Insurance Europe on EIOPA's place in the European System of Financial Supervision

As a response to the European Commission's consultation on the new European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) - you know, the one that gave birth to EIOPA and the other two ESAs - Insurance Europe have laid some home truths down in this questionnaire document regarding the performance of EIOPA to date, as well as problems they see on the horizon once Omnibus II gets through.

Due to the lack of transparency in much of the work performed by EIOPA to date (a by-product of their remit being squirrelled away in the Omnibus II dossier?), I found some of this comment very revealing from a body which I expected would be relatively pally with them. Specifically, I noted the following opinions;

• That ESAs should not issue Guidelines that circumvent legislative powers - these generate blurred lines between technical matters (where their input is welcome) and strategic/political matters (where it is not). Precisely here that would leave EIOPA's Solvency II Interim Guidelines in their ideal world is another thing I guess, though they go on to say that the "...level of detail on the Solvency II implementing measures is alarming", and indeed were pretty vocal in their public response to them.

  

  EIOPA Guidelines - back door regulation?

• That there is an absence of clear definition in EIOPA's materials around where Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS), Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) and Guidelines differ - going on to suggest that there is an element of "regulation by the back door" in the Guidelines issued to date.
• Concern regarding the level of power left in EIOPA's gift to adopt RTS, citing as an example that EIOPA have brought back (as part of L3 consulations) a proposal to make external auditors review SFCRs - this proposal having already been jettisoned by the Parliament at L1!
• Suggest that the Commission should have a vote in contentious decisions within EIOPA (the Commission attend in a non-voting capacity currently) 
• A diva-esque rant (p12) about the quality of EIOPA's processes and outputs during consultations (lack of feedback, poor quality documentation), as well as suggesting that consultation participant quantums are overweight in academics at the expense of the industry.
• That some of the membership of Insurance Europe would welcome qualified majority voting in the ESAs weighted by size (let me guess who!).

So without having been handed their full schmorgasbord of powers, EIOPA are already being lambasted for their use of them - tough break!

EIOPA's response on the ORSA consultation - get on with it!

In a week so full of heavy reading (EIOPA's response to the Reporting Package consultation and the FSA's second tome on creating their SOLPRU handbook), I was hoping to get to something a bit lighter towards the end of the week (heard great things about 50 Shades of Grey on the grapevine...).

Then appears EIOPA's response to the ORSA consultation paper feedback, which is affixed to the document in a whopping 200 page annex. While I have blogged on the consultation paper itself back in November, the real meat and spuds of the response is condensed into the front 15 pages, from which I would flag the (non-exhaustive) following lobbyists points, along with EIOPA's responses;

• Lobbyists were still asking for more prescription/examples in areas of the guidelines, regardless of this being Level 3
• Specific concerns around the "deviation from risk profile" guideline, which may force insurers to adopt internal models
• Continued concerns around proportionality and materiality definitions
• Still seeking "ORSA Report" examples
• Concerns around projecting overall solvency needs over the planning period, so looking for simplifications in that area
• Range of concerns around Group ORSAs (diversification, Colleges of Supervisors, Third Countries, ORSA scope)

EIOPA's highlights in response are;

• Re: proportionality and materiality - stop whining and get on with it (p8)!
• Re: "Record of the ORSA" - a specific document containing all records of ORSA-related activity is NOT required, where existing documentation/records contribute to the assessment as they stand (in such cases "a reference to the relevant data is sufficient") (p9)
• To supplement this, they note "A record of an individual ORSA will in most cases contain more information than is contained either in the internal ORSA Report or the ORSA Supervisory Report" (p10)
• No specific approach for captives (so another 'get on with it'!) (p10)
• All risks are expected to be quantified, regardless of the difficulty (p10)
• Lobbying on forward looking perspective has clearly paid off, as the requirement to quantify overall solvency needs for each year of the projection period has been dropped (p10)
• Onus on companies to justify conclusions around the severity of deviations of risk profile (which may lead a Standard Formula firm to start modelling) - a result of sorts for the industry I guess (p11)
• Confirms that ORSA and SCR calculations cannot be completely divorced, but would allow an ORSA to be performed using an older SCR calculation, providing the risk profile hasn't materially changed in the interim

No reason to think they would radically divert from their proposal (indeed, they didn't on the reporting package as well, so at least the industry is getting the certainty it craves, if not the actual legislation!)

