Search QAs

For the "Income Protection" product described below in the "background of the question" can you kindly provide guidance on which shocks we should apply in calculation of the SCR? We are currently applying the normal standard ones 1. Central 2. Lapse up/down/mass 3. Expenses and inflation Do we need to apply the disability shocks to the Romania TTD or is this not required? Our thinking is that the "disability shocks" are not bases on traffic accidents but rather accidents unrelated to vehicle activity?

I have a follow-up question on ID 3095 - EIOPA . I have understood that "K" is not valid according to the dictionary and need to be replaced by the full code. But what about other sectors like "A" or "B", do these always require full four-digit reporting or is the 1st level still allowed with taxonomy 2.8.2?

The question relates to the inputs used to construct USD risk-free rate. On the latest RFR Technical documentation (24-09-2024), table 5 on page 36 has column for 16 year tenor with USD marked as input to calculations. Is this intentional, as requesting data for RIC USDSROIS16Y= returns "Invalid RIC."?

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?