solvency ii briefing 7 october 2015 - deloitte us · pdf filesolvency ii briefing 7 october...
TRANSCRIPT
© 2015 Deloitte
Agenda
3
1 Actuarial Function
by Sinead Kiernan, Director
2 Standard Formula Appropriateness
by Eamon Howlin, Senior Manager; and Maaz Mushir, Manager
3 Data Management
by John Kilbride, Director
© 2015 Deloitte© 2015 Deloitte
Introduction
Actuarial Function
Outsourcing the Actuarial Function
2015 Requirements
CP92 – Feedback Statement
5
© 2015 Deloitte
IntroductionActuarial Function
The Actuarial Function is a Key Function under Solvency II. Companies will be
required to comply with all requirements for the actuarial function under Solvency II
as well as any additional requirements as specified by the CBI’s requirements
relating to the “Domestic Actuarial Regime Under Solvency II”.
The Central Bank’s consultation paper ‘Domestic Actuarial Regime Under Solvency
II Consultation’ was published by the Central Bank on 2 April 2015. The Central
Bank’s feedback statement was published on 6 October.
Additional requirements introduced by the Central Bank are in green text.
6
© 2015 DeloitteORSA Briefing7
The main sources of the Actuarial Function requirements are:
• Solvency II Directive (Article 48)
• Delegated Acts (Articles 272 and 308)
• EIOPA Guidelines on System of Governance
• CBI Guidelines on Preparing for Solvency II – System of Governance
• CBI’s Consultation Paper 92 and Feedback Statement – Domestic Actuarial
Regime and Related Governance Requirements under Solvency II
The slides which follow provide a summary of our interpretation of the
requirements for the Actuarial Function. We recommend that you refer to
the Directive, Delegated Acts, and the relevant guidelines to develop your
understanding of the regulatory requirements.
Understanding and implementing the requirements for the Actuarial FunctionSources of Regulatory Requirements
© 2015 Deloitte© 2015 Deloitte
Introduction
Actuarial Function
Outsourcing the Actuarial Function
2015 Requirements
CP92 – Feedback Statement
8
© 2015 Deloitte
Actuarial FunctionResponsibilities
• Co-ordinate calculation of technical
provisions;
• Inform the Board of the adequacy of
calculation;
• Provide opinion & accompanying
report to the CBI;
Actuarial
Function
(HoAF)
Technical
Provisions
Underwriting
Reinsurance
Risk
Management
• Prepare opinion on overall
underwriting policy;
• Prepare opinion on adequacy of
reinsurance arrangements;
• Contribute to effective risk
management system;
• Provide opinion to the Board on
range of risks & adequacy of the
scenarios considered as part of the
ORSA;
Sources: SII Directive, Delegated Acts, CP92 9
Actuarial
Function
Report
© 2015 Deloitte
Actuarial FunctionHead of Actuarial Function
1. The actuarial function shall be carried out by persons who:
a) have knowledge of actuarial and financial mathematics,
commensurate with the nature, scale and complexity of the risks
inherent in the business, and
b) are able to demonstrate their relevant experience with applicable
professional and other standards, as outlined in Article 48 (2) of
the 2009 Solvency II Directive.
