Love RAFs? CRO Forum's Risk Appetite survey

The CRO Forum have recently published the results of their 2014 survey on Risk Appetite development in insurance entities. It is perhaps the oldest drum in Risk Management Town, but one we are always happy to hear the beat of, and while we shouldn't expect a forum with such luminary members to deliver any shocking results, a careful sift through the carcass is always a smart idea.

The Cure - to tolerance breaches?

The final presenter at the PRA's recent NED briefing noted that Risk Appetite is "no longer an aspiration", a comment I felt was further behind the times than Nana wearing Juicy Couture. That said, on page 8 it suggests that less than a quarter of firms are "very satisfied" with their RAF maturity, and over a third feel they have "a lot of work to do", so perhaps he hit the nail half on the head...

This document should clarify whether that caution is justified, and with 48 responses from the top table, it should be a reliable benchmarking tool. Despite starting like a GCSE essay ("the topic of Risk Appetite has exploded"?), it contains some useful, if a little dry, benchmarks, such as;

• Principles for a RAF (p3-4) - hard to argue with
• Main goals - dominated by preserving capital, while only a third are looking to "improve shareholder value" or "optimise capital"
• Main stakeholder list (p5) seems good in breadth and priority
• Almost everyone is using regulatory capital in some way as a Risk Tolerance measure (p9)
• Stress and Scenario testing is being used by 80% to set Risk Tolerance levels, which feels at the right end of expectations
• 60% report quarterly, with most others slightly more or less frequent

It takes a few odd turns, in particular;

• One of the main objectives cited (p4) seem to be centre around boiling down things into a single document. I appreciate that pressure, but surely we feel that a RAF has a more substantial objective that document consolidation?
• "Development of a Risk Appetite Statement is an evolution" (p6) - don't agree at all, it is a task, otherwise it would never get done.
• Coverage of Risk Appetite Statements as "regulatory requirements", in particular under Solvency II. Just because the industry is choosing to discharge its obligations in EIOPA's Guidelines (SoG 15 & 16) by producing a single statement document, it doesn't make a Risk Appetite Statement a requirement.
• Less than half are using a "1-in-x" loss that would breach regulatory capital in their Risk Tolerances - just feels like a very obvious one to use, so suprised by that number

Some of the more practical issues faced by firms are well covered, for example;

• Difficulties for Groups when setting risk appetite. Does the parent/head-office set overall appetite, and the children sub-divide it by business unit/risk category/Both? Do the children set their own appetites and feed them up for aggregation?
• Listing Risk Concentration targets looks awkward across the board (p5). While firms seem to be able to quantify Liquidity and Capital targets in their Risk Appetite Statements, other categories are much less consistently quantified. Market, Credit and Insurance Risk appear to be quantified by less than a third of respondents, preferring to address these in separate policies/guidelines (a Solvency II by-product perhaps?).
• Setting Risk Tolerance levels is highlighted as a "minor" improvement required by over 60% of respondents.
• There is a veritable bombsite of Earnings at Risk metrics in use, which is healthy for the industry I guess (p10).
• What does one do when Risk Tolerance level is breached? Around a third are not OK with limit breaches and demand immediate rectification, while two thirds allow for a "Cure Period" to return the Risk Profile to its required form. A "Cure Period" seems the fairest breach rectification approach to me - after all, I don't care if Monday's blue...

A worthy benchmarking document, so fill those boots.

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?

Jurassic Talk - enhanced NED challenges during Solvency II preparations?

 Britain's youngest NED

Given that there won’t be a heck of a lot more briefing done on the Non-Executive Director front, I’ve given the PRA Industry Event slide pack published the other week a bit more of a going over to see if the left and right hands are pushing the Solvency II wheelie bin in the right direction. I haven’t gone as far as watching the 1h 30m video of the event yet – if I wanted to watch a room full of fidgeting old men in ill-fitting suits I’d just go to Bridge Night at the bowling club…

I can’t say I was massively enthused by the read of the slides as an individual who is frequently delivering material to the very audience the presentation was aimed at. I would highlight the following oddities;

Internal Model-specific (slides 6-12)

