1 / 31

Role of actuarial function supporting the FLAOR leading to the ORSA

Role of actuarial function supporting the FLAOR leading to the ORSA . Ian Morris June 2014. Contents. ORSA requirements Insurance Rule 31 The Forward Looking Assessment of Own Risks. Introduction to BWCI. Established in 1979 Independent Partnership 100 staff (in Guernsey and Jersey)

agrata
Download Presentation

Role of actuarial function supporting the FLAOR leading to the ORSA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Role of actuarial function supporting the FLAOR leading to the ORSA Ian Morris June 2014

  2. Contents • ORSA requirements • Insurance Rule 31 • The Forward Looking Assessment of Own Risks

  3. Introduction to BWCI • Established in 1979 • Independent Partnership • 100 staff (in Guernsey and Jersey) • 15 qualified actuaries • Specialist insurance team • Clients in a range of jurisdictions • Guernsey, Jersey, Malta, Gibraltar, UK, Mauritius etc

  4. Own Risk and Solvency Assessment • Article 45 of Solvency II directive • Part of risk management system • Not a capital requirement

  5. Key Aims • Assess overall solvency needs • Specific risk profile • Approved risk tolerance limits • Business strategy • Continuous compliance with solvency requirements • How different from standard risk profile?

  6. Solvency Assessment • Processes in place proportional to nature, scale and complexity of entity • Properly identify and assess short and long term risks • Demonstrate methods used

  7. ORSA • Integral part of business strategy • Used for strategic decisions • Updated regularly and for significant change in risk profile • Results reported to regulator

  8. Role of Actuarial Function in ORSA • Contribute to effectiveness of risk modelling • Work highly dependent on nature and scale of entity • …but this is just the minimum requirement

  9. How can risk modelling be effective? • Integrate all aspects of risk assessment • Understand how the business sets risk appetite • Model should reflect approach to business • Not just doing projections

  10. ORSA for large entity • Likely to be based on detailed model • Possibly an internal model • Would require extensive work and documentation

  11. Actuarial challenges • Technical challenge to model a large (and potentially complex business) • Not easy to ensure model is robust • How to communicate results to Board in a way that ORSA is integral to business strategy? • Need to convince a regulator that model is appropriate

  12. ORSA for a small entity • How much work is needed? • Will resources be available? • What level of proportionality is appropriate?

  13. Actuarial challenges • Undertake enough work to be satisfied that the risk modelling is valid • Simplifications likely to be needed but whose judgement? • How will regulators judge proportionality?

  14. Insurance Rule 31 • Implementation of latest EIOPA Guidelines in Malta • Governance • FLAOR • Submission of Information • Pre-application of Internal Models • Effective 1 January 2014

  15. Coverage • EIOPA requires entities covering 80% of market share to be included • In practice most entities likely to need to comply

  16. Forward Looking Assessment of Own Risks • Proportional • Own risk management • Nature, scale and complexity • Role of Board • Should steer process • Challenge results

  17. Process • Documentation needed includes • Policy for assessment • Record of each assessment • Internal report • Supervisory report

  18. Policy • Description of processes and procedures • Consideration of risk profile, risk tolerance limits and solvency needs • Information on • How and how often stress tests, sensitivity etc • Data quality • Frequency (with rationale) • Timing (and circumstances that would change this)

  19. Reporting • Appropriate evidence and documentation • Internal report (to all relevant staff) • Supervisory report to include • Qualitative and quantitative results • Methods and assumptions • Comparison of solvency needs, regulatory capital and own funds

  20. Specific guidance • Use standard basis or justify alternatives • Express quantitatively and qualitatively • Adequate range of stress and sensitivity tests • Forward looking (medium or long term) • Regulatory capital • Comply on continuous basis • Potential changes in risk • Impact of asset changes

  21. Technical Provisions • Seek advice from actuarial function • Continuous compliance with requirements on calculation of technical provisions • Identify risks from uncertainties relating to this calculation • Assess whether risk profile deviates from standard model

  22. Strategy • Take into account results and insights • Capital management • Business planning • Product development and design

  23. Role of actuarial function • If limited to minimum level in the guidance will this be enough to prepare for ORSA? • What will regulators expect?

  24. Wider view needed (in my opinion) • Look at elements required • Consider actuarial aspects • Direct issues impacting on technical provisions • Other issues which have potential impact for risk modelling

  25. Actuary should consider • Approach to risk management • Understood • Reasonable • Proportional • Nature • Scale • Complexity

  26. Documentation • Is this adequate? • Would actuarial view help? • What reports should actuarial function produce (or comment on)?

  27. Policy • Should be able to add value in many areas • Risk profile • Risk tolerance • Stress tests • Sensitivity • Data

  28. Reporting • Actuarial function should be able to bring rigor and technical expertise to reports • Value to board • Value to regulator

  29. Benefits of wider view • Actuarial function should have deeper understanding of risk and modelling • Sounder basis for advice • More comfort to regulator

  30. Problems with wider view approach • Will adequate resources be available to allow actuarial function this depth of involvement? • Do we have all the skills needed? • Communication challenge to • Establish resources • Provide response that shows value from involvement

  31. ?Questions?

More Related