EIOPA consults on the review of contract boundaries
a cura di Silvia Dell’Acqua

Set 12 2021
EIOPA consults on the review of contract boundaries a cura di Silvia Dell’Acqua

Contract boundaries determine the premiums and obligations that belong to the contract, considering rights and risks for the undertakings. While carrying out the revision process of SII during 2020, EIOPA realized that insurers and supervisors are adopting several divergent practices regarding their concept, the unbundling, and the discernible effect. EIOPA aims at fixing this lack of convergence by introducing new guidelines and by amending the existing ones, that lack of clarity.

For this reason, last 11 June 2021 EIOPA published a consultation paper on the revision of the guidelines on contract boundaries, together with an information request to assess the ensuing quantitative impacts. Although EIOPA has already conducted an initial analysis of costs and benefits, it believes that additional data is needed to properly measure the impact of the proposals. Comments under the form of a survey shall be answered by next 12th of November 2021. The contributions received and a Final Report will be made available at the end of the public consultation period; EIOPA will then submit the Guidelines for adoption by its Board of Supervisors.

These are the Guidelines suggested

  • Guideline 0 – Contract boundaries [new]

contract boundaries should not be considered as a single point in time, but rather as a boundary between premiums and obligations that do or do not belong to the contract. In most of the cases, they belong to the contract, as they reflect the right to keep the premium and the obligation to cover the risk for the undertaking, while just under very specific circumstances they do not, as for instance in contracts that can be cancelled by either party during a limited period.

  • Guideline 5 – Unbundling of the contract [amendment]

undertakings should assess whether it is possible to unbundle a contract at recognition date and check if it that is still the case at each following valuation date. When a contract is considered “insurance”, all the unbundled parts are “insurance” too. A contract can be unbundled if and only if two (or more) parts of it are equivalent in terms of risk to two (or more) contracts that could be sold separately. The unbundling is not possible in case of material (inter)dependency, but it must be applied otherwise. It follows that a UL contract with a death benefit guarantee that covers the maximum between a fixed amount (sum insured) and the value of the fund cannot be unbundled, as the mortality risk depends on the UL fund, while a contract with two parts (general account and UL), where the policyholder chooses the percentage of premium allocated to each part, shall be unbundled, as it shows a dependency at the level of premium only, without any discernible difference in terms of insurance or financial risk.

The revised guidance (unbundling when the parts of the contract could be sold separately) is simpler to implement compared to the existing one, requiring the unbundling in fewer cases. It is also closer to IFRS17, which considers contracts as units, not requiring the unbundling of insurance obligations. Contracts unbundled / not unbundled under this approach that were previously not unbundled / unbundled should lead to a decrease/ increase in the OF (Own Funds) of the undertakings. The application of the revised guidance is not expected to have a material impact, being consistent with the approach currently followed in most of the jurisdictions.

Whereases, the correct application of the existing guidance (unbundling when the cash flows of the contract can be allocated to each part of the contract) could have a material impact on the market, leading to unbundle several products that are currently not unbundled. It would also lead in some cases to the unbundling of cash flows that shall not be unbundled, as they cannot exist separately. An example is given by contracts where both parts always lapse at the same time: different contract boundaries for each part would turn into different durations for the projections. Besides, it could make the allocation of expenses to each part of the contract harder than it should be. By using the data provided in the QRTs, EIOPA has already derived a rough estimate of a maximum impact in terms of OF (Own Funds): unbundling a UL product is expected to shorter its duration and reduce its profit; the impact has been guessed by looking at the ratios EPIFP / TP of jurisdiction with shorter contract boundaries. The reduction in OF is expected to vary from less than 5% (in most of the Member States) up to 20%.

