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 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.

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.

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.

EIOPA preparatory guidelines - pre-application for Internal Models

Consultation on Pre-application for internal models guidance  (plus explanatory text)

As staggering as it is frightening, and perhaps indicative of the diversity of approaches currently on parade across the Union, the pre-application for IMs preparatory guidance is 60 pages, comprising of 72 guidelines, accompanied by a whopping 144 pages of explanatory text. This accompanies the existing 82 pages of L3 guidance on the matter released by then-CEIOPS in 2010! A sub-group of EIOPA's IRSG has been assigned to deal with the nitty gritty of this element of the preparatory guidelines.

On first read, this feels massively influenced by the UK's activities to date, and indeed anyone working in that space will recognise FSA pawprints all over the granular details contained within. This is fair I suppose - the InsuranceERM models map has the UK down for around 1/3rd of models currently in 'pre-application' across the continent.

Therefore bearing in mind the UK approach is already pretty well established, I have highlighted below areas which either diverge from what is currently being exercised on the ground, or which clarify (at least for me!) areas which were previously ripe for controversy or disproportionate/inconsistent application. Where it is common sense or continuez tout doit, I have ignored it.

Most importantly, I am reading it as a fait accompli - bearing in mind the short window of time between consultation end and period commencement, EIOPA's recent past on consultation responses (i.e. 'thanks but no thanks') and the UK's evident participation in the bulking of these guidelines, I don't see much room for lobbying swathes of this away, nor for the PRA to "explain" rather than "comply"!

GENERAL GUIDELINES

Guideline 3

• As well as nature, scale and complexity, "design, scope and qualitative aspects" of the IM should be considered when allowing for proportionality 

Guideline 4

• Any model changes pre-application look like they will be pored over by NCAs, including the associated change approval process 

MODEL CHANGES

Guideline 5 - Model Change Policy

• Policy should, as well as SCR-related changes, include changes to: system of governance (around model change); compliance with Use Test requirements; appropriateness of technical specifications and changes in Risk Profile

Guideline 6

• Approach to classifying "major" changes is expected to be objective
• Must also take into account specificities of the company (so benchmarking percentage changes against your neighbours may not be that useful) 

Guideline 7

• Aggregated change triggers must be considered, not just isolated changes
• Offsetting positives and negatives won't be acceptable to avoid a "major change" trigger!

Guideline 8

• Major/minor changes must be determined at Group and entity level

USE TEST

Guideline 9

• "No complete and detailed list of specific [model] uses" will be supplied by NCAs.

Guideline 11

• Granularity of the Risk Management System will need to match the IM in terms of categorisation
• The "structure of decision making fora" will be assessed in ensuring the IM fits to the business - extraordinary!
• Records expected to be available to show how IM outputs are designed

Guideline 12

• Assessment of training, seminars, workshops, meetings and direct interviews "should be considered" in pre-application

Guideline 13

• Will need to "ensure [IM] will be used" during pre-application, as opposed to "use it"
• Expectation that, if other tools are used in decision making, IM is improved having assessed inconsistencies against said tools

Guideline 14

• Evidence of prospective support and retrospective verification of decision making would be advisable for candidates

Guideline 15

• Must document where model is not aligned to the decision ultimately made

ASSUMPTION SETTING/EXPERT JUDGEMENT

Guideline 19

• "Materiality" in the context of assumptions will need to be both qualitatively and quantitatively assessed - should generate some healthy Risk/Actuarial function debate!

Guideline 20

• A validated and documented process for assumption setting and expert judgement will be required
• Sign-off on assumptions will need "sufficient seniority", up to and including AMSB

Guideline 21

• A formal and documented feedback should be maintained between assumption setters and users

Guideline 22

• On the transparency of assumption setting, point 1.64 here effectively asks for an Assumptions Register, as well as dictating what it expects to see in it.

Guideline 23

• Process mapping of some kind expected for the validation of assumption setting
• Independent assumption review is also expected - doesn't dictate whether this should be internal/external, but it will keep someone in clover no doubt.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY

Guideline 26

• Methodological consistency to be validated

P&L ATTRIBUTION

Guideline 37

• Point 1.105 seems to confirm P&L attribution by risk driver is required

Guideline 39

• P&L attribution must be used at least annually in the decision making process

Guideline 40

• P&L attribution to be used in the validation process (specifically, old ones to be compared against  experience

VALIDATION

Guideline 41 - Validation Policy to contain at least

• Process, methods and tools, and their purposes
• Frequency of validation for each part of the IM, and triggers for ad-hoc validation
• Persons (not roles) responsible for each task
• Procedure to be followed where reliability of IM is questioned, and ensuing decision making process

Guideline 42

• Shies away from touching Internal Model scope when talking of validation scope - great move!

