|
Tags
- Insurance (0)
-
- CEIOPS (5)
-
-
|
Eurofi Report 2 Microprudentiel
|
 pdf
|
 219.66 Ko
|
 04-02-2009 |
-
The establishment of the European Monetary Union (EMU) has led to differentiation between the institutional frameworks for the monetary policy and financial stability within the eurozone. The monetary policy is decided on at eurozone level, while managing financial stability has remained primarily national. Furthermore, not all of the EU’s countries entrust prudential control to their central banks. Neither was the ECB given any direct remits in terms of control when the Maastricht Treaty was adopted; it has only a consultative role.
This structure is geared to financial activities that were primarily carried out on a national basis and the various supervision practices seen at the end of the 1980s. For their part, the successive EU treaties reflect the commitment to maintaining a European construction founded on the political and budgetary independence of the various States. The “no bail out” rule included in the Maastricht Treaty makes this commitment a reality.
 Tags : CEIOPS,
CESR,
CEBS,
Supervision,
Burden sharing,
 Type : Event Report
-
|
Session 08 Cross-Border Insurance Groups Supervision
|
pdf
|
165.41 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [8] - CROSS-BORDER
INSURANCE GROUPS
SUPERVISION: Key features
of the Solvency II Directive:
College cooperation
arrangements, Decision
Making Process, Supervisors mandate specificities, CEIOPS
role and responsibilities.
The Panel
Moderators: Jacques de Larosière & Daniel Lebègue, Co-Presidents,
Eurofi
Panellists: Charlie McCreevy, EU Commissioner for Internal Market
& Services;
Peter Skinner, MEP, Committee on Monetary and Economic
Affairs, European Parliament;
Thomas Steffen, Chairman, Committee of European
Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS)
Denis Duverne, Member of the Management Board, AXA;
Thierry Francq, Assistant Secretary Financial Sector,
Treasury and Economic Policy Directorate General Finance,
French Ministry for the Economy, Finance and Employment;
The Debate
Since the Commission adopted its “ambitious Solvency II proposals for
a streamlined system for the supervision of insurance and reinsurance
groups” in July last year, discussions had progressed in both the Council
and the European Parliament at an impressive pace, said Charlie
McCreevy, EU Commissioner for Internal Market & Services.
“The number of issues remaining has been reduced to a manageable
amount, and I am confident that appropriate solutions will be found over
the coming months,” he added.
Discussions were also very advanced in the European Parliament, with
more than 820 draft amendments tabled before the summer. “All this
has opened promising perspectives for the French Presidency, which has
the challenging task of concluding the discussions with the Council and
Parliament.”
Tags : CEIOPS,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Session 12A SOLVENCY II
|
pdf
|
238.46 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [12A] - SOLVENCY II:
QIS4 early feed back from
the industry; Group support
and diversification effects
management, level 2 terms
of reference.
The Panel
Moderator: Karel van Hulle, Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG
Internal Market and Services, European Commission
Panelists: Henri de Castries, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of
the Management Board, Axa Group;
Peter Skinner, MEP, Committee on Economic and Monetary
Affairs, European Parliament;
Gérard de La Martinière, Vice-President, European
Insurance and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and Chairman,
French Insurance Association (FFSA)
Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group
and President, Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurances Mutuelles (AMICE);
Tommy Persson, President, European Insurance
and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and President.
Länsförsäkringar AB
The Debate
The current system of regulation for the insurance industry was 30 years old
and it lacked risk sensitivity, did not allow accurate and timely supervision
and did not facilitate optimum allocation of capital, said Karel van Hulle,
Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG Internal Market and Services,
European Commission, introducing the session. In addition, there was
a lack of convergence of supervisory groups, which led to sub-optimal
supervision.
“There are four principal objectives of Solvency II,” Mr van Hulle said.
• Deepen the Single Market
• Enhance policyholder protection
• Improve (international) competitiveness of EU insurers
• Further Better Regulation
Some outstanding issues remained to be resolved, such as surplus funds,
equity risk, MCR, whether Solvency II should apply to pension funds,
group support regimes, mutuals and exclusions, he added.
Tags : CEIOPS,
Occupational Pensions,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Pension funds,
Type : Event Report
-
|
EUROFI PRIORITIES FOR ECOFIN
|
pdf
|
115.97 Ko
|
10-09-2008 |
-
Eurofi, the dedicated think-tank for
the integration of financial services
in Europe, is organizing a conference
on September 11 and 12 to discuss
the proposals put forward by the
financial industry at the ECOFIN, set
against a global crisis with leaders
facing new challenges.
This crisis shows that the supervision of cross-border financial groups must be
adapted in order to factor in the rapid spillover of risks, the internationalization
of their activities and the centralized organization of their financial management
and strategy.
That is why Eurofi is proposing a series of pragmatic measures to improve the
supervision of these groups and the prevention of crises, notably including:
- The establishment of colleges grouping the European supervisors concerned
together, which would be given a similar mandate in order to ensure identical
protection for all of the group’s European customers;
- A specific role entrusted to the supervisor from the home European country,
ensuring that decisions relating to capital requirements and the organization
of supervision can be taken quickly and effectively, and that information is
immediately made available to all the other supervisors;
- The mission entrusted to the European supervisor committees (CEBS and
CEIOPS), to facilitate the resolution of possible differences of views between
supervisors from a given college and check that the conditions for fair
competition between the financial institutions are brought about.
Tags : CEIOPS,
Occupational Pensions,
Solvency II directive,
Microcredit,
UCITS Directive,
Management company,
UCITS,
Cross-border fund processing,
Prudential rules,
Accounting rules,
CEBS,
Regulation,
Supervision,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Supervision [EN]
|
pdf
|
277.17 Ko
|
04-12-2007 |
-
3 and 4 December 2007
Eurofi -11 bis rue Mansart -75.009 Paris
Website: www.eurofi.net
Banking and UROFI Finance in Europe
Speeding up integration of prudential regulation and supervision of crossborder
financial groups
Eurofi’s proposals to effectively take into account the needs of financial institutions, member
states and their supervisors
This note focuses solely on prudential regulation and supervision of institutions and not on
the regulation of markets and products. Indeed, market places in Europe are in competition
in markets activities that are nowadays global and this makes harmonisation of their
regulation more difficult. Wide variation in consumer behaviour and in consumer protection
legislation also makes harmonisation of national legislation regarding products and services
much more complicated. On the other hand, financial stability, in a context in which players
have become globalised, is certainly a subject of general interest for member states. It can
assist in avoiding financial difficulties for the players, in increasing cooperation between
national authorities, in reducing the cost of any catastrophes that might arise and in
optimising pricing of financial services.
1. Rapidly increasing internationalisation of financial activities requires integration at
European level of prudential regulation and supervision of cross border financial
players.
• Several tens of European financial market players (in insurance and banking)1 now
have a very significant level of cross-border activities.
• The characteristic feature of these players is that their functioning is closely
integrated and centralised, both from a commercial point of view and in relation with
risk and to funds1.
• In each national market of the EU, domestic and multinational institutions are in
competition: prudential regulation and supervisory practices must not be responsible
for unfair competition.
• Supervision of a cross-border group must be supported by a fully-integrated, global
view of liquidity, solvency and the risks taken by that group, so that such supervision
can:
o ensure that the conditions required for financial stability are put in place,
o be efficient without having any undesirable effects on pricing of financial
services are in place
Ideally, these groups, which are able to facilitate cross border spill over of risks, ought to be
regulated and supervised on a worldwide basis. For obvious political reasons, that is not
possible. Europe, on the other hand, ought to demonstrate its ability to adapt its prudential
regulation and supervision to these requirements, since today they are still too fragmented
on a national basis.
1 In his speech of 9 May 2007 at the CEBS conference in London, Jean-Claude Trichet pointed out that “the
mapping exercise of European groups with a significant level of cross-border activity carried out by the ECB
shows that these groups, numbering 46 in 2005, have assets growing by more than 50% between 2001 and 2005
and that they represent almost 70% of the totality of European banking assets! What is more, 16 of these groups
hold more than 25% of their assets outside their European country of origin, account for more than one-third of
European banking assets and are present in almost half of the countries of the EU!”
