Search QAs

My question is relating the relationship between S.37.01 and S.37.02 . I understand that S.37.01 requires only significant risks to be reported whereas S.37.02 requires all risks to be reported. My confusion is where we have an insurance policy with a counterparty which does not meet the threshold of S.37.01 to be reported, but is still an exposure- does this need to be reported in S.37.02? We do have thousands of policies that we are struggling to report this way in S.37.02.

Field RT.06.01.0020 is restricted to a closed set of options, including 'support functions'. Support Functions are defined as functions not linked to a registered or licenced activity. Are you able to provide more guidance on the keyword 'linked' in order to support a more consistent interpretation?

Graag wenst FinFactor NV als Belgische verzekeringstussenpersoon duidelijkheid te krijgen mbt de definitie van ‘kapitalisatieverrichtingen’, zoals bedoeld in artikel 2, § 3, b), ii), van Richtlijn Solvabiliteit II en overgenomen in artikel 5, 13° van de verzekeringswet (hierna de WVLA ), die volgens de FSMA enkel verwijst naar verplichtingen die voor wat betreft hun duur en hun bedrag bepaald zijn en bijgevolg enkel betrekking heeft op producten die een verplichting inhouden tot terugbetaling van een in geld uitgedrukt bepaald bedrag

I have two question regarding how to classify fund's income for S.09.01. As in the guidance, the dividend column is saying it is applicable to Collective Investment Funds but Interest column is not mentioning this is applicable to Collective Investment Funds. (1) in a mutual fund scenario, if the fund is paying interest or dividend depends on the underlying asset composition and economics. If the income is received as interest, should we report interest under dividend column? (2) for other type of Collective Investment fund (CIC 4X) which pays interest income. When they are not re-invested, should the interest income be reported in the interest income in S.09.01, or should it be reported in Dividend.

Are ancillary insurance intermediaries that rely on “connected contract exemption” under Article 1(3) of Directive EU 2016/97 on insurance distribution (IDD) within the scope of Article 2(1)(o) DORA?

We would like to ask information on how to fill the fields C0320 and C0330 in template S.06.02 in case the credit rating is provided by a non-EU CRA and endorsed by an ECAI registered by ESMA. We would like to ask confirmation that, in this particular situation, the abovementioned fields should be filled with reference to the ECAI registered in EU that has endorsed the ratings.

Within the LOG File for QRT S.19.01, we noticed the following change/addition in the descriptions for those triangles that include Best Estimate Claims Provisions values: ..."net of salvage and subrogation and excluding any expenses, as well as any future premiums." In our opinion, there is a mismatch between this new description and the validations between S.19.01 and S.17.01, for example BV1438 (and following) or BV1474 (and following).

Is it legal that an EU insurance company request the insured his or her criminal conviction records to offer or renew a home insurance policy?

My question is related to Q&A 2962. EIOPA answer is that for the column C0131 in S.08.01.01, it is modelled using MD metrics with no dimensions, the multicurrency facts have the information about the “Currency Conversion Approach” (s2c_dim:AF) dimension with “Expressed in currency of denomination (not converted to reporting currency)” (s2c_CA:x1) embedded in the MD metric declaration and carried in their label and MD metric details.