• That Solvency II “sets a high bar” for model approval – that feels a little disingenuous given that the PRA has had the whip hand in the IRSG’s internal model committee for years, and has evidently driven their CAT. Fair to say that the PRA set the "high bar" on behalf of the rest of Europe.
• From the “lessons learned” section they suggest that some IMAP/CAT firms have used assumptions which are not matching their experience. Is that not bravado bordering on criminality? Doesn’t feel like small beer, so unless the PRA are splitting hairs with that comment, I trust the protagonists had a strip torn from them.
• Some models ignoring “Key Risks” faced by a firm – how can this be? If this is about cheeky risk selection (i.e. let’s use SF, but model Market Risk as we get a good number from it) all well and good, but to say that firms are ignoring them is not a good steer, and if they are, then how is punishment not already being dispensed?
• For Use Test purposes, NEDS told to have “belief” but not “blind faith” – this feels like Bank Creep, given that the PRA  have been vocal (here and here) on firms blindly following models after the banks got caught with their trolleys down a few years back (nice PRA summary here). Doesn’t feel especially fair to tar insurers with exactly the same brush in advance, even if it is smart!
• “Boards need to own validation design” – just sounds meaningless when you read it back. If you want them to “do” the design (which Andrew Marshall’s later slides deriding the efforts of the validation contracting community suggest also support), then just say it.
• The “Key Questions” slides contain some very ropey gear. “Does the output of the model give a credible answer”? “Can the firm survive on the Standard Formula”? The terms used are so flimsy that one could spend hours arguing the toss about their definition – “so what is survival – EC+, SCR+, MCR+ with recovery plan” etc.

ORSA and SoG (slides 14-18)
Starts with a bit of good news – some generic industry feedback is seemingly due within the next couple of months (pertaining to our 2014 ORSA efforts?). The slide summarising findings to date is also a useful yardstick for those who can’t wait that long.

For System of Governance, the executive world should prepare themselves for NED questions regarding whether or not they (as opposed to their underlings and contractors) are reading EIOPA's Guidelines. Let's hope they have!

On the gnarlier side;

• Seems to be an obsession with assigning named individuals (as opposed to roles or teams)  to perform mitigating tasks relating to anything ropey uncovered during the ORSA
• “ORSA should be holistic” – at what point is that breathtakingly grim term going to be put to pasture? For a NED briefing, the use of plain English should be considered par for the course. It is followed two slides later by “top-down/bottom-up” which is equally non-specific.
• “ORSA is not a compliance exercise resulting in a report to the PRA” – I think you meant to say “not ONLY...”!

The final slides from Ian Marshall’s presentation are revealing more due to the clumsy terminology often used at the table with NEDs (“Key Drivers” and “Key Correlations” for example – if you mean “most money riding on it”, then say it!). Also, the idea that Risk Appetite is “no longer an aspiration” is worrying – I would have given the insurance industry credit that it ceased to be aspirational some time ago, and doesn’t need a 2015 ‘tick’, but then I am a trusting fellow.

Does anyone think, off the back of these slides, that their NEDs will be chomping at the bit at the next Risk Committee/Board meeting using the ammunition supplied here?

Maybe I’d better watch the video after all… 

Solvency II - things what happened in the last couple of months...

She might not be singing yet, but just like my nana at Pilates, the Solvency II fat lady is taking some deep breaths. As I have spent the last couple of months at home in au-pair mode, gladly leaving the rest of the world to waffle about ERM and Solvency II, I thought I would throw together a catch-up post, given that applications for some of the Solvency II goodies have been open since 1st April.

Starting at the top, the UK Government managed to stay sellotaped together long enough to get the fundamental Solvency II legislative work pushed through Parliament before they disbanded for the General Election. The documentation is available in full here, with synopsis here. Interestingly, this formally obliges the PRA to review capital add-ons "at least" once a year, as well as to provide specific reporting to EIOPA on the topic. There is also a little more meat around the sticky issue of firms who breach their MCR, then look unlikely to rectify the matter.

The Government also released the findings of their Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) in assessing whether Solvency II was going to be a blessing or a curse for Britain. This is actually a very handy drop-in document for your NEDs/peripheral programme figures, and is worth pushing on to them.

