![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
UK insurers well prepared for Solvency II
ICAS regime gives UK insurers the edge over EU competitors
LONDON – The UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) has found that UK insurance firms are better prepared to face the challenge of Solvency II – the EU rules overhauling capital requirements for the insurance industry – due to big improvements in risk management after the implementation of its individual capital assessments regime, ICAS.
As part of the FSA’s risk-based approach to regulation, insurers are required to make their own assessment of the level of capital they need to hold, known as individual capital assessments or ICA.
In an insurance section briefing published in October, the FSA found during its first round of ICA reviews that the industry had taken a "significant step forward" in preparing for Solvency II, which is due to come into force in 2012.
The FSA reviews a firm’s assessment and forms its own view of the capital it thinks is adequate for the firm’s risk profile. It then calculates the firm’s individual capital guidance (ICG). In its review, the FSA found that the average ICG was 114% of a firm’s ICA, with most firms’ ICGs coming within 100% to 110%.
Despite concerns that the new regime would result in the release of capital that might otherwise be retained, the level of capital held by the market has remained broadly unchanged since the ICAS regime was implemented in December 2004. This is because, when a firm’s appetite greater than the regulatory minimum, UK rules require it to hold capital commensurate with that risk appetite.
"The industry is now in a better position to face the challenges of Solvency II, which is likely to require insurers to use their own risk modelling as an integral part of their management," the FSA says.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Solvency II
Lack of transposition to delay Mifid II enforcement
Some states won’t have adopted directive before June, making rule-imposition difficult, say lawyers
Capital and funding
Quants propose KVA and FVA accounting framework based on Solvency II regulation
Testing interest rate models for Solvency II applications
Alexey Botvinnik and Vladimir Ostrovski propose a validation method for interest rate models
Eiopa cuts matching adjustment risk margin
UK insurers welcome additional capital relief
Solvency II volatility dampener ineffective for euro periphery
Stress tests expose flaw in formula to calculate volatility adjustment
Solvency II technical draft too harsh, firms claim
Industry representatives call on Eiopa to soften draft specifications
Commission 'must ensure proportionality of Solvency II' rules as MEPs give green light to new regime
Omnibus II approved by European Parliament
EC to restrict deferred tax assets in Solvency II
Rules expected to be tightened on determination of future profits