SOLVENCY ll

INTRODUCTORY GUIDE
JUNE 2006
2 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide

Executive summary: the key questions of Solvency II

WHY DO WE NEED A NEW SOLVENCY HOW WILL SOLVENCY II DIFFER HOW WILL SOLVENCY II IMPACT…
FRAMEWORK? FROM SOLVENCY I? …policyholders?
The current Solvency I framework, in place Solvency II will be based on economic Ensuring that companies improve their
since the early 1970s, uses a simple and principles for the measurement of assets risk management practices and hold
robust model to calculate capital and liabilities. It will also be a risk-based appropriate levels of capital will give
requirements. It can be implemented at system as risk will be measured on policyholders better protection against the
low cost and delivers fairly comparable consistent principles and capital risk of company failure.
results across companies. So why do we requirements based directly on this
need a new Solvency framework? measurement. A second advantage will come from a
more efficient allocation of capital across
The answer is because the current A set of simple factors, as used for the industry, which will ultimately be
framework is too simple and does not Solvency I, cannot cope well with the reflected in reduced costs for consumers.
direct capital accurately to where the risks diversity of risks in typical insurance Increased competition and transparency
are. It has become clear that the capital portfolios. The more advanced companies should also lead to improved product
required under Solvency I is inadequately have developed sophisticated internal development and pricing.
allocated and so regulation in several models to measure the effects of adverse
countries has been strengthened, resulting events on their portfolios. Provided they …the insurance industry?
in a patchwork of rules in place across can be validated to an adequate standard, Best practices in risk management have
Europe. Lessons learned from 2002 – these models will form the basis of the developed rapidly in recent years.
2003, when financial markets fell sharply, capital assessment under Solvency II. Solvency II will provide incentives to
and from insurance company failures have Companies that do not have an internal encourage the entire industry to adopt
increased the scrutiny of both the industry model of the required standard will still be these practices. We can expect that the
and regulators on the importance of best able to use a factor-based system (the general standard of risk management will
risk management practice. ‘Standard Approach’), although it is likely steadily rise.
to be more complex than the current
system.

The aim of Solvency II is not to increase

overall levels of capital but rather to
ensure a high standard of risk assessment
and efficient capital allocation. It should
also contribute to increased transparency
and help in the development of a level
playing field across Europe.

‘Solvency ll Introductory Guide’ is co-written by the CEA (the European

Insurance Federation) and the Tillinghast business of Towers Perrin
 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 3

The European insurance industry …the European economy? CONTENTS

includes a large number of small and If the Solvency II project is executed well,
medium-sized companies which would it will not only lead to a more efficient I Insurance industry basics
face significant costs if they were required capital allocation across the insurance
to develop internal models to calculate industry, it should also lead to a better II Why is Solvency II needed?
their solvency capital requirements. The managed industry that is better placed to
proposed alternative of using a Standard fulfil its function of providing financial III Three pillars and a coherent economic
Approach will allow them to calculate stability in a risky world. More efficient framework
capital requirements with little extra cost, capital allocation leads to lower prices for
although the approach will be slightly consumers. A lower risk of company IV Frequently Asked Questions – the impact
more conservative, reflecting its failure leads to greater confidence in the of the new Solvency framework
approximate nature. industry and financial stability.
Appendix: reference material
The design and structure of the Standard Additionally, the new framework will apply
Approach is currently being assessed in uniformly across the European Union.
detail in the second Quantitative Impact Coupled with greater transparency and
Study (QIS 2) led by the Committee of improved public reporting, this should
European Insurance and Occupational help to speed the arrival of a true single
Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS). market in financial services.

THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN FIGURES

In 2004, the insurance industry in Europe comprised of more than 5,000 companies. Total
premium income amounted to €875bn, with a growth rate slightly under 6%. About 60% of
the premiums arose from life business and 40% from property and casualty business.

Companies employed more than 1 million people and it is estimated that another
1 million people are indirectly employed by the industry (eg, in distribution channels).

European markets show relatively high levels of concentration. The market share of the top
ten insurers is at least 55% in every country. In general, the smaller markets are more
concentrated.