  • Guideline 6 – Identification of a discernible effect on the economics of a contract [deleted] Guideline 6a/b – Identification of a financial guarantee of benefits / of a coverage for a specified uncertain event that adversely affects the insured person with a discernible effect on the economics of a contract [new]

a financial guarantee / coverage has a discernible effect on the economics of a contract only when linked to the payment of future premiums, providing the policyholder with a discernible financial advantage. The assessment, that can be either qualitative or quantitative (still the supervisory authorities may require the quantitative one), should compare the present value of the expected cash flows of the contract with and without the financial guarantee / coverage and should appraise when the difference is discernible. The analysis should be made at product level when contract specific features, such as the age of the policyholder, play a role. A stochastic valuation is necessary to properly consider the time value of the option: 0.5% over the value of all future obligations is not considered to be discernible, while 2.0% is. For what concerns the qualitive assessment, consideration on the moneyness of the financial guarantee can be made, such as comparisons between the sum insured for the cover can and the principal of the contract or the price of the cover and the annual investment management fees charged to the policyholder.

Guideline 6c – Reassessment of the discernible effect of a cover or financial guarantee [new]

contract boundaries are expected to remain constant, however, changes in the contract terms or the relevant external environment that may affect contract boundaries should trigger a reassessment. Obviously, to ensure coherency in the evaluation, contract boundaries should remain constant through all the scenarios of the stochastic valuation, as well as in the stressed scenarios adopted for the SCR calculation. In case they needed to be reviewed, the undertaking should report the material change to the supervisory authority and include it in the annual report, with a detailed description of the reassessment and its impact on the solvency position. Two give two examples: a financial guarantee that affects all the premiums of the contract as a whole (e.g. terminal bonus) shall not be reassessed, while a financial guarantee that is independent for each premium (e.g. a guaranteed annual interest rate where the guarantee starts with each premium paid) shall be.

Reference:

“Consultation paper on the revision of the guidelines on contract boundaries”, EIOPA-BoS-21/301, 11/06/2021

Il termometro dei mercati finanziari (10 Settembre 2021)
a cura di Emilio Barucci e Daniele Marazzina

Set 12 2021
Il termometro dei mercati finanziari (10 Settembre 2021) a cura di Emilio Barucci e Daniele Marazzina

L’iniziativa di Finriskalert.it “Il termometro dei mercati finanziari” vuole presentare un indicatore settimanale sul grado di turbolenza/tensione dei mercati finanziari, con particolare attenzione all’Italia.

Significato degli indicatori

  • Rendimento borsa italiana: rendimento settimanale dell’indice della borsa italiana FTSEMIB;
  • Volatilità implicita borsa italiana: volatilità implicita calcolata considerando le opzioni at-the-money sul FTSEMIB a 3 mesi;
  • Future borsa italiana: valore del future sul FTSEMIB;
  • CDS principali banche 10Ysub: CDS medio delle obbligazioni subordinate a 10 anni delle principali banche italiane (Unicredit, Intesa San Paolo, MPS, Banco BPM);
  • Tasso di interesse ITA 2Y: tasso di interesse costruito sulla curva dei BTP con scadenza a due anni;
  • Spread ITA 10Y/2Y : differenza del tasso di interesse dei BTP a 10 anni e a 2 anni;
  • Rendimento borsa europea: rendimento settimanale dell’indice delle borse europee Eurostoxx;
  • Volatilità implicita borsa europea: volatilità implicita calcolata sulle opzioni at-the-money sull’indice Eurostoxx a scadenza 3 mesi;
  • Rendimento borsa ITA/Europa: differenza tra il rendimento settimanale della borsa italiana e quello delle borse europee, calcolato sugli indici FTSEMIB e Eurostoxx;
  • Spread ITA/GER: differenza tra i tassi di interesse italiani e tedeschi a 10 anni;
  • Spread EU/GER: differenza media tra i tassi di interesse dei principali paesi europei (Francia, Belgio, Spagna, Italia, Olanda) e quelli tedeschi a 10 anni;
  • Euro/dollaro: tasso di cambio euro/dollaro;
  • Spread US/GER 10Y: spread tra i tassi di interesse degli Stati Uniti e quelli tedeschi con scadenza 10 anni;
  • Prezzo Oro: quotazione dell’oro (in USD)
  • Spread 10Y/2Y Euro Swap Curve: differenza del tasso della curva EURO ZONE IRS 3M a 10Y e 2Y;
  • Euribor 6M: tasso euribor a 6 mesi.

