The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published today the report on "Cyber Risk for Insurers – Challenges and Opportunities".The increasing frequency and sophistication of cyber attacks, the fast digital transformation and the increased use of big data and cloud computing make insurers increasingly susceptible to cyber threats, in particular considering the amount of confidential policyholder information insurers are possessing. This calls for a sound cyber resilience framework for insurers. On the other hand, the digital economy and the advance of technology offer opportunities to cyber underwriters. Appropriate cyber insurance coverages can make a valuable contribution to manage cyber risk faced by businesses and organisations. A well-developed cyber insurance market can play a key role in enabling the transformation to the digital economy.Insurers play a key role in this transformation: not only are insurers susceptible to cyber threats directly themselves, but they also offer coverage for cyber risk through their underwriting activities. This report analysed cyber risk from both angles based on responses from 41 large (re)insurance groups across 12 European countries with the aim to further enhance the level of understanding of cyber risk for the European insurance sector. The findings confirm the need for a sound cyber resilience framework for insurers and identified the key challenges faced by the cyber underwriters. In particular, clear, comprehensive and common requirements on the governance of cybersecurity as part of operational resilience would help ensure the safe provision of insurance services. This would include a consistent set of definitions and terminology on cyber risks to enable a more structured and focused dialogue between the industry, supervisors and policymakers, which could further enhance the cyber resilience of the insurance sector. Ultimately, further actions to strengthen the resilience of the insurance sector against cyber vulnerabilities are essential, in particular considering the dynamic nature of cyber threats. Regarding the cyber insurance market, the report finds that, although still small in size, the European cyber insurance industry is growing rapidly, with an increase of 72% in 2018 in terms of gross written premium for the insurers surveyed in the report, amounting to EUR 295 million in 2018 compared to EUR 172 million in 2017. However, non-affirmative cyber exposures (where cyber risk is neither explicitly included nor excluded within an insurance policy) remain a source of concern. While common efforts to assess and address non-affirmative cyber risks are under way, some insurers have adopted a 'wait-and-see' approach to address non-affirmative cyber risk, where the implementation of actions plans to address non-affirmative exposure depends on the materialization of future events. Therefore, further effort is needed to tackle properly non-affirmative cyber exposures to address the issue of potential accumulation risk and provide clarity to policyholders. Finally, enhanced data collection on cyber incidents and losses should allow insurers to manage and price their affirmative cyber risk exposures more effectively. Having common and harmonized standards for both cyber risk measurement and cyber incident reporting purposes could greatly facilitate this. To this end, creating a European-wide cyber incident-reporting database, based on a common taxonomy, could be considered. BackgroundThis report is based on the responses of 41 large (re)insurance groups across 12 European countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. The sample under consideration is very similar to the one of the EIOPA 2018 Insurance Stress Test, representing a market coverage of around 75% of total consolidated assets. The only difference is the non-participation of one group included in the sample for the Stress Test 2018 exercise.Let's block ads! (Why?)
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published today a Report analysing national General Good rules in the context of the proper functioning of the Insurance Distribution Directive (IDD) and the internal market. The report provides a factual description of the types of rules which are published on the websites of the national competent authorities (NCAs) and are applicable to insurance distribution activities, anda general assessment, facilitating the checking of main areas of divergence and impact of the general good provisions on the proper functioning of the IDD and the internal market more broadly.EIOPA's main findings - as of 31 May 2019 - are the following:Out of the 28 NCAs, which have implemented the IDD, EIOPA identified two where further steps are necessary to ensure the appropriate publication of the national general good rulesCollectively, the quantity and level of diversity of information requirements contained in general good rules, present significant challenges for entities seeking to carry out cross-border business in terms of additional entry costsSome Member States have published general good rules on registration and organisational requirements, which allow the NCAs of the host Member States to impose additional requirements on incoming insurance distributors where within the IDD those rules are under the competence of the home Member State. This approach is detrimental to the proper functioning of the IDD and the Single Market. The principle under the IDD is that the "single registration" in the home Member State triggers the provision of the European Union passport to the insurance distributor subject to the appropriate notification proceduresTo address the issues, EIOPA's follow-up actions include:Issuing recommendations on an individual basis to NCAs how the information on general good rules should be published to enable passporting insurance distributors to easily access and understand such informationConsulting external stakeholders to collect feedback to findings and suggestions presented in this report and any general good provisions which they consider to be disproportionate with regard to consumer protection and have an adverse impact on cross-border business activitiesAnalysing further from a legal and supervisory perspective the general good rules imposed on incoming insurance distributors in areas of the home Member State competence such as registration and organisational requirements and, where appropriate, making use of the tools at EIOPA's disposal under its Founding RegulationThe Report analysing national General Good rules including the Annex with a country-by-country analysis can be obtained via EIOPA's website.EIOPA