2. Head of Actuarial Function:
a) Person with responsibility for Key Function
b) One individual within the undertaking
c) PCF role under Fitness & Probity regime
Sources: SII Directive, CP92 10
Actuarial
Function
(HoAF)
© 2015 Deloitte
Actuarial FunctionTechnical Provisions
Actuarial
Function
(HoAF)
Technical
Provisions
Underwriting
Reinsurance
Risk
Management
Co-ordinate the calculation of
Technical Provisions
Comparison to
current SAO
regime
Comparison to
current appointed
actuary regime
• Ensure appropriateness of
methodologies, models and
assumptions
Similar Similar
• Assess sufficiency & quality of data Similar Similar
• Procedures are sufficiently
supported by IT systems
New New
• Compare best estimate against
experience
Similar Similar (for
assumption setting)
• Conclude on adequacy and
reliability of calculation
Similar Similar
• Identify sources and degree of
uncertainty
Similar New
• Disclose use of material judgments Similar Similar
• Perform sensitivity analysis Similar New
• Provide opinion & accompanying
report to CBI
Similar Similar (provide to
Board)
There are several similarities between the above requirements and the current SAO and AA
regimes, however we note that the definition of technical provisions is different under Solvency
II. Sources: SII Directive, Delegated Acts, ESAP2 Working Draft, CP92 11
© 2015 Deloitte
Actuarial FunctionUnderwriting Opinion
Actuarial
Function
(HoAF)
Technical
Provisions
Underwriting
Reinsurance
Risk
Management
Sources: SII Directive, Delegated Acts, ESAP2 Working Draft, CP92 12
Opinion on Underwriting Policy
• Prepare opinion on overall underwriting policy
• Assess sufficiency of premiums in totality. AA currently provides
opinion on sufficiency of new business premiums in total.
• Assess variability surrounding expected profitability and
consistency of variability with risk appetite
• Review response to changing experience
• Conclude on risk of anti-selection
• Assess consistency of the underwriting policy with other policies
• Assess consistency of underwriting assumptions with those used
for technical provisions and reinsurance
• Comment on relationship between business plan and risk
appetite
There are no requirements related to Underwriting Opinion in the current SAO regime, all of the
above requirements are therefore considered ‘New’ requirements. However, the AURR requirement
in the current SAO regime is related to the analysis underlying the Opinion on Underwriting Policy.
Most of the requirements are new under AA regime.
© 2015 Deloitte
Actuarial FunctionReinsurance Opinion
Actuarial
Function
(HoAF)
Technical
Provisions
Underwriting
Reinsurance
Risk
Management
Sources: SII Directive, Delegated Acts, ESAP2 Working Draft, CP92 13
Opinion on adequacy of reinsurance arrangements
• Prepare opinion on adequacy of reinsurance arrangements,
outlining any concerns
• Provide recommendations to improve reinsurance
arrangements, including advantages and disadvantages of
any alternatives
• Assess consistency with risk appetite, risk profile,
underwriting policy and technical provisions
• Assess credit standing of reinsurance counterparties
• Assess response under stress tests, e.g. for catastrophe
claims, risk aggregations
• Appropriateness of the calculation of amounts recoverable
from reinsurance contracts and special purpose vehicles
There are no requirements related to Reinsurance Opinion in the current SAO and AA regimes,
all of the above requirements are therefore considered ‘New’ requirements.
© 2015 Deloitte
Actuarial FunctionRisk Management
Actuarial
Function
(HoAF)
Technical
Provisions
Underwriting
Reinsurance
Risk
Management
Sources: SII Directive, Delegated Acts, ESAP2 Working Draft, CP92 14
Contribution to effective risk management system
• Description of areas of material contribution to risk management,
including contribution to risk modelling underlying calculation of
capital requirements.
• Provide recommendations for future improvements
• Opinion to the Board on range of risks and adequacy of
scenarios, including financial projections, considered as part of
each ORSA process
• FCR report currently required under AA regime
There are no requirements related to Risk Management in the current SAO regime, all of the
above requirements are therefore considered ‘New’ requirements. However, we would note
that as part of the current SAO regime, the Signing Actuary is required to consider material
risks around the best estimate of reserves.
© 2015 Deloitte
Actuarial FunctionBoard considerations
15
• Challenge of the Actuarial Function Report
• Education
− Best estimate > volatility
− Risk margin
− SCR target capital
− Capital coverage ratio on a Solvency I vs Solvency II basis
• Insights provided by the actuary
− Changes over time
− Materiality
− Presentation
− New communication challenges
© 2015 Deloitte© 2015 Deloitte
Introduction
Actuarial Function
Outsourcing the Actuarial Function
2015 Requirements
CP92 – Feedback Statement
16
© 2015 Deloitte
Outsourcing the Actuarial FunctionMaintaining responsibility
1. Key functions under Solvency II, e.g. Actuarial Function, can be outsourced in
line with the Board approved outsourcing policy.
