An Introduction to Solvency II
Philadelphia Actuaries ClubMay 13, 2010
John C. Knauss, FSA, MAAAVice President and Corporate ActuaryLondon Life Reinsurance Company
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 2
Key Objectives
• What is it?• Why did it come about?• What are the basics?• What does it mean?• Why should we care?
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 3
Outline
• Brief History – US vs. Europe• What’s so bad about Solvency I?• Structure of Solvency II Regime• Implications of Solvency II
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 4
Some History – U.S. vs. EuropeUnited States Europe
Early 1990’s Current RBC Regime Introduced
1970’s Solvency margin requirements introduced
1986 NY Regulation 126
2000 C3 Phase I 2002 Solvency I
2005 C3 Phase II
2009 VA CARVM 2007 Solvency II Proposal Adopted
2010 Risk-Focused Examinations
2011? C3 Phase III 2012 Solvency II effective
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 5
Abbreviations and Definitions
• CEIOPS: Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors
• IFRS: International Financial Reporting Standards
• QIS: Quantitative Impact Study• SCR: Solvency Capital Requirement• MCR: Minimum Capital Requirement• VaR: Value at Risk• SRP: Supervisory Review Process
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 6
Solvency I – The Basics
• Simple factor-based model• Focuses on the liability side of the balance
sheet• Regulatory capital requirement
– P&C: function of written premiums and loss reserves
– Life: function of amount at risk– Basically “RBC-extra light”
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 7
So what’s wrong with Solvency I?
• Simple formula approach disregards actual risk profile of the business
• Leads to unintended incentives (e.g., lower reserves = lower required capital)
• Applied to legal entity – no consolidation for groups of companies
• Limited disclosure requirements• Need for more comprehensive approach was
clear even during development
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 8
So what’s wrong with Solvency I?
• “Sharma Report1” (2002) showed that vast majority of insolvencies were preceded by internal management or governance shortcomings or some external trigger events.
• Report further noted that there was a period of time between such events and insolvency, suggesting that better information may have prevented the insolvency.
• Thus was born the Solvency II project.
1. Prepared under the leadership of Paul Sharma, head of the Prudential Risks Department of the UK Financial Services Authority
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 9
Solvency II – Essence
• Promote a robust, forward-looking risk management framework to guide both insurance company management and regulators
• Require implementation of risk practices appropriate for size, nature and complexity of the insurer’s business
• Reduce reliance on capital requirements as an exclusive early warning tool
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 10
Solvency II – Advantages
• Market-consistent valuation of assets and liabilities
• Identify and quantify risks and their interdependence
• Prospective risk management focus
• “Ladder of interventions” – upper threshold (plan for corrective action) to lower threshold (regulator takes over)
• Group supervision
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 11
Solvency II – Basic Structure
• Introduces economic risk-based solvency requirements across all EU member states
• Total balance sheet approach
• 3 pillars:
– Quantitative requirements
– Supervisory review
– Supervisory reporting and public disclosure
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 12
Solvency II Balance Sheet
Total Assets
MCR
RM
Best-Estimate Liability
Free Surplus
Technical Provisions = Best-Estimate + Risk Margins (RM)
Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR)(MCR is a subset of the SCR)
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 13
Pillar 1: Quantitative Requirements
Addresses the following:• Calculation of technical provisions (i.e.,
reserves)– Valued according to IFRS definition of fair value– QIS4: discount rates are term-dependent risk-free
rates at time of valuation (revisited in QIS5)• Calculation of solvency capital requirements• Investment management
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 14
Solvency II Capital Requirements
• SCR: capital such that the probability of ruin within one year = 0.5% (i.e., 99.5% VaR)– In other words, holding 100% of calculated SCR
would result in becoming insolvent once in every 200 years
– Calculated using standard formula, internal models, or combination
• MCR: floor below which a company will not be permitted to operate
• Between MCR and SCR, company subject to supervisory action
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 15
Standard Formula
• Linear, factor-based approach• Intended to be conservative approximation of
the 99.5% VaR objective• Specific structure not yet finalized and factors
not yet calibrated– Final calibration to be completed by October 2011
to allow 12 months’ lead time for full implementation
– Will likely include market, counterparty, mortality, morbidity, catastrophe, and operational risks
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 16
Use of Internal Models
• Solvency II encourages firms to use internal models under the premise that it will result in – a better alignment between firm risk and capital
requirements– Stronger risk management culture in the firm
• Use of internal models should lead to reduced required capital relative to the standard formula
• Regulatory approval required for use (must satisfy number of standards for calibration, validation, documentation, etc.)
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 17
Pillar 2: Supervisory Review
Focus: provide supervisors with means of identifying firms that have a higher risk profile, and the ability to intervene
Qualitative aspects:• Internal controls• Risk management processes• Corporate governance
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 18
Pillar 2: Supervisory Review
• Requires firms to conduct an Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)
• ORSA is responsibility of the Chief Risk Officer (not an actuarial function)
• Objectives of ORSA– Tool for firm’s own decision making– Tool for supervisors to better understand the risk
profile of the firm
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 19
Pillar 3: Reporting and Disclosure
• Supervisory Reporting• Public Disclosure• Focus: increasing the transparency of the
insurer’s risks and capital position• Group Supervisor – a single regulator will
oversee a group of companies operating in multiple jurisdictions
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 20
Implications
Risk Management Practices
• Insurers must have an actuarial function and a risk management function
• Insurers will be required to have “adequate and transparent governance system”
• Increased use of ERM• “I would not position it as having to be ready
for Solvency II. Instead, we have to be ready for proper enterprise risk management and Solvency II is part of that.”
– Jeroen Potjes, Chief Insurance Risk Officer, ING
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 21
Implications
“Third-Country Insurers”
• Specific rules exist for European branches of non-EU insurers
• Solvency II contains provisions that enable the equivalence of a third-country solvency regime to be assessed.
• Equivalence with U.S. may be difficult without federal charter (i.e., single regulator)
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 22
Implications
Insurers’ Capital Requirements
• Per Industry: As currently proposed, required capital will increase dramatically
• Per Regulators: Required capital will now be at an appropriate level
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 23
Implications
Impact on Products• Will affect EU companies (including U.S.
companies with EU parent)• QIS4: Long-term products likely to suffer
– due to risk-free discounting (This was changed in QIS5).
– Longevity: immediate mortality improvement of 25%
– Mortality: mortality deteriorates 15%• CEIOPS: Consumers will have a more
uniform and enhanced level of protection, and increased competition will put downward pressure on prices
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 24
Industry Reactions
• “Why Excessive Capital Requirements Harm Consumers, Insurers and the Economy”– Published by CEA (“Euro-ACLI”) in March 2010– Written in response to requirements of QIS4
• Increase in required capital could be “65-75%” while sources of available capital are reduced “25-50%”
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 25
Industry Reactions (con’t)
• “The price of many life products would go up by up to 20-30% due to higher capital requirements…”
• “…non-life product prices would increase on average by 5-10% for more capital-intense products… or those with a long tail… due to higher capital costs…”
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 26
Implications
U.S. Regulation• Continued convergence of insurance
accounting regimes (IFRS) – are capital requirements far behind?
• Risk-focused examinations introduced by NAIC for year-end 2010
• NAIC is examining models-based catastrophe charges for RBC
• NAIC is re-examining asset RBC charges• NAIC to consider some measure of
operational risk?• NAIC to require something similar to the
ORSA?
May 13, 2010 An Introduction to Solvency II Slide 27
Questions?