They do make the rather controversial statement that on top of the estimated £2.6bn cost to the industry of implementation (!!!!!), the ongoing costs of c.£200m a year will be due to reporting obligations (fair enough) as well as the need for a remuneration policy (hmmm?). Rather disparagingly, the Treasury merely estimate "un-quantified administrative benefits" off the back of improvements in risk management and governance arrangements.

The PRA have recently released the Policy Statement covering their final rules for Solvency II implementation, which on paper should contain no surprises (other associated materials available here). Generalist media chatter (here and here for example) was pretty underwhelming, and while Mark Carney emphasises in the statement that Insurers must be "robustly supervised", Andrew Bailey stated merely that while the "...new regime will not be perfect...it is a welcome step in the right direction"

On a lighter note, the European institutions got a bit beefy over the new year when the newly installed Commissioner Hill had his ears chewed by ECON's new Chair regarding a range of issues or unanswered questions regarding the Delegated Acts. Having given himself a couple of weeks to digest, he pinged out a reply thanking ECON for pointing out three typos, and otherwise defending his corner. Much of the background noise in this correspondence regarding infrastructure investment and EIOPA funding has had a life of its own for some time now - indeed, EIOPA's dummy was definitively spat on the matter last week when they "reprioritised" their 2015 work plan to account for budget cuts.

B-ABI - got back?

NEDs have recently been the beneficiaries of a webcast featuring the juicy double of Huw Evans and Paul Fisher discussing the implications of Solvency II's progression for NEDs. For anyone struggling to get their NEDs to read overinflated board packs these days, a diversion to this footge would be a smart idea (video 1 is more chatter, so start at video 2).

A parallel release for NEDs came from the PRA in the form of a slide pack and a monster 1hr 30m recording of the presentation which it accompanied. Clearly the PRA have seen enough gaps in the efforts of NEDs to date to go to these en-masse tutorial lengths, but the material on validation and ORSA in particular should be swallowed whole.

Delegated Acts in the clear - like we ever doubted it...

The last attempt to delay the inevitable has finally run its course - the Green Party-led resolution to throw the Delegated Acts back onto the 'to-do' list was given a thorough shoeing yesterday at the EU Parliament's Plenaty session, with the 189 votes in support slightly outweighed by the 512 against it (p9 here). I haven't seen Greens get wiped off the table that aggressively since I tried to feed runner beans to my toddler...

The news was gently broken by Catherine Stihler, the new rapporteur, yesterday - refreshingly, the parliamentarians were focused on the impact of policyholder security, rather than how beholden they should be to EIOPA's mathematics, and after their back street horror-show of a website upgrade this week, perhaps the less we rely on their efforts the better!

For some UK-specific giggles, you will be delighted to know that the ex-City boy gin magnet Nigel Farage and his UKIP government-in-waiting all voted with the Green Party on this matter (p68 here).

I won't bore myself with the legislative procedure from this point, but given ECON, and now Parliament as a whole, don't have a problem with the Delegated Acts as they stand (and the three month whingeing period expires on January 9th 2015), we can all go back to work...

Solvency II Delegated Acts - Grinched by EU Parliament?

Short and sweet - the expected promenade facile of the Delegated Acts through the EU Parliament and EU Council, which looked certain up to a few days ago (p16 here and here), has apparently come to a shuddering halt due to the intervention of Parliament.

Grinch - coincidentally Green?

This document published on the Parliament's website today appears to have made the timeline-followers worst nightmares come true, namely that an additional 3 months of delay on the Delegated Act sign-off may prevent some of the "...from 1st April 2015" approvals from being written into law by, well, the 1st April 2015!

As yet I have seen or heard nothing on the matter in the mainstream media, but given how annoyed Sven Giegold appeared to be when the Acts were tabled, it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that some flabby parliamentary procedure exists that allows for the (presumably positive) opinion of ECON to be overriden when it came to clearing the document through Parliament's main hall.

Naturally, Herr Giegold's name is on the front cover of the motion, but I can't seem to establish whether an additional 3 month delay is a fait accompli, given my lack of knowledge on Parliamentary procedure. I believe the Greens alone certainly constitute "...a political group or at least 40 Members", so they certainly have enough bulk to put this on the table at next week's Plenary (Wednesday by the looks of it), but I imagine having enough pals to table this resolution is not the same as having enough to pass it!