Guideline 43

• Evidence of sensitivity testing expected when determining materiality

Guideline 44

• Must document known limitations of validation process, as well as circumstances where the process falls over
• May even be asked to quantify the degree of uncertainty!

Guideline 45

• A documented escalation path would be advised

Guideline 46

• Risk Management function will be pressured, as the function with overall responsibility, to ensure all tasks are completed (if not directly performing them) - new skill set?

Guideline 47

• Evidence of how the RM function ensures that the validation process remains independent of IM design and ops should be collected/enhanced

Guideline 49

• A process will be expected to ensure the choice of validation tools used considers; complexity, nature, independence and knowledge of participants - feel this could be tricky for the smaller IMAP guys without leading to additional spend on consultants

Guideline 50

• Must be able to document the appropriateness of the validation tools used accounting for; materiality of IM part, granularity of the data being tested, purpose of the task and the expected outcome

DOCUMENTATION

Guideline 53

• Expectation of a "...clear referencing system [for IM documentation] which should be used in a documentation inventory"

Guideline 55

• An overall summary of IM shortcomings, "consolidated into a single document" will be expected
• This needs to cover at least; Risks not modelled, limitations in modelling, sources of uncertainty in results, data deficiencies, external models/data, IT limitations and governance limitations.

Guideline 56

• Potential suggestion that there should be more than one level of IM documentation to suit other audiences/uses - IM for Dummies anyone?

Guideline 57

• End-to-end User Manual expected which an Independent Knowledgeable Third Party could operate

Guideline 58

• Stress that a single document containing all model outputs (as Use Test evidence) is not required - acceptable as single docs

EXTERNAL MODELS AND DATA

Guideline 60

• Expectation that external data sets will be sense-checked against "other relevant sources"

Guideline 61

• Understanding of external models must extend to technical and operational aspects, as well as assumptions

Guideline 64

• "Material" assumptions of external models must be validated
• In point 1.163, any potential for cherry-picking features/options of external models is constrained

Aon Benfield's CRO guide to Solvency II - in case you're not ready yet...

For all those CROs who are about to get left holding the Solvency II baby three years early by their over-enthusiastic executive colleagues, Aon Benfield pulled together a CRO guide to Solvency II which aims to take the journey "from complexity to best practice". 10 out of 10 for ambition...

It leans heavily towards General Insurers/Reinsurers (indeed it reads like a reinsurance sales brochure in many parts!), but nevertheless contains a suite of very useful content for anyone in the Risk space, as well as attempting to shatter a few myths. I took the following from it;

• Steady early bits on capital planning and common questions a CRO should be posing in that space
• On page 5, an excellent table comparing standard formula against internal modelling by risk driver, in particular emphasising why internal modelling may be more appropriate, rather than how much capital it could shave off. Being able to explain to the national regulator why one has neglected to apply the enhancements that internal modelling introduces to the accuracy of one's quantitative risk profile would be a smart thing for CROs to practice!
• The undo some of that noble work by suggesting part of any IM feasibility study should include estimating the capital benefits!
• Nice examples at the top of p6 of what mixes of business lend themselves to benefitting from an IM approach
• Highlighting that domicile of firm continues to dictate feasibility of IMs for smaller firms (i.e some countries can't staff it!).
• Recommend reviewing SF SCR factoring in the draft L2 asap. As was clear from the E&Y research I covered yesterday, many firms across the EU consider themselves to be advanced in the Pillar 1 space while disregarding draft L2. They highlight the Swiss experience as one where they struggled to authorise models for "Day 1" approval, and the Aon crowd propose some meaningful contingencies on p8
• Useful analysis of capital drivers and optimisation strategies (p9-10)
• Section on expert judgement validation (p15), touching on the Level 3 expectations, and in particular how a (non-Actuarial) CRO may struggle to adequately challenge certain judgement calls, such as selected data series or correlation matrices, without specialist advice. Very hard for smaller firms to obtain that, as most of their actuarial function will have probably contributed to the judgement!
• Note that one of the key challenges for documenting the IM is getting the best-placed people (who are normally swimming in BAU) to pick up a pen and write!
• Neat section on ORSA (p27-29), emphasising that SF firms with complex risk profiles may find they struggle to justify that approach when concluding the assessment. They go on to suggest that early experiences of ORSA Report/process documentation submissions have left CROs feeling that the regulatory approach is (Level 3?) tickbox as to content expectations.
• Key challenges for CRO in briefing and educating senior colleagues for Solvency II-readiness are all fair, in particular the gap that could emerge if a CRO is not also an executive member.
• The section on Risk Appetite is particularly useful for smaller non-IMAP firms, who may struggle to quantify their target measures - whether using Standard Deviations/volatility measures as suggested is a touch too simple depends on the business I guess.
• The Pillar 3 section hits on the same issues I (and the FSA!)have picked up on earlier, such as end-user computing, inability to transition to BAU, data ownership issues etc.

