CEIOPS' Advice for Level 2 Implementing ... - EIOPA - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annex C. Further comments regarding simplifications for submodules under the life underwriting risk C.1. In this annex an overview of the most common simplifications for life underwriting risk that can be used on level no. 2 of the basic decision hierarchy are given. These methods, used to assess the capital charge for the sub-risks under the life underwriting risk, are presented in more detail in CEIOPS Advice rgarding simplifications of the SCR. They can be used both to assess the present and the future capital charges for the submodules. C.2. In order to be able to use the simplifications to assess the capital charge for future years, all the relevant input data – the duration of the liabilities, the total capital at risk for the mortality sub-risk, the best estimate of technical provision for the longevity sub-risk, the expected average biometrical intensities, and so on – would have to be estimated for each future year t during the liabilities lifetime. C.3. Mortality risk: The capital charge for mortality risk can be taken as 15 per cent (the mortality shock rate) of the product of the following factors: • the total capital at risk, • an undertaking-specific expected average death rate over the next year (weighted by the sum assured), • the modified duration of the liability cash-flows and • the Projected Mortality Increase (1.1 ((n-1)/2) ), cf. the assumption that the average mortality rate of the portfolio, due to age, increases over the period corresponding to the length of the duration with 10 per cent a year. C.4. Longevity risk: The capital charge for longevity risk can be taken as 25 per cent (the longevity shock rate) of the product of the following factors: • the technical provisions (the best estimate) for contracts subject to longevity risk, • an undertaking-specific expected average death rate over the next year (weighted by the sum assured), • the modified duration of the liability cash-flows and • the Projected Mortality Increase C.5. Disability risk: The capital charge for disability risk can be taken as the sum of • the capital requirement for an increase of 50 per cent in morbidity/ disability inception rates for the first year, • the capital requirement for an increase of morbidity/disability inception rates by 25 per cent for all subsequent years and • the capital requirement in respect of the risk that the duration of claims is greater than expected, represented by a 20 per cent decrease in the termination rates, where the individual elements are calculated as sketched below. 100/112 © CEIOPS 2010
C.6. The individual elements sketched in the previous paragraphs should be calculated by using the following bases of calculation: (a) For the increased morbidity/disability inception rates during the first year, the product of the following factors: • the total disability capital at risk (in year one) and • an undertaking-specific expected average rate of transition from healthy to sick over the first year (weighted by the sum assured/ annual payment). (b) For the increased morbidity/disability inception rates during all subsequent years, the product of the following factors: • the total disability capital at risk in year two, • an undertaking-specific expected average rate of transition from healthy to sick over the second year (weighted by the sum assured/annual payment), • the modified duration of the liability cash-flows diminished by one and • the Projected Disability Increase (1.1 ((n-2)/2) ), cf. the assumption that the average disability rate of the portfolio, due to age, increases over the period corresponding to the length of the duration with 10 per cent a year. (c) With respect to the risk that the duration of claims is greater than expected, 20 per cent the product of the following factors: • technical Provisions for contracts subject to longevity risk, • an undertaking-specific expected termination rate (i.e. average rate of transition from sick to healthy/dead over the next year), • the modified duration of the liability cash-flows and • the Projected Disability Increase (1.1 ((n-1)/2) ). 101/112 © CEIOPS 2010
Page 1 and 2:
CEIOPS e.V. - Westhafenplatz 1 - 60
Page 3 and 4:
1. Introduction 1.1. In its letter
Page 5 and 6:
2.2.2. The following recitals provi
Page 7 and 8:
“[…]Where, in specific circumst
Page 9 and 10:
3.6 It is noted that in the recital
Page 11 and 12:
have in place internal processes an
Page 13 and 14:
not be appropriate to reduce this v
Page 15 and 16:
3.36 Hence where an (re)insurance u
Page 17 and 18:
Scale 3.46 Assigning a scale introd
Page 19 and 20:
“scale” that will apply in all
Page 21 and 22:
circumstances of its omission or mi
Page 23 and 24:
3.81 Under these circumstances, it
Page 25 and 26:
• the level of certainty i.e. the
Page 27 and 28:
3.105 All in all, at least the foll
Page 29 and 30:
the chosen valuation method. If it
Page 31 and 32:
development, so that it is likely t
Page 33 and 34:
• As part of supervisory guidance
Page 35 and 36:
case the threshold is not exceeded.
Page 37 and 38:
if the threshold is not exceeded th
Page 39 and 40:
principles. In following paragraphs
Page 41 and 42:
sign ( x) = −1 if x < 0 . 3.179 E
Page 43 and 44:
3.193 The time value of the investm
Page 45 and 46:
distribution to policyholders as th
Page 47 and 48:
• assume independency between ass
Page 49 and 50: company or new line of business, al
Page 51 and 52: easonable be supposed proportional
Page 53 and 54: incurred when the method is applied
Page 55 and 56: 3.261 The general rule for calculat
Page 57 and 58: • the loss absorbing capacity of
Page 59 and 60: 3.285 As a consequence of this, the
Page 61 and 62: SCR for the individual lines of bus
Page 63 and 64: • the loss absorbing capacity of
Page 65 and 66: OPRU,lob,>0 = an approximation of t
Page 67 and 68: Life insurance 3.323 With respect t
Page 69 and 70: 3.330 With respect to health insura
Page 71 and 72: eing applicable for life insurance
Page 73 and 74: 3.351 The structure of the health u
Page 75 and 76: ∆rn = the absolute decrease of th
Page 77 and 78: the methods to be used for projecti
Page 79 and 80: CEIOPS’s draft advice on the valu
Page 81 and 82: 3.392 In this context, the technica
Page 83 and 84: clearly the present difficulties of
Page 85 and 86: • Even if the undertaking’s rei
Page 87 and 88: information regarding the RBNS-clai
Page 89 and 90: CEIOPS’ Advice Simplifications re
Page 91 and 92: 3.5. Quarterly calculations 3.444 A
Page 93 and 94: e to use the simplified calculation
Page 95 and 96: Annex A. Example to illustrate the
Page 97 and 98: Annex B. Some technical aspects reg
Page 99: is accurate because the payment of
Page 103 and 104: UMRU,lob,≥0 = max{∑ ≤ t Durmo
Page 105 and 106: E.5. The considered proxies based o
Page 107 and 108: E.14. The following criteria should
Page 109 and 110: “The gross-to-net proxy was used
Page 111 and 112: where Durmod denotes the modified d
show all

CEIOPS' Advice for Level 2 Implementing ... - EIOPA - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?