Transcript Slide 1

Aktuárské standardy a role aktuára v
Solventnosti II
Seminář z aktuárských věd
Praha 23.4.2010
Jiří Fialka
Agenda
„Stakeholders“ v přípravě aktuárských standardů
Stávající aktuárské standardy
Návaznost na direktivu Solventnosti II
Actuarial Standards Task Force







Terms of Reference
Návrhy
Fit and Proper – discussion paper
„Stakeholders“ v přípravě
aktuárských standardů
• Groupe Consultatif
– Zastřešuje evropské aktuárské společnosti
– Hájí zájmy evropských aktuárů
• CEIOPS
– Zastřešuje pojišťovací dohledy
– Je pověřen Evropskou komisí, aby připravil
regulaci druhé úrovně pro Solventnost II
– Bude transformovaný do EIOPA
• Evropská komise
– Zodpovídá za regulaci druhé úrovně
Stávající aktuárské standardy
• IAA – International Actuarial Standards of
Practice
• EU – každý stát jinak
–
–
–
–
Existence-neexistence standardů
Témata
Kdo vydává
Kdo sleduji plnění
• UK Board for Actuarial Standards
– Aktuáři i ne-aktuáři
• Viz samostatný Excel
Návaznost na direktivu
Solventnosti II, §48
§48 Pojistněmatematická funkce (překlad Ministerstvo financí ČR)
1. Pojišťovny a zajišťovny zřídí účinnou pojistněmatematickou funkci, která:
a) koordinuje výpočet technických rezerv;
b) zajišťuje přiměřenost používaných metodik a podkladových modelů, jakož i
předpokladů učiněných při výpočtu technických rezerv;
c) posuzuje dostatečnost a kvalitu údajů používaných při výpočtu technických rezerv;
d) srovnává nejlepší odhady se zkušeností;
e) informuje správní, řídící nebo kontrolní orgán o spolehlivosti a adekvátnosti
výpočtu technických rezerv;
f) dohlíží na výpočet technických rezerv v případech stanovených v článku 82;
g) vyjadřuje názor na celkovou koncepci upisování;
h) vyjadřuje názor na adekvátnost zajistných ujednání;
i) přispívá k účinnému provádění systému řízení rizik uvedeného v článku 44,
zejména pokud jde o konstrukci rizikových modelů, které jsou podkladem výpočtu
kapitálových požadavků stanovených v kapitole VI oddílech 4 a 5 a pokud jde o
posouzení uvedené v článku 45.
Návaznost na direktivu
Solventnosti II, §48 (2)
2. Pojistněmatematickou funkci vykonávají osoby, které mají
znalosti pojistné a finanční matematiky, jež jsou přiměřené
povaze, rozsahu a komplexnosti rizik spojených s činností
pojišťovny nebo zajišťovny, a které jsou schopné prokázat
své příslušné zkušenosti na příslušné odborné a jiné úrovni.
2. The actuarial function shall be carried out by persons who
have knowledge of actuarial and financial mathematics,
commensurate with the nature, scale and complexity of the
risks inherent in the business of the insurance or reinsurance
undertaking, and who are able to demonstrate their relevant
experience with applicable professional and other
standards.
Actuarial Standards Task Force
• Terms of reference
– Aktuárské standardy
– Role aktuára
Actuarial Standards Task Force
Objectives
• To establish, review and maintain standards to support
actuarial activities in relation to Solvency II, in the public
interest, to promoting high quality actuarial practice and
convergence of practice
• greater level of technical detail
• effective, open, transparent and responsive consultation
process
• To assist all actuaries .. within a common professional
framework for Solvency II.
• To promote and support the role of actuaries in a wide range
of activities under Solvency II.
Actuarial Standards Task Force
Principles of standard-setting and
implementation
• Standards should serve the public interest and address the
needs of users of actuarial services SII. …not be seen as
prepared by the actuarial profession acting in isolation, or to
serve its own members’ interests
• An open and transparent process which fully involves key
stakeholders
Actuarial Standards Task Force
Legislative background
• Level 2 measures: ”CEIOPS shall adopt, following a period of
public consultation, European actuarial guidelines on technical
issues, taking into account the standards set in national and
international actuarial associations”
• Addopt vs. endorse
• Technical vs. wider scope (L1: ‘professional and other
standards’)
• Fit & proper vs. GC active and continuous approach
Actuarial Standards Task Force
The role of the Groupe Consultatif
Two alternative approaches:
• EIOPA would call for advice from the actuarial profession
(which would include the Groupe Consultatif and other
‘actuaries’ in the market) in respect of specific types of
guidelines which they have decided will be needed;
• EIOPA would establish a Working Group or Task Force, with
representatives of various stakeholders, in order to develop a
guideline or set of guidelines.
GC believes to be an opportunity for the GC to play a part in
standard-setting… all of the major activities under Solvency II
which might be expected to be carried out by actuaries
Actuarial Standards Task Force
The role of the Groupe Consultatif
• The Board might consider it appropriate to develop public
interest standards (qualification standards, ethical
standards, governance standards and communication
standards) in addition to technical standards
• Mandatory vs. recommended
• Adoption of standards by local associations
– Member Associations would be required to adopt the
standard
– Direct application to members of Member Associations
– GC in General Meeting to adopt as a binding GC standard.
Actuarial Standards Task Force
Due process
• Proposal by the ASB, by the Groupe Consultatif, by the
European Commission or by EIOPA, would be tabled that an
actuarial standard was needed for a particular aspect of
actuarial work under Solvency II.