EIOPA's IRSG feedback on ORSA Consultation

EIOPA's Insurance and Reinsurance Stakeholder Group (IRSG) have had their feedback published on EIOPA's website this week, to go alongside a ream of other feedback documents. While the lobbyists papers will be of varying levels of relevance, the IRSG's will surely carry some weight when it comes to the final Level 3 advice (though surprisingly, the committee make up appears to be shockingly Franco-German, which may explain some of the idiosyncracies in the feedback text!).

On top of the seemingly industry-wide interchangeability of ORSA/the ORSA as a process and a report, I picked out the following worthy points;

• Note that "mixing [ORSA] with regulatory requirements will dilute the value and overall effectiveness,,,"
• Nicely highlight that the MCR "is the only requirement to be met at all times", and that the L3 should reflect that
• "An undertaking's business strategy will feed into the ORSA in terms of establishing the parameters for assessment" - really like this sentence, and is a handy line for Board training/briefing.
• "ORSA Reports are prepared for the AMSB and subsequently shared with the supervisor" - again, good distinction from the consultation draft, which points towards potential dual-ORSA reporting
• Stange piece at bottom of p4, whiuch almost suggests that standard formula users would be in "unknown territory" with regard to following the existing L3 text, and should benefit from simplifications - if any L3 territory is "unknown" to SF users, I suggest they get themselves a consultant!
• Good point on p5 regarding cross-pollenation of risk terminology between regulation and corporate law at European level. The CEA glossary of Solvency II terms is recommended as the best place to source/store these definitions, which should smart a little for the risk profession as a whole.
• IRSG desire to restrict the amount of work required to breakdown in detail the emergence of risk over an undertaking's business planning period.
• Recommend at least one scenario should be included in ORSA which shows an SCR breach for the benefit of management.

They don't stray too far away from the individual lobbyists with their thoughts, but the consensus on a single report for management and supervisor from all parties should at least lighten the administrative load, as I suspect that will be taken on board.

ORSA Consultation Paper from EIOPA - bon effort!

As I don't expect everyone had the time, inclination or even the document to see how the pre-consultation team of CEA/AMICE/CRO Forum/CFO Forum etc got on with the ORSA document, I had a cross-cast of the two to see if any substantive changes were made. The following caught my eye in the public consultation paper released yesterday;

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

All in all, a good attempt and I feel more than prescriptive enough for the public consultation to drive it further forward. Perhaps a missed opportunity on the regulatory requirements front to iron out what they ought to get out of the industry's ORSA reports from a wide range of stakeholders, but hey, you can't have everything...

European Economic and Social Committee paper on Solvency – 5th May

I do recall fishing for this and having no success, but the EESC Opinion Paper on Solvency II (agreed last month, but not sure when released) makes for fascinating reading.

As with most things relating to European bodies, I struggle to identify exactly what the purpose of it is, but the committee, at the behest of the European Council no less, make a number of substantial points;

• Solvency II "should not result in market consolidation, especially in respect of small and medium insurers
• Focus very hard on sustaining the provision of guaranteed long-term products, and therefore an "appropriate" interest rate term structure is indispensible in calculating SCR
• That this is not just a technical issue, but also a political issue when involving provision for old age
• Explains the reason for "implementing measures" becoming "delegated acts" at Level 2 (which I never knew the driver behind until today!)
• Heavy on smoothing the transition between Solvency I and II, and states that the transition should cover "all three pillars"
• Proper assessment of how transitional rules can be consistently linked with supervisory actions in cases of non-compliance post go-live date
• "Transition should refer more explicitly to the upgraded Solvency I standard as an (optional) minimum level" - I may be wrong, but is Solvency I not a retrograde step for UK  plc, who are already knee deep in ICAS?
• "Interest Rate term structure and illiquidity premium will not be determined by legislative bodies"
• Timeframe for effective launch of Solvency II "particularly challenging" - "Insurance companies cannot be held accountable for instructions that are to be published at a later stage"
• "The proposal that EIOPA develop draft implementing measure by 31 December 2011 at the latest would seem to be somewhat ambitious"!
• Discourages developing more Level 3's where Level 2's already exist - "In case of any doubts, for individual implementing measures (Level 2), no additional technical standards (Level 3) should be provided for; eg Level 3 would not appear to be necessary in respect of own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA), the classification of Own Funds or ring-fenced funds" 

I honestly don't know how to read this - is it the start of the goalpost moving process, the issue of a public challenge to meet tight dealines, or a reprimand for CEIOPS/EIOPA for regurgitating most of Level 2 into Level 3? I guess there will be more to follow...