Solvency II Industry Forum in Ireland - Clint and Chocolate

Having treated the speech by EIOPA's Chair as the main course a few days ago, I'd better take a look at the hors d'ouevres and pudding. At the CBoI's industry event in late April, a couple of their biggest hitters delivered speeches of their own, with a similar tone to the PRA's effort in October (i.e. a considered yet firm rollicking).


Solvency II Marathon
- no Snickering...

Sylvia Cronin's speech, in which she referred to Solvency II as the "Marathon of Marathons", shone some light on how Ireland plc has dealt with ORSA during the preparatory phase. If you remember, the CBoI kindly provided ORSA templates for the entities lower down the PRISM spectrum, which I felt at the time was fully justifiable, and a tactic other NSAs should have adopted.

It wouldn't appear that the industry has performed exceptionally in their 2014 efforts, with Ms Cronin drawing attention to the following flaws in execution

• Variances in ORSA Report content between firms in similar sectors  "cause for concern" - a slightly worrying comment, given that some firms will be over-elaborating with content with the help of their friendly consultancy firm.
• Boards were aggressively called out on the "ownership" front. If your Boards have been ambivalent to-date with regards to participation in the ORSA process, they will seemingly get a hard time from now on.
• ORSA Process "...as important as the document itself" - music to my ears, and still a surprisingly difficult concept to convey
• The "so called use test" is referenced around ORSA, and not in the context of internal model applicants - no idea what that is about, so will assume it was a clumsy turn of phrase, rather than a new element of legislation
• Stress testing seen to be "too benign", with firms ignoring key risks and hard-to-quantify risks. Given that the UK firms received similar feedback on their 2014 ORSA stress testing efforts, it doesn't appear to be a country-specific failing.
• 'Local' (i.e. Irish) ORSAs which filter into wider Group ORSAs have not been adapted to fit the business model of the Irish entity. Good issue to pull firms up on, if they are relying Head Office to provide them with process and reports in template format 
• Business plan and forward looking time horizons not considered plausible, possibly a by-product of the lack of Board involvement in the ORSA Process

On the Pillar 3 front, she noted the following

• Pillar 3 is now a "cause for concern" - decisions by firms on architecture and expenditure "now overdue".
• Only half of High or Medium PRISM firms have participated in external user testing on Pillar 3. This still feels proportionally more than the PRA have tested out, though it is still viewed as a negative by the Bank.

"Problematic Applicant"?

Cyril Roux on the other hand wanted to reflect on "the good the bad and the ugly of Solvency II" in his address. While most executives paying for Solvency II programmes in EU insurance entities would suggest that "A Few Dollars More" is a more apt Clint Eastwood hook, he took a more macro view during which he;

• Patted the Irish regulator for its "good work" putting the house back in order after the laissez-faire approach at the start of this century. 
• Also reiterated that Pillar 3 preparations are light in the country, urging firms to "...devote the resources necessary"
• Dwelled heavily on the subjects of investment risk appetite and prudent person principle
• Pointed at "problematic applicants" who can now seek approvals to do business in the EU regardless of the supervisor's thoughts about their business models
• Called Solvency II's quantitative requirements "ill conceived" and "overboard" and "clearly too complex"
• Commented that SCR is "unlikely, unreliable tool to manage capital" - "...certainly the supervisor will not be using it for more than its worth".
• Gave short shrift to the abolition of prudential reserving under Solvency II, and indeed Bernadino referred glowingly to the Irish approach to reserving governance (presumably to counteract this grievance?) in his keynote speech.

A lot to be taken from these speeches if you have any dealings with Irish insurers, and with the clock ticking, I can't imagine there will be better steers than these during the preparatory phase.

Pillar 3 implementation phase - "I can change, I can change"...

There has been a bit of noteworthy activity on the Pillar 3 side over the last few weeks, which I will cover below if I can keep awake long enough.

Pillar 3 Deadlines - "take it easy fella"

Pillar 3 was shouldered in to the NED briefing at the end of March (slide 19), and in a style similar to South Park's Saddam Hussein charicature, they effectively told the audience to "relax guy"...

Were those calming words justifiable? Given the PRA's admin function was seemingly on a "no uploading" break for Lent, we have in the last couple of days seen a whopping 3 months worth of minutes from their Regulatory Reporting Industry Working Group (or "Pillar 3 whingepit" as it more commonly known) made public. Interesting snippets include;

Jan 2015 - PRA full working group

• Publication of example reporting schedules for anyone without a December year-end
• "Early May" appears to be the starting point for any Category 1-3 firms who need to test out the PRA's QRT recepticle handiwork
• Firms "must submit data in XBRL" from July of this year, in case there were any chancers out there
• No additional information about the spectre of external auditors poring through your reporting efforts until Q2 2015 (i.e. now!). This will be in the form of EIOPA Guidelines, from which the PRA will "determine its position".
• About 20% of firms responded to the PRA's readiness survey that they are behind the curve
• Sourcing asset data still noted as an "issue", as well as vendor limitations, which would be of some concern for anyone who has splashed out on a software solution.

Feb 2015 - PRA testing sub-group

•  Problems around compatability of firms' earlier efforts appear to emerge every time EIOPA apply a hotfix to their taxonomy
• EIOPA filing rules and guidance were scheduled for Q1 2015 release - I can't seem to see them (though I haven't looked hard), so their timeliness maybe a victim of the EIOPA budget cuts?
• Firms are directed to the draft ITS to distinguish between preparatory requirements on Reporting and "live" requirements. This seems to be a repeated message, so presumably firms are not reading this document properly. 
• First testing cycle kicked off on 27th Feb, with (9) firms down at the PRA's offices. Second cycle scheduled for soon/now in April, performed externally to "test connectivity"
• Firms were effectively encouraged to sent in any old tat in XBRL, which the PRA would feedback on.

