Solvency II news: 4 April 2011

NOTE: the Solvency II news updates have moved!

From now on the updates and other Solvency II material will be published on the Solvency II Wire website. To continue receiving Solvency II updates and articles please subscribe at www.solvencyiiwire.com. I will continue publishing articles about economics on EasierCrisis. XUSET4JUDH3K 

Please also note that Solvency II Wire has a Facebook page and a separate Twitter account.

Thanks

Gideon


Contents: tight Solvency II deadline, Solvency II 101, addressing Catastrophe Risk in QIS 5, tweets

Practical preparation for Solvency II on “knife edge”

The  Solvency II legislative package will only be finalised in Autumn 2012. In the European Committee First Quarter Update, the ABI said the delay is a result to a number of changes to Omnibus II published in January this year.

The ABI said, “This does mean that, while companies remain supportive of 2013 as a start date, their ability to make practical preparations is on a knife edge.”

The Update also addresses a number of unresolved issues that emerged from the QIS 5 results, published last month, which could lead to higher capital requirements:

  • The recognition of an illiquidity premium for new business
  • Transitional arrangements for existing business (annuities, hybrid capital)
  • The definition of contract boundaries
  • SCR calibrations, in particular non-life catastrophe risk and counterparty risk for life and non-life
  • Equivalence with third country regimes.

Financial Times Solvency II 101  

Solvency II Explained is a short article explaining the basics of Solvency II, the three pillars and how pensions will be affected. The article is an accompaniment to a story on German occupational pension schemes.

Addressing flaws in the QIS 5 Catastrophe Risk sub-module

The CEA proposes solutions to flaws in the design of Catastrophe Risk sub-module used in QIS 5. The proposals, submitted to the European Commission on 28 March, address the use of a scenario-based approach and a factor-based approach to calculating capital requirements for the sub-module.

QIS 5 results showed that neither method, “produced a capital level which appropriately reflected the underlying risk of each type of Man Made and Natural Catastrophes,” the CEA said.

The CEA’s proposals relate mainly to the design aspects of the Catastrophe Risk sub-module. Once these are resolved, the CEA said, “it will be important to then work on ensuring the capital requirements are appropriately calibrated to the 99.5% 1-year Value at Risk.”

From the Sphere

Tweets before posting

http://twitter.com/#!/Sourcews_UK/status/54881333914255360

Advertisements

About Gideon Benari
Solvency II Wire a site dedicated to informing professionals in financial services industry about Solvency II, the new regulation for the European insurance industry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: