Solvency II
Lecture STK 4540
University of Oslo
28th of October 2015
Tord Kopland Eid
1
Agenda
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
What is Solvency II?
Why regulate the insurance industry? Why Solvency II?
Pilar I: Capital requirements
Pilar II: ORSA and System of Governance
Pilar III: Quantitative reporting and Public disclosure
Solvency II: The political process
Solvency II is a law (an EU Directive)
Main aim: avoid bankruptcies in the EU insurance industry
Regulatory regime on risk- and capital management
A very advanced and comprehensive set of rules and regulations
Shall be implemented in the 28 EU states + EEA
A fully harmonised regulatory framework within the EU
Timeline
2016
2000-2013
2014-2015
Development
Interim phase
Implementation
2016-?
many transitional
measures will still be in
place in the coming years
Most EU life- and non-life insurers are obliged to implement Solvency II
• Only insurers with a premium income of less than
€5m or provisions less than €25 millioner are
exempted
• Reinsurers are subject to Solvency II
• Pension funds are not, but will face similar
regulations as they are in direct competition with life
insurers
The number of insurance companies in Europe is in decline –
Solvency II will probably accelerate this trend
3,000
2,958
2,710
2,840
2,770
2,549
2,616
2,500
2,493
2,231
2,116
2,000
1,500
1,339
Skade
1,313
1,204
1,196
1,262
1,191
1,145
Liv
1,130
1,102
1,000
500
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Insurance Europe
Why regulate the insurance industry?
The main driver of financial regulation is to avoid
bankruptcies and systemic risk
Protecting policy holders across the EU
Optimizing capital allocation by aligning capital requirements to actual
risk
Create an equal and consistent regulatory regime across the EU
Create regulations that are consistent with the ones in comparable
industries (particularly banking)
Create an improved «platform» for proper regulation and supervision,
based on increased transparency, more data and better documentation
Regulation is costly – is it worth it?
• It is very costly to create and implement Solvency
• Hence, it is fair to ask whether it is worth it
• What are the gains from regulation?
 Usually regulation is about making a market work well
 In insurance (and banking) the main priority is rather to avoid bankruptcy
 The market mechanism does not work well when the claims are very long tailed
 very hard to know what the right price is, and thus whether a company is
profitable, until a long time has passed
 The consequences of bankruptcies in the financial industry are potentially very
severe  E.g. retired people who lose their pension
 Why European-wide regulations?
 Having one regulatory system is more efficient than having 30
 More transparent and easy for customers and companies to move across borders
 Lesson from financial crisis: The risks do not stop at borders
Why Solvency II?
Solvency I is being replaced and updated in order to give the
insurance industry a modern regulatory framework
Solvency I is….
Based on a number of individual directives from the 1970s – Solvency I
was formally established in 2002
Not a harmonised framework at the EU-level: Significant differences
between the various countries e.g. in the valuation of provisions
Very basic in terms of risk measurement: Insurance risk is the only type of
risk taken into account; and only at a high level
Often supplemented by other, national regulations. E.g. in Norway insurers
were also required to comply with banking regulations (Basel I)
«good» at preventing insolvencies, but it has not required insurers to
maintain a level of capital corresponding to the risk exposure of the entity
Pillar I
Solvens II
Pillar II:
Qualitativ
Pillar I:
Quantitative
•
•
•
•
•
Balance sheet
valuation
Solvency Capital
Requirements
(SCR)
Minimum Capital
Requirements
(MCR)
Standard formula
Internal model
•
•
•
11
System of
governance
Three lines of
Defense
Own Risk and
Solvency
Assessment
(ORSA)
Pillar III:
Reporting
•
•
•
Solvency and
Financial Condition
Report (SFCR)
Report to
Supervisor (RTS)
Quantitative
Reporting
Templates (QRT)
Typical Solvency II balance sheet of a (Non-Life)
insurance company
Own funds ≡ Assets - Debt
Assets
Receivables from customers and
reinsurers
Liabilities
Own Funds
Equity
Risk Margin
Financial assets
• Shares
• Bonds
• Property
Premium & Claims provisions
Technical
Provisions
(Debt)
Through Solvency II, the insurer is maintained to keep the
level of Own Funds above the capital requirements
Assets
Receivables from customers and
reinsurers
Liabilities
Capital required
MCR
Own Funds
SCR
Risk Margin
Financial assets
• Shares
• Bonds
• Property
Own funds = Assets - Debt
> SCR
Premium & Claims provisions
SCR value is based on Value-atRisk calculation:
• Time horizon: 1 year
• Confidence level: 99,5 %
I.e. an insurer is expected to
deplete its own funds once
every 200 years
SCR
Standard model
Adj
Market
BSCR
Health
Interest
rate
SLT
Health
Equity
Mortality
H CAT
Default
Non-SLT
Health
Premium
Reserve
16
Longevity
Property
43
Spread
Disability
Morbidity
Currency
Lapse
Concentration
Lapse
Op
Life
Non-life
Mortality
Premium
Reserve
Longevity
Lapse
Disability
Morbidity
NL CAT
Intang
Lapse
Expenses
Nat Cat
Revision
NP Reins.