March 2015 - PRA testing sub-group

• Initial testing of the PRA's facilities doesn't appear to have been discouraging
• Less that half a dozen firms will be kicking the tyres in the second test phase
• EIOPA effectively overrule the PRA by allowing old and new taxonomies to be used in the preparatory phase.
• The PRA's (unpublished?) validation rules will not be applied during the preparatory phase, which will be light relief to some firms.

This information seems to support rather than contradict the more general yet widely reported Grant Thornton survey which suggests there will be a good number of firms who will struggle with their 2016 obligations, let alone 2017's. They made the following points;

• GI and composite firms seemingly the most worried
• Half of firms are planning to create their own reporting solution (based on T4U?), mostly Lloyds and GI firms. Are these "have-a-go heroes" the hidden issue for the PRA, given their restricted testing group.
• Around 20% are behind schedule on QRTs
• A third have done little if anything on the SFCR/RSR front – the PRA have stated that these are required "in year 1" (Q17, and yes, both of them!)
• Compared against an earlier survey they conducted, the one topic which hasn’t alleviated any concerns is the ability to extract data from internal IT systems.
• Majority of firms are having a single dry run for quarterly and annual QRTs

Should anyone be worried given the granular information above, or is Pillar 3 still tomorrow's problem?

PRA Pillar 3 Working Group - testing commences

Bit of activity on the Pillar 3 front, with the PRA's industry working group publishing minutes from their 'recent' meeting (i.e. 2 months ago).

Rather than another bleat about late delivery in contravention of their Terms of Reference (bottom of last page!), let's enjoy the content for what it is, which is incredibly useful.

Data Collection and xBRL
A few basics were formally tabled, such as the PRA completing their vendor selection for a data collection system, and a note that the xBRL process chosen across the EU has "some commonality". Of particular interest is the commencement of a testing sub-group which has been charged with assisting the PRA in getting their technology up and running with sample data, and that work is apparently ongoing as we speak.

They have planned to allow selected submittors to dry-run their facilities in Q1 2015, before opening it up to all other firms obliged to submit material in the preparatory phase in Q2. Not sure how much lag this set-up allows, so let's hope they get happy before Christmas!

External Audit and Pillar 3
Another sore point has been the potential inclusion, on a short or long-term basis, of external auditors in the preparation and delivery of Pillar 3 reporting (raised on the Solvency II Wire last month). The PRA opine that external audit requirement guidelines "...are not scheduled to be included" in the forthcoming ITS, and that EIOPA has not decided when to issue public consultation on the matter, though they will at some point.

Clearly the PRA have ambitions to continue their existing requirements for the external audit of regulatory submissions, as evidenced by their preparatory phase approach to gaining comfort on Solvency II Balance Sheet components of all IM applicants and larger SF firms, which will pad out a few partner's wallets at the Big 4 (though perhaps for the right reasons).

Lobbying and questions
Effectively told the attendees to direct more questions to EIOPA rather than them, and in particular to wait for EIOPA's second set of ITS, due any day now. On the basis that ITS will (probably) be accepted by the Commission as delivered, the PRA are reminding firms that this is effectively the only window for the industry to bleat.

Board sign-off of QRTs
A huge bugbear across the industry was the implication, reinforced through the PRA's Pillar 3 Q&A document (Q20, last page), that June 2015 would see piles of QRT material tabled at Board meetings across the UK for them to formally approve. They confirmed at this meeting that the Board "...may choose to delegate aspects of the process for operational reasons" - CFO sign-offs all round!

Asset Data, and interaction between Asset Managers and Insurers
A slightly odd, but very relevant point was raised regarding Insurers interacting with their asset managers to ensure they get the right quantity and level of granularity in their asset data to populate the QRTs. The PRA are naturally concerned about this, given the shortening timeframe, and given that the asset management industry themselves appear to be making some voluntary efforts, it feels like the insurers have some work to do.

KPMG on Pillar 3 and Public Disclosure - in or out?

Pillar 3 - rude awakening?

The operational reality of Solvency II Pillar 3 is seemingly about to deliver a ruder awakening than breakfast at Chubby Brown's. Whilst for example the UK's regulator has offered an element of flexibility in the content of the QRT reporting to be submitted during the Solvency II preparatory phase (Q21 here), Finance functions across the EU will be in an spreadsheet-fuelled scramble to deliver Solvency I, Solvency II and public reporting from now on in.

The lie of the land is not pretty as it stands. Evidently the PRA's crack team of Pillar 3 regulator and industry expets is tabling some sobering questions, given their recently revised Q&A, and both software solution providers (here) and asset data firms (here) continue to ebb and flow with their contributions to preparedness, depending on the pay-off. Some co-odination efforts have recently begun on asset data transference involving the larger EU players, but doesn't yet sound like the golden ticket for the teams charged with delivering Pillar 3 material.

Even EIOPA, the new custodians of the word ERRATA, are seemingly tied up with the less technologically developed EU members in an Excel-flavoured workaround to the xBRL question which, judging by the number of QRT template amendments already applied, has an air of inevitability about it.

It was therefore nice to see one of the Big 4 release results from this survey on how firms are preparing for Pillar 3 in the content of existing and future public disclosure requirements. Small sample (11 firms, all multinationals), and all evidently have existing plc-type disclosure requirements, but the topics and trends covered should inform anyone in the Pillar 3 space who has transitioning on their agendas.

Worthy of note:

• Pre-Solvency II disclosure of quantitative material not favoured - not much to be gained I suppose
• No-one planning to publish projected capital adequacy!
• Responders in IMAP seemingly working on the basis that "Plan B" won't be required
• Few likely to publish "internal views of capital" ( for this read "overall solvency needs" or "ORSA Capital") - analysts felt unlikely to be looking for it.
• Most common differences between Pillar 1 and OSN used were treatment of contract boundaries and the risk-free rate, with the list of distinctions going into double figures
• Some provisional plans for IFRS alignment on the balance sheet methodology front
• Embedded Value about to be jettisoned as a reporting metric - analysts are of course devastated!

Who said accountancy was boring?

PRA's Pillar 3 Industry Working Group - the horsetrading begins...

The PRA have at last released the materials from their pre-Christmas Pillar 3 industry working group, which should provide a little cheer to anyone working in that space, and indeed the vendors who are manfully trying to supply software solutions to address it.

The materials include;

• A "record of the discussions" (definitely not 'minutes'!) 
• A Pillar 3-specific Q&A
• Some feedback on the industry data collection exercise held in May 2013 (details here)

As I mentioned in a previous post, these materials were due for publication 12 working days after the meeting, and the lag had me a little bit concerned that the debate had taken a terrible turn! It wouldn't appear so on review, but I thought the following issues were worth flagging;

From Q&A

• National-specific template consultations will start "at earliest" in July 2014
• Suggest that dialogue between firms and the PRA will aid the appropriate application of proportionality up to 2016
• Suggest that firms "regularly check" EIOPA's website for relevant material, as well as stating that they will update the Q&A doc. Both of these things lead to a "pull" of information by individual firms rather than a co-ordinated "push" by supervisors and rulemakers, which I find displeasing.
• EIOPA will be expected to provide definitions of any ambiguous terms
• PRA will not publish a reporting timetable in the preparatory period
• Smaller firms will not be allowed to submit material in a format other than XBRL

From "record of the discussion"

• Myriad issues tabled regarding interactions with external parties (ratings agencies, data vendors, asset managers)
• Range of assumptions, simplifications and materiality calls already being made in the absence of definitive guidance or supervisory college "party line"
• Publicly disclosed QRTs listed as an area where "more information is needed" - the PRA expect the Implementing Technical Standards to cover these in more detail. 
• XBRL - Final templates for preparatory phase are due in May 2014. The final ones for Solvency II itself are due in December 2014.
• The industry flagged their issues regarding XBRL solution vendors and the poorly taxonomised templates as they stand. The PRA therefore asked for specific examples of what might be compromising lead times and budgets.
• There are some open ended questions at the back of this document which are for the PRA to answer at a later date.

From Data Collection exercise

• PRA confirm that in most cases, the information submitted is being used "to inform ongoing supervisory work" as a minimum.
• Some general insurers submissions were incomplete, while some life insurer submissions either did not segregate their with-profit and non-profit funds. This is seemingly less than helpful while the PRA struggle to calibrate their Early Warning Indicators (more on that here and here).
• A clear supervisory focus on the standardised risk information submitted around the tails of the distributions and diversification benefits - you've been warned about taking liberties already UK and Ireland!

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...

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!

Moody's survey on Solvency II compliance preparedness - the chilly third pillar

So from what I can gather it has been a terrible week for the Girondins, with a freak hailstorm wreaking havoc in a thin strip along the vineyards of Bordeaux's Entre-deux-Mers appellation - my in-laws were seemingly spared further down the river, noting that it was merely "un peux froid".

On Ice - Solvency II programmes
and this year's white Bordeaux?

And speaking of a great deal of hard work getting aimlessly destroyed by an unpredictable European storm, Solvency II (do you see what I did there?) appears to have at least enough juice in the tank to have encouraged Moodys to survey practitioners on the preparedness of the industry to achieve compliance before the deadlines currently on everyone's lips (i.e. 2014-2015 for EIOPA Guidelines, 2016 for "go-live").

That survey is available here (short sign-up required, but worth it), with a very short summary here. The media have touched on the survey (here), but only seem to have read the summary, so I've picked through the whole shooting match to see what else was worth knowing.

The sample is small at 45 contributors, but they have all been interviewed one-on-one in Q4 2012/Q1 2013, so the responses are not too dated, particularly as many Solvency II programmes have been running on meagre rations since January of this year. Coverage of 12 EU countries is included in the 45 people, with a decent split of size and insurance type. Majority of respondents were CRO/equivalent, with a few accountants, actuaries and programme managers thrown in for good measure, and just over half are on Standard Formula.

Talking points for me were;

• That 22% have frozen Pillar 3 activity, while 11% have frozen all Solvency II activity
• Half are using Standard Formula to curb costs!
• In addition to that, 20% say that the Use Test is a barrier to using models!
• 27% are approaching Pillar 1 and Pillar 3 with a tick-box mentality (i.e. happy to use multiple manual processes/excel-based tactical solutions to deliver the balance sheet and reporting template elements), while 44% have worked exclusively on Pillar 1 at the expense of Pillar 3
• Solvency II project investment levels are "considerably more" in the UK and France compared to Germany - makes you wonder why they have such a long face!
• 67% have increased their control function staffing by 10% or more - 31% have increased by 50% or more.
• Only 7% note "capital reduction" as a perceived benefit of Solvency II, with 33% selecting improved capital planning (regardless of quantum) as a benefit.
• Only 6.7% say they are receiving "high" levels of support from their national supervisory authority.

