Search QAs

Is it correct that the heading "Group solvency calculation" should be over all three columns C0260, C0270 and C0280 and not only over C0260 as in the current Excel annotated template S.32.01.04? The specifications to C0270 and C0280 are depicted in the ITS at least together with C0260 under the the heading "Group solvency calculation".

We understand that taxes or levies are included in the best estimate of technical provisions only if they are imposed on the policyholder or arise in the settlement of the policy (hereinafter referred to as transaction-based taxes or levies). Therefore, we believe that if a particular tax or levy is not a transaction-based tax or levy, it should not be included in the best estimate of technical provisions. For example, we consider that levies levied as a percentage of an insurer's operating income are not transaction-based taxes or levies and should not be included in the best estimate of technical provisions, but should be assessed by applying the other provisions of IAS 37.

Questions are regards S.25.05 (note this QRT is not in the dropdown list available in the Q&A page). We find some doubt about if and how the SCR total and other key fields can be derived from other datapoints in this (and/or other) QRTs. 1. Is S.25.05 _C0100_R0200 = _C0010_R0040+SUM(_C0100_R0120,_C0100_R0160)? Our assumption is the C0010 R0040 is the diversified SCR (and takes into account LACDT and LACTP) and so all that is left to do is make the adjustment for RFF and R0160 and then we arrive at the actual SCR amount

I am writing to follow up on the material disclosed during the EIOPA Sustainable Finance Conference 2023, specifically related to the one-off coordinated climate scenario analysis planned by EIOPA in 2024. As shown in the presentation, the scenarios will be based on latest NGFS phase IV published in 2023.

I am writing to seek clarification on a matter of significant importance raised in a letter published in March 2023 by John BERRIGAN, addressed to Ms Petra Hielkema Chair of EIOPA, Ms Verena Ross Chair of ESMA and Mr José Manuel Campa Chair of EBA (Letter from John Berrigan One off exercise - European Union (europa.eu)). The letter addressed the need for a one-off climate risk scenario analysis to assess, in cooperation with the ECB and the ESRB, the resilience of the European financial system.

While performing a test upload for the 2.8.0 taxonomy, we constantly receive a formula assertion warning as below [BV1439];[(t: S.17.01.01.01, r: R0160, c: C0030) reported as {$v0} = sum((t: S.19.01.01.04, r: R0260, c: C0360, z: Z0001, filter: [s2c_dim:BL] = [s2c_LB:x52]) reported as {$v1})]; The item "Gross - Total" reported for Income protection insurance in S.17.01 should be equal to "Total" item reported for Year end (discounted data) reported in S.19.01. This applies for all LoB and for S.19.01.01.10 and S.19.01.01.16 even when S.17.01.01.01 items reconcile with the amount of S.19 Can you please elaborate further on the issue? Can this be solved or is a known error in the new taxonomy?

We have some questions we think clarification would be helpful on E.04.01 (and the relationship with S.29.02): 1. There is some doubt with E.04.01 for non-life business, where investment income and expenses are allocated to technical provisions. The ECB instructions (and Q&A#2683) imply that such amounts (which are included in S.29.02) SHOULD be included in E.04.01 (otherwise the relationship between S.29.02 and E.04.01 wouldn't hold for non-life business), is that correct. Further, if that is so, then we assume they should be included in ER0050 (as Q&A#2940 confirmed that all other rows are for life business only).

In respect of the same article, how should the insurance/reinsurance undertaking document that an entity (bank) its compliant with Directive 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and can apply 100% solvency ratio and a PD of 0.5%?

In respect of Article 199, point 7, why would it be reasonable, that two banks that are both complying with Directive 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, and one is rated and one is not, the one that is rated 4 based on its rating gets a PD of 1.2% and the one that its not rated gets assigned a PD of 0.5%? Can it be that the Article 199, point 7 penalizes the bank that has a rating compared to the one that does not?