1 As a result of the centralisation of management of the groups, subsidiary companies are progressively ceasing
to be fully independent or autonomous financial entities. Cross-border financial groups organise their accounting,
processing and monitoring of risks, activity-by-activity, without any link with the judicial forms prevailing in their
location. In any case, aside from a limited number of “joint-ventures”, these establishments adopt the form of
branches or wholly-owned subsidiaries. Undertakings given or received are centralised in terms of activities paid
for in exchange; essentially liquid funds (in the main currencies: dollar, euro, yen) are brought together then
managed on a worldwide basis, moving from one financial centre to another depending on time-zones. Such...
Tags : CEIOPS,
Regulatory capital,
Regulation,
Supervision,
Type : Event Report
- Occupational Pensions (3)
-
-
|
Session 12A SOLVENCY II
|
pdf
|
238.46 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [12A] - SOLVENCY II:
QIS4 early feed back from
the industry; Group support
and diversification effects
management, level 2 terms
of reference.
The Panel
Moderator: Karel van Hulle, Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG
Internal Market and Services, European Commission
Panelists: Henri de Castries, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of
the Management Board, Axa Group;
Peter Skinner, MEP, Committee on Economic and Monetary
Affairs, European Parliament;
Gérard de La Martinière, Vice-President, European
Insurance and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and Chairman,
French Insurance Association (FFSA)
Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group
and President, Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurances Mutuelles (AMICE);
Tommy Persson, President, European Insurance
and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and President.
Länsförsäkringar AB
The Debate
The current system of regulation for the insurance industry was 30 years old
and it lacked risk sensitivity, did not allow accurate and timely supervision
and did not facilitate optimum allocation of capital, said Karel van Hulle,
Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG Internal Market and Services,
European Commission, introducing the session. In addition, there was
a lack of convergence of supervisory groups, which led to sub-optimal
supervision.
“There are four principal objectives of Solvency II,” Mr van Hulle said.
• Deepen the Single Market
• Enhance policyholder protection
• Improve (international) competitiveness of EU insurers
• Further Better Regulation
Some outstanding issues remained to be resolved, such as surplus funds,
equity risk, MCR, whether Solvency II should apply to pension funds,
group support regimes, mutuals and exclusions, he added.
Tags : CEIOPS,
Occupational Pensions,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Pension funds,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Conditions adoption Solvency II
|
pdf
|
122.69 Ko
|
11-09-2008 |
-
The adoption of the proposed
Solvency directive is coming
up against several difficulties:
the treatment of surplus funds,
pension funds and equities,
as well as the organization of
supervision for cross-border
insurance groups. However,
pragmatic solutions delivering responses to the legitimate expectations
of the insurance industry’s various players, Member States and their
supervisors are within reach.
The economic approach for risks underpinning Solvency II requires
certain clarifications.
The exclusion of pension funds from the scope of the directive is causing
problems. Faced with the same need to cover their retirement, Europeans,
whether they take out life insurance or sign up for pension funds, would
have two different levels of security, which they will not be able to perceive.
At the same time, this differentiated prudential treatment would lead to
a distortion of competition between these two industries. Hence, similar
risks should be subjected to the same prudential treatment.
This principle could be implemented within the framework of the next
revision of the IORP directive governing pension funds. As of today, it
seems important to ensure that a revision of the IORP directive will be
carried out based on economic principles that are consistent with those
underpinning Solvency II.
Tags : Solvency II directive,
Occupational Pensions,
Pension funds,
Type : Event Report
-
|
EUROFI PRIORITIES FOR ECOFIN
|
pdf
|
115.97 Ko
|
10-09-2008 |
-
Eurofi, the dedicated think-tank for
the integration of financial services
in Europe, is organizing a conference
on September 11 and 12 to discuss
the proposals put forward by the
financial industry at the ECOFIN, set
against a global crisis with leaders
facing new challenges.
This crisis shows that the supervision of cross-border financial groups must be
adapted in order to factor in the rapid spillover of risks, the internationalization
of their activities and the centralized organization of their financial management
and strategy.
That is why Eurofi is proposing a series of pragmatic measures to improve the
supervision of these groups and the prevention of crises, notably including:
- The establishment of colleges grouping the European supervisors concerned
together, which would be given a similar mandate in order to ensure identical
protection for all of the group’s European customers;
- A specific role entrusted to the supervisor from the home European country,
ensuring that decisions relating to capital requirements and the organization
of supervision can be taken quickly and effectively, and that information is
immediately made available to all the other supervisors;
- The mission entrusted to the European supervisor committees (CEBS and
CEIOPS), to facilitate the resolution of possible differences of views between
supervisors from a given college and check that the conditions for fair
competition between the financial institutions are brought about.
Tags : CEIOPS,
Occupational Pensions,
Solvency II directive,
Microcredit,
UCITS Directive,
Management company,
UCITS,
Cross-border fund processing,
Prudential rules,
Accounting rules,
CEBS,
Regulation,
Supervision,
Type : Event Report
- Consumers protection (2)
-
-
|
Session 02 Key Issues for the Financial Industry
|
pdf
|
264.49 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [2] - Plenary: KEY
ISSUES FOR THE FINANCIAL
SERVICES INDUSTRY IN
TODAY’S CONTEXT
The Panel
Opening remarks: Didier Cahen; Secretary General, Eurofi
Moderators: Jacques de Larosière & Daniel Lebègue; Co-Presidents,
Eurofi
Panelists: Pervenche Bérès, MEP, Chairwoman, Committee on
Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Parliament;
Meglena Kuneva, EU Commissioner for Consumer
Protection;
David Vegara, President of the Financial Services
Committee, Spanish Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.
Karl-Peter Schackman Fallis, Executive Member of the
Board, German Savings Banks Association;
Georges Pauget, Chief Executive Officer, Credit Agricole SA;
Edmond Alphandery, Chairman of the board of CNP
Assurance
Tags : Consumers protection,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Consumer protection [EN]
|
pdf
|
221.82 Ko
|
06-06-2006 |
-
Consumer protection workshop
Executive summary:
There is at present a patchwork of national consumer protection regimes for consumer credit in particular that creates specific legal conditions for operating in each European market.
This situation is considered by most multinational or global players to hinder their ability to sell similar products across Europe and therefore to obtain economies of scale and is rarely justified by very specific consumer needs.
The current attempts to harmonise European legislation related to consumer protection can be considered as steps in the right direction but have not been sufficient yet to develop an integrated market, as they still allow for major divergences between legislations.
Targeted full harmonisation (ie full harmonisation of the main dispositions that are necessary to guarantee an adequate level of consumer protection adapted to the average needs of EU consumers while enabling the industry to develop synergies and cross-border business) appears to be an adequate solution for many industry players and observers in particular for consumer credit, mortgages and savings. However the scope of topics selected for harmonisation and the degree of precision required for harmonising dispositions on these topics needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Further harmonisation of EU consumer protection laws would benefit consumers in several ways:
- Industry players would be able to increase synergies leading to potential economies of scale and price reductions
- Foreign players would be able to access new markets completing the range of local products and increasing competition which could put pressure on prices.
As an example, industry players consider that the modified version of the consumer credit directive goes in the right direction of focused harmonisation identifying 7 main themes to be harmonized:
- Advertising
- Pre-contractual information
- Contractual information
- Definition and calculation of interest rates
- Right of withdrawal
- Linked credits
- Early repayment
Full harmonisation would require the directive to be more precise on certain topics and to modify a certain number of dispositions of the present proposal on these 7 themes taking into account the constraints and needs of financial institutions and distributors...
Tags : Consumers protection,
Type : Executive summary
- Procyclicality (1)
-
-
|
Session 06 Learning from the Financial Crisis
|
pdf
|
260.58 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [6] - LEARNING
FROM THE FINANCIAL
CRISIS: KEY DRIVERS
AND EU INSTITUTIONS
INITIATIVES for reducing
procyclical effects; For
an effective surveillance of off-balance sheet risks; For an
appropriate setting of the banks’ amount of prudential own
funds; For providing reliable information to investors (rating
agencies, market information…)
The Panel
Moderator: Jacques de Larosière, Co-President, Eurofi
Panellists: Joaquín Almunia, EU Commissioner for Economic and
Monetary Affairs
Fernando Teixeira dos Santos, Portuguese Minister of
State and for Finance
Dominique Hoenn, Senior Adviser, BNP Paribas
Daniel Daianu, MEP, Committee on Budgets, European
Parliament
Deven Sharma, President, Standard & Poor’s
Nout Wellink, Governor, De Nederlandsche Bank and
Chairman of the Basel Committee
Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Former Italian Minister of the
Economy and Finance
The Debate
Joaquín Almunia, EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs
said the main question was how to restore stability in our economies after
more than one year of turmoil. “This turmoil has posed serious challenges
to the financial industry and our economies. The experience has been
instructive, but after more than one year of turbulence, we now have to
turn lessons into action.”