invites all interested stakeholders to fill in an online
survey on the Insurance Distribution Directive (IDD) – Report analysing
national General Good rules by 22
September 2019. BackgroundArticle 11(5), IDD provides that "EIOPA shall examine in a report, and inform the Commission about, the 'general good' rules published by Member States as referred to in this Article in the context of the proper functioning of this Directive and of the internal market".General good rules are provisions, which are part of the legal system of the host Member State. Neither the IDD, nor any other European legislation entail a precise definition of what general good rules consist of. The concept of general good has evolved through Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case-law and only applies in non-harmonised fields. In its Interpretative Communication of 2000, the European Commission reviewed the requirements developed by the CJEU, which a national provision has to satisfy, if it is to validly obstruct or limit the exercise of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.Let's block ads! (Why?)
Today, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published four Opinions to assist National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in the implementation of the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions - the IORP II Directive: The Opinion on the use of governance and risk assessment documents in the supervision of Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions (IORPs) The Opinion on the practical implementation of the common framework for risk assessment and transparency for Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions (IORPs) The Opinion on the supervision of the management of operational risks faced by Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions (IORPs) The Opinion on the supervision of the management of environment, social and governance risks faced by Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions (IORPs)Governance and risk management of pension funds are key activities to ensure the protection of pension scheme members. As a new provision of the IORP II Directive, the requirement to conduct an Own-Risk Assessment (ORA) has not only a significant impact on the governance and risk management systems of pension funds but also poses certain implementation challenges. The Opinion on the use of governance and risk assessment documents in the supervision of IORPs sets out EIOPA's expectations on minimum information content to describe how pension funds conduct their ORA and present results from their ORA. NCAs should review and ensure that the ORA is forward-looking, considering internal and external emerging developments likely to affect pension funds' future risk profile.In the area of operational risks, the Opinion on the supervision of the management of operational risks faced by IORPs stresses the importance of forward-looking supervision. With the shift away from defined benefit pensions and the emergence of multi-sponsor IORP providers, NCAs should increasingly pay attention to pension funds' future viability and operational liabilities of defined contribution schemes. Although new market and regulatory developments should generally improve occupational pensions, they may also lead to greater complexity in retaining supervisory oversight of the full range of activities performed by pension funds or outsourced to service providers. Furthermore, the rapid evolution and transmissibility of cyber threats necessitate a forward-looking and cross-sectoral approach to the supervision of cyber risk faced by pension funds. The IORP II Directive includes new environment, social and governance (ESG) provisions. The supervisory oversight of pension funds' exposure to ESG risks is another implementation challenge with ESG being a relatively new practice. Therefore, NCAs should take a holistic view of pension funds' exposure to ESG risks. The Opinion on the supervision of the management of ESG risks faced by IORPs provides an illustrative mapping of how ESG risks may arise in traditional prudential risks. As institutions tasked with a social purpose of providing retirement benefits, European pension funds should be exemplary leaders of responsible ownership. Thus, NCAs should encourage pension funds to consider the impact of their long-term investment decisions and activities on ESG factors through their stewardship role, as well as having regard to the impact of sustainability risks on pension fund liabilities.The common framework is a useful risk assessment tool that can support pension funds in the conduct of their ORA. The Opinion on the practical implementation of the common framework for risk assessment and transparency for IORPs encourages NCAs to make IORPs aware of the availability of the common framework as a tool for risk assessment and to stand ready to support pension funds in the application of the tool.Gabriel Bernardino, Chairman of EIOPA, said: "The IORP II Directive has profound implications for the governance and risk management of occupational pension funds in Europe. In this context, the EIOPA Opinions lay the foundation for the future supervisory convergence of pension funds' own-risk assessment to ensure sound risk management for the better protection of members and beneficiaries and alignment with society's sustainability goals." The Opinion on the use of governance and risk assessment documents in the supervision of IORPs is available via this link. Templates on the own-risk assessment documents is available via this link.The Opinion on the practical implementation of the common framework for risk assessment and transparency for IORPs is available via this link. Technical material relating to the common framework is available via this link.The Opinion on the supervision of the management of operational risks faced by IORPs is available via this link.The Opinion on the supervision of the management of environment, social and governance risks faced by IORPs is available via this link.Let's block ads! (Why?)
