• £13m Solvency II project costs for the half year - £27m in 2012 year-to-June
• "...deferral until 1 January 2016 or beyond appears likely"
• "...we now know that it will not be implemented before 1 January 2016" - my emphasis
• "[potential for] optimising the Group’s domicile as a possible response to an adverse outcome on Solvency II" remains on the table, a copy/paste threat left in from last year.
• IGD coverage of 230% - quantum lower by over a billion since Dec, due to a change in requirements in their US business

Standard Life

• £36m Solvency II "and other programmes" costs for the half year - £42m in 2012 year-to-June
• Solvency II project "...continues to respond to changes in requirements"
• IGD down £500m since half year after accounting for a special dividend, and surplus generation down year-on-year (attributed to new business strain)
• IGD surplus of 185%, down from over 200% at YE2012, but up 11% from this time last year
• Not a single reference to "economic capital" in the document

Generali

• No mention of Solvency II
• Solvency I coverage at 139% - up from 130% this time last year
• Economic capital coverage of 167% - up from 159% this time last year

RSA

• Solvency II project costs down to £10m (was £16m  in 2012 year-to-June)
• "There remains continued uncertainty as delays in agreeing the rules have caused the planned implementation date of 2014 to be delayed."
• IGD covered 1.7 times - down from 1.9 times since December - dividends again cited in explaining the dip.
• Economic capital (calibrated to 1-in-200 VaR) £1.3bn, up from £1.2bn in December.

So a trend of steady Solvency I ratios, and no sign of any war chests being created by holding excess cash back - quite the opposite in some cases, with dividends (special or otherwise) on the high side. With project costs diminishing and barely a passing comment on the Omnibus II impasse, it looks very much like Solvency II is yesterday's news in the boardrooms of major insurers. 

That said, in just those insurers covered above there has been over £100m confirmed spend in the last 6 months on Solvency II preparations, during which time the implementation date has (informally) moved at least two years, IMAP has been elongated, and the LTGA panacea has turned out to be anything but. That's hardly chickenfeed, and the rest of this year can only get busier for the UK with ICAS+ and EIOPA Interim Guidelines to contend with.

I hope Finance Directors don't get too excited by the dwindling project spend though - we haven't started Pillar 3 yet, apparently!