• The ASB would prepare a discussion paper… if…
– there is uncertainty about how to interpret what should be done
– there is diversity of practice which it is desired to narrow
– a standard would be effective in narrowing range of practice etc.
• a consultative document by ASB on the principles and main
elements to be included in the standard.
• Consultation with stakeholders
• Exposure draft
Actuarial Standards Task Force
Due process (cont’d)
• The ASB would consult all Member Associations on the
proposed content before going out to wider consultation.
• Consultation with a wide range of stakeholders.
• The ASB would modify the draft.
• If substantial stakeholder disagreement with the exposure
draft, a further period of consultation on a second exposure
draft would be undertaken before adoption and endorsement.
Actuarial Standards Task Force
Monitoring and ensuring compliance
• Each Member Association of the Groupe would be expected to
require their members to comply
• Individual associations would be responsible for monitoring
the compliance of their members with the standards
• In practice the main responsibility for monitoring compliance
might rest with the supervisory authorities, who would be in a
better position to be aware of whether actuaries are
complying or not
• Associations would investigate complaints that an actuary was
not complying with a standard and take disciplinary action
Actuarial Standards Task Force
Operational aspects of standard-setting
• Resource intensive...
• Drafting of consultation documents and standards would be
mainly carried out by volunteers.
• The Groupe itself is proposing to acquire legal status through
becoming a Swiss Verein.
• Board would have actuarial members and non-actuarial
members.
• Travel and accommodation expenses of Board members
would be reimbursed. EIOPA and EC as observers.
• Max. 12 members.
Actuarial Standards Task Force
What activities are needed?
•
•
•
•
•
establishment and management of the ASB
drafting of the standards
management of the consultation processes
possible redrafting and further periods of consultation
monitoring and enforcing standards and applying sanctions in
case of non-compliance
• keeping standards up-to-date
Actuarial Standards Task Force
What types of resources are needed?
• actuarial resources to draft and redraft the exposure
standards
• administrative resources to manage the due process
• expenses and possible remuneration of the ASB members
• office accommodation and technical facilities
Options for actuarial resources
• volunteer activity, similar to the work of committees and
Solvency II project
• secondment of professionals from industry and/or companies
• professionals hired and the costs financed by the GC with
possible external sources of finance
Actuarial Standards Task Force
What standards have been discussed so far?
• Public interest standards including
– qualification standards
– ethical standards
– governance standards
– communication standards
• Technical standards including
– interpretative standards
– technical implementation standards
Actuarial Standards Task Force
• The standards discussed earlier in this paper
and not related directly to Article 48 were:
– the risk management system described in Article
44 (which itself includes asset-liability
management and the internal model); and
– the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment in Article
45.
– the risk management function as a whole
Actuarial Standards Task Force
• Resources for the management of the due
process
– additional secretariat staff of 1- 3 persons
• Options for financing
1) An increase in the fees payable to the Groupe by member
associations
2) Funding from the European Commission or EIOPA
3) Additional voluntary contributions from (some) member
associations
4) Donations raised from the industry and/or consultants
5) Revenue from running CPD seminars, especially on
Solvency II topics
Fit and Proper – discussion paper
• Article 42 of the Solvency II Directive sets out ‘fit and proper’
requirements for persons who effectively run the undertaking
or fulfil other key functions, including the actuarial function
and the risk management function. The core provision is set
out in Article 42(1) as follows:
“Insurance and reinsurance undertakings shall ensure that all
persons who effectively run the undertaking or have other key
functions at all times fulfil the following requirements:
(a) their professional qualifications, knowledge and
experience are adequate to enable sound and prudent
management (fit); and
(b) they are of good repute and integrity (proper).”
Fit and Proper – discussion paper
• Fitness concerns the professional qualifications, competence
and experience needed to fulfil the relevant function or
position within the company.
– reference to professional qualifications in the Directive clearly suggests
membership at an appropriate level of a recognised professional body
• No continuous assessment of competence or for any
specific requirement on the individual to keep up-to-date or to
expand and develop his or her knowledge as the market
situation and technical requirements evolve.
Fit and Proper – discussion paper
• Propriety relates to the reputation and track record of the
individual in regard to integrity and good behaviour.
– To be assessed whether there is any evidence to the contrary
– Evidence to the contrary might not be available because it has not
come to light, or the individual may not have been tested in the past in
ways which would have shown up potential lack of integrity.
• Different levels of professional qualifications, knowledge and
experience might be seen as appropriate for different types of
undertaking, whereas the propriety requirements should apply
in full in all cases.
Fit and Proper – discussion paper
• Although the onus is on firms to appoint appropriately
qualified individuals, supervisory authorities will need to have
a suitable benchmark against which to measure whether
what firms are proposing is acceptable.
• Ethical standards
– Federation of European Accountants (FEE): without integrity, no
professional activity can be relied upon.
– Whistle blowing
Fit and Proper – discussion paper
The way forward
• Successful introduction of Solvency II will require a very high
level of professionalism, as well as technical
competence, ...for ... the actuarial function and the risk
management function.
• Specific advanced technical skills which actuaries have
should be used in the public interest and not abused to
the benefit of firms and the expense of customers.
• Public expectation that professions such as actuaries,
accountants and internal auditors will exhibit integrity and
other professional characteristics at a level significantly
above what might be regarded as the general norm of
business behaviour.
Děkuji za pozornost!
Aktuárské standardy a role
aktuára v Solventnosti II
Seminář z aktuárských věd
Praha 23.4.2010