While the number of insurers is large, the number of reinsurance companies is relatively small
(worldwide approximately 250). By their nature, reinsurance companies (the insurers of
insurance companies) operate internationally enabling them to diversify their risks better.

Europe has the largest market in the world, with a 37% share of worldwide direct premium
income, closely followed by North America with 36%, while Asia has 23%.

Insurers and reinsurers play an important role in mitigating the impact of natural catastrophes
and man-made disasters. In 2004, the insurance industry paid out about US$1.2bn of insured 1 Source: Sigma no. 1/2005 resp. no. 2/2006, Natural
catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2004 resp.
losses. In 2005, this figure soared to US$7bn mainly in respect of winter storms, floods, hail 2005, Swiss Re Publications.
storms and various man-made/engineering catastrophes1.
4 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide

l Insurance industry basics

WHAT IS INSURANCE?2 WHO OFFERS INSURANCE? WHAT ARE THE LATEST TRENDS IN THE
The idea of insurance derives from the Europe benefits from an excellent INDUSTRY?
need of individuals and businesses to geographic and product coverage. There ■ Insurance companies in the new EU
achieve economic security when faced is a wide variety of insurers which range members are attracting interest and
with risks. The first examples of insurance from stock companies, pension funds and capital from established companies
go back to the pre-Christian era in marine mutuals to multi-line companies and looking to expand.
commerce. It grew in importance with niche specialists. In general, larger
economic development in the Middle companies are active internationally while ■ Concerns about the sustainability of
Ages, the expansion of trade in the great smaller ones concentrate on a country, a state pension systems due to demographic
Italian cities, in Flanders and in the region, or a limited range of products. developments, in particular the ageing
Hanseatic cities. The insurance industry population, are driving growth in the
has strong roots in Europe: the first two Reinsurance companies also play an private sector.
professional insurance companies were important role. They provide insurance to
founded in Germany and the UK3. insurers for risks that they are unable or ■ The industry is strengthening its risk
unwilling to retain fully themselves. management practices following the
Today, insurance is common both in our Reinsurance is a global business which turbulence of financial markets in 2002
individual lives and for all industrial deploys capital across geographic and 2003.
undertakings, covering the financial boundaries and lines of business. This
consequences everything from small part of the industry also has strong roots
everyday risks to large catastrophes. On in Europe, with the three top reinsurance
the life side, insurance offers a broad companies located here.
range of savings solutions, in addition to
protection against disability or death. By
promising to pay future claims in return
for a premium today, insurers replace 2 See ‘An introduction to Reinsurance’, Swiss Re
uncertainty with certainty and stability. Technical Publishing, 2002.
Insurers enable development and growth, 3 Hamburger Feuerkasse, in 1676, and Amicable and
and are therefore a catalyst for Europe’s Perpetual Assurance, in London, in 1706.

economies.
 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 5

II Why is Solvency II needed?

The current Solvency framework,

introduced in the early 70s, defined new From Solvency I to Solvency II
capital requirements for insurers by
specifying requirements for solvency In the current Solvency I framework, many ways of assessing solvency exist which
are not always consistent and are even sometimes contradictory. Certain rules can
margins. Since then, the science of risk
also conflict with best risk management practices, eg, a company that increases its
management has progressed considerably.
non-life premiums with no changes in liabilities reduces its risk of insolvency, but its
Many large companies have now capital requirements increase.
developed sophisticated risk management
systems, both for defining required capital In Solvency II, the aim is to develop a coherent framework with consistent solvency
levels and for putting in place measures across all types of business. The framework will also take into account the
management structures to identify, quality of risk management as well as the accuracy of risk assessment.
measure and manage risk levels.