The European Union had not been passive. It acted quickly last autumn,
adopting a road map of policy actions covering transparency, valuations,
supervision and market function, including the regulatory system.
Tags : Procyclicality,
Transparency,
Rating agencies,
Hedge funds,
Prudential rules,
Crisis,
Type : Event Report
- Mutual insurance companies (4)
-
-
|
Session 11A Future Outlook For EU Mutual Insurance Groups
|
pdf
|
165.62 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [11A] - FUTURE
OUTLOOK FOR EU MUTUAL
INSURANCE GROUPS
The Panel
Moderator: Jean-Jacques Bonnaud, Eurofi, Former CEO of the GAN
Panellists: Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group
and President, Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurances Mutuelles (Amice)
Jeanne-Marie Camboly, Director of Parliamentary and
Professional External Relations, Groupama, France and Co-
Chair of the European Mutual Society Task Force at Amice
Robert Lilli, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Köbe
Fabrice Pesin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Insurance
Division, Treasury, French Ministry for the Economy, Finance
and Employment
Bernard Thiry, Director of International Relations, Ethias
Jean-Luc de Boissieu, Director General, Gema
Ieke van Den Burg, MEP, Committee on Economic and
Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
The Debate
Jean-Jacques Bonnaud, Eurofi, said the last meeting of Eurofi at the
December 2007 conference in Brussels had highlighted the gap between
the economic importance of mutual insurers in Europe, which amounted
for 20-40 per cent of the sector in many European countries, and EU
legislation. So the session was designed to bring out the issues the sector
faced, and discuss whether consumers were disadvantaged as a result.
Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group and President,
Association Internationale des Sociétés d’Assurances Mutuelles (Amice),
said that while financial markets had fostered global growth, they
had also accumulated uncertainty and large-scale risks. Operations
based solely on the efficient allocation of capital with the goal of profit
maximisation, neglecting wider social responsibility, had led to “morally
risky” behaviour. Closer regulation, and better consumer education were
priorities. Ownership structures were also important.
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Outlook Mutuals Insurance Groups
|
pdf
|
130.04 Ko
|
10-09-2008 |
-
Amendments to the group
definition of Solvency II and
additions to the EU legislation
on mutuals are asked by
insurance mutuals to help them
face up to their fast-changing
environment in Europe.
Insurance mutuals or assimilated
organisations represent 25% of
the total insurance premiums paid in the EU and 26 of the Top 100 EU
insurance companies are mutual while 4 are controlled by mutual holdings.
They have a 20 to 40% market share in 7 EU countries (ie Finland, Sweden,
France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Denmark).
Insurance mutuals consider their statute offers advantages in terms of client
relationship, governance and pricing flexibility as mutuals are less exposed
to short term financial pressures than plcs, which have to take into account
the interests of their shareholders as well as their clients.
Insurance mutuals are facing many market and regulatory challenges
at present:
- Growth challenges: need for large mutuals or mutuals focused on specific
business or customer segments to find new growth opportunities outside
of their domestic markets, which are mature and where the product
diversification potential has already been leveraged to a great extent
- Efficiency challenges: large mutuals need to improve efficiency continuously
to face up to the competition from consolidated plc groups; the Solvency
II reform will increase the need for insurance mutuals to regroup to face
up to solvency requirements, increase diversification and increase their
buying power in financial markets
- Market positioning challenges: mutuals players are seeking to preserve
their differentiation through specific customer relationships, offering and
image.
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Solvency II introductory note
|
pdf
|
139.2 Ko
|
03-12-2007 |
-
Solvency II – Introductory Note
EUROFI CONFERENCE– 3/4 December 2007, European Parliament
With the new Solvency II directive currently going through the adoption process, the
insurance world is about to experience a major shift in its regulatory landscape. Notable
features of this reform include:
• adopting an economic approach for assessing insurance companies’ solvency;
• setting an explicit solvency level (probability of an insurance company defaulting set
at 1 in 200 over one year) intended to balance sufficient protection of insured parties,
reasonable product prices and strengthened competitiveness for European insurers in
a global economy;
• taking financial innovations into account;
• promoting best risk management practices within the profession;
• consolidating the role of insurers as institutional investors for the long-term financing
of the European economy.
This reform, according to the Lamfalussy process, has undergone technical preparations in
which the supervisors of member states have been heavily involved. There is a risk that
technical considerations might push the political aims into second place. That is why, from
level 1 of the Lamfalussy procedure, the institutional work linked to Solvency 2 must qualify
certain key points. These include, in particular:
• the appropriateness of the calibration of the standard model for assessing risks in
relation to the level of confidence set by the directive;
• the provisions for dealing with equities, which must protect the role of insurers
involved in long-term financing of the economy under good prudential conditions;
• the procedures for supervision of insurance groups, which must recognise the
benefits arising from either geographical or economic sector risk diversification;
• taking into account the specificities of mutual insurance companies’ own-funds and
the specific contractual links on the basis of which mutual insurance groups are often
constituted;
• guaranteeing fair competition between the insurance company and pension funds in
respect of products which meet the same consumer requirements.
In addition, measures for implementation (level 2) must not be allowed to downgrade or limit
level I provisions that aim at maximum harmonisation. It would therefore also seem to be
essential for the text of the directive to emphasise certain principles for application that would
include:
• explicit outlawing of all national options (there are, at present, 101 options within the
Capital Requirement Directive! - CRD) and all national add-ons;
• regulatory recognition of the guarantee provided by cross-border groups for their
subsidiaries, as compensation for local reduced capital requirements. This reduction
is a concrete reflection of the benefits that arise from diversification of risks, especially
in geographical terms;
• implementation of consolidated supervision for pan-European groups, based on
identification of solvency requirements (SCR – Solvency Capital Requirement) at
group level;
Finally, it is important to ensure or to check that implementation procedures have been
devised in line with the political guidelines of the directive by means of:
• the obligation placed on national regulators to justify in advance any request for an
“add-on” which would also have to be authorised by the college of supervisors of the...
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Eurofi Mutuals Executive summary [EN]
|
pdf
|
507.7 Ko
|
03-12-2007 |
-
The outlook for EU insurance mutuals in the fast-changing EU
marketplace
Eurofi conference: 3 December 2007
EU Parliament
Executive summary
This document was prepared by Eurofi as an introductory document for the workshop of
December 3rd, with the input of the British Building Societies Association, Ethias, Gothaer
Group, MACIF, MAIF, Mutualité Française, NFU Mutual, Tapiola and Professor E. Greppi.
1. Context:
Mutual companies have a specific legal statute and specific governance arrangements.
• Mutual companies have no share capital and therefore no shareholders
• They are initially set up and controlled by their customers (their “members”) who have
voting rights1 and can be involved to a certain extent in the governance of the company
and in decisions made2. Solidarity links exist between members: supplementary calls,
possible rebates...
What makes mutuals different from plc or cooperative companies is their legal statute and
governance arrangements and not their size:
• Most of them are for-profit companies and insurance mutuals of all sizes exist in Europe
as for plcs: from a few million Euros annual premiums written to several billion. In the Top
100 EU insurance companies, 26 are mutuals and 4 are controlled by mutual holdings3.
• Most large mutuals cover all insurance markets (P&C4, health, life insurance) and serve
all customers far beyond their initial member base5. Smaller mutuals are usually still
focused on a specific client or product segment or on a region6.