More to follow I hope, given how sparsely populated my legislative contact book is...

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.

Approved Persons in UK under Solvency II - "SIMF-ly The Best"?

The UK prudential and conduct supervisors doubled-up this week with a barrage of paperwork regarding "Fit and Proper" assessment of senior staff members in Insurers under Solvency II.

This was already acknowledged as an area where intelligent copy-out wouldn't quite cut the mustard for UK plc, so no doubt the Compliance functions of insurance entities have been looking forward to these publications appearing. Given the light touch on the topic in the Directive (Art.42) and Delegated Acts (Art.273), this is very much welcome gristle.

Evidently "Proper" - but "Fit" enough?

While the maintream media has cranked out some comment already on both the FCA (here) and PRA approach (here, here and here), they are naturally broad with their brushes. I thought I would cut it up into my much more insular world of "what does it mean for Key Functions under Solvency II".



PRA Consultation Paper

• The regulatory framework for individuals will be called the Senior Insurance Managers Regime (SIMR), and will come into force from 1st Jan 2016. 
• The CP is targeted at ensuring fitness and propriety of individuals running an insurer, or performing a Key Function.
• NED's have been left out of this paper, as there is a wealth of comment already provided on a separate joint FCA/PRA consultation from the Banking industry.
• That said "...the regime for insurers should not be identical to the regime for banks". 
• While Controlled Functions continues to exist as a PRA term, it will be interchangeable with the term Senior Insurance Management Functions ("SIMFs"), which I have used below.

Going into detail, we find the following;

• CEO, CFO, CRO and Head of Internal Audit are all SIMFs, with Chief Actuary, WP Actuary and a couple of Lloyds-specific roles also lined up.
• Some Group-specific SIMFs also created.
• Any Solvency II "Key Function" holders who are not SIMFs will simply be assessed within the business, with the PRA having right to overturn. I thought this would include the Head of Compliance, but they are picked up by the FCA (below). Not sure who else could be Key Function but not a SIMF, unless some SIMF role-holders don't plan to also do a day job.
• List of new Core Responsibilities provided which need to be allocated to one or more SIMFs (2.21). These include the old chestnuts of remuneration policy and "culture" in its broadest sense, as well as performance of ORSA.
• A form will follow which needs to be completed by firms for all prospective SIMFs and Key Function holders containing "relevant information" on them - I suspect this will be a LinkedIn cut-and-paste job.
• Obligation to make and maintain a "Governance Map" listing the positions and key functions which run the firm, the allocation of management responsibilities (including the new ones in 2.21 presumably) and relevant reporting lines. Oddly, the PRA think "...there will be some costs in compiling and maintaining the Governance Map", when it feels like a lazy Thursday morning for Company Secretarial to me...
• Some reinforcement of Conduct standards for SIMFs and Key Function holders, with Key Function holders having an additional policyholder protection-related standard added to their armoury.
• Emphasise that Fit and Proper needs to be assessed on an ongoing basis, as opposed to periodically, which effectively gives the regulator a get-out-of-jail when a bad apple SIMF mismanages a firm (i.e. "why didn't you pick it up internally first?").
• Solvency II brings in a legal requirement for firms to satisfy themselves of a candidate's fitness and propriety before sending applications to the PRA. They therefore plan to assess whether firms recruitment processes are "appropriately rigorous", which feels like a step into the un-assessable (if that is even a word).

Proposed Supervisory Statements are appended to their document covering the assessment of fitness and propriety, and the application of new conduct standards. From those I would highlight;

• "The norm" is for single individuals to perform SIMFs
• That firms may add to the list of conventional Key Functions using a bullet-point checklist
• Firms can "...freely decise how to organise each function in practice"

FCA Consultation Paper

• The existing Approved Persons Regime will be adapted to fit Solvency II and PRA/EIOPA requirements, as well as existing application forms.
• "Pre-approval" will therefore still exist in 2016.
• While the PRA pick up approval of most Key Functions under Solvency II, the FCA keep hold of the approval of Compliance Function heads, which don't feature in the SIMF list.
• Give themselves some leeway to impose approval and conduct obligations on "certain other functions" in insurers
• Appear to be combing over conduct-related rules from their work with the banking industry

Frankly, the amount of crossover between prudential and conduct regulators, existing and new rulebooks, and banking and insurance industries, makes this particular topic an awkward read, which is why I don't work in Compliance!

