The Value of Adopting Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)
Here we review recent GC Capital Ideas posts examining the benefits to (re)insurers adopting Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) standards.
Here we review recent GC Capital Ideas posts examining the benefits to (re)insurers adopting Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) standards.
Here we review GC Capital Ideas posts on the challenges (re)insurers face managing and modeling casualty catastrophe risks.
In realizing the goal of profitable growth, (re)insurers require a trusted partner to help them manage a rapidly evolving regulatory and rating agency environment.
Rating Agency Advisory
Ratings are a key indicator for many insurers and (re)insurance buyers. Amid evolving rating agency concerns and the complexity of enterprise risk management (ERM) requirements, Guy Carpenter Strategic Advisory provides clarity. We help clients take a proactive approach to enhance risk-adjusted capitalization, build up ERM, improve communications with rating agencies and optimize rating outcomes.
In realizing the goal of profitable growth, (re)insurers require a trusted partner to help them manage a rapidly evolving regulatory and rating agency environment.
Regulatory Advisory
The regulatory issues facing insurers and reinsurers today often require highly specialized expertise that may not be readily accessible to clients - from taking credit for reinsurance on financial statements to complying with regulatory requirements in contract wordings to shepherding new products through the approval process. Guy Carpenter Strategic Advisory℠ has a team of professionals whose deep expertise and knowledge can help companies navigate the regulatory realm.
Europe
In anticipation of the January 2016 rollout, the European insurance industry focused squarely on Solvency II. Rating agencies refrained from instituting any new criteria.
There is a great deal of overlap between the requirements of government regulators and credit rating agencies. The difference, however, is in the objectives of those requirements, with regulators focused on solvency and ability to trade, or not, and the rating agencies taking it a step further to opine on relative financial strength. Regulatory solvency approval can be viewed as a “qualifier” or minimum standard required to be considered by a customer. A credit rating, on the other hand, can act as a “differentiator” to distribution channels and insurance buyers ultimately leading to greater potential sales opportunities.
In accordance with the objectives of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority (EIOPA), Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) is “people and risk-centric,” primarily employing a principles-based approach, as opposed to a rules-based approach. This means that decisions on matters related to risks are largely based on the judgment of individuals relying on underlying facts, as opposed to decisions being made mostly by following intricate sets of rules. This is similar to the principles-based approach taken by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Although the calculation of the Solvency Capital Requirements (SCR) under Solvency II is rules based, like Insurance Capital Standard (ICS), Solvency II can be a “one size fits all” rules-based approach to capital, especially if the standard formula is used. (Re)insurers will need to find a way to incorporate ICS into their ORSA processes and the vehicle to accomplish this may be through the internal model.
(Re)insurers that are required to implement Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA), or a similar framework such as Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP), may benefit by adopting a strong ORSA/enterprise risk management (ERM) framework. One such framework that could work on a global basis is illustrated below.
There is very little doubt that (re)insurers face and will continue to face growing regulation and scrutiny both domestically and internationally. Therefore, (re)insurers should seek the most effective and efficient way to meet the growing demands of increased global regulation. What follows below is a brief discussion of the overlap of some of these new global regulatory requirements and thoughts on how (re)insurers might go about approaching them.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has stipulated that “the solvency framework of the U.S. system of state-based Insurance regulation has included a review of the holding company system for decades, with an emphasis placed on each insurance legal entity. In light of the 2008 financial crisis and the globalization of insurance business models, as discussed in this report, U.S. insurance regulators have begun to modify their group supervisory framework and have been increasingly involved in developing an international group supervisory framework (1).”