• Mutuals have access to capital markets: they can issue subordinated debt or hybrid
capital eg to finance their development needs 7
1 Equivalent voting rights or weighted rights depending on the company
2 eg by electing representatives who participate in the general meetings and board meetings
3 Examples of mutuals part of the Top 100 EU insurance companies: Groupama N°17 (13,5 Bio € premium),
Covea N° 19 (12,0 Bio €), Debeka N° 30 (7,3 Bio €)
Examples of insurers with mutual holding companies part of the Top 100: Talanx / HDI N° 21 (10,2 Bio €), Wiener
Staetische N° 36 (5,9 Bio €)
Source AISAM (Association Internationale des Sociétés d’Assurance Mutuelle): Gross direct premium written in
2006
4 P&C Property and Casualty insurance covers home, car and other general insurance
5 For example the MAIF in France originally created by a group of school teachers now markets P&C and life
insurance to all customers and is the 74th European insurance group with annual gross premium of € 2,6 Bio, but
this is only one of the many examples of such developments in the mutual insurance industry
6 This is the same for plcs to a certain extent. According to CEIOPS 4500 insurance companies out of a total of
5300 identified by the CEA (Comité Européen des Assurances) have annual premiums inferior to 10 Mio €
(mostly in life insurance) and only 30% of them are mutuals...
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Executive summary
- Mutual groups (5)
-
-
|
Session 11A Future Outlook For EU Mutual Insurance Groups
|
pdf
|
165.62 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [11A] - FUTURE
OUTLOOK FOR EU MUTUAL
INSURANCE GROUPS
The Panel
Moderator: Jean-Jacques Bonnaud, Eurofi, Former CEO of the GAN
Panellists: Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group
and President, Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurances Mutuelles (Amice)
Jeanne-Marie Camboly, Director of Parliamentary and
Professional External Relations, Groupama, France and Co-
Chair of the European Mutual Society Task Force at Amice
Robert Lilli, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Köbe
Fabrice Pesin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Insurance
Division, Treasury, French Ministry for the Economy, Finance
and Employment
Bernard Thiry, Director of International Relations, Ethias
Jean-Luc de Boissieu, Director General, Gema
Ieke van Den Burg, MEP, Committee on Economic and
Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
The Debate
Jean-Jacques Bonnaud, Eurofi, said the last meeting of Eurofi at the
December 2007 conference in Brussels had highlighted the gap between
the economic importance of mutual insurers in Europe, which amounted
for 20-40 per cent of the sector in many European countries, and EU
legislation. So the session was designed to bring out the issues the sector
faced, and discuss whether consumers were disadvantaged as a result.
Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group and President,
Association Internationale des Sociétés d’Assurances Mutuelles (Amice),
said that while financial markets had fostered global growth, they
had also accumulated uncertainty and large-scale risks. Operations
based solely on the efficient allocation of capital with the goal of profit
maximisation, neglecting wider social responsibility, had led to “morally
risky” behaviour. Closer regulation, and better consumer education were
priorities. Ownership structures were also important.
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Session 12A SOLVENCY II
|
pdf
|
238.46 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [12A] - SOLVENCY II:
QIS4 early feed back from
the industry; Group support
and diversification effects
management, level 2 terms
of reference.
The Panel
Moderator: Karel van Hulle, Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG
Internal Market and Services, European Commission
Panelists: Henri de Castries, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of
the Management Board, Axa Group;
Peter Skinner, MEP, Committee on Economic and Monetary
Affairs, European Parliament;
Gérard de La Martinière, Vice-President, European
Insurance and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and Chairman,
French Insurance Association (FFSA)
Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group
and President, Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurances Mutuelles (AMICE);
Tommy Persson, President, European Insurance
and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and President.
Länsförsäkringar AB
The Debate
The current system of regulation for the insurance industry was 30 years old
and it lacked risk sensitivity, did not allow accurate and timely supervision
and did not facilitate optimum allocation of capital, said Karel van Hulle,
Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG Internal Market and Services,
European Commission, introducing the session. In addition, there was
a lack of convergence of supervisory groups, which led to sub-optimal
supervision.
“There are four principal objectives of Solvency II,” Mr van Hulle said.
• Deepen the Single Market
• Enhance policyholder protection
• Improve (international) competitiveness of EU insurers
• Further Better Regulation
Some outstanding issues remained to be resolved, such as surplus funds,
equity risk, MCR, whether Solvency II should apply to pension funds,
group support regimes, mutuals and exclusions, he added.
Tags : CEIOPS,
Occupational Pensions,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Pension funds,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Outlook Mutuals Insurance Groups
|
pdf
|
130.04 Ko
|
10-09-2008 |
-
Amendments to the group
definition of Solvency II and
additions to the EU legislation
on mutuals are asked by
insurance mutuals to help them
face up to their fast-changing
environment in Europe.
Insurance mutuals or assimilated
organisations represent 25% of
the total insurance premiums paid in the EU and 26 of the Top 100 EU
insurance companies are mutual while 4 are controlled by mutual holdings.
They have a 20 to 40% market share in 7 EU countries (ie Finland, Sweden,
France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Denmark).
Insurance mutuals consider their statute offers advantages in terms of client
relationship, governance and pricing flexibility as mutuals are less exposed
to short term financial pressures than plcs, which have to take into account
the interests of their shareholders as well as their clients.
Insurance mutuals are facing many market and regulatory challenges
at present:
- Growth challenges: need for large mutuals or mutuals focused on specific
business or customer segments to find new growth opportunities outside
of their domestic markets, which are mature and where the product
diversification potential has already been leveraged to a great extent
- Efficiency challenges: large mutuals need to improve efficiency continuously
to face up to the competition from consolidated plc groups; the Solvency
II reform will increase the need for insurance mutuals to regroup to face
up to solvency requirements, increase diversification and increase their
buying power in financial markets
- Market positioning challenges: mutuals players are seeking to preserve
their differentiation through specific customer relationships, offering and
image.
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Solvency II introductory note
|
pdf
|
139.2 Ko
|
03-12-2007 |
-
Solvency II – Introductory Note
EUROFI CONFERENCE– 3/4 December 2007, European Parliament
With the new Solvency II directive currently going through the adoption process, the
insurance world is about to experience a major shift in its regulatory landscape. Notable
features of this reform include:
• adopting an economic approach for assessing insurance companies’ solvency;
• setting an explicit solvency level (probability of an insurance company defaulting set
at 1 in 200 over one year) intended to balance sufficient protection of insured parties,
reasonable product prices and strengthened competitiveness for European insurers in
a global economy;
• taking financial innovations into account;
• promoting best risk management practices within the profession;
• consolidating the role of insurers as institutional investors for the long-term financing
of the European economy.
This reform, according to the Lamfalussy process, has undergone technical preparations in
which the supervisors of member states have been heavily involved. There is a risk that
technical considerations might push the political aims into second place. That is why, from
level 1 of the Lamfalussy procedure, the institutional work linked to Solvency 2 must qualify
certain key points. These include, in particular:
• the appropriateness of the calibration of the standard model for assessing risks in
relation to the level of confidence set by the directive;
• the provisions for dealing with equities, which must protect the role of insurers
involved in long-term financing of the economy under good prudential conditions;
• the procedures for supervision of insurance groups, which must recognise the
benefits arising from either geographical or economic sector risk diversification;
• taking into account the specificities of mutual insurance companies’ own-funds and
the specific contractual links on the basis of which mutual insurance groups are often
constituted;
• guaranteeing fair competition between the insurance company and pension funds in
respect of products which meet the same consumer requirements.
In addition, measures for implementation (level 2) must not be allowed to downgrade or limit
level I provisions that aim at maximum harmonisation. It would therefore also seem to be
essential for the text of the directive to emphasise certain principles for application that would
include:
• explicit outlawing of all national options (there are, at present, 101 options within the
Capital Requirement Directive! - CRD) and all national add-ons;
• regulatory recognition of the guarantee provided by cross-border groups for their
subsidiaries, as compensation for local reduced capital requirements. This reduction
is a concrete reflection of the benefits that arise from diversification of risks, especially
in geographical terms;
• implementation of consolidated supervision for pan-European groups, based on
identification of solvency requirements (SCR – Solvency Capital Requirement) at
group level;
Finally, it is important to ensure or to check that implementation procedures have been
devised in line with the political guidelines of the directive by means of:
• the obligation placed on national regulators to justify in advance any request for an
“add-on” which would also have to be authorised by the college of supervisors of the...