Levity aside, the outcome of these consultation papers will have a significant effect on insurers existing onboarding and approval processes, content of executive job specifications, and indeed the fundamental operacy of governance systems, given the level of prescription involved. Now would be a good time to start briefing!

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

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

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

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

Internal Model approval
- "Easy, Easy"

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

I thought the following was worth highlighting;

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

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

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

PRA Implementation countdown
- "Feel like dancing" now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation and Policy overview

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

Standard Formula

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

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

Internal Models

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

IMAP - waste not want not

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Solvency II Delegated Acts - Commission publish, world shrugs

Delegated Acts - handle with care

On Friday, the European Commission  released a "provisional" version of Solvency II's Delegated Acts via their own website.

Given how long they have taken to arrive, they rather surprisingly aren't chiselled into pyramid slabs or written on parchment - less surprisingly, they feature very little in the way of changes since the July 2014 version, so for those who want to know why it has taken 3 years for these to officially emerge, the January 2014 version is a better contrast (I summarise some of the changes between 2011's starter document and the January version here).

There has been enough comment since Friday (here, here, here and here for a start) to highlight what has changed since the summer, and more importantly, what has driven those changes - namely, encouraging EU insurers to plough money into long-term infrastructure assets by making them cheaper from a capital perspective, thus solving the European Union's economic woes in one fell swoop!

Bear in mind the first scrounging letter from the Commission came to EIOPA over two years ago, reminding them of what a "...potentially powerful financing channel" European insurers could be, provided any necessary "...adjustment or reduction" was made to Solvency II's capital requirements.

Little wonder then that it has taken a while for them to ensure that Solvency II remains prudential, while simultaneously unlocking long-term capital pools, though it sounds like the empirical basis of EIOPA's earlier calibration attempts has been overriden to get there.

Is it likely to get through the baying mob in ECON? The insurance industry's Green Party sparring partner had already flagged his distaste at the capital discounts now being offered, as well as the due process applied to recalibrating them.

It remains to be seen whether it is controversial enough to delay the inevitable in early January, but given the Acts seem to have been received with customary ambivalence by most affected parties, this is probably 'job done'.

ORSA and Independent Review - Misunder-stud?

Independent review of ORSA
- banging the drum?

I listened in on a Solvency II readiness webcast a couple of weeks ago which pricked my ears like a low-budget high street beauty parlour. The specific theme was independent review of ORSA, and the broadcaster confidently included it in the list of "things we all need to do" in the Solvency II preparatory phase, both 2014 and 2015.

While most familiar with the topic would immediately cry "that got lobbied out in 2011", the speaker's argument was that, while EIOPA's Guidance no longer says firms should "independently" review its ORSA, it also doesn't not say it, therefore we must do it, and do it annually!

I would have chuckled and left it at that, but having read InsuranceERM's recent roundtable on preparations for Solvency II, the topic again reared its head, albeit in a more controlled manner, as a number of attendees explained how they have used Internal Audit (and dismissed the idea of using external firms) in reviewing their ORSA processes during the preparatory phase.

My problem is this - as an industry we were happy to, erm, relieve ourselves and moan when CEIOPS's first attempts at ORSA Guidance in 2010 included a guideline which compelled annual independent review of the ORSA Process (included in slide 32 of Mr Bernadino's pack here in Summer 2011, as I can't find the original CP anywhere).

This was lobbied-out by the time the re-badged EIOPA released their 2011 CP (here), and when their Final Report followed in June 2012, "independent review" was a distant memory.

Any compulsion to review the ORSA Process is now  covered only by EIOPA's System of Governance Guidelines (here), specifically Guideline 8 asking that a firm's SoG is regularly "internally reviewed on a regular basis" (5.11).

EIOPA continue in 5.11 that "...the review undertaken by the internal audit function on the system of governance as part of its responsibilities can provide input to this internal review" - i.e. this is not work considered to be performed automatically and exclusively by one's Internal Audit function.