2. Responsibility for the function cannot be outsourced and a designated person
from within the company must assume overall responsibility for the outsourced
function. This designated person will be PCF role and must:
a) Be notified to the CBI;
b) Be fit and proper as assessed by the CBI;
c) Possess sufficient knowledge and experience regarding the outsourced
function to be able to challenge the person and results.
3. This PCF should ensure close interaction with the outsourced actuarial function
in order to ensure effective oversight and challenge as required under the
guidelines.
4. Companies who currently outsource their annual reserve reviews should re-
assess their relationship with their actuarial service provider, including
ownership of the relationship, to ensure it is fit for purpose under Solvency II.
17
© 2015 Deloitte© 2015 Deloitte
Introduction
Actuarial Function
Outsourcing the Actuarial Function
2015 Requirements
CP92 – Additional Requirements
18
© 2015 Deloitte
Next StepsRequirements for 2015
• All companies are required to comply with the CBI’s preparatory guidelines from 1
January 2015.
• The CBI has confirmed that, in line with guideline 40, “an actuarial report should
be submitted by the actuarial function of a low or medium-low undertaking to the
board of directors in 2015”.
• This report should document all tasks that have been undertaken by the actuarial
function in 2015 including their results, clearly identifying any deficiencies and giving
recommendations as to how such deficiencies should be remedied.
• All areas of the actuarial function should be covered:
o Co-ordinate the calculation of Solvency II technical provisions;
o Provide an opinion on the underwriting policy;
o Provide an opinion on the adequacy of reinsurance arrangements;
o Comply with all other requirements of article 48.
19
© 2015 Deloitte
Next StepsRequirements for 2015 YE
• As at 2015 YE all companies are required to have complied with the CBI’s preparatory
guidelines regarding the Actuarial Function.
• Therefore, by 31 December 2015 it is expected that all companies will have
complied with the requirements for an Actuarial Function under Solvency II
excluding additional requirements from CP 92.
• Heads of Actuarial Function need PCF approval by 1 January 2016.
• Companies will be required to calculate Solvency II technical provisions as at 31
December 2015 as part of the Solvency II Day 1 QRT reporting with a valuation date of
31 December 2015.
• Additionally, companies will be required to provide an Statement of Actuarial opinion to
the Central Bank of Ireland under Solvency I.
20
© 2015 Deloitte© 2015 Deloitte
Introduction
Actuarial Function
Outsourcing the Actuarial Function
2015 Requirements
CP92 – Feedback Statement
21
© 2015 Deloitte
CP92 Feedback Statement 6 October 2015Key changes and clarificationsGeneral Requirements
• Outsourcing
− The CBI has clarified that the HoAF role may be outsourced for low, medium low and medium
high undertakings, but for high impact undertakings this must be an internal role.
• Role
− Some respondents queried wither the role of HoAF must be held by an actuary. The CBI has
amended the requirements to state that it expects “that the HoAF be a member of a
recognised actuarial association and have the appropriate level of experience
commensurate with the requirements of the role and the sophistication of the methodologies
and techniques appropriately employed by the undertaking.”
• ORSA
− The ORSA must address at least the following areas
• The range of risks and the adequacy of stress scenarios considered as part of the ORSA
process;
• The appropriateness of the financial projections included within the ORSA process;
• Whether the undertaking is continuously complying with the requirements
regarding the calculation of TPs and potential risks arising from the uncertainties
connected to this calculation.
− The CBI has confirmed that it won’t prescribe a form for the ORSA opinion22
© 2015 Deloitte
CP92 Feedback Statement 6 October 2015Key changes and clarifications
Actuarial Opinion on Technical Provisions
• Independence
− Respondents asked whether the HoAF should be separate from the person calculating the TPs.