Seemingly the stats are a hostage to the sample - I'm sure the PRA would be apoplectic if this was the position of Insurers of Britain plc, but for me the big story is the indiscriminate swelling of Risk/control functions in smaller organisations that evidently are only ticking boxes. Feels a tad disingenuous to pump the staff numbers up to demonstrate compliance, but I suppose it's not me they need to satisfy!

Elderfield at the European Insurance Forum - one for the road...

So the European Insurance Forum is in full swing over in Dublin, which from what I have seen to date in the tweetosphere (thanks DIMA and Mike!), sounds more like Alan Partridge's sales conference for Ireland plc.

That aside, Matthew Elderfield, the outgoing Head of Financial Regulation at the Central Bank of Ireland, gave a rousing speech touching on risk-based supervision and the 'prospects' for Solvency II. As a member of EIOPA's management board and head of the second largest internal model assessment body in the EU, his words are very much worth heeding.

Given that he has already addressed this forum a couple of years ago on such matters, as well as being relatively outspoken  recently on the quality of components parts of Irish risk management systems, one might expect a few home truths on his way out of the door to an equally precarious task as Head of Compliance at Lloyds Banking Group.

EIF 2013 - More to Ireland 'dan dis'?

The headline acts for me was his revelation that diversification in internal models remains a bugbear, to the extent that he supports the kind of 'floor' arrangement being given airtime at the PRA. Given he had already made his distaste at the extent of the diversification benefits being sought clear in a speech last year, it is not surprise to see it on his agenda, more that it implies that the expert judgements of those involved in the calculation process may be overridden (due to regulatory prudence?), regardless of how well they are documented or supported. 

In addition, his angle on bridging the LTG issue makes interesting reading for anyone who doesn't receive briefings on EIOPA's inner workings.

Noteworthy points (my emphasis if emboldened) therefore included;

On Solvency II

• Drawn out process has "naturally resulted in a combination of fatigue and exasperation", with the "...high costs of preparation compounding concerns"
• Regardless, "it is unacceptable that the common regulatory framework for insurance in Europe in the 21st century is not risk-based"
• "Urgently need" the framework to reflect asset risks, riskiness of different lines of business, encourage better governance and risk management, and provide better disclosure.
• "Solvency II does indeed have its imperfections", but "...the benefits of moving ahead with Solvency II outweigh the costs..."
• Notes his "long-standing concern" around over-optimism in the calibration of internal models
• "...complexity has clearly gone too far in some areas - and makes implementation very difficult for smaller companies"

On Omnibus II and EIOPA's LTGA

• Omnibus II delay "...is a course of considerable concern to regulators and industry alike", and the "...entire framework is essentially stuck on one issue" which "...will require a political compromise"
• Personally supports a more generous approach to matched premium adjustments on certain lines of business, provided they are (a) only applied to the back-book, (b) companies provide Pillar 3 disclosures both with and without those adjustments, and (c) supervisors can apply capital charges if they are not happy.
• "With European elections looming next year, it is important that this process concludes in the autumn at the latest"

EIOPA - filling gaps
since 2013

On EIOPA's Interim Guidelines

• As justification for supporting them, "Much of the Solvency II framework is already clear", and emphasises that "we will adopt a proportionate approach"
• EIOPA is "helping 'fill the gap' created by the hiatus in the political negotiation"
• "The EIOPA initiative should be strongly welcomed by regulators and industry alike"
• Hopes the system of governance and ORSA interim guidance provide "manageable and useful transitional steps towards full Solvency II adoption"
• For Pillar 3, expecting "best efforts" especially from High Impact insurers, with the use of statutory powers held in reserve "as a last resort.
• For IMAP, can neither sanction an "early conclusion" nor a "hard stop", so will ultimately elongate the administrative burden, hopefully leaving less to do towards the end.

On Diversification benefits

• "...in common with a number of other [unnamed] supervisors", CBoI is concerned to ensure "prudent recognition of diversification effects"
• "Fundamentally, what is needed is a broad agreement on the outer bounds of acceptable levels of diversification in the model approval process", citing one jurisdiction (UK?) looking at hard SCR floors based on proportion of MCR.
• "...the Central Bank's message to Irish firms is to take a conservative approach to the recognition of diversification..."
• Points to the failure to add formal constraints on diversification benefits in the Directive text
• "Supervisory quants are at risk of being outgunned by industry quants in the minutiae of a correlation debate"
• Also has a stab at "overly generous approval" in other member states in the context of regulatory arbitrage - is it that hard to say "no" just because the home regulator says "yes"?

Of less consequence for those outside of Ireland, he goes on to cover the CBoI's bespoke work around VA-specific risks (in light of prolonged low interest rate environment), the failure of Quinn Insurance, and the bedding in of their PRISM risk-based supervisory framework, the latter eliciting the comment that "we are still some way from fully embedding our new approach".

From this, one might reasonably think that, should Mr Elderfield's successor continue in the same vein, that the correlation matrices of Ireland's 30-something IMAP candidates are likely to get a severe working over in the next couple of years. Let's hope the industry gets their documentation in order!

The PRA's take on EIOPA's Interim Guidelines - far from a 'Tragedy'...

