Risks relating to conduct of business are attracting increased attention across financial services firms, prompted by the ever-increasing focus of regulators in this area. Senior managers are accountable for conduct risk failings, and accordingly a strong conduct risk framework is an important tool in protecting against such failings. Based on our experience of assisting clients in this area, conduct risk management is still evolving and firms face many challenges. This paper by Milliman’s Karl Murray and Eamonn Phelan looks at recent and ongoing developments from around the globe and discusses actions firms need to take in order to address the changing business and legislative environment with regards to consumer protection.
New York has enacted regulations to protect the state’s financial services industry and consumers from cyberattacks. Future regulation may require a reliable, evidence-based approach to risk assessment as a minimum requirement for compliance.
In this article, Milliman’s Mark Stephens and Lisa Henderson discuss the evolution of cyber risk and the need for companies to understand their cyber risk exposure and the financial implications of a potential cyberattack event. They also outline several actionable steps companies can take to assess and quantify their cyber exposure.
Business today moves at lightning pace, and this rapid pace of change is leading to an evolution in risk management. In a recent article in The Times of London, “Why your risk team needs to become your insight function,” Milliman consultant Neil Cantle writes that traditional forms of risk management are quickly becoming too slow to anticipate or enable meaningful reaction. More and more, writes Cantle, companies are embedding new technology and automation into their risk management processes, and risk teams are evolving to help businesses embed risk-thinking into their daily activities. The full article can be accessed via the link above. For more information on Milliman’s work in enterprise risk management, click here.
Have you ever wondered what options would be available to your company should it get into financial difficulty? Does your company have a ‘plan B’ and how practical and realistic is it? These are questions (re)insurance companies may soon need to answer. Recovery and Resolution Plans (RRPs) have already been introduced in the banking industry. In this blog I outline a few insights the insurance industry can learn from the recovery and resolution planning process which the banking industry has already commenced. (Re)insurance companies may find this useful particularly in light of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) opinion issued last month recommending a harmonised recovery and resolution framework for all insurers across the EU.
Based on the feedback from the banking industry, it would appear that there is more to recovery and resolution planning than meets the eye. In the banking industry, recovery plans, for example, are intended to be living documents which demonstrate that the recovery strategies presented can be implemented in reality—and that is not an easy task.
The following diagram illustrates the embeddedness of recovery plans within banks as well as some of the key considerations which I will expand upon in this blog.
Recovery plans can span hundreds of pages as the practicalities of recovery strategies are explored in great detail in order to have a plan of action in place that is realistic, achievable and capable of being put into action straight away. Regulators expect a short timeframe for implementation of a recovery plan, with the recovery strategies presented typically required to be fully executable within a 12-month period. In addition, it is expected that the recovery strategies take account of the particular scenarios the company may find itself in. For example, the recovery strategies may vary depending on whether an idiosyncratic or a systemic risk has materialised, given that the options a company could take when it alone is in financial difficulty compared to when many companies are in the same boat may well be different.
In this A.M. Best interview, Milliman consultant Kamilla Svajgl offers perspective on financial risk management (FRM) strategies currently used by the life insurance sector. She also discusses how companies with sophisticated FRM strategies in place prior to the global financial crises withstood its effects.
This blog is part of the Pillar 3 Reporting series. For more blogs in this series click here.
Following the first annual reporting deadline under Solvency II, here’s a look at the breakdown of risk components within the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) across the Irish market. This provides a useful insight into the largest drivers of regulatory capital, while also indicating some of the sources of risk for companies.
This analysis is based on 40 published Solvency and Financial Condition Reports (SFCRs) as only standard formula companies have been included. The graph in Figure 1 shows the breakdown of the various SCR components, where 100% represents the calculated SCR.
As can be seen, underwriting risk represents the largest driver of SCR, followed by market risk. In this case, underwriting risk represents a combination of life, health, and non-life underwriting risks.
The benefits of diversification and loss-absorbing capacity represent an average reduction of 43% of the SCR. Please note that diversification here is at the SCR module level and doesn’t include the impact of diversification across sub-modules.