1. The contractual terms referenced in the query 2367 are those between the insurer and its direct counterparty the intermediary?

2. The response included in query 2367 states that these cashflows should be included within the technical provisions, given they relate to the insurance obligations and are exposed to insurance risk. However, the response also states that the cashflows should be taken into account within the counterparty default risk module as indicated in Article 189.

We do take these cashflows into account when completing the counterparty risk module, but would only include these cashflows within the counterparty risk module if these cashflows were held outside of the technical provisions. This is consistent with the advice we have received from a regulator, that cashflows from intermediaries that are included within the technical provision would not be included within the counterparty risk module. Could you please confirm if this approach is consistent with your expectations?

The approach outlined above for the case described is based on our understanding that these cashflows would not fall within any of those exposure types listed in Article 189. Article 189 (3a) names ‘receivables from intermediaries’, however, these cashflows are included within the technical provision balance sheet row given they are not past due and are exposed to insurance risk - so it our understanding that these cashflows would not be classified as a ‘receivable from intermediary’. This approach is based on query 967.