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Eurofi Mutuals Executive summary [EN]
|
pdf
|
507.7 Ko
|
03-12-2007 |
-
The outlook for EU insurance mutuals in the fast-changing EU
marketplace
Eurofi conference: 3 December 2007
EU Parliament
Executive summary
This document was prepared by Eurofi as an introductory document for the workshop of
December 3rd, with the input of the British Building Societies Association, Ethias, Gothaer
Group, MACIF, MAIF, Mutualité Française, NFU Mutual, Tapiola and Professor E. Greppi.
1. Context:
Mutual companies have a specific legal statute and specific governance arrangements.
• Mutual companies have no share capital and therefore no shareholders
• They are initially set up and controlled by their customers (their “members”) who have
voting rights1 and can be involved to a certain extent in the governance of the company
and in decisions made2. Solidarity links exist between members: supplementary calls,
possible rebates...
What makes mutuals different from plc or cooperative companies is their legal statute and
governance arrangements and not their size:
• Most of them are for-profit companies and insurance mutuals of all sizes exist in Europe
as for plcs: from a few million Euros annual premiums written to several billion. In the Top
100 EU insurance companies, 26 are mutuals and 4 are controlled by mutual holdings3.
• Most large mutuals cover all insurance markets (P&C4, health, life insurance) and serve
all customers far beyond their initial member base5. Smaller mutuals are usually still
focused on a specific client or product segment or on a region6.
• Mutuals have access to capital markets: they can issue subordinated debt or hybrid
capital eg to finance their development needs 7
1 Equivalent voting rights or weighted rights depending on the company
2 eg by electing representatives who participate in the general meetings and board meetings
3 Examples of mutuals part of the Top 100 EU insurance companies: Groupama N°17 (13,5 Bio € premium),
Covea N° 19 (12,0 Bio €), Debeka N° 30 (7,3 Bio €)
Examples of insurers with mutual holding companies part of the Top 100: Talanx / HDI N° 21 (10,2 Bio €), Wiener
Staetische N° 36 (5,9 Bio €)
Source AISAM (Association Internationale des Sociétés d’Assurance Mutuelle): Gross direct premium written in
2006
4 P&C Property and Casualty insurance covers home, car and other general insurance
5 For example the MAIF in France originally created by a group of school teachers now markets P&C and life
insurance to all customers and is the 74th European insurance group with annual gross premium of € 2,6 Bio, but
this is only one of the many examples of such developments in the mutual insurance industry
6 This is the same for plcs to a certain extent. According to CEIOPS 4500 insurance companies out of a total of
5300 identified by the CEA (Comité Européen des Assurances) have annual premiums inferior to 10 Mio €
(mostly in life insurance) and only 30% of them are mutuals...
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Executive summary
- Solvency II directive (9)
-
-
|
Session 05A For an Effective Supervision
|
pdf
|
200.44 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [5A] - FOR AN
EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION
FOR CROSS-BORDER
FINANCIAL GROUPS:
Foundations and content
for a European agreement
The Panel
Moderator: Jacques de Larosière, Co-President, Eurofi
Panellists: Joaquín Almunia, EU Commissioner for Economic and
Monetary Affairs; Pervenche Berès, MEP, Chairwoman,
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, European
Parliament;
Baron Alexandre Lamfalussy;
Jacques Maire, Senior Vice-President, Head of European
& Public Affairs, AXA Group; Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa,
Former Italian Minister of the Economy and Finance;
Xavier Musca, Director General of the Treasury, French
Ministry for the Economy, Finance and Employment;
The Debate
The current economic climate was very difficult, and it had not changed in
the way that had been hoped, said Joaquín Almunia, EU Commissioner
for Economic and Monetary Affairs. “A strong and stable financial system
is a precondition for a strong and stable economy – that is something we
are reminded of every day, particularly since the crisis broke in August last
year. In the present circumstances, protecting financial stability is a major
priority.”
Tags : Solvency II directive,
Regulation,
Supervision,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Session 08 Cross-Border Insurance Groups Supervision
|
pdf
|
165.41 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [8] - CROSS-BORDER
INSURANCE GROUPS
SUPERVISION: Key features
of the Solvency II Directive:
College cooperation
arrangements, Decision
Making Process, Supervisors mandate specificities, CEIOPS
role and responsibilities.
The Panel
Moderators: Jacques de Larosière & Daniel Lebègue, Co-Presidents,
Eurofi
Panellists: Charlie McCreevy, EU Commissioner for Internal Market
& Services;
Peter Skinner, MEP, Committee on Monetary and Economic
Affairs, European Parliament;
Thomas Steffen, Chairman, Committee of European
Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS)
Denis Duverne, Member of the Management Board, AXA;
Thierry Francq, Assistant Secretary Financial Sector,
Treasury and Economic Policy Directorate General Finance,
French Ministry for the Economy, Finance and Employment;
The Debate
Since the Commission adopted its “ambitious Solvency II proposals for
a streamlined system for the supervision of insurance and reinsurance
groups” in July last year, discussions had progressed in both the Council
and the European Parliament at an impressive pace, said Charlie
McCreevy, EU Commissioner for Internal Market & Services.
“The number of issues remaining has been reduced to a manageable
amount, and I am confident that appropriate solutions will be found over
the coming months,” he added.
Discussions were also very advanced in the European Parliament, with
more than 820 draft amendments tabled before the summer. “All this
has opened promising perspectives for the French Presidency, which has
the challenging task of concluding the discussions with the Council and
Parliament.”
Tags : CEIOPS,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Session 11A Future Outlook For EU Mutual Insurance Groups
|
pdf
|
165.62 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [11A] - FUTURE
OUTLOOK FOR EU MUTUAL
INSURANCE GROUPS
The Panel
Moderator: Jean-Jacques Bonnaud, Eurofi, Former CEO of the GAN
Panellists: Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group
and President, Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurances Mutuelles (Amice)
Jeanne-Marie Camboly, Director of Parliamentary and
Professional External Relations, Groupama, France and Co-
Chair of the European Mutual Society Task Force at Amice
Robert Lilli, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Köbe
Fabrice Pesin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Insurance
Division, Treasury, French Ministry for the Economy, Finance
and Employment
Bernard Thiry, Director of International Relations, Ethias
Jean-Luc de Boissieu, Director General, Gema
Ieke van Den Burg, MEP, Committee on Economic and
Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
The Debate
Jean-Jacques Bonnaud, Eurofi, said the last meeting of Eurofi at the
December 2007 conference in Brussels had highlighted the gap between
the economic importance of mutual insurers in Europe, which amounted
for 20-40 per cent of the sector in many European countries, and EU
legislation. So the session was designed to bring out the issues the sector
faced, and discuss whether consumers were disadvantaged as a result.
Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group and President,
Association Internationale des Sociétés d’Assurances Mutuelles (Amice),
said that while financial markets had fostered global growth, they
had also accumulated uncertainty and large-scale risks. Operations
based solely on the efficient allocation of capital with the goal of profit
maximisation, neglecting wider social responsibility, had led to “morally
risky” behaviour. Closer regulation, and better consumer education were
priorities. Ownership structures were also important.
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Session 12A SOLVENCY II
|
pdf
|
238.46 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [12A] - SOLVENCY II:
QIS4 early feed back from
the industry; Group support
and diversification effects
management, level 2 terms
of reference.
The Panel
Moderator: Karel van Hulle, Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG
Internal Market and Services, European Commission
Panelists: Henri de Castries, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of
the Management Board, Axa Group;
Peter Skinner, MEP, Committee on Economic and Monetary
Affairs, European Parliament;
Gérard de La Martinière, Vice-President, European
Insurance and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and Chairman,
French Insurance Association (FFSA)
Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group
and President, Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurances Mutuelles (AMICE);
Tommy Persson, President, European Insurance
and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and President.
Länsförsäkringar AB
The Debate
The current system of regulation for the insurance industry was 30 years old
and it lacked risk sensitivity, did not allow accurate and timely supervision
and did not facilitate optimum allocation of capital, said Karel van Hulle,
Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG Internal Market and Services,
European Commission, introducing the session. In addition, there was
a lack of convergence of supervisory groups, which led to sub-optimal
supervision.
“There are four principal objectives of Solvency II,” Mr van Hulle said.