The CBI has clarified that the “Actuarial Function is not excluded from calculating the TPs…”
“In cases where both calculation and validation of technical provisions is done by the actuarial
function the undertaking should have in place processes and procedures in order to avoid
conflicts of interest and ensure appropriate independence.”
• Aggregate vs LoB
− The CBI has clarified that the AOTP should be on a Solvency II Line of Business Level.
• Form of AOTP
− The CBI will issue the form of the AOTP with the final Requirements.
23
© 2015 Deloitte
CP92 Feedback Statement 6 October 2015Key changes and clarifications
Actuarial Report on Technical Provisions
• Risk Margin
− Scope of HoAF role around SCR had been unclear – wording now amended; “A description of
how the SCR, as calculated by the undertaking, has been adjusted and projected in order to
calculate the Risk Margin, including a justification of any approximation methods used in the
projection.”
• Claims Handling
− CP92 referred to “the HoAF’s opinion on the stability of the claims handling process over time”.
This has been amended to a consideration of the stability of business processes and claims
handling processes over time.
• Timing
− At least a summary of the ARTP should be provided to the Board at the same time as the
AOTPs.
Reserving Committee
• The CBI has clarified that this applies only to high impact non-life companies.
Reserving Policy
• A typo has been removed as follows: [the policy will include the] undertaking’s approach to
calculating TPs and the related objectives.24
© 2015 Deloitte
CP92 Feedback Statement 6 October 2015Key changes and clarifications
Peer Review
• ORSA
− The CBI has no plans to include the ORSA opinion within the scope of the review.
• Timing
− “The current Peer Review cycle will not recommence on implementation of these
requirements”.
• Rotation
− “Undertakings shall not commission the same Reviewing Actuary, or another actuary from the
same firm, for more than three consecutive peer reviews”.
• Independence
− “The Board of the undertaking shall be satisfied, and be in a position to demonstrate, that the
RA is appropriately independent to perform the role”.
• Independent calculations
− An independent recalculation of the TPs is not necessary but a justification should be provided if
a recalculation is not performed. ”For material non-life Lines of Business a recalculation of the
TPs is expected.”
25
© 2015 Deloitte
CP92 Feedback Statement 6 October 2015Key changes and clarification
Fitness & Probity
• The Role of the Head of the Actuarial Function (the “HoAF”) will be a PCF role and the Central Bank
is in the process of completing the due requirements to make the HoAF a PCF role.
• The CBI has commented that “where a person in situ in an insurance undertaking (on or before 31
December 2015) is performing the role of HoAF (irrespective of the title provided to that role) then,
as per the Central Bank Reform Act 2010, that person will not have to apply for approval for that
PCF role upon the commencement of the amending F&P Regulations. The Central Bank will issue
guidance regarding F&P changes under Solvency II.”.
26
© 2015 Deloitte
Standard Formula Appropriateness
Eamon Howlin, Senior Manager and
Maaz Mushir, Manager
© 2015 Deloitte© 2015 Deloitte28 Solvency II
• The undertaking should asses whether its risk profile deviates from the assumptions underlying the
Solvency II SCR calculated with the standard formula and whether these deviations are significant.
• The undertaking may as a first step perform a qualitative analysis and if that indicates that the
deviation is not significant, a quantitative assessment is not required.
Deviation from assumptions underlying the SCR calculation (EIOPA Guideline 12, CBI Guideline 15)
• Paper describing standard formula assumptions published by EIOPA
• Differences due to
‒ risks not considered and;
‒ risks that are either under or overestimated by the standard formula compared to risk profile
• Assessment process expected to include:
‒ Analysis of risk profile and why standard formula is appropriate;
‒ Analysis of sensitivity of standard formula to changes in risk profile;
‒ Assessment of the sensitivities of SCR to main parameters, including USPs;
‒ Appropriateness of standard formula parameters;
‒ Justification for simplifications;
‒ How results of standard formula are used in decision making process.
