Search QAs

Regards the S.14.01 QRT and new datapoints C0051 and C0054 for 2.8 and the associated LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Can EIOPA please confirm that C0054 is applicable for non-life annuities (the guidance does not mention "Not applicable for annuities stemming from non-life contracts."). Also, can EIOPA confirm that C0051 and C0054 should never be entered as negative numbers.

I have a query regarding Pan-European Personal Pension Products (PEPP). I see from your central register for PEPP that FINAX are currently the only provider of PEPP in the EU (as of September 2023). When I go to their website FINAX only offer PEPP for citizens from Slovakia, Czechia and Croatia. I thought once a PEPP was available in any EU country, then citizens from all EU countries could apply for this product? Or do providers not have to offer it to all EU citizens if they wish?

For the template S.14.02 in the column "C0100 Total amount of commissions paid during year" Eiopa requires to include "any form of monetary benefits which is paid to an insurance distributor by any other person than the customer or a third party acting on behalf of the customer, in relation to insurance distribution activities". We would like to know if in this definition we have to include also the over commissions paid to an insurance distributor when he achieves some production targets set by the company. These over commissions are not commissions calculated as a percentage of the premium paid by the customer for a specific insurance coverage or product; they are paid only if the distributor meets the overall goals in terms of production.

If an insurance company is exempted from reporting template S.06.02 and S.06.03 on a quarterly and annually basis, should the mentioned insurer report template S.06.04?

In S.06.02, for example, the LEI code has become a mandatory field. This is despite the fact that not every entity in which investments are made has an LEI code because this is not mandatory outside Europe, for example. This problem exists in other QRTs as well. What is the solution?

My inquiry pertains to the definition of the largest fire risk concentration as outlined in Article 132, paragraph 2, point a) of the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35. Point a) specifies that the insurance or reinsurance undertaking must have obligations in lines of business 7 and 19, as delineated in Annex I. These obligations extend to each building, covering damage due to fire or explosion, including as a result of terrorist attacks. In my interpretation, a building can only be deemed part of the largest fire risk concentration if it is covered in the event of terrorist attacks. Therefore, without coverage in the case of a terrorist attack, such building would not qualify for inclusion within the largest fire risk concentration. I would appreciate your confirmation on whether my understanding aligns with the intended interpretation of the regulation.

We would like to clarify, which valuation method is to be reportedin case of (highly) liquid government bonds traded in OTC markets, where we use the Bloomberg BGN price. In our opinion this market can be considered as active and the correct valuation method should be therefore "Quoted Market Price". The Bloomberg Generic Price (BGN) is Bloomberg’s market consensus price for corporate and government bonds, calculated by using prices contributed to Bloomberg. It includes only quotes from market participants, no theoretical prices.

I have three questions:

1) On two of the swaps, UTIs look like these: C0041: Unique Transaction Identifiers (UTI): DANSKE0000-0000-1265-0474 E02529900ODI3047E2LIV03EANGOYPJWXDTMQSY6LF We didn't fully understand this sentence in the specification when we looked at how the UTI appears on the transactions: "As many Trade IDs as needed to build the position being reported should be reported in this item. The trade IDs shall be reported separated by commas." How should we separate UTIs with a comma here? Is it correct to report it like the example above, or do they mean that we should use a comma instead of a hyphen in the UTIs?

The company addressed EIOPA with a question related to the possibility of excluding loans approved on the basis of life insurance policies from the concentration market risk sub-module (Question ID: 2549). EIOPA answered: „It is assumed that in the example provided the policyholder loan is a loan as referred to in Article 176 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 (DR).