In terms of frequency, EIOPA elaborate in section 4.26 of the Guidelines, namely that your AMSB, given your firm's nature, scale and complexity;

...determines the scope and frequency of the internal reviews of the system of governance

 So three things - no 'annual' requirement; AMSB's choice on frequency; and that this is internal review, not "independent", "external", or indeed any other word which gets me contracted past 2016!

CRO Forum's Principles on Operational Risk Measurement - "Quant touch this"...

Hammer Time?
Current efforts in Op Risk quantification

Despite practitioners efforts over the last few years, Operational Risk continues to live on starvation rations when it comes to considered quantification. Never treated as an alpha-topic by executives inside insurance institutions, it has been treated with similar indifference by legislators, culminating in the  "totally inadequate" take-a-percentage methodology for calculating Operational Risk capital in the Standard Formula.

Internal Modellers on the whole are not likely to be shaming that technique with their efforts either (basic summary of their problems here, while InsuranceERM cover struggles as a whole with a roundtable here). A paucity of operational risk event (and near miss) data within firms may be good news for ORIC as a vendor, but from a parameter and data uncertainty perspective, it leaves internal model operators and validators in an invidious position, particularly due to the quantum of insurers' capital likely to be involved (10%, give or take?).

It's not that the actuarial world hasn't taken a stab at it before (here), aren't fully aware of the data holes (here), or haven't used the word "Bayesian" in a sentence (here). However an activity which was "in its infancy" in the UK as far back as 2005, is surely now old enough to be working in the mines...

I was therefore happy to see the unprolific-yet-important CRO Forum bring a white paper to the table, Principles of Operational Risk Management and Measurement. It is an update to a 2009 version which takes into account Solvency II demands, as well as developing practice within insurers over the period, the suggestion being that 2009's efforts were a little too Banking Industry-influenced.

While this document might feel at outset like an idiot's guide to "quanting" operational risk (and bearing in mind the number of prospective standard formula applicants - 9 out of 10 in UK - one may be needed soon!), the document touches on a number of noteworthy technical matters, in particular;

• The Definition section doesn't read well, but they have attempted to include outcomes other than monetary loss into the Op Risk definition, which from experience will improve discourse within firms. Are they attempting to squeeze strategic and reputational risks into this box though?
• Nice coverage of Boundary Events, and encouraging firms to consider them in their management of Op Risk.
• Very specific treatment of Risk Tolerance throughout, using it in preference to Risk Appetite. This is because it cannot be avoided, and so tolerance levels should be used to trigger "RAG"-type reporting up the chain. Nice work, and well justified, but I have certainly seen the expression "Zero Appetite" used for Op Risk, so no doubt this is not an industry standard perspective yet! (p5-6)
• No problems with their coverage of tried and tested techniques - "Top Down", RCSA's & Loss Event analysis (p9-10)
• Nice turn of phrase regarding emerging risks on p9 - "...assess the proximity of new risks to the organisation". It may need to include an attempt to quantify to be fully useful for ORSA purposes.
• Concept of residual risk arrives quite late in the day, but isn't omitted. Important, given how much qualitative, or spuriously quantitative, material is being promoted as aiding this measurement work (p10)
• Seem to accept at the bottom of p10 that Internal Modellers must do more than curve fit on internal Op Risk Event data - good news I guess.
• Internal Model validation pressures on current Op Risk quantification practices flagged directly (p16 in particular)
• Guidelines on embedding Op Risk monitoring processes highlight just how much work some practitioners are managing to cover (p11). Quite disheartening for those with smaller budgets.

Ther are a few points to make on section B around quantification:

• Pretty scathing on Standard Formula relevance. (p14)
• Scenario Analysis sold as something of a panacea to cure the ills of incomplete Op Risk Event data sets, but no mention of the biases which seem to permeate the creation of the scenarios, which is sadly a hostage to the invitee list. (p14)
• Expand more on scenario analysis, bringing the "severe but plausible" terminology to the table (p15)

As well as the following generic comments;

• Is risk measurement - "a tool for embedding risk culture in the organisation"? I would say so, particularly in the Op Risk arena, where decision makers will need to be involved at scenario-compilation time.
• That said, they then go on to reference "senior management sign-off" of scenario work, which is somewhat contradictory!
• Overweight in references to "culture" and "tone at the top", like most white papers these days (see the FRC's efforts from the other week). Playing with fire as a profession by shoehorning references to "culture" into everything.
• A couple of horror-show schematics used on pages 7 and 8 - the Forum must know how much time risk professionals lose walking non-experts through things like this. They serve no purpose, and detract from surrounding text.
• Attempt on p9 to solicit business for ORIC?