• Unlikely to directly compare SF SCR and ORSA capital e.g.
‒ may include different items, calculated on different bases, different confidence levels or different
time horizons.
Considerations
Standard Formula AppropriatenessRegulatory requirements for FLAOR/ORSA
© 2015 Deloitte
• What is EIOPA trying to achieve through asking firms to assess the
appropriateness of Standard Formula?
• Standard does not mean “one size fits all”
• What is a significant deviation?
• What if there is a significant deviation?
Solvency II
Assessing appropriateness of Standard Formula - IntroductionSF is not just a default option – it requires justification
© 2015 Deloitte
• What is a significant deviation?
Article 37 (Directive) – Capital Add-on
Following the supervisory review process supervisory authorities may in exceptional circumstances set a
capital add-on for an insurance or reinsurance undertaking by a decision stating the reasons. That
possibility shall exist only in the following cases:
• (a) the supervisory authority concludes that the risk profile of the insurance or reinsurance
undertaking deviates significantly from the assumptions underlying the Solvency
Capital Requirement, as calculated using the standard formula in accordance with Chapter
VI, Section 4, Subsection 2 and:
Article 279 (Delegated acts) – Add-ons in relation to deviations from Solvency Capital Requirement
assumptions:
‒ Where the modified Solvency Capital Requirement as calculated under Article 282(a) exceeds the Solvency
Capital Requirement as calculated under 282(b) by 10 percent or more, supervisory authorities shall
conclude that the risk profile of the insurance or reinsurance undertaking deviates significantly from the
assumptions underlying the Solvency Capital Requirement within the meaning of Article 37(1)(a) and (b) of
Directive 2009/138/EC, unless they have strong evidence that this is not the case on the basis of the
factors set out in article 276.
‒ Where the modified Solvency Capital Requirement as calculated in Article 282(a) exceeds the Solvency
Capital Requirement as calculated in 282(b) by 15 percent or more, supervisory authorities shall conclude
that the risk profile of the insurance or reinsurance undertaking deviates significantly from the assumptions
underlying the Solvency Capital Requirement within the meaning of Article 37(1)(a) and (b) of Directive
2009/138/EC.
Solvency II
Assessing appropriateness of Standard Formula - IntroductionSF is not just a default option – it requires justification
© 2015 Deloitte
Identification of all risks
Rank risks Immaterial Risks
Is the risk captured in
Standard Formula
Qualitative assessment
Is the risk quantifiable?
Quantitative Assessment
Remedial action as necessary
Reporting and documentation
Y N
Y
Y
N
N
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaFramework
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
• Key messages:
‒ Identify all risks company is exposed
to. These should already be
documented in the risk register.
‒ Identify risks that are immaterial
either individually or in combination
with other risks.
‒ Rank the remaining risks. A
qualitative approach may be taken to
rank risks, but a quantitative
approach is preferable.
Identification of all risks
Rank risks Immaterial Risks
Is the risk captured in
Standard Formula
Qualitative assessment
Is the risk quantifiable?
Quantitative Assessment
Remedial action as necessary
Reporting and documentation
Y N
Y
Y
N
N
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaFramework
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
• Key messages:
‒ Perform qualitative assessment for
all risks captured within Standard
Formula.
‒ Refer to EIOPA’s publication on
assumptions underlying the Standard
Formula to assist in identifying risks
not captured within the Standard
Formula.
‒ Qualitative assessment includes
• Relevance of data used to calibrate
SF to insurer’s risk profile
• Risk ranking
• Justification of simplifications
• Materiality considerations
• Analysis of how SF results are
used in decision making
Identification of all risks
Rank risks Immaterial Risks
Is the risk captured in
Standard Formula
Qualitative assessment
Is the risk quantifiable?