• Deepen the Single Market
• Enhance policyholder protection
• Improve (international) competitiveness of EU insurers
• Further Better Regulation
Some outstanding issues remained to be resolved, such as surplus funds,
equity risk, MCR, whether Solvency II should apply to pension funds,
group support regimes, mutuals and exclusions, he added.
Tags : CEIOPS,
Occupational Pensions,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Pension funds,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Conditions adoption Solvency II
|
pdf
|
122.69 Ko
|
11-09-2008 |
-
The adoption of the proposed
Solvency directive is coming
up against several difficulties:
the treatment of surplus funds,
pension funds and equities,
as well as the organization of
supervision for cross-border
insurance groups. However,
pragmatic solutions delivering responses to the legitimate expectations
of the insurance industry’s various players, Member States and their
supervisors are within reach.
The economic approach for risks underpinning Solvency II requires
certain clarifications.
The exclusion of pension funds from the scope of the directive is causing
problems. Faced with the same need to cover their retirement, Europeans,
whether they take out life insurance or sign up for pension funds, would
have two different levels of security, which they will not be able to perceive.
At the same time, this differentiated prudential treatment would lead to
a distortion of competition between these two industries. Hence, similar
risks should be subjected to the same prudential treatment.
This principle could be implemented within the framework of the next
revision of the IORP directive governing pension funds. As of today, it
seems important to ensure that a revision of the IORP directive will be
carried out based on economic principles that are consistent with those
underpinning Solvency II.
Tags : Solvency II directive,
Occupational Pensions,
Pension funds,
Type : Event Report
-
|
EUROFI PRIORITIES FOR ECOFIN
|
pdf
|
115.97 Ko
|
10-09-2008 |
-
Eurofi, the dedicated think-tank for
the integration of financial services
in Europe, is organizing a conference
on September 11 and 12 to discuss
the proposals put forward by the
financial industry at the ECOFIN, set
against a global crisis with leaders
facing new challenges.
This crisis shows that the supervision of cross-border financial groups must be
adapted in order to factor in the rapid spillover of risks, the internationalization
of their activities and the centralized organization of their financial management
and strategy.
That is why Eurofi is proposing a series of pragmatic measures to improve the
supervision of these groups and the prevention of crises, notably including:
- The establishment of colleges grouping the European supervisors concerned
together, which would be given a similar mandate in order to ensure identical
protection for all of the group’s European customers;
- A specific role entrusted to the supervisor from the home European country,
ensuring that decisions relating to capital requirements and the organization
of supervision can be taken quickly and effectively, and that information is
immediately made available to all the other supervisors;
- The mission entrusted to the European supervisor committees (CEBS and
CEIOPS), to facilitate the resolution of possible differences of views between
supervisors from a given college and check that the conditions for fair
competition between the financial institutions are brought about.
Tags : CEIOPS,
Occupational Pensions,
Solvency II directive,
Microcredit,
UCITS Directive,
Management company,
UCITS,
Cross-border fund processing,
Prudential rules,
Accounting rules,
CEBS,
Regulation,
Supervision,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Outlook Mutuals Insurance Groups
|
pdf
|
130.04 Ko
|
10-09-2008 |
-
Amendments to the group
definition of Solvency II and
additions to the EU legislation
on mutuals are asked by
insurance mutuals to help them
face up to their fast-changing
environment in Europe.
Insurance mutuals or assimilated
organisations represent 25% of
the total insurance premiums paid in the EU and 26 of the Top 100 EU
insurance companies are mutual while 4 are controlled by mutual holdings.
They have a 20 to 40% market share in 7 EU countries (ie Finland, Sweden,
France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Denmark).
Insurance mutuals consider their statute offers advantages in terms of client
relationship, governance and pricing flexibility as mutuals are less exposed
to short term financial pressures than plcs, which have to take into account
the interests of their shareholders as well as their clients.
Insurance mutuals are facing many market and regulatory challenges
at present:
- Growth challenges: need for large mutuals or mutuals focused on specific
business or customer segments to find new growth opportunities outside
of their domestic markets, which are mature and where the product
diversification potential has already been leveraged to a great extent
- Efficiency challenges: large mutuals need to improve efficiency continuously
to face up to the competition from consolidated plc groups; the Solvency
II reform will increase the need for insurance mutuals to regroup to face
up to solvency requirements, increase diversification and increase their
buying power in financial markets
- Market positioning challenges: mutuals players are seeking to preserve
their differentiation through specific customer relationships, offering and
image.
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Solvency II introductory note
|
pdf
|
139.2 Ko
|
03-12-2007 |
-
Solvency II – Introductory Note
EUROFI CONFERENCE– 3/4 December 2007, European Parliament
With the new Solvency II directive currently going through the adoption process, the
insurance world is about to experience a major shift in its regulatory landscape. Notable
features of this reform include:
• adopting an economic approach for assessing insurance companies’ solvency;
• setting an explicit solvency level (probability of an insurance company defaulting set
at 1 in 200 over one year) intended to balance sufficient protection of insured parties,
reasonable product prices and strengthened competitiveness for European insurers in
a global economy;
• taking financial innovations into account;
• promoting best risk management practices within the profession;
• consolidating the role of insurers as institutional investors for the long-term financing
of the European economy.
This reform, according to the Lamfalussy process, has undergone technical preparations in
which the supervisors of member states have been heavily involved. There is a risk that
technical considerations might push the political aims into second place. That is why, from
level 1 of the Lamfalussy procedure, the institutional work linked to Solvency 2 must qualify
certain key points. These include, in particular:
• the appropriateness of the calibration of the standard model for assessing risks in
relation to the level of confidence set by the directive;
• the provisions for dealing with equities, which must protect the role of insurers
involved in long-term financing of the economy under good prudential conditions;
• the procedures for supervision of insurance groups, which must recognise the
benefits arising from either geographical or economic sector risk diversification;
• taking into account the specificities of mutual insurance companies’ own-funds and
the specific contractual links on the basis of which mutual insurance groups are often
constituted;
• guaranteeing fair competition between the insurance company and pension funds in
respect of products which meet the same consumer requirements.
In addition, measures for implementation (level 2) must not be allowed to downgrade or limit
level I provisions that aim at maximum harmonisation. It would therefore also seem to be
essential for the text of the directive to emphasise certain principles for application that would
include:
• explicit outlawing of all national options (there are, at present, 101 options within the
Capital Requirement Directive! - CRD) and all national add-ons;
• regulatory recognition of the guarantee provided by cross-border groups for their
subsidiaries, as compensation for local reduced capital requirements. This reduction
is a concrete reflection of the benefits that arise from diversification of risks, especially
in geographical terms;
• implementation of consolidated supervision for pan-European groups, based on
identification of solvency requirements (SCR – Solvency Capital Requirement) at
group level;
Finally, it is important to ensure or to check that implementation procedures have been
devised in line with the political guidelines of the directive by means of:
• the obligation placed on national regulators to justify in advance any request for an
“add-on” which would also have to be authorised by the college of supervisors of the...
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Eurofi Mutuals Executive summary [EN]
|
pdf
|
507.7 Ko
|
03-12-2007 |
-
The outlook for EU insurance mutuals in the fast-changing EU
marketplace
Eurofi conference: 3 December 2007
EU Parliament
Executive summary
This document was prepared by Eurofi as an introductory document for the workshop of
December 3rd, with the input of the British Building Societies Association, Ethias, Gothaer
Group, MACIF, MAIF, Mutualité Française, NFU Mutual, Tapiola and Professor E. Greppi.
1. Context:
Mutual companies have a specific legal statute and specific governance arrangements.
• Mutual companies have no share capital and therefore no shareholders
• They are initially set up and controlled by their customers (their “members”) who have
voting rights1 and can be involved to a certain extent in the governance of the company
and in decisions made2. Solidarity links exist between members: supplementary calls,
possible rebates...
What makes mutuals different from plc or cooperative companies is their legal statute and
governance arrangements and not their size:
• Most of them are for-profit companies and insurance mutuals of all sizes exist in Europe
as for plcs: from a few million Euros annual premiums written to several billion. In the Top
100 EU insurance companies, 26 are mutuals and 4 are controlled by mutual holdings3.
• Most large mutuals cover all insurance markets (P&C4, health, life insurance) and serve
all customers far beyond their initial member base5. Smaller mutuals are usually still
focused on a specific client or product segment or on a region6.