The Prudential Regulatory Authority have celebrated their second week in office by hosting a number of industry briefings regarding EIOPA's Solvency II Preparation Guidelines. One Blogger keenly dripped some of the materials discussed out yesterday, but I've had a look through the briefing materials released today on the PRA's site to see if there are any messages worth amplifying.

Steps - appropriate?

From a calendar perspective, the PRA are planning some technical workshops with "industry representatives" in early May, to be followed by an industry briefing later in that month. The output from the workshops appears to be a major influencer on whether the PRA will "comply" with EIOPA's guidance or "explain" why they won't.

With final versions of EIOPA's guidelines expected by September/October 2013, the national regulators have an additional 2 months from publication to formally confirm their "comply or explain" position.

Reading between the lines this looks (for now at least) as a foregone conclusion however, with this comment from the internal model pre-application slides;

"We expect firms to have regards to the interim guidelines and take appropriate steps to prepare for Solvency II" 

Three slide sets have been released - anything new, or worth reiterating, below;

Internal Model Pre-Application

• Model change - to be monitored throughout pre-application.
• Colleges - Evidently notable divergences in assessment practice across the union which the Guidelines hope to fix, but "no direct implication for firms".
• IMAP - while EIOPA's guidelines "will be considered as part of IMAP reviews", they don't (in the PRA's mind) touch on anything which wasn't already part of existing L1/Draft L2/pre-application L3, so no surprises on that front. They do however highlight the elements on Expert Judgement and Validation as providing more clarity on supervisory expectations.

ORSA and System of Governance (combined)

• No PRA expectation of  a full/'live' ORSA or Solvency II-compliant systems of governance by 2014
• Neither are there any expectations for firms to make changes in investment strategy/capital strategy/outstanding Pillar 1 elements - at least not due to Solvency II in its current form.
• For System of Governance, the PRA's slides highlight areas where EIOPA's guidelines exceed expectations of the PRA Handbook - these include Board MI; revisions to control functions; revisions to Risk Management Policy; Prudent Person Principle; and calculation of TPs.
• For ORSA, the slides clearly indicate that dry runs and ORSA process development should be the immediate focus, and it should serve to reaffirm best practices that already "underpin the ICAS".

Submission of information to supervisors

• Only a subset of the full package recommended by EIOPA in July 2012
• EIOPA want to see at least one round of annual submissions, and two rounds of quarterly submissions before Solvency II goes live, with 2016 seemingly the preferred year.
• On that basis, firms will have 20 weeks (26 weeks for groups) after year-end 2014 to submit annual template obligations.
• They will then have 8 weeks (14 weeks for groups) after quarter end Sept 2015 to submit their quarterly template obligations.
• As per ORSA, firms which are involved with internal model pre-application will need to perform both standard formula and internal model work in this area.
• Also as per ORSA, thresholds for participation based on TPs (Life firms)/Premiums (Non-Life).
• Narrative reporting requirements are "significantly reduced"compared to final requirements - however, there is plenty of crossover between what one might document during ORSA processes and what is expected to appear in RSR/SFCR, so firms shouldn't struggle in this regard.
• The concept of a "Reporting Policy" document (guideline 33 in the consultation) covering who will be responsible for what in the submission of information to supervisors, is referenced in these slides. This hadn't featured on my radar before as 'compulsory', so documenting this early, even just as process steps/maps, seems like a move that the PRA would appreciate.

Clear Path Analysis - Interview with EIOPA's Montalvo

The guys at Clear Path Analysis have come through with another suite of exclusive Solvency II material, following along from their efforts in September 2012 and 2011 (sign up required if you are not already hooked up with them).

This is dominated by asset allocation and Pillar 3 requirements, and I'll cover through those in due course. It was the interview with Sr. Montalvo from EIOPA which immediately caught my eye, so I picked the following bones out of it:

• Solvency II is "...nothing more and nothing less than a risk-based supervisory framework"
• Solvency II "aims to be a neutral system" with regard to asset allocation
• "The new framework creates business opportunities rather than operational risks"
• "No Pillar prevails, all are equally important" 
• The capital weightings on asset lines are based on "...sound technical calculations that were taken by the supervisory community (and in particular by the actuarial teams involved)" - is this a tacit acknowledgement of a residual element of black-boxedness?
• On IFRS convergence "...we had to move forward because in the accounting areas progress was not being sufficiently made". 'Aimerez-vous rencontrer M. Kettle, M. Pot?'
• On early implementation, "...once we see how it is working, [EIOPA] will have the courage to say which things can be improved"

Perhaps his sweetest quote is worth isolating:

EIOPA Conference in Frankfurt - "The authenticity of hopelessness"

"What do we want?" - "SOLVENCY II"
"When do we want it?" - "WHENEVER!"

...or so goes the leitmotif of today's EIOPA conference in Frankfurt, attended by the great and good from EIOPA, the Commission and various regulatory/lobbying bodies - ably tweeted by DIMA and Mr Varnell.

Sr. Bernadino's early morning speech covers the IORP issue as well as pure Solvency II, and tells us;

• Politicial institutions should commit to Solvency II
• All need to agree on "sound and prudent regime" for valuing long-term guarantees - EIOPA hoping to receive a clear mandate "as soon as possible", which is not promising for outcome delivery to a March 2013 plenary session!
• Regardless of how long we stretch out to for full go-live ("not earlier than 2016" is his indication in the speech, rather than a fait accompli), EIOPA will look to co-ordinate early implementation of Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 elements based on their existing powers. Not certain if that means "existing" anticipates including or excluding the Omnibus II changes though.

