Skip to main content
Logo
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
 

3365

Q&A

Question ID: 3365

Regulation Reference: Guidelines on valuation of technical provisions

Topic: Technical Provisions (TPs)

Article: N/A

Status: Rejected

Date of submission: 16 Jun 2025

Question

Guideline 68 of the consolidated technical provisions states that Insurance and reinsurance undertakings should establish the future premium cash-flows contained within the contract boundaries at the valuation date and include within the calculation of its best estimate liabilities those future premium cash-flows which fall due after the valuation date. We note that the wording has changed from previous where a distinction between past-due and not past due is no longer made. We have received professional advice from another party suggesting that this should be interpreted as change to the classification of future premiums within the best estimate where due premium should relate to the date an invoice was issued rather than when the premium is due to be paid or received. This suggestion would mean that a much higher proportion of future premiums would sit in the premium receivables on the balance sheet relative to the previous wording. With the above in mind, can you confirm whether the latest wording should be interpreted as a change in the classification of future premium within the best estimate. As an example, in an instance where a premium invoice had been issued prior to the valuation date but where the premium payment was due to be received after the valuation date, should this now be classified as a premium receivable on the balance sheet or remain as a future premium cashflow in the best estimate?

Background of the question

We have received professional advice from another party suggesting that this should be interpreted as change to the classification of future premiums within the best estimate where due premium should relate to the date an invoice was issued rather than when the premium is due to be paid or received.

EIOPA answer

This question has been rejected because the issue it deals with is already explained in the EIOPA Guideline 68 on Technical Provisions which has not been modified. In addition, this issue it deals with has already been confirmed in the previous Q&As 1683 and 2684.