Mass
accident
30
Expenses
Accident
conc.
Revision
L CAT
Man made
Pandemic
NL CAT
other
https://eiopa.europa.eu/Publications/Standards/A__Technical_Specification_for_the_Preparatory_Phase__Part_I_.pdf
Non-life: Non-life risk is most significant
Life: Market risk is most significant
Source: EIOPA report on the 5th quantitative impact study
Main rule of Solvency II: Level of Own Funds > SCR
• The standard model calculates the SCR as well as the own funs the ratio of
which must be greater than one:
𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 =
𝑂𝑤𝑛 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠
>1
𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑆𝐶𝑅)
• A low solvency margin implies that the risk exposure of the insurance
company is too high relative to the buffer (i.e. the level of own funds)
16
There are three main types of risk affecting insurers
17
Non-life risk:
Life risk:
Market risk:
• Premium risk: Loss
ratio volatility
• Reserve risk:
Volatility in claims
provision
• Survival: Customers
live for longer than
expected
• Disability: More
customers than
expected become
disabled
• The value of financial
assets – shares,
bonds, property
investements decline
• The present value of
technical provisions
increase as interest
rates decline
Market risk affecting liability side of balance sheet:
Low interest rate is a major risk for a Life insurer under a defined benefit
scheme - typical Cash-out flow of claims for such a company
Source: BaFin report
Discounting effect is very important when valuing long-term provisions:
Low interest rate  Low discounting of future claims  Increased provisions
and capital requirement  Low risk-adjusted return  Problems
The SCR Non-life is driven by volatility in the loss ratio:
Loss ratio – Motor
Loss ratio - Property
120 %
120 %
110 %
110 %
100 %
100 %
90 %
90 %
80 %
80 %
70 %
70 %
60 %
60 %
50 %
50 %
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Norwegian private industry
Source: FNO
Non-Life risk in the standard formula:
The volatility (i.e. measure of risk/capital requirement) varies between lines
of business
https://eiopa.europa.eu/
Publications/Standards/
A__Technical_Specificatio
n_for_the_Preparatory_
Phase__Part_I_.pdf
Non-life insurance risk is also affected by
• Catastrophy risk
• Separated from underwriting
risk in the standard model
• Distinction between Manmade Cat and Nature Cat
• Such large claims are harder
to predict (shortage of data)
 Appears to be more
random
• Reinsurance: Bought by the
insurer to offload such risks
• Also taken into account in
the model
Market risk: The asset allocation of the insurer comes
with different levels of capital requirement
• Insurers have significant investments
of reserves (Claims & Premium
provisions)
• Risky investments, such as stocks,
comes with a higher capital charge
than lending money to governments
(as the latter is assumed to imply low
risk)
Source: The Economist
“Solvency II will transform not just
insurance but capital markets, too”
-The Economist, 7.april 2012
• Clearly, this is important. It does not
matter that an insurer sets aside
sufficient amounts of reserves if all
was invested – and lost - in a stock
market crash
The standard model is really not very good (i.e. accurate):
It is only the beginning of the ladder of models for SCR-calculation
Expected capital requirement
Complexity
Low
High
Full
internal model
Partial internal model
Standard model with user-specific
parameters
Standard model
Simplified standard model
Low
High
Summing up Pillar I: There are many differences
between Solvency I and Solvency II
Issue
Solvency I
Solvency II
Valuation of assets and
liabilities
Valued at (historic) book value
Valued at (current) discounted market
value
Capital requirements
Calculated as a percentage of
the insurance liabilites
-
-
Statistical calculation taking more
risks into account
Standard model or internal model
Market risk
No impact on capital
requirements
Capital requirements depending on risk
of asset portfolio
Operational-, Counterparty-,
and disaster risk
No impact on capital
requirements
Included in capital requirements
calculation
Risk management and
regulatory reporting
Limited
Extensive
Life and non-life insurance
regulation
Separate regulation
Joint regulation
Insurance liabilities – Level
of detail
Homogeneous: Limited variation
between lines of business
Heterogeneous: Risk exposure varies
with the line of business
Pillar II
Solvens II
Pillar II:
Qualitativ
Pillar I:
Quantitative
•
•
•
•
•
Balance sheet
valuation
Solvency Capital
Requirements
(SCR)
Minimum Capital
Requirements
(MCR)
Standard formula
Internal model
•
•
•
26
System of
governance
Three lines of
Defense
Own Risk and
Solvency
Assessment
(ORSA)
Pillar III:
Reporting
•
•
•
Solvency and
Financial Condition
Report (SFCR)
Report to
Supervisor (RTS)
Quantitative
Reporting
Templates (QRT)
System of Governance - Organization: Three lines of defence
Business operations (Risk ownership)
1
The business operation units are to measure and manage business performance,
implement internal control and risk management framework
Risk and control functions
Risk mgmt function
2
Facilitate the Risk
Management system:
System of governance,
ORSA, SCR calculation
Actuarial function
Compliance function
Coordinate calculation of
provisions
Contribute to risk
management system
Facilitate and evaluate
internal control processes
Contribute to risk
management system
Internal and external audit
3
Provide independent and objective assurance over the effectiveness of
corporate standards and business compliance, including that the risk
management system functions
System of governance –
A structure of documents connecting business
strategy to risk decision and operational processes
Source: EIOPA guideline on system of governance
The Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) process should be integrated
with the strategy process and results in an ORSA-report to the supervisor
Create a Risk Profile for the
company
Assess the full risk
management system
of the company
Assess the capital
need in the future (e.g.
based on scenario
analysis)
29
Assess and quantiy
the capital needs of
the company
Assess the difference
between the capital
needs and the
standard formula
Key aspect of ORSA:
Risk appetite – How much risk does the insurer want to be exposed to?