It was Professor Jagger who accurately prophesised "You can't always get what you Quant" - I'd say the Risk profession concurs, based on these very welcome principles.

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?

Central Bank of Ireland and ORSA - fancy a bunch of FLAORs?

So the Central Bank of Ireland went and knocked together an ORSA Reporting tool for the less complex end of the Irish Insurance industry, specifically the "low" and "medium-low" rated insurers. And to think I have spent 4 years railing at the consultancy and supervisory industries for catering for the big boys, while ignoring the immaterial...


2014 FLAORs
- a serious affair

The tool was released back in July, and while it (intelligently?) copy-pastes EIOPA's guidance and dissects most of those words into a set of obvious questions, there are some aspects which are very revealing in respect of where supervisory expectations for 2014's ORSA reporting and process development efforts perhaps are at the less material end of the industry.

They have evidently taken the approach that most large programmes will have used over the last 3 years, namely to deconstruct paragraphs in Directive/Delegated Acts/EIOPA Guidelines in an Excel spreadsheet, and pose them as questions. Not every firm's budgets would have stretched to accommodate even that level of analysis though, so I'm sure the CBoI's efforts have been warmly received to date.

For example, the following elements are very shocking to me, given our proximity to go-live;

• No compulsion for ORSA Policy (and therefore process) to be documented and Board-approved in 2014 (2.3 and 2.4)
• No expectation that the 2014 version assesses one's ability to continue past the 1 year horizon (4.8)

These elements are perhaps revealing as to supervisory planning for 2015 and beyond;

• Asking when the Board approved the results and conclusions - likely to be hunting for evidence in minutes (2.2)
• Asking which personnel/units have been briefed as to the ORSA results - is there a feeling that outside of EXCOM and control functions, the reports won't see the light of day? (3.4)
• Highlight what they are really interested in, in the context of "overall solvency needs" quantification - risk measure, confidence level and time horizon, which feels proportionately light in focus given the detail in Article 262 of the Delegated Acts (4.1).

Some good elements include;

• Uses of ORSA in decision-making process listed in 1.1 - some are directly lifted from EIOPA, but couple of other examples may help focus the mind (I would add that setting "risk limits" feel sloppy, given the legislation uses "risk tolerance limits")
• Ask for a table to be populated with quantitative results for each risk category, but don't prescribe the category names, rather provide the legislative categories as examples - this is how it should be, especially for the smaller firms. (4.2)
• No expectation that the "medium or long-term" capital is calculated at this point - the column provided is marked *OPTIONAL* (4.2) 

Whilst the data gleaned from the template they have provided may be a bit cumbersome, fair to say that CBoI's efforts will be welcomed by both the qualifying firms (as a pro-forma) and the larger firms as an INED guide.

FRC on Risk Management and Internal Control disclosure - insurers way ahead?

Muddy Waters
- public disclosure on Risk

The UK's Financial Reporting Council have released guidance on Risk Management, Internal Control and related reporting, just in time to help muddy the waters for UK insurers, who have no doubt finally got their risk, actuarial and compliance functions writing non-conflicting words with Solvency II preparation in mind!

Anyone who has written, peer-reviewed or socially read these sections of public reports (i.e. me, and any other geeks), will know they are normally;

• Boiler-plate, and completely transferrable between industries, regardless of their disparate risk profiles
• Aligned to the Strategy sections with a few anchor words, but otherwise divorced
• Frequently unaligned with the ERM frameworks used internally - i.e. "this is what the City wants to read", not material on our actual risk profile!

Given that this is only guidance, and is further only directly relevant to LSE listed entities, readers may be inclined to take the content with a fistful of salt. There are a number of noteworthy aspects to this publication however which maybe show where the mindset of supervisory-types has got to in the eight or so years since the financial crisis commenced.

