Recently, EIOPA published its 2021 Annual Insurance Overview together with updated statistics. The statistics included for the first time for the EEA “Cross-border premiums” allowing for insights on the cross-border activity of insurers both regarding life and non-life insurance business on a freedom of services (FOS) or on a branch basis. We analyzed these cross-border insurance data especially in the context of the current Solvency II review, as Solvency II is a Single Market directive. The establishment of the Single Market for insurance allowing unimpeded cross-border sales and establishment did not come about easily. It started for direct insurance with the adoption of the first non-life insurance directive 73/239/EEC, applied on 27 January 1976. The first life insurance Directive, 78/473/EEC, was applicable as of 2 June 1980. These timid steps were further completed, among others, with the third non-life Directive 92/49/EEC and the third life directive 92/96/EEC applicable as of 1 July 1994. Since then, nearly 20 years passed by. Continue reading…

Since years, EIOPA’s quarterly risk dashboard evaluates the different risks of the insurance sector: credit risk, market risk, underwriting risk,…These dashboards, EIOPA writes, are based on financial stability and prudential reporting data (i.e. Solvency II quarterly (QRS) and annual reporting data (ARS)). According to the most recent dashboard, these are collected from 95 insurance groups and 2190 solo insurance undertakings. Recently, EIOPA added two new risk categories to its dashboard: ESG related risks (October 2021) and Digitalisation and cyber risks (January 2022). Given that the EU’s framework to evaluate ESG risks itself is under construction, and that reporting and disclosure obligations of ESG risks are not yet 100% in place, nor are they part of the SII reporting obligations, did EIOPA find the hidden data gem in its data vaults? What interested me was the methodology, source, definition and sample size used by EIOPA especially regarding the ESG related risks? Curious about this new category in the risk dashboard, I searched for more insights.

Continue reading…

In October 2021, EIOPA finally published some elements of its 2018 Supervisory handbook first mentioned in 2012, a year after EIOPA’s foundation, now more than 10 years ago. Works started in 2013. The intent of the Supervisory Handbook, it said in 2016, is to establish common supervisory practices that promote convergence and optimal supervision outcomes while allowing for market specificities. EIOPA’s work on the Supervisory Handbook, it continued, is a means to fulfil Article 29 of its mandate to strive for a common supervisory culture.  It is my understanding that the inspiration for the Supervisory Handbook was birthed as a result of needs arising from the national supervisory authorities in the run up to the implementation of Solvency II. In 2013, EIOPA as a start brought together its Colleges Team to define the best supervisory practices to be included in the Supervisory Handbook. In 2020, the obligation to develop and maintain a ‘Union supervisory handbook’ became part of the different ESA Regulations (new Article 29,2) on which EIOPA was a precursor. Continue reading…

Some time ago, the European Commission published a Decision on the adoption of the answers to be provided to questions submitted to the European Supervisory Authorities under Article 16b (5) of the EIOPA Regulation, the EBA Regulation and the ESMA Regulation in the period from 1 January 2021 to 30 January 2021. Continue reading…

On 22 September 2021, the European Commission proposed a selected number of amendments to the Solvency II framework directive, called “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/138/EC as regards proportionality, quality of supervision, reporting, long-term guarantee measures, macro-prudential tools, sustainability risks, group and cross-border supervision”. But as the Solvency II directive foresees in level 2 measures, and occasionally level 3 measures, more (regulatory) changes are to be expected. The review will therefore be a multilayered exercise. Continue reading…

While all eyes are focused on the Commission’s proposal for a directive amending the Solvency II directive (SII) as regards proportionality, quality of supervision, reporting, long-term guarantee measures, macro-prudential tools, sustainability risk and cross-border supervision, the Commission proposed also on 22 September a second proposal for directive. This second proposal aims to establish a new framework for the recovery and resolution of (re)insurance undertakings (hereafter IRRD). Continue reading…

On 23 July 2021, EIOPA issued a consultation on a potential new supervisory statement, focusing this time on the supervision of run-off undertakings. The aim of any supervisory statement is to ensure the application of high-quality and convergent supervision. Run-off undertakings or portfolios are unabridged subject to the Solvency II (SII) prudential framework in which no specific provisions are foreseen for these “insurance undertakings”. In a dynamic and competitive European insurance market where it should be possible for players to come and go, a clear framework for run-off undertakings seems logical. In addition, there is an increasing interest in the acquisitions of run-off portfolios and run-off undertakings by other insurance undertakings and specialised investment entities such as private equity. Therefore, one could argue that, because the SII framework is lacking a specific regulation, this void needs to be filled. Does this mean that the proportionality principle is not specific enough to deal with particularities of nature, size and complexity?  Continue reading…

EIOPA’s Board of Supervisors tabled on 30 March 2021 an item: ‘dividends distribution – criteria for a convergent approach’. A revised version of a note previously tabled in EIOPA’s Management Board was discussed, and national supervisors agreed with a common supervisory approach at the EU level. At the same time, they argued for a revision and two instead of three eligibility categories or criteria for a supervisory assessment regarding dividend distribution were retained. Members also agreed that “an internal note with specific criteria” is better fit for purpose, deciding explicitly not to publish any note on the issue at this point in time. The note would be sent for approval in written procedure.  Continue reading…

On 15 April 2021, advocate-general Michal Bobek delivered his Opinion in a request for preliminary ruling from the French Conseil d’Etat in case C-911/19. On the dissecting table are the Guidelines on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products which the European Banking Authority (EBA) issued in 2016. The ACPR in 2017 in a notice decided to comply with them, ‘thus making them applicable to all financial institutions under its supervision’. A month later, the FBF lodged an application seeking the annulment of the ACPR’s notice before the French Conseil d’Etat, citing the EBA’s lack of competence. The Conseil d’Etat decided to seek a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on several questions, one of which was whether the EBA had exceeded its power. Continue reading…