Type mål
Economic profit
Growth
Solvency Margin
Breach of
risk appetite limits
< 10 %
Return on equity
< 1 % or > 10 % av
total volume
< 105 % of SCR
Tolerable, but
not within risk appetite limits
10 % -18 % eller > 40 %
Return on equity
Aim – Within the risk
appetite
18 % - 40 %
Return on equity
1 % - 2 % or 7 % - 10 %of total
volume
2 % - 7 % of total
volume
105 % - 115 % of SCR
> 115 % of SCR
Pillar III
Solvens II
Pillar II:
Qualitativ
Pillar I:
Quantitative
•
•
•
•
•
Balance sheet
valuation
Solvency Capital
Requirements
(SCR)
Minimum Capital
Requirements
(MCR)
Standard formula
Internal model
•
•
•
32
System of
governance
Three lines of
Defense
Own Risk and
Solvency
Assessment
(ORSA)
Pillar III:
Reporting
•
•
•
Solvency and
Financial Condition
Report (SFCR)
Report to
Supervisor (RTS)
Quantitative
Reporting
Templates (QRT)
The reporting requirements of Solvency II surpass anything
the insurance industry has had to deal with before:
• Qualitative reporting:
• Quantitative reporting (QRT):
 Solvency and Financial Condition
 Extensive reporting packages to be
 Report to Supervisor (RTS) –
 XBRL format
 High standard for data quality and
Reports (SFCR) – published yearly
delivered to supervisor at least
every 3rd year
 SFCR to contain information on the
company’s risk profile, risk
management system, Solvency II
balance sheet and the capital
management of the company
 RTS will contain all that is necessary
for the purpose of supervision
 The structure of SFCR and RTS will
be similar, but the latter will contain
more detail and strategic
information
submitted four times per year
consistency
 Specific reports are to be published
on the company website for
increased transparency
 Has required significant
implementation costs for the
industry
 First full scale report will be based
on status 31.12.2016
Data from the same source is to be submitted in different reports
 Consistency is a challenge
Details on
provisions and
assets
Data
•Technical
provisions
•Financial assets
•Reinsurance
SCR and MCR
capital
requirement
Solvency II
Balance sheet and
Own Funds
QRT’s reported to
regulatory
supervisor in
XBRL format
The total set of Quantiative Reporting Templates is
significant
SOLVENCY II:
POLITICAL PROCESS
Solvens II was developed in the EU according to the Lamfalussy process
(later on the this has been altered by the Lisbon process):
Level 1: Directive – High level principles and aims
of Solvency II
Level 2: Technical implementing measures – More
detailed regulations based on the level 1 directive
Level 3: Guidelines on implementation for national
supervisors – «Comply or explain»
Level 4: Compliance control of national
supervisors by the European supervisor (EIOPA)
EIOPA – The Supervisor for the European Insurance
Industry
Established in 2011, partly in reponse to the financial crisis of 2008
Similar agencies were established for banking (ECB) and securities as well
An important event in EU History: Supervisory authority was moved from the national to the
supranational level
The leadership as well as experts from the national supervisors interact with EIOPA
The predecessor of EIOPA – CEIOPS – was a small unit without the authority to create or
implement EU legislation
EIOPA is a much more significant organisation which among other things has the authority to
produce and implement technical standards and guidelines that build upon the principles-based
regulation produced by the political EU institutions
The early phases of Solvency II development was
marked by significant involvement from experts and
from the industry
39
Insurance companies from all around Europe took
part in the studies on which the standard formula for
the capital requirement is based
Later on, the development process became very
political and there has been a lot of bargaining,
lobbying and compromises
The financial crisis: Low interest rates implied that many life
insurers were no longer able to satisfy the projected solvency
capital requirement (SCR)
The Omnibus II process amended Solvency II: The main issue was how the
low interest rates were to affect the discounting of long-term liabilities
• Dilemma: Should short-term fluctuations in the long-term interest rate lead to volatility
in current balance sheets?
• Yes: If the market is right about these interest rates, this is the true value of the liabilities
• No: Short term volatility may be excessive and should not have full effect
• The Omnibus II process: Purpose was rather straight foward amendments of the
Solvency II directive
• The interest rate issue caused significant lobbying; Long-Term Guarantee package
increased the discounting effect  reduced provisions for life insurers
• Significant delays and a less prudent regulatory regime