Interestingly, on the same day our pals at Bloomberg produced this tidy summary of piecemeal introduction of elements of Pillars 2 and 3 which touches on some of the elements from my blog post the other week - particularly like Oliver Bate's "Balkanisation" comment!

Since Bernadino's speech the tweetosphere has been full of comment from the Montalvos/Van Hulles/Creedons etc around the practicalities of Pillar 1 parallel running, leading or following IAIS developments in insurance regulation, and ORSA - get stuck in on the #EIOPA2012 hashtag!

Solvency II compliance ahead of "Go-Live" date - over to you, regulators

Judging by the rather resigned tones around the achievability of Solvency II "go-live" by 2014 (CBoI recently joining the FSA) and 2015 (here and here), there appears to be a growing swell of support for implementing some of the less wobbly bits sooner rather than later.

While it's unlikely that there will be more spurious adoptions than a Madonna safari trip, it is interesting to see what we can point at to-date;

UK - ICA+ regime, which lends itself, subject to the quality of the ICA-to-SCR reconciliation, to implementation from as early as year-end 2013, though one suspects 2014 is a safer bet.

Germany - Cheeky bit of Pillar II, judging by Bafin's (indirectly quoted) comments on Reuters today, although what "some risk controls" actually means is another thing!

Ireland - via the sterling work on PRISM, fitness and probity and corporate governance, it's hard to argue where they are not already Pillar II Solvency II-equivalent (at least in word, if not in deed!)

France - reference to compulsory submissions to the ACP in XBRL by Q1 2014 at the bottom of this doc, apparently confirmed at a recent soiree.

So we could very well have 3 Pillar coverage by 2014, just randomly spread out over multiple countries...

Any more for any more?

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!

Clear Path Analysis - Solvency II "The Global Dimension"

This piece of research from the guys at Clear Path Analysis (sign up required) has been in the offing for a while, and as I covered their last impressive release on this blog (and I don't have a life :-( ), I've been looking forward to it...

There is certainly plenty in here to keep those of every persuasion entertained (with the sponsors as omnipresent as their funding permits!), but I've sectioned out highlights for my own benefit;

Foreword

• Solvency II "...clearly a step in the right direction" - oddly, not followed by a punchline...
• On the likelihood of Sol II remaining ahead of the IAIS approach to solvency regulation - "Asia no longer looks to the west for regulatory best practice", going on to cheekily recommend a cherry-picking approach

Barbara Ridpath - think tank CEO, on short-termism and regulation

• Highlights one (widely acknowledged) consequence of Solvency II being a disincentive to invest in long term and/or non-Sovereign debt instruments, which is not in the mandate of the regulations, or indeed the regulators.

Roundtable on un-level playing fields between EU and non-EU insurers - includes Standard Life Sol II lead

• Solvency II likely to weed out companies who can't handle the ongoing compliance cost from running EU operations
• Large piece on Canadian equivalence (of particular importance to Standard Life of course) and the practicalities of equivalence being neither sought nor at this point offered for a non-EEA wing of a EEA HQd insurer.
• Standard Life not happy with equivalence assessments running concurrently with IMAP, due (rightly) to the significance of a "yay" or a "nay" to the strategic thinking around non-EEA arms.
• Suggestion that Asia is looking harder at the IAIS approach as opposed to Solvency II for future direction

Data and Risk Reporting Interview - Dan Wilkinson, ERM head at Liberty Syndicates

• Increased formality around Data and Risk reporting, using both controls-focused and risk-focused approaches. Makes reference to a monthly management committee which takes reporting on data deficiency matters, which I have heard reference to on the circuit before, and certainly demonstrates that data inputs, whether for internal modelling or for strategic decision making, feature as a high priority, rather than taken as read.
• Notes that his employer is moving risk reporting away from the 1-in-200 VaR to "...more foreseeable points in the distribution", which we definitely like to hear in the ORSA world!
• Alludes to concerns around disclosing ORSA-related information to the outside world, which is an area yet to be adequately chewed over by regulators and industry quite yet, let alone ratings agencies, analysts etc
• "Sensible amount of proportionality" should be adopted when deciding what should be disclosed - is that a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, or some other expression I can't quite lift off of Google!
• Sensibly stresses that an effective emerging risk policy should allow input and challenge at all levels of an organisation, when asked about internal models evolving with the risk profile of the business.
• "...biggest deliverable is cultural" - i.e. stripping back your long-since-gone consultancy friends' technical documentation (where required) in order to make it more accessible and free BAU staff to use the new facilities, be it a spruced up RMF or a full Internal Model - appreciate I may be doing myself a disservice by highlighting it!
• Didn't agree one bit with the comment that ORSA could "...inflate regulatory capital, based on rather speculative assumptions" - FSA have been pretty clear that ORSA has no bearing on required capital, appreciating the nuances around what they say and what actually transpires!
• Also wasn't massively sold on the comment that the ORSA "...should bring together information that is used within the business to allow analysis of medium term trends", unless of course he was cut off mid-sentence!