Quantitative Assessment
Remedial action as necessary
Reporting and documentation
Y N
Y
Y
N
N
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaFramework
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
• Key messages:
‒ Perform a quantitative assessment if
the qualitative assessment indicates
potential for material deviation or if
the risk is material.
‒ Quantitative assessment of risk
includes:
• Sensitivity of SF to changes in risk
profile, including risk mitigation
• Sensitivity of SF to parameter
changes
• Appropriateness of parameters,
including aggregation
• Assessing consistency of
parameters
‒ The detail of the assessment should
be proportional to the significance of
the risk (i.e. more rigour for more
significant risks).
Identification of all risks
Rank risks Immaterial Risks
Is the risk captured in
Standard Formula
Qualitative assessment
Is the risk quantifiable?
Quantitative Assessment
Remedial action as necessary
Reporting and documentation
Y N
Y
Y
N
N
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaFramework
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
• Key messages:
‒ For risks not captured within the
Standard Formula, assess whether
the risks are quantifiable.
‒ Perform quantitative assessment for
quantifiable risks.
‒ Document and manage non-
quantifiable risks.
Identification of all risks
Rank risks Immaterial Risks
Is the risk captured in
Standard Formula
Qualitative assessment
Is the risk quantifiable?
Quantitative Assessment
Remedial action as necessary
Reporting and documentation
Y N
Y
Y
N
N
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaFramework
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaExamples of indicators for inappropriateness
Life insurers Non life insurers
• Mass lapse
• Asset volatility
• Longevity risk
• Contract boundaries
• PPOs
• Reinsurance
• CAT Risk
• Concentration, default, and spread risk for sovereign bonds
• Regulatory risk
• Operational risk
• Contagion risk
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
• Zero capital charge on sovereign bonds for
‒ Concentration risk
‒ Default risk
‒ Spread risk
• Several insurers have captured this risk as part of their ORSA
• Difficult to calibrate a 1-in-200 scenario for this risk
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaExample – sovereign bonds
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
• The underlying assumptions for the operational risk module are as follows:
‒ The overall assumption in the operational risk module is that a standardised level of
risk management is present.
‒ For unit-linked businesses the characteristics are similar to those of other life
products. Therefore, the parameters will evolve in line with the life parameter.
‒ In relation to the expense volume measure for unit-linked business, it is assumed that
acquisition expenses are exclusively relating to insurance intermediaries, which do
not give rise to any operational risk.
• The main challenge is to make an assertion on these assumptions without any
benchmarking.
Standard Formula Advantages Standard Formula Limitations
• Easily understood
• Simple and easy to apply
• Cheap implementation
• Could understate capital
• Could provide a false sense of security
• Not aligned to risk profile of the
company
• Limited business applications and
benefits
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaExample – operational risk
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
Entities could build their own operational risk model incorporating any
internal controls/mitigation techniques
‒ Risk types based ORIC* or Basel groupings. ORIC risk groupings are
specific to insurers, whereas Basel risk groupings are specific to banks.
‒ Parameters based on judgements of relevant business experts
‒ Companies will need explicit assumptions regarding frequency, severity and
correlation
*Operational Risk Insurance Consortium, formed by Association of British Insurers (ABI).
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaExample – operational risk
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
• Based on the results of the
assessment companies could:
‒ Align risk profile to Standard Formula
‒ Monitor and control risks that cannot
be quantified
‒ Mitigate risk through avoidance,
transfer or diversification
‒ Address the shortcomings of
standard formula by increasing
capital targets and tolerances
(Solvency Coverage Ratio)
‒ Move to partial internal model,
internal model or undertaking specific
parameters
‒ Take additional actions based on the
outcome of the ORSA process
Identification of all risks
Rank risks Immaterial Risks
Is the risk captured in
Standard Formula
Qualitative assessment
Is the risk quantifiable?
