Risk capital charges in the Solvency II context reflect the 99.5% quantile on a 1-year horizon. The consistent application of risk capital charges in Solvency II to all sources of risk is imperative. Inconsistent application of risk charges creates perverse incentives for certain asset classes or insurance products.
as a basis for discussion on the implementing measures for articles 50-55 of the EU Solvency II Draft Directive. The CRO Forum advocates a principles-based approach: Section B of this paper establishes five main principles for public risk disclosure which should be adhered to by all undertakings.
The Emerging Risks Initiative of the Chief Risk Officers Forum is pleased to announce the publication of a new position paper called Critical Information Infrastructure. In industrialised societies, computers are interconnected to form a complex [...]
The CRO Forum companies have developed internal capital models, which they expect to be approved by the regulators as a basis for setting the level of target capital ('SCR'). The CRO Forum companies have also participated in QIS4.
This paper is part of a series of work by the CRO Forum under their Best Risk Management Practices initiative.The paper outlines important principles and considerations that should be part of best risk management practice for the management of liquidity risk within an insurance company. The primary focus of this paper is the management of liquidity risk where the company bears the risk, as opposed to the policyholder.
Financial Crisis strongly reinforces the case for Solvency II. EU should not water down the Solvency II directive or postpone the legislative process New CRO Forum publication comments on the consequences of the financial crisis forEnterprise Risk Management and regulation in the insurance industry
Over the past 3-4 years a tremendous amount of positive energy and resource has been expended in the name of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the oversight of insurance entities, globally, by regulatory and supervisory bodies, industry associations and commentators alike. The CRO Forum is pleased at the pace and direction of the changes under consideration. However it has also become clear that in the course of the wider dialogue, confusion has sometimes arisen about the intended meaning about certain principles and elements of suggested implementation frameworks. Moreover, parallel discussions in the field of financial accounting have meant some terminology has dual meanings.
Thank you for your letter dated 3 June 2008 asking for our views on the European harmonisation of reporting formats. I am pleased to provide you with the CRO Forum answers on your specific questions. Concerning your first question; we agree that the suggested timetable should be in line with the Solvency II project. There are many good reasons for this. Firstly, the current framework differs across jurisdictions and the underlying data is not consistent as Members States apply different valuation bases. Therefore, using the current fragmented supervisory landscape as a starting point for a European wide reporting format would not be appropriate and we need the harmonization of principles that Solvency II brings.
It is obvious that the Standard Formula does not exhibit full risk sensitivity at every individual company level, as the sensitivity to risks is individually set e.g. through risk mitigation measures the company might have chosen. We welcome the steps taken in the framework directive to promote good risk management and want to encourage the Commission to appropriately reflect the diversity in risk exposure and risk profiles existing in the insurance industry. Solvency II should make use of data and expertise in the industry to the largest extent possible
