Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2007
Issues viewing this More articles on
article? insurance, risk &
Check on technology? - visit
www.conzulting.in www.conzulting.in
| 1
Risk based solvency assessment accounting results is limited in scope. It does
not go beyond the balance sheet.
This paper considers RBC from a broader This leads us to consider a solvency assessment
perspective, rather than from a regulatory based on risk. A “Risk based solvency
stand point alone. Hence, the reference to RBC assessment” involves considering the risks that
throughout this document is not to be confused the company is exposed to and factoring these
with the RBC in the United States of America risks while addressing the capital needs.
as it exists today. The principles on capital adequacy and solvency
of insurers as laid down by IAIS2 talks of 14
RBC is an approach towards efficient and principles. One of the principles (#6) suggests
prudent management of capital for an insurance that “Capital adequacy and solvency regimes
company. According to the definition of have to be sensitive to risk”. This means that
Society of Actuaries, RBC “represents an while the valuation of assets and liabilities
amount of capital based on an assessment of depends on the regulations in the geography of
risks that a company should hold to protect operations, the solvency margin should also
customers against adverse developments”1 consider risks that have not been adequately
reflected in this valuation i.e. “off-balance sheet
RBC is a method used to assess the capital items”.
adequacy of an insurance company. Since
different stakeholders have different objectives, Models for solvency assessment
their view of “capital adequacy” would also be
different - for the policyholders it is the ability A review of the various solvency assessment
to honour claims; for the shareholders it is the models that are used across various countries
ability of the company to generate expected reveal different levels of sophistication. The
levels of profits; for the regulator it is the models can be classified on multiple
ability to fulfill contractual obligations. dimensions.
Solvency, on the other hand, reflects the There are different approaches for classifying
company’s ability to meet its liabilities together solvency assessment models. CEA and Mercer
with any margin that the supervisory authority Olivier Wyman3, suggest the following
may require the company to hold. From the classification, at a very basic level,:
regulatory perspective, both capital adequacy
and solvency are used to assess the sufficiency
of the insurer’s capital to meet the obligations
or liabilities under all its contracts at all points
in time. In that sense, they are synonymous.
However, it needs to be noted that differences
can be observed in some markets. For example,
in life insurance in Australia, capital adequacy
considers assessment on a going-concern basis
(including new business) whereas solvency
refers to the assessment on a run-off basis (only
existing contracts)].
| 2
Simple factor based models involve the risk measure. The insurance company is
applying factors to accounting results as of a expected to apply the principles laid down by
particular point in time. Solvency 1 regulation, the regulatory or financial authority in the
for example, adopts simple factor based geography of jurisdiction. The models to which
models. these principles can be applied can be the
company’s internal model. The UK-FSA model
Risk factor based models apply multiple for capital requirement is a good example.
factors to specific accounting results. The
NAIC model is perhaps a good example The four models described above are the basic
wherein factors are applied to different risk ones. In practice, the model that a company
elements like Market risk, Credit Risk, adopts need not fit into one of these types
Insurance risk, Interest rate risk, Business risk exclusively. It can have flavors of more than
(and Off-balance sheet items for life insurance). one type.. For instance, the insurance company
The calculation method is standardized and can adopt dynamic scenario based model for
pre-defined. some risks (asset liability mismatch) and use an
overall risk-factor based approach.
Both the models cited above are based on
specific guidelines with rigid, prescriptive It should not be construed that the “rules based”
rules. The analyses and the formulae to be approach is not based on principles. Indeed, all
applied are clearly defined. These are the detailed and prescriptive rules have sound
categorized as “rules based” models. base of financial and actuarial principles.
However, in such a scenario, the regulator has
While the “rules-based” approach to solvency a bigger role to play in ensuring that the
assessment is simple and easy to apply, it has companies adopt sound business practices while
certain drawbacks. For instance, company keeping the stakeholders interests in mind.
specific risk profiles are not considered. There Principles-based approach, on the other hand
is no allowance (or a limited allowance) for transfers the onus of sound business practices
interdependency of risks and the valuation of on to the insurance companies and their senior
assets and liabilities is generally not based on management. Companies need to align their
market-consistent approaches. risk management practices with regulatory
solvency and capital requirements. They need
The follwing two models are dynamic models to move up from being “risk evaluators to risk
as the calculations are not dependent on the managers”4.
position at a particular “point in time”. Rather,
they are based on cashflow projections. Moving from a “rules based” to “principles
Cashflow approach is generally considered to based” model has challenges at various levels.
be better than the “rules based” approach since Both the regulator and the insurance companies
complex scenarios can be modeled. have to work together to make it happen.
While the uncertainty and lack of clarity may
Under the Scenario based model, the not seem unfounded from the insurance
insurance company applies the discounted company’s perspective, there is a clear shift in
cashflow method to ascertain the effect of the role of the regulator from a watchdog to a
certain predefined scenarios to its net asset guide. The regulator is expected to provide
value. Credit, Market, Insurance risks etc. clear and unambiguous guidance in
originating in a one year time horizon are understanding the principles.
considered. The scenarios are clearly defined.
The Swiss Solvency Test or SST as it is known,
4
is an example of this approach. “Principles-based regulation – looking into the
future” Speech by John Tiner, Chief Executive
Lastly, under the Principles based Officer, FSA; FSA Insurance Sector Conference,
21st March 2007. downloaded on 28th May 2007
approach, no rules are specified to arrive at
www.fas.gov.uk,
| 3
circumstances. The absence of detailed rules
Solvency 2 – a step in this direction that translate the principles into practice leaves
much to the judgment of the individual
European market has taken steps to adopt a company on how best to represent the
principles based approach for insurer solvency. principles.