EIOPA establishes Expert Practitioner Panel on the Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP)The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) kicks-off its policy work on Level 2 measures for the PEPP RegulationChallenging and diverse scope of deliverables - and tight timeframes - call for innovative and efficient solutionsToday, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) established its Expert Practitioner Panel on the Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP). To deliver on the forthcoming PEPP Regulation's policy perspective to design a PEPP that exhibits high quality product features around information provision, risk-mitigating techniques and a cost cap for the basic PEPP, the feedback and support from practitioners is important. With the insights of the Expert Practitioner Panel, EIOPA will develop superior solutions and smart policy advice that incentivises financial innovation for the benefit of the European consumers.The objectives of the Expert Practitioner Panel on PEPP are: To inform EIOPA's policy workTo test policy proposalsTo act as sounding board supporting EIOPA delivering on its mandateEIOPA's call for expression of interest of 2 May 2019 resulted in an extraordinary group of high-level experts with a diverse set of experiences and expertise, from all the different sectors of eligible PEPP providers.EIOPA is pleased to confirm the following composition of its Expert Practitioner Panel on PEPP:Aidan McLoughlinIndependent TrusteeAndrew MarkerVanguardAxel KleinleinBund der VersichertenCarlo ParodiIntesa SanpaoloChristian LemaireAmundiEdward HillerFidelity Emanuele Maria CarluccioUniversity of VeronaHerman KappelleAegonHugo PrennUNIQAJasper De MeyerBEUC - Bureau Européen des Unions de ConsommateursJean-Paul Andre-DumontForsidesJens Rosendahl FrederiksenPFAKristine LomanovskaSEB LVOlav JonesInsuranceEuropePaul Le BihanUnion Mutualist RetraitePiotr WrzesinskiPIUSebastian GörglUnion InvestmentSimone MiottoPensionsEuropeStefan VoicuBetter FinanceTil Klein VantikTobias RieckAllianzLet's block ads! (Why?)
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament
The application for interim measures of Mr Carles Puigdemont and Mr Antoni Comín, to order the European Parliament to enable them to take their seats in Parliament is dismissed
The Joint Committee of the three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA - ESAs) published today a second amendment to the Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on the mapping of credit assessments of External Credit Assessment Institutions (ECAIs) for credit risk under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR). The amendment reflects the outcome of a monitoring exercise on the adequacy of existing mappings. The ITS are part of the EU Single Rulebook for banking aimed at creating a safe and sound regulatory framework consistently applicable across the European Union (EU).The Implementing Regulation on the mapping of ECAIs under the CRR, adopted by the European Commission on 7 October 2016, specified an approach that establishes the correspondence between credit ratings and the credit quality steps (CQS) defined in the CRR, together with providing mappings for 26 ECAIs.This amendment to the ITS reflects the outcome of a monitoring exercise on the adequacy of the mappings, based on the additional quantitative and qualitative information collected after the original Implementing Regulation entered into force. In particular, the ESAs proposed to change the CQS allocation for two ECAIs, and to introduce new credit rating scales for ten ECAIs. The ESAs also addressed the mappings of CRAs recently registered in accordance to the CRA Regulation and that are related to previously mapped ECAIs.The ESAs have published individual draft mapping reports illustrating how the methodology was applied to produce the amended mappings in line with the CRR mandate.Legal Basis and backgroundThe proposed revised draft ITSs have been developed according to Article 136 (1) and (3) of Regulation 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation), which state that revised draft ITS shall be submitted by the ESAs, where necessary.A first amendment to the Implementing Regulation was adopted by the Commission on 24 April 2018, to incorporate mappings for the five new ECAIs that had been registered or certified after the ESAs submitted the original draft ITS to the Commission and to reflect the deregistration of one credit rating agency (CRA).Related Resources:Let's block ads! (Why?)