I colori sono assegnati in un’ottica VaR: se il valore riportato è superiore (inferiore) al quantile al 15%, il colore utilizzato è l’arancione. Se il valore riportato è superiore (inferiore) al quantile al 5% il colore utilizzato è il rosso. La banda (verso l’alto o verso il basso) viene selezionata, a seconda dell’indicatore, nella direzione dell’instabilità del mercato. I quantili vengono ricostruiti prendendo la serie storica di un anno di osservazioni: ad esempio, un valore in una casella rossa significa che appartiene al 5% dei valori meno positivi riscontrati nell’ultimo anno. Per le prime tre voci della sezione “Politica Monetaria”, le bande per definire il colore sono simmetriche (valori in positivo e in negativo). I dati riportati provengono dal database Thomson Reuters. Infine, la tendenza mostra la dinamica in atto e viene rappresentata dalle frecce: ↑,↓, ↔  indicano rispettivamente miglioramento, peggioramento, stabilità rispetto alla rilevazione precedente.

Disclaimer: Le informazioni contenute in questa pagina sono esclusivamente a scopo informativo e per uso personale. Le informazioni possono essere modificate da finriskalert.it in qualsiasi momento e senza preavviso. Finriskalert.it non può fornire alcuna garanzia in merito all’affidabilità, completezza, esattezza ed attualità dei dati riportati e, pertanto, non assume alcuna responsabilità per qualsiasi danno legato all’uso, proprio o improprio delle informazioni contenute in questa pagina. I contenuti presenti in questa pagina non devono in alcun modo essere intesi come consigli finanziari, economici, giuridici, fiscali o di altra natura e nessuna decisione d’investimento o qualsiasi altra decisione deve essere presa unicamente sulla base di questi dati.

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK of 7 September 2021

Set 12 2021

On 29 June 2021 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the European Parliament for
an opinion on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as regards
corporate sustainability reporting…

https://www.ecb.europa.eu//pub/pdf/other/en_con_2021_27_f_sign~f10c2b1e66..pdf

ESAS HIGHLIGHT RISKS IN PHASING OUT OF CRISIS MEASURES AND CALL ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO ADAPT TO INCREASING CYBER RISKS

Set 12 2021

The three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA – ESAs) issued today their second joint risk assessment report for 2021. The report highlights the increasing vulnerabilities across the financial sector, the rise seen in terms of cyber risk and the materialisation of event-driven risks…

https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esas-highlight-risks-in-phasing-out-crisis-measures-and-call-financial

Il termometro dei mercati finanziari (3 Settembre 2021)
a cura di Emilio Barucci e Daniele Marazzina

Set 04 2021
Il termometro dei mercati finanziari (3 Settembre 2021) a cura di Emilio Barucci e Daniele Marazzina

L’iniziativa di Finriskalert.it “Il termometro dei mercati finanziari” vuole presentare un indicatore settimanale sul grado di turbolenza/tensione dei mercati finanziari, con particolare attenzione all’Italia.

Significato degli indicatori

  • Rendimento borsa italiana: rendimento settimanale dell’indice della borsa italiana FTSEMIB;
  • Volatilità implicita borsa italiana: volatilità implicita calcolata considerando le opzioni at-the-money sul FTSEMIB a 3 mesi;
  • Future borsa italiana: valore del future sul FTSEMIB;
  • CDS principali banche 10Ysub: CDS medio delle obbligazioni subordinate a 10 anni delle principali banche italiane (Unicredit, Intesa San Paolo, MPS, Banco BPM);
  • Tasso di interesse ITA 2Y: tasso di interesse costruito sulla curva dei BTP con scadenza a due anni;
  • Spread ITA 10Y/2Y : differenza del tasso di interesse dei BTP a 10 anni e a 2 anni;
  • Rendimento borsa europea: rendimento settimanale dell’indice delle borse europee Eurostoxx;
  • Volatilità implicita borsa europea: volatilità implicita calcolata sulle opzioni at-the-money sull’indice Eurostoxx a scadenza 3 mesi;
  • Rendimento borsa ITA/Europa: differenza tra il rendimento settimanale della borsa italiana e quello delle borse europee, calcolato sugli indici FTSEMIB e Eurostoxx;
  • Spread ITA/GER: differenza tra i tassi di interesse italiani e tedeschi a 10 anni;
  • Spread EU/GER: differenza media tra i tassi di interesse dei principali paesi europei (Francia, Belgio, Spagna, Italia, Olanda) e quelli tedeschi a 10 anni;
  • Euro/dollaro: tasso di cambio euro/dollaro;
  • Spread US/GER 10Y: spread tra i tassi di interesse degli Stati Uniti e quelli tedeschi con scadenza 10 anni;
  • Prezzo Oro: quotazione dell’oro (in USD)
  • Spread 10Y/2Y Euro Swap Curve: differenza del tasso della curva EURO ZONE IRS 3M a 10Y e 2Y;
  • Euribor 6M: tasso euribor a 6 mesi.