Solvency 2, is a new, risk-sensitive system for
measuring the financial stability of insurance Another important aspect that is closely linked
companies in the EU. It is intended to provide with the above is the choice of risk measure A
greater security for policyholders and stability good risk measure should consider the upside
for financial markets by providing insurance and downside differently. There are various
supervisors with better information and tools risk measures like Value at Risk (VaR) and Tail
to assess the financial strength and the overall VaR that would perhaps represent the
solvency of insurance companies. individual risks (Market, Credit, Insurance
etc.). But what is required is an assessment of
Even before it is fully implemented, Solvency 2 the combined effect of these risks and its
is expected to usher in large scale changes in impact on the overall risk profile of the
product portfolio, operations as well as the company. The positive and negative correlation
reporting requirements of insurance between the risks and the effect of
companies. diversification must be assessed.
However, the transition to a principles based This gets compounded due to scarce data or
approach under Solvency 2 is likely to pose complete absence of accurate data . This is
several implementation challenges to the particularly important in the assessment of
insurance industry. extreme events or the tail of the probability
distribution that represents such risks. in the
Challenges in moving towards a case of stochastic modeling.
principle based approach
Each accounting practice defines the assets and
Risk Based Capital and Solvency assessment are liabilities differently. The same set of
not just accounting or actuarial issues. They principles and rules applied for capital adequacy
affect the entire organization and require and solvency requirement may produce
changes at all levels covering the entire different results. This may lead to a “hidden”
operations. surplus or deficit that is highly undesirable. The
solvency assessment model should be
The “principles based approach”, aims at independent of the accounting system. This,
establishing a system that helps the insurance from a practical perspective, is a challenge
company to manage risks in a more structured especially for the static models since most of
and informed manner, reflecting current them are based on accounting values.
market needs while allowing for greater
transparency based on generally accepted Move towards a “principles based” approach
accounting and actuarial principles. The involves having a comprehensive view of the
detailed methodology is left to the discretion of balance sheet. However, the insurance
the insurer as long as it is consistent with the company’s balance sheet consists of liabilities
principles set out. other than that of policyholders (shareholders,
other investors etc.). The interpretation and
This brings with it implementation challenges valuation of these liabilities would depend upon
in multiple dimensions. For one, though the the primary aim of solvency assessment. In
approach is “principles based”, the
implementation of the principles would require
“rules”. The rules should be such that they
allow flexibility to adapt to unforeseen
| 4
addition, the company would also need to treat The following section details some of the steps
the discretionary liabilities appropriately5. required in modeling and also highlights some
data and technology challenges associated with
In addition, there are challenges associated with it.
time horizon regardless of whether it is a static
or dynamic approach. The cashflow approach Operational challenges –baby steps from
also needs to consider the total projection theory to practice
frequency chosen. There needs to be a right
balance between accuracy and time taken to The implementation of Risk Based Capital
run the model keeping in mind the costs involves, at the core, identifying and modeling
associated with running the model.. The the risks and appropriately aggregating them at
conflict between pragmatism and technical the enterprise level.
accuracy needs to be addressed.
This process can be broadly split into three
The inherent risks associated with an insurance parts: (1) Identification of risks (2) Identification
company interact at different levels. This leads of the model (3) Running the model
to complex and myriad effects. These require
non-linear risk modeling at the enterprise level. Identification of risks: As mentioned earlier
in this paper, risks faced by the insurance
The choice between deterministic and company are diverse in nature and complexity.
stochastic approaches is a fundamental Risks that are straight forward and already form
challenge . The overall inclination of the an important aspect of product design and
industry is towards stochastic modeling. This pricing is perhaps a “no-brainer” for insurance
however, does not mean that stochastic risk companies – that is their core strength. It is the
models would replace the deterministic ones. identification of risks and their interdependence
In fact, stochastic and deterministic models at the enterprise level that requires expertise in
complement each other. Very often, a risk management. Arriving at a reasonably
deterministic model can be extended to include complete list of potential risk exposures is
the stochastic element so as to determine the essential for successfully implementing a risk
variability of the estimates with a desired level based solvency assessment.
of confidence.
Given below is an illustrative sample of the risks
Regardless of the approach, the effectiveness of to which an insurance enterprise is exposed.
the model depends largely on the structure of
the data within the model.
A smart and sophisticated system is required to
Model complex risks (assets –liability
mis-match, operational risks etc.)
Handle multiple scenarios
Perform Scenario modeling and
sensitivity analysis
Conduct Stress Tests
5
“CEA Working Paper on the Total Balance Sheet
Approach”,
http://www.cea.assur.org/cea/v1.1/actu/pdf/uk/anne
xe315.pdf, downloaded on 29th May 2007
| 5
identifying the models: Implementation of an RBC based model is a
major IT initiative in an insurance company.
The models that can be used have been detailed in Hence, it carries all the challenges which any
the previous section. Any model that is chosen has large initiative would.
to suit the underlying risk.
The major challenges from an IT perspective
Perhaps it is equally challenging to identify the most could be categorized into two – data related
appropriate model that truly represents the impact and application related. The following diagram
of underlying risk or group of risks. indicates the IT priority areas for
The model should be valid for the purpose for implementation of a risk based solvency assessment
which it is used model.
It should have the capability of handling all the
relevant parameters
It should not be too complex – a model that is
easy to understand and interpret is what is required
| 6
Authors:
Rama Warrier and Preeti ChandraShekhar are consultants focusing on the fields of insurance and risk. They
have varied experience across the globe with leading insurance and reinsurance companies. They have
published several papers in international journals. These papers could be accessed on www.conzulting.in
References:
| 7