• Mutuals have access to capital markets: they can issue subordinated debt or hybrid
capital eg to finance their development needs 7
1 Equivalent voting rights or weighted rights depending on the company
2 eg by electing representatives who participate in the general meetings and board meetings
3 Examples of mutuals part of the Top 100 EU insurance companies: Groupama N°17 (13,5 Bio € premium),
Covea N° 19 (12,0 Bio €), Debeka N° 30 (7,3 Bio €)
Examples of insurers with mutual holding companies part of the Top 100: Talanx / HDI N° 21 (10,2 Bio €), Wiener
Staetische N° 36 (5,9 Bio €)
Source AISAM (Association Internationale des Sociétés d’Assurance Mutuelle): Gross direct premium written in
2006
4 P&C Property and Casualty insurance covers home, car and other general insurance
5 For example the MAIF in France originally created by a group of school teachers now markets P&C and life
insurance to all customers and is the 74th European insurance group with annual gross premium of € 2,6 Bio, but
this is only one of the many examples of such developments in the mutual insurance industry
6 This is the same for plcs to a certain extent. According to CEIOPS 4500 insurance companies out of a total of
5300 identified by the CEA (Comité Européen des Assurances) have annual premiums inferior to 10 Mio €
(mostly in life insurance) and only 30% of them are mutuals...
Tags : Mutual insurance companies,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Type : Executive summary
- Pension funds (2)
-
-
|
Session 12A SOLVENCY II
|
pdf
|
238.46 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [12A] - SOLVENCY II:
QIS4 early feed back from
the industry; Group support
and diversification effects
management, level 2 terms
of reference.
The Panel
Moderator: Karel van Hulle, Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG
Internal Market and Services, European Commission
Panelists: Henri de Castries, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of
the Management Board, Axa Group;
Peter Skinner, MEP, Committee on Economic and Monetary
Affairs, European Parliament;
Gérard de La Martinière, Vice-President, European
Insurance and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and Chairman,
French Insurance Association (FFSA)
Asmo Kalpala, Chairman & President, Tapiola Group
and President, Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurances Mutuelles (AMICE);
Tommy Persson, President, European Insurance
and Reinsurance Association (CEA) and President.
Länsförsäkringar AB
The Debate
The current system of regulation for the insurance industry was 30 years old
and it lacked risk sensitivity, did not allow accurate and timely supervision
and did not facilitate optimum allocation of capital, said Karel van Hulle,
Head of Unit, Insurance and Pensions, DG Internal Market and Services,
European Commission, introducing the session. In addition, there was
a lack of convergence of supervisory groups, which led to sub-optimal
supervision.
“There are four principal objectives of Solvency II,” Mr van Hulle said.
• Deepen the Single Market
• Enhance policyholder protection
• Improve (international) competitiveness of EU insurers
• Further Better Regulation
Some outstanding issues remained to be resolved, such as surplus funds,
equity risk, MCR, whether Solvency II should apply to pension funds,
group support regimes, mutuals and exclusions, he added.
Tags : CEIOPS,
Occupational Pensions,
Mutual groups,
Solvency II directive,
Pension funds,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Conditions adoption Solvency II
|
pdf
|
122.69 Ko
|
11-09-2008 |
-
The adoption of the proposed
Solvency directive is coming
up against several difficulties:
the treatment of surplus funds,
pension funds and equities,
as well as the organization of
supervision for cross-border
insurance groups. However,
pragmatic solutions delivering responses to the legitimate expectations
of the insurance industry’s various players, Member States and their
supervisors are within reach.
The economic approach for risks underpinning Solvency II requires
certain clarifications.
The exclusion of pension funds from the scope of the directive is causing
problems. Faced with the same need to cover their retirement, Europeans,
whether they take out life insurance or sign up for pension funds, would
have two different levels of security, which they will not be able to perceive.
At the same time, this differentiated prudential treatment would lead to
a distortion of competition between these two industries. Hence, similar
risks should be subjected to the same prudential treatment.
This principle could be implemented within the framework of the next
revision of the IORP directive governing pension funds. As of today, it
seems important to ensure that a revision of the IORP directive will be
carried out based on economic principles that are consistent with those
underpinning Solvency II.
Tags : Solvency II directive,
Occupational Pensions,
Pension funds,
Type : Event Report
- Competition (5)
-
-
|
Session 03C SEPA-Card payments
|
pdf
|
198.07 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 –
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [3C] CARD
PAYMENTS: AN UNDERUSED
OPPORTUNITY: Innovative
National Authorities’
initiatives - Conditions for
an equitable balance among
different stake holders.
The Panel
Moderator: Wouter de Ploey, Director in McKinsey & Company’s
Antwerp office, and Leader of McKinsey’s European
Payments Practice.
Panellists: Fabrice Denèle, Head of Interbank Relations, Caisse
Nationale d’Epargne (CNCE)
Steve Perry, Executive Vice-President, Relationship
Management, Sales and Commercial Development, Visa
Europe
Irmfried Schwimann, Acting Director & Head of Unit
Antitrust, Financial Services, DG Competition, European
Commission
Narinda Viguier, Director of Strategy and Interbank
relations at Cedicam, part of the Credit Agricole group
The Debate
Introducing the session, Wouter de Ploey, Director in McKinsey &
Company’s Antwerp office, and Leader of McKinsey’s European Payments
Practice, said the key issue was how to develop the card market in
Europe, especially in terms of innovation, setting up the market, cross
border contacts and initiatives that might be needed from regulators or
government to enable these things to happen.
Tags : Cash,
Competition,
MIF,
Cards,
Internet payments,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Session 03D Cross-Border retail Financial Services
|
pdf
|
198.66 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [3D] PROSPECTS
FOR CROSS-BORDER RETAIL
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND
POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR
RETAIL CUSTOMERS.
Where is Europe in the construction
of the single retail financial market? What has been achieved? What are
consumer expectations? What is the agenda of the Commission, and the
European Parliament? What are the priorities for the next ten to fifteen years?
What are the best tools for greater integration and better harmonisation in
retail financial services?
The Panel
Moderator: Daniel Lebègue, Co-Chairman, Eurofi
Panellists: Elemer Terták, Director, Financial Institutions, DG Internal
Market & Services, European Commission
Giuseppe Zadra, Director General, Italian Banking
Association
Ieke van den Burg, MEP, Member of the Committee on
Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
The Debate
Elemer Terták, Director, Financial Institutions, DG Internal Market & Services,
European Commission, said there was much to do in terms of integration in
retail financial services.
“Progress is not as good as we would hope. As we can see it has not reached
its potential and competition in certain markets is suffering, particularly in
areas such as payments and retail banking. European consumers are unable
to take full advantage of the benefits of the single market.”
Tags : Competition,
Regulation,
Type : Event Report
-
|
Session 05C EU Priorities for Retail Payments
|
pdf
|
167.8 Ko
|
09-11-2008 |
-
Eurofi 2008 -
Thursday 11/09/08
Session [5C] - EU PRIORITIES
FOR RETAIL PAYMENTS:
Political impetus for
reducing inefficient
payment means and
fostering innovation - Legal
smoothing of individual’s migration toward SEPA direct debit
- Creating a critical mass for SEPA payment schemes
Current e-payment landscape – Mobile payment: hype or opportunity?
E-mandate the key for an efficient use of SDD – e-invoicing: conditions
for success
The Panel
Moderator: Leo Van Hove, Associate Professor of Economics, Vrij
Universiteit Brussel
Panellists: Jean-Paul Gauzès, MEP, Committee on Economic and
Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
Jean-Michel Godeffroy, Director General, Payment
Systems and Market Infrastructure, European Central Bank
(ECB)
Jörgen Holmquist, Director General, Internal Market and
Services, European Commission
Erik Pointillard, Director of Retail Banking, Caisse
Nationale des Caisses d’Epargne(CNCE)
Irmfried Schwimann, Acting Director & Head of Antitrust,
Financial Services, DG Competition, European Commission
The Debate
The session was designed to address issues of public policy surrounding
SEPA, said Leo Van Hove, Associate Professor of Economics, Vrij
Universiteit Brussel, in his introduction. What could EU and national
institutions do to reduce the use of inefficient payment instruments?
What could they do to reduce the use of cash? And could the public
sector lead in creating critical mass for SEPA?