I colori sono assegnati in un’ottica VaR: se il valore riportato è superiore (inferiore) al quantile al 15%, il colore utilizzato è l’arancione. Se il valore riportato è superiore (inferiore) al quantile al 5% il colore utilizzato è il rosso. La banda (verso l’alto o verso il basso) viene selezionata, a seconda dell’indicatore, nella direzione dell’instabilità del mercato. I quantili vengono ricostruiti prendendo la serie storica di un anno di osservazioni: ad esempio, un valore in una casella rossa significa che appartiene al 5% dei valori meno positivi riscontrati nell’ultimo anno. Per le prime tre voci della sezione “Politica Monetaria”, le bande per definire il colore sono simmetriche (valori in positivo e in negativo). I dati riportati provengono dal database Thomson Reuters. Infine, la tendenza mostra la dinamica in atto e viene rappresentata dalle frecce: ↑,↓, ↔  indicano rispettivamente miglioramento, peggioramento, stabilità rispetto alla rilevazione precedente.

Disclaimer: Le informazioni contenute in questa pagina sono esclusivamente a scopo informativo e per uso personale. Le informazioni possono essere modificate da finriskalert.it in qualsiasi momento e senza preavviso. Finriskalert.it non può fornire alcuna garanzia in merito all’affidabilità, completezza, esattezza ed attualità dei dati riportati e, pertanto, non assume alcuna responsabilità per qualsiasi danno legato all’uso, proprio o improprio delle informazioni contenute in questa pagina. I contenuti presenti in questa pagina non devono in alcun modo essere intesi come consigli finanziari, economici, giuridici, fiscali o di altra natura e nessuna decisione d’investimento o qualsiasi altra decisione deve essere presa unicamente sulla base di questi dati.

Trends and risks of the Italian financial system amid the pandemic: Evidence from CONSOB Report
a cura di CONSOB, Research Department

Set 04 2021
Trends and risks of the Italian financial system amid the pandemic: Evidence from CONSOB Report a cura di CONSOB, Research Department

CONSOB has published the Report “Trends and risks of the Italian financial system in a comparative perspective” (https://www.consob.it/web/consob-and-its-activities/report-trends-risks). The report analyses the macroeconomic outlook in the context of the crisis triggered by the pandemic, trends recorded in financial markets in the first half of 2021, and the main vulnerabilities in corporate and banking sectors subsequent to the health emergency. It also included a focus on the development of sustainable finance and a focus on crypto assets.

After a very difficult year, recovery is expected to be robust in 2021 conditional on the completion of the vaccination campaigns.

During the first half of 2021, in developed countries the progresses in Covid-19 vaccination campaigns, the loosening of anti-pandemic restrictions, and the policies measures adopted to counter the crisis helped restore confidence in the improvement of economic situation. In spite of the spread of the Delta variant, which has fuelled renewed uncertainty, economic activity is expected to recover over the year, albeit to different degrees across areas and countries. In the Eurozone, whose growth is estimated to be lower than global growth (4.3% in 2021 with respect to 5.8% at global level), Italian GDP is expected to return to its pre-crisis levels only in 2022, after Germany and France (with an expected GDP growth equal in 2021 to 4.5%, 3.3% and 5.8% respectively). The pandemic triggered risk factors that add to pre-existing vulnerabilities. In particular, domestic fiscal policies to support the economic activity led to a significant deterioration in public finances. In addition, both household and corporate debt rose. In Italy, the ratio of public debt to GDP is expected to reach a level significantly higher compared to the Eurozone average at the end of 2021 (159% and 102%, respectively), while the ratio of private debt to GDP, although on the rise, at the end of 2020 remains well below the average values observed in other countries.