"Challenges of Pillar III" roundtable, focused seemingly on getting asset managers to pull their fingers out! Includes a CRO from an Italian insurer

• "Asset managers who are not willing or able to invest in appropriate data management and reporting systems will find it hard, if not impossible, to attract or retain insurance clients" - so there!
• Suggestion that "parts of the industry will have to get up to speed on" underlying assets which they are currently invested in for the look-through basis - I suspect that there are plenty of horror-stories to emerge once some CIOs and CFOs get a proper butchers at what some of their collectives are actually invested in, particularly with the advent of outsourcing investment management or just administration over the last decade or so...
• Note that ratings agency priorities over the near-term may focus more on differences between SF and IM-calculated SCRs and the impact of transitionals, rather than purely on SCR outcomes.
• Note that "Solvency II is effectively a lead in this area [transparency]", so no pre-conditions should be expected from ratings agencies
• Even bring up the old gripe that EEV/MCEV is still not understood well enough by agencies/analysts, so by implication there should be few worries about additional disclosures!

Considerations for Building a Diversified Investment Portfolio - Charles Pears from Insight Investment

Really accessible and well structured two-pager on portfolio diversification, of particular use to non-experts which covers

• Rationale for insurance companies looking for low risk returns;
• Risk drivers which make that difficult in today's environment, even if accepting minimal risk
• Why companies may look to seek excess returns, and the constraints around that
• Why decisions to accept more risk for enhanced rewards should be (but perhaps aren't always) knowledge based
• Basic options for enhancing portfolio returns without breaking the bank from a capital perspective.

Interesting is wrapped up with a comment that "...we expect insurers who adopt a Liability Driven Investment approach will secure a meaningful competitive advantage" - hard sell perhaps, but the rationale for it is well documented here.

KPMG on the Solvency II Reporting package

You can always rely on one of the big 4 to do the admin around EIOPA's releases, formatting and paginating it into a handy A4 slice of pure Gauguin - KPMG to the rescue this time, breaking out EIOPA's work on the Pillar 3 reporting and disclosure package into something slightly more edible for Boards and senior management.

Really one for the specialists on reporting templates content, rationale for why thing dropped out or emerged pre and post-consultation, and outstanding issues from a practical perspective - I am slightly divorced from this element at the moment, but have certainly heard the rumblings around look-through requirements, quarterly balance sheets and detailed asset lists etc on various grapevines, and with time ticking on, these kinds of materials can only help to aid prioritisation of the required BAU activity to populate the things!

The introduction of data requirements for EIOPA around financial stability (particularly Lapse information) seems very controversial - I have always found it the most closely guarded, and indeed requested information from interested third parties (analysts in particular!).

You should enjoy the sectioned material towards the back, which includes some free KPMG comment - if that is the house line, you may be able to save yourself a few quid!

Ernst and Young on Solvency II Pillar 3 - a likely story (sadly)

Time for a walk (actually more of a sthaager for a Manxman!) into the less familiar territory of Pillar 3, or "the output" as some traditionalists may label it.

E&Y dropped a Pillar 3 preparations survey out to a relatively small (53 respondents) but nicely spread (8 countries, and roughly split into Life/Non-Life/Composite) sample, and as one might expect, preparations were found to be slightly underdone by the majority.

They note that even for companies who have completed their gaps analysis between BAU and Solvency II demands, there remains some meaty outstanding issues such as reporting granularity; capturing synergies for other requirements (namely ORSA); policy drafting and implementation around data governance, and process redesign. Appreciating that some of these matters are still up for debate, some aspects of this gap list should be closed by now, and I suspect that the regulators will not look favourably at firms who continue to nudge this topic into the 2013 space.

Other aspects which jumped out include;

• Only a third of respondents have completed a gap analysis of QRTs against capabilities
• Less than a fifth have mocked up an SFCR/RSR, despite the prescriptive nature of Level 2 on the reports
• Interestingly, two-thirds have designated their finance functions as primarily responsible for Solvency II reporting - some have parked it with Risk which, while appreciating a three lines of defence model is not compulsory, seems very wrong regardless of the function's skillset.
• Three quarters expect to achieve reporting compliance only after "significant" or "fundamental" changes to their existing processes
• Some firms were identified as planning to speed up their existing processes to meet the proposed reporting deadlines under Solvency II, which seems an excellent idea

Pillar 3 is likely to be an even more bountiful smorgasbord after EIOPA released their feedback statement on their consultations around the Solvency II reporting package today. I suspect I don't have the ambition to swallow the 88 pages today (or perhaps any other day!), but Will Coatesworth neatly tweeted the big message earlier which the industry tried to avoid, which is that quarterly balance sheets look like they are here to stay as part of the reporting package.

Good news for regulators, consumers, and anyone who is punting round Pillar 3 software solutions I guess!

FSA - Solvency II speeches this week from the great (and greater!)

A couple of topical speeches delivered this week by Canary Wharf's finest, both of which are relevant to the Solvency II world.

First, a speech at the 2012 Risk and Investment conference run through The Actuarial Profession and featuring some multidisciplinary heavy hitters from TV and print as well as some C-suite presence from the UK's largest multinationals. The FSA's Kathryn Morgan delivered a speech which covered Pillar 2 and 3 trends in particular, which is covered in this subscription only article at Risk.net. For those who don't have the budget for that, a pruned down version of that content is available here.

