Search QAs

We would like a worked example of a treaty with multiple layers as there is still much doubt as to how to fill certain columns for such a case. For this example please assume the treaty is:1. XoL with 3 layers: 2m XS 1m, 2m XS 3m, 4m xs 5m2. no reinstatements3. NOT part of a wider reinsurance program (so as per Q&A#2692, C0040 and C0050 are empty). 4. Only one line of business is covered by the treaty Q&A1961 indicated that if a treaty has multiple layers then these should be reported "one by one". So we would expect our example above to be: - reported on 3 lines. - all 3 lines should have the same C0010, C0020, C0070 and C0240 (being 8m) C0030 being different for each line (going 1 through 3),

From all of EIOPA's comments on the new column C0245, it seems the intention of S.30.03 C0245 is to indicate if, and to what extent, any layer is not 100% "covered" i.e. does C0245 equal C0230 or not (which is our understanding of EIOPA's answer to Insurance Europe Q&A document "ECO-SLV-23-165": Coverage of a layer covered by reinsurance - C0245: Clarification is requested regarding what is meant by "amount of maximum coverage for a layer of a treaty" as the scope of the layer is reported in field C0210: Limit (The amount specified as the limit in the reinsurance treaty) EIOPA:

From all of EIOPA's comments on the new column C0245, it seems the intention of S.30.03 C0245 is to indicate if, and to what extent, any layer is not 100% "covered" i.e. does C0245 equal C0230 or not (which is our understanding of EIOPA's answer to Insurance Europe Q&A document "ECO-SLV-23-165"). This being the case, for each treaty and section we have that information in S.30.04 C0100 so can EIOPA confirm the following is the expected reporting of C0245, taking into account C0230 and S.30.04 C0100.

Can EIOPA confirm the answer to the second question of Q&A 2717: "Second question: C0240 and C0245 are to be reported by treaty, not by LoB. Please also see Q&A 982." The part relating to C0245 being reported by treaty seems incorrect; should it not read "Layer/segment" instead? Further, note we could not find a Q&A 982.

Regards the changes to template (S.30.03) in 2.8 taxonomy, and the associate LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). We would like to confirm the implication of the LOG guidance sentence for C0245: ""In case the treaty only includes one layer, this cell will be equal to C0250."" 1. We assume the reference to C0250 is a typo (C0250 is the Number of reinstatements), we believe C0240 was intended instead. Please confirm 2.

Concerning taxonomy 2.9.0, new field in List of assets (PF.06.02/ PFE.06.02), C0241 Bail-in rules: Should the code BAIL_IN_BOND_DESIGNATION from Bloomberg be used for this reporting (for bonds), or should the information be retrieved from elsewhere? How can we find out which shares are subject to bail-in rules, is it all shares issued by banks?

In the new taxonomy 2.8.0 the cash flow reporting in S.13.01.01.01 shall be subdivided into Future guaranteed benefits (C0051) and Future discretionary benefits (C0055) for Index linked and unit-linked insurance. In unit linked business, for example, there are normally not any guaranteed cash-flows, not either any discretionary benefits. In which column shall the cash flows for ordinary unit-linked business be presented?

Relating to taxonomy 2.8, can you provide some guidance please on new fields in S.30.03 fields C0420 - C0440. Specifically 'commissions as percentage'. Please confirm what the percentage is relative to? For example a fixed commission amount is a percentage of what exactly? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

We use the General Measurement Model with the Liability for remaining coverage approach for our Health Similar to Life and Health Similar to Non-life products. This means that no Liability for incurred claims is recognized. The IFRS 17 P&L therefor does not hold any changes in the carrying amount of the liability for incurred claims. Does this mean that we only can report Claims paid on the row Claims incurred?