Financial markets are easing recovery, while the crisis heightened vulnerabilities of NFCs and posed risks to bank asset quality.

In the first half of the year, equity indices marked a substantial recovery in the major advanced economies, although uneven across geographical areas and sectors. Both the EuroStoxx50 in the Eurozone and the S&P500 in the US recovered the losses incurred during the market turmoil due to pandemic (+14%), while the FTSE100 in the UK (+9%) remains below its pre-crisis levels. In Italy, over the first semester of the year the FTSEMib rose by 14 percentage points, similarly to the Dax30 and less than the Cac40 (+18%). Comparable trends were experienced by small cap indexes, whose growth in the same period ranged between 11% in France and slightly more than 29% in Italy. The recovery was heterogeneous across industries, with banking, manufacturing and oil&gas sectors experiencing the most robust growth (respectively, +24%, +19% and +17%). In the euro area, signs of a potential misalignment between market valuations and the fundamental values of listed companies can be detected, being less marked in the banking sector compared to the non-financial sector as well as less pronounced in Italy compared to that estimated for the Eurozone.

As for non-equity markets, both primary and secondary markets of sovereign bonds keep experiencing tranquil conditions. In Italy, in the first half of 2021 issues amounted to about 10% of total debt, with a proportion maturing within 12 months equal to 36% of the total issues. Italian government bond auctions kept recording a demand significantly higher than supply, while the 10-year BTP yield has remained close to or below 1% since September 2020. With regard to corporate debt securities, in 2020 net issuances of bank bonds fell to zero, reaching the lowest level of the decade, while those of non-financial companies remained at positive levels. On the secondary market low yields continue to prevail, although on the rise with respect to the end of 2020.

Due to pandemic, over 2020 European large non-financial listed companies recorded a sharp drop in revenues and, overall, a worsening in income and financial conditions. As a consequence, vulnerabilities of major listed firms heightened compared to the previous year. The share of companies with declining income and worsening financial indicators compared to their ten-year average has in fact increased. Overall, the most resilient large companies in terms of income, leverage and liquidity represent less than 4% of the total in Italy and less than 5% in Europe. These developments have left unchanged the relative ranking of Italian firms, which over 2011-2020 recorded on average an operating income steadily lower compared to their peers in the UK, France and Germany and a leverage higher on average than English and French companies.

During 2020, banks in major European countries experienced a decline in income margins due to both the persistent low interest rate environment and the declining operating efficiency. On the other hand, capital adequacy of European institutions, and Italian banks in particular, strengthened recording an increase in the core tier 1 ratio of around two percentage points compared to 2019. Credit quality has also improved. For major Italian banks the ratio of non-performing loans to the total fell from 7% to 4%, as a consequence of significant loan sales. However, banks remain exposed to the risk of a deterioration in asset quality, due to the weak economic environment, especially with respect to exposures to sectors hit hard by the crisis. As for Italian banks, just over 50% of loans granted to the private sector relate to firms operating in industries relatively more hit by the economic effects of the pandemic, such as trade and transport, arts and leisure activities, accommodation and food services. This figure is in line with that of French banks (49%) and lower than that of Germany (39%).

Household precautionary savings and liquidity rose, amid an accelerating interest in crypto assets.