Irmfried Schwimann, Acting Director & Head of Antitrust, Financial
Services, DG Competition, European Commission, said SEPA was a selfregulated
project under which companies deemed to be in competition
would enter into a collaborative arrangement. National competition
authorities and DG Competition had identified a number of concerns, and
many had been cleared up in discussions with the European Payments
Council (EPC), but a few issues were “still on the table”. These were
concerning governance, standards, and the interchange fee for direct
debits.
Tags : Cash,
Competition,
MIF,
Type : Event Report
-
|
SEPA Refocusing the aim
|
pdf
|
609.92 Ko
|
06-06-2006 |
-
Single Euro Payment Area (SEPA)
Refocusing the aim to achieve genuine across-the-board involvement
The aim of the European institutions is to establish an "integrated market for payment
services which is subject to effective competition and where there is no distinction
between cross-border and national payments within the euro area" 1. Three payment
instruments are concerned 2: direct debits, credit transfers and debit cards. The
process will take place in two stages: on 1 January 2008, euro area banks will start to
provide users with the SEPA compliant euro payment instruments designed by the
European Payments Council (EPC), 3 i.e. pan-European direct debit and credit
transfer. By end-2010, the SEPA payment instruments are due to replace
permanently all former domestic instruments.
1- 2008: a realistic technical deadline for banks
(see Annex I)
As a result of extensive work by the banking industry, EPC-defined direct debits and
credit transfers will be available domestically and on a cross-border basis as from
2008. In order to create the required legal certainty, the draft of the EC Payment
Systems Directive should also be adopted by that date. The market needs this
Directive to ensure the European-wide legal basis for relations between participants,
especially with regard to the new SEPA direct debit product. Regarding payment
cards, the EPC has set the compliance requirements for schemes and payment
service providers that want to provide services across the SEPA. These requirements
can be met in various ways, allowing individual banks to choose the option that suits
best their needs.
The introduction of SEPA compliant products will provide various benefits to endusers
and providers, including standardisation of the execution time for cross-border
credit transfers, a new pan-European direct debit product and a migration towards
pan-European payment infrastructure standards. This standardisation will allow and
encourage technical convergence of national systems. The timetable for this will be
largely driven by national considerations related to the economics of the incumbent
infrastructure (e.g. level of obsolescence or economic efficiency, possible pace of
investment). It is expected that the number of payment infrastructures will reduce
gradually – currently in excess of 25 – resulting, in the longer run, in a cost reduction
for the providers of payment instruments. Multiple adjustments will be needed for
systems, banks and their customers. At present, very few entities (utilities,
government departments) believe that they will be able to make the necessary
technical adjustments by 2008 as a result of the extensive efforts involved. In the
end, it will be mainly market forces that will drive the move towards a more integrated
and standardised payments environment.
1 Consultation Paper on SEPA Incentives, 13 February 2006
2 Most payment instruments cannot be used – or used as efficiently – in more than one Member State. Crossborder
direct debits are impossible; timeframes for cross-border credit transfers vary considerably; national debit
cards cannot be used outside the holder's home country; and the legal rules governing payments vary from one
country to another.
3 Formed in 2002, the EPC is an interbank organisation composed of some fifty EU banks and three industry
groups: the European Association of Cooperative Banks, the European Banking Federation, and the European
Savings Banks Group...
Tags : Cash,
Competition,
Innovation,
MIF,
Infrastructure,
Cards,
Internet payments,
Type : Position paper
-
SEPA - une ambition recentrée pour une mobilisation effective des
acteurs
|
pdf
|
284.62 Ko
|
06-06-2006 |
-
SEPA - une ambition recentrée pour une mobilisation effective des acteurs
L’objectif des institutions européennes est de créer dans « la zone euro un marché
intégré des paiements caractérisé par une compétition effective, et dans lequel il
n’existe pas de distinction entre paiements transfrontaliers et paiements
domestiques » 1. Trois instruments de paiement sont concernés 2 : le débit direct, le
virement et la carte de débit. Les étapes sont les suivantes : au premier janvier 2008
les instruments définis au sein de l’EPC3 (débit direct et virement) sont mis à
disposition des utilisateurs par les banques au sein de la zone euro (fin de phase
d’implémentation) ; fin 2010 la substitution des anciens instruments par les moyens
de paiement européens doit être irréversible.
1- 2008 : Une échéance réaliste sur le plan technique pour les banques
(voir annexe I)
Suite aux travaux techniques importants menés par la communauté bancaire, le
Débit Direct et le Virement tels que définis par l’EPC seront disponibles sur le plan
domestique et transfrontalier à l’échéance de 2008. Ceci dans la mesure où le projet
de Directive « Systèmes de Paiement », dont le marché attend la base légale
régissant les rapports entre les acteurs en particulier pour le débit direct européen,
est adoptée et transposée d’ici là. En ce qui concerne la carte de paiement, les
travaux de l’EPC établissent les conditions tarifaires d’adhésion et d’acceptation à
remplir par les systèmes cartes, pour se prévaloir d’une dimension européenne. Ces
conditions semblent aisément accessibles aux différents systèmes existants.
Cette étape apportera des bénéfices aux utilisateurs : standardisation des délais
pour les virements transfrontaliers, création d’un débit direct pan européen et
constitution de standards pour l’industrie à même de favoriser une convergence
technique des systèmes à organiser selon un rythme qui prenne en compte les
contraintes des différents utilisateurs et des infrastructures locales (degré
d’obsolescence ou d’efficacité économique ; rythme possible d’investissement). Cette
échéance facilite une réduction progressive du nombre des infrastructures
(aujourd’hui supérieur à 25) et en conséquence la réduction des coûts de production
des moyens de paiement. Elle nécessite de multiples adaptations pour les systèmes,
les banques et leurs clients. A ce jour peu d’entreprises (facturiers, administration
publiques) pensent être en mesure de mettre en oeuvre d’ici 2008 les adaptations
techniques compte tenu de la lourdeur des efforts à consentir. De façon générale et
pour l’ensemble de ces raisons, la concrétisation des bénéfices attendus de cette
étape, doit être conduite par les forces de marché.
1 Consultation paper on SEPA Incentives 13 Fev 2006
2 La plus part des instruments de paiement ne peuvent pas être utilisés d’un Etat membre à l’autre, ou pas dans
les mêmes conditions d’efficacité : le débit direct de peut être utilisé sur le plan transfrontalier, les virements
transfrontaliers sont exécutés dans des délais hétérogènes, les cartes de débit nationales de peuvent fonctionner
au-delà des frontières, enfin, les règles juridiques appliqués aux paiements divergent d’un pays à l’autre
3 European Payment Cooucil : crée en 2002, cette instance interbancaire regroupe une cinquantaine de banques
de l’Union européenne ainsi que les trois associations bancaires professionnelles (groupement européen des
banques coopératives, fédération bancaire européenne, groupement européen des caisses d’épargne)...
Tags : Cash,
Competition,
Innovation,
MIF,
Infrastructure,
Cards,
Internet payments,
Type : Position paper
|
|
|
|
|
Membership
Eurofi brings together financial institutions of different sizes and statutes: domestic and cross-border banks and insurance companies with different legal statutes, broker dealers, asset managers, market infrastructures... The members of Eurofi are companies based in the main EU countries as well as well as subsidiaries of US firms.
Eurofi works with all the representative stakeholders involved in a given subject to help them solve issues or identify new ideas and interact with EU political decision makers and legislators.
Financial cross-border supervision, the Solvency II Directive, the review of the UCITS Directive and the new Alternative Investment Fund Manager Directive, Accounting and Prudential rules to favour long term investment for example are major areas of focus of the work of Eurofi. The proposals made by Eurofi are presented to the main leaders of the EU authorities and discussed at the occasion of the Financial Forums organized by Eurofi"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contribution to the de Larosière's Group |
 |
 2009.05.24
Preventing future crises requires in particular:
- Enabling the identification and preventative treatment of systemic risks for financial players or activities,
- Improving the coordination of supervision for cross-border financial groups
- Ensuring more transparent operations on the markets,
- Clarifying responsibilities of investment fund players
- Factoring in the accounting and prudential requirements of long-term investment.
These are the objectives on which Eurofi has focused its proposals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