Ostensibly, the following points were made;

• Don't expect any more FSA guidance on conducting an ORSA - fair point at this juncture, if you don't know your onions by now, there's probably no hope for you!
• Approaching implementation consecutively in 3 pillars is a "worry" - I suspect that worry, misplaced or not, is applicable to most undertakings at this juncture
• "Risk management is the best mitigant of risk, not capital" - I would argue an effective Risk function rather than risk management per se is the best mitigant, but it is slightly more ethereal than a big bundle of cash!
• Perception that "...Risk and Capital are not talking to each other" - true out of necessity at this juncture perhaps (BAU for the balance sheet guys, model applicants or not, and the administrative burden of refreshing documentation suites has impeded comms for some time I would argue, but this will improve in the very near future).
• Number of references to Boards, centred around NEDs participating fully in decisions rather than counting the hours till their taxi arrives, as well as not relying on SMEs to make decisions for them (i.e. Actuarially-minded board members are not left to perform all balance sheet related challenge on their own!)
• With regards to the empire built on sand which is the legislative timeline, reiterates that while some key balance sheet-related issues are yet to flesh out, "...their is a lot of certainty in Pillar 2" - something I have banged on about since the draft Level 2 implementing measures were leaked in November.

While that speech has good insights for you Pillar 2 folk out there, a lecture from Julian Adams on "the impact of changing regulation on the insurance industry" is equally fascinating, if perhaps treading over some Solvency II ground already covered over the last couple of weeks - as a History graduate, I always like a cheeky overview, and the lecture covers legislative developments back to Victorian times.

That aside, a few Solvency II-relevant snippets were also included (or reiterated from prior speeches) such as;

• A definition of what "risk sensitive" regulation actually means (insurers' solvency positions matching their idiosyncratic risk profiles) - something as succinct as that is actually extremely useful for board training purposes at the very least, and I am glad he has communicated it in this manner.
• Also defines "proportionate" from the FSA's perspective on internal model approval - namely, if it is in the Directive or the Implementing measures, it is not negotiable.
• Notes that Solvency II is "influencing" the global regulatory framework - I would argue that strong-arming (in the case of first/second wave countries) and bickering (in the case of the States) is far from influencing, though with the IAIS Comframe draft now open for review, we may see something more resembling dialogue from our pals in Brussels
• Rather worrying comment that, in the context of reporting financial positions, that Solvency II reporting sits in the succession path of EEV and MCEV as "...if perhaps not the final, then the latest step" towards a more transparent and market consistent reporting regime. Anyone for SFCR 2.0?
• A rather ominous note that the standard formula calculation "...would certainly have a distorting effect when considering, say, the London Market subscription business or with-profits businesses" - I hope all you tiny mutuals have got your IMs, PIMs or USPs ready, as it sounds like the FSA may already think SF is not suitable for you!
• Acknowledges that Solvency II is about "maximum harmonisation", and therefore EIOPA will call more of the shots in future (just as soon as Omnibus II gets through...)
• Highlights that the academic modelling around (a lack of) correlation drove many of the banks models' into stupidity in 2006-2008 - an area I would expect fervent challenge around from both the regulator and indeed internal governance structures (and one which Matthew Elderfield at the Central Bank of Ireland has already picked up on as a main area of focus)

Useful stuff from both sources, so keep it up Wharfers!

PS I suspect I won't be posting tomorrow, so I will wish you shoh slaynt and a happy Tynwald Day one day early!

Barnett Waddingham Solvency II Survey - IMAP, ORSA and Pillar 3 progress

Bit late blogging on this (released last week), but Barnett Waddingham's short but perfectly formed survey on a sample of 38 insurers' progress on Solvence II programmes is worth a read (link to the PDF is at the bottom of the landing page). Not clear whether all respondents are IMAP candidates, but it appears to be a given.

It is a pretty diverse sample, weighted more towards small/medium life companies, but the results seem to be as the FSA suggests is par for the course right now, namely that Validation work is way behind where it ought to be (almost half of respondents are behind schedule on validation or indeed haven't started!). This despite the fact that three quarters of respondents flag validation as one of the most challenging aspects of IMAP, which one would hope would ensure it is given sufficient resource and management time. Only 7% are using external resource to validate for IMAP, which is surprising bearing in mind the size of the companies polled.

In addition, documentation is also flagged by a majority of respondents as a challenging IMAP issue, which surprises me to some extent, as the FSA have been particularly critical of this aspect.

Despite these issues, three quarters are confident/very confident that their applications will be approved - I'm guessing this may have lowered after the robust speech delivered by Julian Adams a couple of weeks back!

On the ORSA front, there was a bit of a mixed bag with regards to respondents opinion of the suitability of EIOPA's level 3 guidance (I personally thought it was pretty good, but not everyone agrees, particularly around documentation and group elements). With regards to where respondents were up to with the mechanics of the ORSA Process, every element appears to be underdone at this point, most worryingly around elements requiring model interaction such as S&ST, risk profile assessment and deviations between SF SCR and assumptions underlying the organisation's risk profile. As this would only be supporting evidence for model applications, you can perhaps cut a little slack here, but this is a big ticket item for Use Test, and to have so much work in progress at this stage does not lend itself to demonstrating embedded use!

Not entirely convinced by the most challenging aspect of ORSA being the daily monitoring of SCR - this is not a requirement by my reading, but even if it is (and accounting for all the proxies and assumptions that one would have to carry on the liability side of the balance sheet in particular), it shouldn't be a problem for model users unless you don't have someone to push the button.

On the Pillar 3 front, nothing especially new - difficulty in populating various aspects of the required templates/submissions are being experienced, most notably the 30% stating that they still have problems with quarterly balance sheet reporting, and an almost 50-50 split of respondents feeling they do not have the required data available to satisfy the requirements.

Worth a benchmark against your own progress at the very least, particularly if you are one of the little guys still hanging on in IMAP.