Between 2019 and 2020, the gross savings rate of Italian households, while remaining below the Eurozone average, experienced a sharp increase (from 10% to 18%) that should only be partially reabsorbed in the current year. Thanks also to the dynamics of stock and bond prices recorded in the financial markets in the second and third quarters of 2020, the net wealth of Italian households grew, although remaining below figures for Germany and France. As for the composition of financial assets, the weight of liquidity increased, which at the end of 2020 recorded a YoY change at its highest level since 2015 (+7%), in line with the dynamics observed in the euro area. At the end of 2020, liquid assets in portfolio of Italian households amounted to more than €1,500 billion, equivalent to about 91% of GDP and 2.5 times the total capitalisation of the MTA and AIM Italy (€600 billion and €6 billion respectively). The analysis of both the gross saving rate and the liquidity to financial assets ratio over 2015-2020 shows that Italy and Spain lag behind other countries, as they show a lower saving rate and a higher weight of liquidity than the Eurozone average.

Trading activity on financial instruments by Italian retail investors has intensified from 2020 onwards, particularly in equities and mutual funds. In March 2020 alone, while equity markets were experiencing severe turbulence due to the health emergency, the amount of net stock purchases hit about €3 billion, compared to the 2019 monthly average of net sales amounting to €470 million.

In recent years, interest in crypto assets has grown significantly, especially among the youngest, as shown by available data on the number and age distribution of users globally. In particular, in 2021, the prices of cryptocurrencies rose significantly, including Bitcoin, which has the largest market share in terms of total capitalisation. Similarly to all cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is characterised by a very high marked volatility, which is significantly higher than that of traditional investment options. A further critical issue is related to the way cryptocurrencies are traded and the underlying technologies. Some estimates for 2019 quantify the economic impact of fraud and cyber-attacks involving crypto assets at $4.5 billion, up sharply from the previous two years. In addition, available statistics on 479 digital exchanges show that less than 30 can be considered very reliable in terms of quality of the information published and only seven obtain a very positive assessment in terms of cybersecurity. Since mid-2020, a new area has been developing known as Decentralised Finance (DeFi), based on infrastructures that use blockchain technology and smart contracts to create and exchange financial products and services linked to crypto assets, without involving traditional intermediaries and centralised infrastructures. As shown by available data, the total value of assets locked (used as a growth indicator) jumped from $16.5 billion at the end of 2020 to more than $59 billion at the end of June 2021. Evidence on the top 10 DeFi infrastructures (accounting for 95% of the total value locked as of 21 July 2021) shows that lending activities are predominant.

The crisis is boosting sustainable finance and digitalisation, among the main pillars of the NGEU. Transition to a sustainable development model is a top priority in the agenda of policy makers. One of the pillars of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the main instrument of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) programme, is green transition, as at least 37% of expenditure has to be related to climate and other environmental objectives. In addition, as part of the announced diversified financing strategy on the capital market of NGEU, the European Commission announced that at least 30% of the total bond issues will be green bonds. This measure will help boost the market of green bonds, whose issuance in the first half of 2021 more than doubled compared to the same period last year, thanks to sovereign issuers. Within such framework, Europe has long played a leading role, with new bond issues accounting for around 60% of the global aggregate as of June 2021. Italy, whose contribution remains lower than that of the major European countries, nevertheless shows a considerable increase. Europe is also a major contributor to the development of the ESG fund sector: as of March 2021, there were some 3,500 European funds, with total assets amounting to more than €1,600 billion (over 80% of the global figure). A similar trend can be observed in Italy, where at the end of the first quarter of 2021 the number of ESG funds stood at 1,210 (517 at the end of 2020), while the assets promoted reached €276 million (81 at the end of 2020). Sustainability is of great importance for the banking system too. In response to regulatory and supervisory pressures, banks are called upon to assess their exposure to sectors vulnerable to physical and transition risk, which are linked respectively to climate changes and to possible corrections in market values of assets triggered, for example, by restrictive regulation hitting sectors with higher levels of CO2 emissions. Data available at the end of 2020 show that, among the largest euro area countries, Spanish and Italian banks have the highest absolute exposures to companies vulnerable to risks related to extreme climate events, while in the Eurozone overall lending to companies operating in sectors with higher CO2 emission levels accounts for about 47% of total loans to non-financial companies.

Authors:

Nadia Linciano (coordinator), Valeria Caivano, Daniela Costa, Francesco Fancello, Monica Gentile[1]


[1] CONSOB, Research Department. Opinions are the authors’ personal views and are in no way binding on CONSOB.