 I took the following general points from it;

• Very little for listed insurers to be concerned about, if they have prepared adequately for ORSA and supervisory reporting (SFCR, RSR) - indeed, their reporting teams will be delighted with the amount of content crossover! Check out the (still not finalised) Delegated Acts of Solvency II in order to see why listed Insurers won't need to stretch to meet these.
• Frequent references to "culture", as opposed to "risk culture". Checking the FSB's take on Risk Culture from April of this year, one can appreciate the FRC's desire to gemmy culture into these guidelines, if perhaps not the execution - one fears the "culture" words are likely to become a little weasely.
• Multiple crossovers into ORSA language, in particular re-emphasising the importance of the alignment of risk management with business strategy.
• Good work in section 4, bringing in the "IMMMR" concept from Solvency II, as well as assessment of current and emerging risks, and assessing exogenous and endogenous risks when doing so.
• Recommend that risk assessments are performed at inherent and residual level, and that control effectiveness is also considered when arriving at one's final assessment

On the technical front, the following elements caught my eye

• "Emerging principal risks" used as an expression - not sure if that stands up to scrutiny i.e. if something is emerging, can it be a "principal" anything? How would you measure it to gauge "principality"?
• Reference to "high profile failures in risk management" in recent years, which feels a little finger-pointy - we could deconstruct every corporate failure to one of risk management failure
• "Risk Appetite" put into inverted commas within the guidance, but not in the appendices - can't quite work out the aversion to definition given the FSB's work to date at the very least, but certainly EIOPA have similarly dodged it (p59), and looking at Appendix 1 of the Irish regulator's thought paper on Risk Appetite, one can see why!
• "It is the role of management to implement and take day-to-day responsibility for board policies on risk management and internal control" - really? responsibility for their implementation, sure, but policy content?

Solvency II Delegated Acts - whenever, wherever...

No sign of the Solvency II Delegated Acts sign-off as yet. The mighty ECON committee of the European Parliament have just about got their feet under the table after May's elections (and June, July and August's European summer holidays!), but despite meeting on the 3rd and 4th Sept, they don't appear to have discussed or even listed the matter as work in progress.

Wouldn't have felt such a big deal, given Gideon's summary on the topic back in early August, but the Mr Claffey and Co. at Milliman appear to have picked up on a potential sore point for the unit-linked boys, which might jack-up the Operational Risk SCR for anyone in standard formula world (which would cover a good number of pure unit-linked businesses I expect).

I've had a look around for the July version of the Delegated Acts, but they have yet to be leaked* as publicly as the January version - I would recommend anyone in the unit linked world gives this a once over, particularly if you still pay fat commission cheques!





* How about I shut my mouth - not only has the wonderful Petter Svensson (Sweden's foremost independent consultant) made it available on his own site, the Romanian Regulator has done similarly. Fill your boots...

ORSA - Institute of Risk Management special interest group

Of course while I spent the last couple of months topping up my tan in, errrrr, the Isle of Man, some of the guys in the UK and further afield have been building up an endeavour-flavoured sweat on some of the more malleable elements of Solvency II preparation.


Raining 'Mann' - Glorious Manx summer

The IRM as ever have kept the ball rolling, in particular hosting an ORSA session last month. While you can pick your way through the guest speaker presentations for ideas and comfort (one company specific, one consultant generic, and one which S&ST/RST fans might like as a sense check), I was much more interested in the attendee survey.

A whopping 34 replies came in, via which the attendees have delivered a reasonable ORSA landscape mock-up, which may help some of you get matters shuffled in your priority lists, given where your peers claim to be.

I noted in particular;

• ORSA Process overwhelmingly run by the Risk functions (over 90%)
• Just over half going for annual frequency, the rest (who responded) naturally more frequent - doesn't instinctively feel representative, but not all of the smaller firms would send someone down to this!
• Around two-thirds have their "Reports" at 50 pages or less - if we assume that by "report" we mean Supervisory as well as Internal, the PRA won't be too chuffed with that given their comments at the December industry seminar.
• Only a third have submitted draft ORSA Reports to the PRA and received feedback
• Coverage of emerging risk appears to be an area which not only do respondees think is lacking, but has received critical feedback from the PRA

That half have used external consultants in their ORSA work to-date is certainly no surprise. I'd be worried if that consultancy had more than a year's dust on it though, so think hard before you start submitting your 2014 gear!