Search QAs

The DNT (Demands and need test) could be seen as a document very formal but also could be an entire documented discussion between the client and the broker. The question I have is: it is acceptable to have the DNT consisting of the entire email discussion between a corporate broker and a client especially when the placement concerns a large risks or a risk where placement cannot be transactional and requires multiple rounds of negotiations between the parties and multiple documents exchanged.

Template code: S.26.13 Template title: Internal model - Non-life & Health NSLT Underwriting risk

We would like to enquire on information to be entered for all perils. Is it in general the highest sum insurred out of all the perils or something else? As we may have different Sum Insured (e.g. for Earthquake, Flood, Windstorm etc) it is not clear to us all perils Sum Insured is to be interpreted. We see two options:

Template code: S.26.13 Template title: Internal model - Non-life & Health NSLT Underwriting risk Could you please explain, what is understood under the term: “aggregated jointly”?

Template code: S.26.13 Template title: Internal model - Non-life & Health NSLT Underwriting risk
Should we fill for table: “Overall Non-Life and Health NSLT gross of reinsurance” under the cell C0140 the diversification between Premium and Reserve risk?

Template code: S.26.13 Template title: Internal model - Non-life & Health NSLT Underwriting risk 

In our model architecture, we model Premium risk and CAT risk separately, so the distributions are available for each risk. However, the Premium from CAT risks is not separated from no-CAT risks. Therefore Premium risk contains CAT Premium component and consequently CAT risk posses CAT Premium component (CAT risk contains only CAT losses). For the purpose of combined assessment we have available Premium & CAT risk distribution.

Regards the new S.14.02 QRT for 2.8 and the associated LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Would the following be an acceptable implementation for reconciliation checking of C0070, C0080 and C0090 with S.05.01 (e.g. in Plausibility tests). We see this as analogous tests to those from EIOPA in the taxonomy between S.14.01 and S.05.01

Regards the new S.14.02 QRT for 2.8 and the associated LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Would the following be an acceptable implementation for reconciliation checking of C0100 with S.04.04 (e.g. in Plausibility tests): S.04.04 C0010 R0050 + S.04.04 C0020 R0050 = S.14.02.01 C0100 summing across all

Regards the new S.14.02 QRT for 2.8 and the associated LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Would the following be an acceptable implementation for correct representation of LoB level information where products are also available. 1. For columns C0050 through C0110: sum(C0050) where c0010 = “11” and C0020

Regards the new S.14.02 QRT for 2.8 and the associated LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). The LOG guidance for C0130 leaves some room for interpretation. The guidance is: “For products falling under line of business 1 and product categories 11.1 and 12.2 report the total number of insured for contracts reported