I did take exception to a couple of bits in here, where the industry or indeed common sense appears to suggest otherwise;

• The "fallacy" outlined on p5 that an IM enables a firm to hold less capital than an SF equivalent. The research I pointed to yesterday (p20) suggests across the EU that modellers are already "making it rain" with their capital savings
• That the IM alternative for Op Risk is based on ORIC and individual loss event info. I'd certainly seen Milliman suggest that this approach is as flimsy as the SF approach, recommending options such as Bayesian networks to generate IM inputs.
• Concerns that evidencing senior management model "use" could create a "value-destroying documentation burden". Is that what we call "minutes" these days!
• Comments around the documentation delivery for the Internal Model Application Process becoming detached from the underlying processes referenced in those docs influencing BAU value-adding activity are perfectly valid, but no real solution is proposed.
• The operation of the Model Change Policy features heavily (p19-21), as anyone in that space would expect. Again. little offered in the way of solutions, but I certainly would have expected more discussion on the "scope" of the model, which in my experience is a solid, liquid or gas depending on which control function you speak to, and I'm sure the FSA would agree!

PS All the best to you guys on the US East Coast, let's hope the worst has passed...

Elderfield speech to Insurance Day summit in Bermuda - equivalence, model approval and "hub and spoke"

Very informative speech delivered this week by Mr Elderfield from the Central Bank of Ireland to the Insurance Day summit held in his previous stomping ground of Bermuda (certainly a more welcoming climate that last month's summit in not-so-sunny London!).

He mainly covers equivalence, internal model applications and, as one might expect from the Emerald Isle, the potential for Hub and Spoke operations and the potential capital benefits of this technique (which has a sniff of Group Support about it in all but name). I noted the following;

General

• Suggests Solvency II provides "...an incentive for investment in risk management, including the use of internal models" - I would substitute "incentive" for "compulsion"!
• Singles out "small firms" as those which will "certainly" struggle to assimilate and implement Solvency II in its current guise
• Notes that "...the current target is that member state governments will domestically implement [Solvency II] by 30th June 2013" - I have emphasised the "current target", as the very wording suggests that there is an implication it is not the "final target"!

Model applications

• "...it is important that approval process doesn't get bogged down in detail such as endless documentation reviews" - cue some raised handbags down at Canary Wharf I suspect!
• Highlights expert judgements around correlation and diversification (as he has done this time last year) as being much more significant around challenging the solvency requirements calculated by the models, in particular the "swing" these elements have on the final numbers. On that premise, he puts these "...at the forefront of the regulatory approval process", as well as expecting them to generate the most challenge in the boardroom.
• Elaborates on the extent of Board challenge by commenting that "...boards should be expected to challenge vigorously the amount of diversification benefit being claimed in internal models, even if they don't know the internal plumbing of copulas or correlation matrices". Very telling comment, and clearly one to heed, bearing in mind he is on EIOPA's management board.

Hub and Spoke

• Seeing "considerable interest" in using Ireland for the "hub" of the "hub and spoke" business model - one may have said this was for regulatory arbitrage purposes 5 years ago, but I'm guessing corporation tax, falling wages and underemployment may have kept it in play even after the recent beefing up of the CBoI
• Comments that "...it will be interesting to see whether [the hub and spoke] model will grow as Solvency II gets closer to implementation - implies that not only does he think the existing corporate structures are not settled yet, but that Ireland is actively open for business in this regard.

Equivalence

• Not sure if he was just being polite to his hosts, but he commented "...Bermuda is very well placed for [the equivalence] assessment process" - again worth heeding in the context of his position at EIOPA, as well as Bermuda coming off worst of the 3 countries which have been assessed in wave 1.
• Suggests there should be some sort of early adopter's premium for Bermuda which makes it worth being ahead of those countries who may come in in wave 2 (no mention of one of their competitors Guernsey in this context, who continue to bang the IAIS ICP drum while stating categorically that they will not seek equivalence).

Good intelligence all in all - PS must try and swing an invite to one of these things when they go tropical!

FSA Speech - Adams at Insurance Day Summit on Internal Model Progress (or lack of...)

Another day, another bum-kicking for the IMAP candidate firms, who have been the recipients of some public words of 'encouragement' from the FSA's Julian Adams in a speech to the Insurance Day Summit yesterday, coupled with a "Dear Firm" letter which went to all internal model applicants this week.

The same themes which have pitched up in recent presentations (here and here for example) are still for all to see - model change, model scope, validation and expert judgement/rationale all feature heavily in the speech - but perhaps the elaboration on both assumption/dependency setting and documenting and Use Test embedding are breakout features from those already tabled as being insufficient.

Useful for those outside of the UK to see exactly what is twisting the FSA's tail at the moment, while for all you UK readers, the letter is clearly a laundry list which will require immediate attention and prioritisation in your work plans. Good luck...