Quantitative Assessment
Remedial action as necessary
Reporting and documentation
Y N
Y
Y
N
N
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaFramework
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
• Key messages:
‒ Full details of the assessment are not
necessary in the ORSA main report
but should be part of the ORSA
record.
‒ The process followed for assessing
appropriateness of SF, and the
results of each element of the
assessment, both qualitative and
quantitative, should to be
documented in the ORSA main
report.
‒ Documentation should include
remedial actions, if any.
‒ If relevant, highlight any particular
circumstances that could result in
significant deviations in the future.
Identification of all risks
Rank risks Immaterial Risks
Is the risk captured in
Standard Formula
Qualitative assessment
Is the risk quantifiable?
Quantitative Assessment
Remedial action as necessary
Reporting and documentation
Y N
Y
Y
N
N
Assessing appropriateness of Standard FormulaFramework
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
Solvency II Data Management
What are the sample project deliverables ?
Solvency II
Initiate Design Develop Implement Operate
Project Definition
• Scope & Objectives
• Deliverables & Quality
• Roadmap & Phasing
• Resource & Budget
Data Architecture &
Strategy
• Define Architecture
Principles
• As Is Assessment
• As Is Data Audit
Drivers/Gap Analysis
• Regulatory Translation
Directive / level 2
• Standards for Data Quality
Data Governance Model
• Organisational Design
• Roles & Responsibilities
• Governance Committees
• Governance & Control
Process
To Be
• Target Maturity Levels
• To Be Architecture
• Org & process Design
• Map High Level E2E
functional Flows
• Controls & Monitoring
definition
• System/ Tool selection
• BI Requirements & Design
Data Dictionary
• ID materiality criteria
• Prioritise data flows
Data Policy
• Governance & People
• Systems, Process &
Controls
• Reporting & Metrics
Data Lineage, Mapping &
Control & Documentation
• Map detailed data flows
• Develop Technical &
Business controls
• EUC controls
Process & People
• Develop Issue identification
and Remediation process
• Update job specifications
BI & Data Metrics
• Identify DQ Indicators
• Develop Reports / BI
Data Industrialisation
• Value chain SLAs
• DWH / ETL / DQ tools
IT & System Readiness
• SIT / UAT
• E2E Dry Run
• Integrate into up and
downstream SII process
e.g. SCR / QRT
• Testing with External
Providers
Operational Readiness
• Implement Operating
Model including Data
Function, R&R, process
and Tools
• Roll out documentation
/procedures
• Business User / Model
Office Testing
• Training & Development
Sustain
• Monitor & Control
• Review policy, process
and procedures
• Monitor SLA with external
parties
• Embed Cultural change
© 2015 Deloitte
Solvency II
The Data & IT Value Chain
Solvency II
Deloitte Solvency II Vendor Survey
© 2015 Deloitte
Solvency II - The Data Integration Challenge
How to differentiate Solvency II vendor solutions for data integration?
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte
Solvency II - The Pillar 3 Challenge
How to differentiate Solvency II vendor solutions for Pillar 3 reporting?
Solvency II
© 2015 Deloitte© 2015 Deloitte
Deloitte is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a private company limited by guarantee, and its
network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see
www.deloitte.com/ie/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its
member firms.
With nearly 2,000 people in Ireland, Deloitte provide audit, tax, consulting, and corporate finance to public and private
clients spanning multiple industries. With a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries,
Deloitte brings world-class capabilities and high-quality service to clients, delivering the insights they need to address
their most complex business challenges. With over 210,000 professionals globally, Deloitte is committed to becoming the
standard of excellence.
This publication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Deloitte Global
Services Limited, Deloitte Global Services Holdings Limited, the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein, any of their member
firms, or any of the foregoing’s affiliates (collectively the “Deloitte Network”) are, by means of this publication, rendering
accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a
substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may
affect your finances or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or
your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible
for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this publication.
© 2015 Deloitte. All rights reserved