Increasingly accurate link to true risk profile

Over recent years, there has been a
progressive strengthening of insurance
regulation in some countries to address
known inadequacies, but this is being True risk profile
done in a piecemeal fashion. The time
has come for an overhaul of the system. Future
SCR* - internal models
Solvency II is an opportunity to improve SCR* - standard approach
insurance regulation by introducing:
Current
■ A risk-based system situation Rating agency models

Current Solvency l
■ An integrated approach for insurance
provisions and capital requirements
Range of solvency measures

■ A comprehensive framework for risk * Solvency Capital Requirements (SCR)

management

■ Capital requirements defined by a

standard approach or internal model

■ Recognition of diversification and risk

mitigation.
6 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide

RISK-BASED CAPITAL ALLOCATION

WHY IS DIVERSIFICATION SO CENTRAL TO THE INSURANCE BUSINESS?
A risk-based system strives to allocate
Diversification is based on the principle that not all risks will crystallise at the same moment –
capital accurately to where the risks are.
provided that the underlying sources of risk, ie, risk drivers or triggers, are independent. An
If the system is inaccurate, then
insurance company that underwrites a large number of risks is unlikely to suffer claims on all of
companies have to hold more capital
them at once. The larger the number of risks, the more likely it is that the actual level of losses will
against some risks than is necessary, thus
be close to the expected level, ie, the effect of random fluctuations reduces (the law of large
increasing the cost of insurance for
numbers).
customers. For other risks, too little
capital will be held, leading to a higher
Diversification effects occur on different levels: for example, between individual risks within a
risk of failure. Ideally, a risk-based system
portfolio, between different types of risks within a portfolio, between different geographical
will accurately measure the level of risk in
regions and between legal entities in a group company.
a portfolio, and indicate a proportionate
amount of capital, leading to the most
Thanks to diversification, the capital requirements for a whole insurance undertaking will be less
efficient use of capital possible.
than the sum of the single capital requirements when calculated for each component separately.

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR

INSURANCE PROVISIONS AND
CAPITAL MARGINS A COMPREHENSIVE RISK investment strategy, investing in high-risk
Solvency I specified capital requirements MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK assets, will obviously require more capital.
in terms of a simple set of factors to be Solvency II will not only define capital Risk management techniques, such as the
applied to technical provisions or requirements but will also require use of reinsurance and hedging, can
premiums. These defined additional companies to establish systems, processes reduce risk levels. Finally, the level of
‘solvency margins’ to be maintained over and controls for risk management. diversification within a portfolio can have
and above the technical provisions. The Companies that do this well will be a significant effect on capital
problem with this approach is that it rewarded with lower capital requirements, requirements.
usually did not consistently take into thus providing an incentive to improve.
account the strength of the provisions It is impossible to develop a simple set of
themselves, which varied widely by ASSESSING THE RISK FOR factors that accurately captures all of the
country and by product. Solvency II offers SOLVENCY CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS above effects. Many companies have
the opportunity to move to a holistic The level of risk in an insurance portfolio developed highly sophisticated computer
approach where assets and liabilities are depends on many different factors. The models to test the effects of different
valued consistently with market level of premium rates will have an effect events on their insurance portfolios.
principles. as a company writing more profitable These models can be used to calculate
products will require less capital than a how much capital is needed to withstand
company writing less profitable business. various adverse circumstances that may
The existence of options and guarantees arise. Provided that there are robust
in the product range has an effect, as procedures for ensuring the quality and
does investment policy. The degree to accuracy of such models, they provide
which assets and liabilities are matched the best available means for defining a
will have an impact on the capital capital requirement that is tailored to a
requirements, but also an aggressive particular portfolio.
 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 7

THE ‘STANDARD APPROACH’ AS AN THE PROPER RECOGNITION OF

ALTERNATIVE TO INTERNAL MODELS DIVERSIFICATION AND RISK
Not all companies have sophisticated MITIGATION
internal models which can pass the tests of Solvency I usually makes no explicit
independent review necessary for regulators allowance for diversification and risk
to rely on them. Small and medium-sized mitigation, effectively not providing any
companies may have difficulty in meeting incentive for companies to manage their
the costs of building such models. The businesses to achieve high levels of
proposed Solvency II framework will provide diversification or develop appropriate risk
an alternative ‘Standard Approach’ which mitigation strategies. Solvency II provides
can be used instead. This approach will be the opportunity to recognise both risk
risk-based and therefore follow the same mitigation and diversification effects,
principles as internal models. Its structure subject to appropriate rules about the
will be designed to achieve similar results as mobility of capital.
internal models, but will also need to
incorporate margins for conservatism to
account for the fact that it is not tailored to a
specific risk profile. Although the ‘Standard
Approach’ will be cheaper and easier to use
than an internal model, there will be a trade-
off between simplicity and conservatism
which will provide an incentive for all
companies to move to the more sophisticated
approach over time. The decision on which
option to choose will remain with the
company.
8 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide

III Three pillars and a coherent economic framework

BASEL II IS BUILT ON A THREE- WHAT ARE THE THREE PILLARS? While the first pillar focuses on
PILLAR APPROACH. IS SOLVENCY II Pillar 1 defines the financial resources quantitative requirements, Pillar 2 defines
HEADING IN THE SAME DIRECTION? that a company needs to hold in order to more qualitative requirements and
As with Basel II for the banking industry, be considered solvent. Two thresholds are supplements Pillar I. For example, it
Solvency II aims at building a new defined. The first is called the Solvency defines the framework of supervisory
regulatory framework for the insurance Capital Requirement (SCR); supervisory control, focusing attention on internal risk
sector. The three pillars developed under action will be triggered (based on rules to management processes and aspects of
Basel II provide an obvious model for be defined under Pillar II) if a company’s operational risk.
Solvency II, but the similarities are limited. resources fall below this level. The lowest
The insurance industry’s business model threshold, the Minimum Capital Pillar 3 addresses risk disclosure
is very different to that of the banks, and it Requirement (MCR) will define the level requirements. Transparency, open
is developing its own set of principles to at which the supervisory authority can information and comparability assist
take into account the insurance invoke severe measures, including closure market forces in imposing greater
specificities4. of the company to new business. The SCR discipline on the industry.
– calculated either with a relatively simple
Standard Approach or an internal model – HOW DO THE THREE PILLARS
will allow a company to withstand adverse INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER TO
4 See ‘Regulatory and market differences: issues and
observations’, The Joint Forum, Basel Committee on
circumstances, even severe ones. BUILD A COHERENT FRAMEWORK?
Banking Supervision, May 2006. It is important that the three pillars should
not overlap with each other, imposing
double layers of conservatism. Combined
with harmonisation across Europe, it is
the nature of the business and the risks
that determines solvency, and not the
location of the company.
Measurement of assets,
Supervisory review process Disclosure requirements
liabilities and capital
Reflecting the principle of coherency,
Eligible capital Internal control Current disclosure requirements: Pillar I capital requirements will capture
Technical provisions Risk management
National GAAP and adequately quantify all risks on a
Capital requirements Corporate governance
National regulatory reporting balance sheet. Pillar II will supplement
Asset valuation Stress testing
IFRS 4 Pillar I and promote good corporate risk
Risks to be included Continuity testing
IFRS 7 management. Pillar III completes the
Risk measures and Future disclosure requirements: framework by fostering market discipline
assumptions
IFRS (Phased 2 and IFRS 7) and a risk dialogue among stakeholders.
Risk dependencies
IAIS
Calculation formula
EU legislation
Internal model approach

Great Unifying Theory

PILLAR l PILLAR ll PILLAR lll

 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 9

IV Frequently Asked Questions –

the impact of the new Solvency framework

Many questions are being asked about the impact of the new framework on the industry. It is
difficult to answer all of these at this stage of the legislative process, but a lot of work is going on
to find the answers. The European Commission is currently conducting an Impact Assessment
and the CEA has launched a survey that will shed more light on some of the key topics.

WHAT WILL BE THE COST OF WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES FOR WILL THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
IMPLEMENTING SOLVENCY II? CONSUMERS? WORK FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-
A study will be needed to quantify the The main advantage will come in the form SIZED COMPANIES?
costs of implementing the new framework of better protection against the risk of Small and medium-sized companies
and this has not yet been done. Some failure, by ensuring that the capital held is would face significant costs if they were all
companies already have the systems and appropriate for the risks undertaken and required to develop internal models to the
processes in place to implement it easily, also by promoting better risk management standard required for external validation.
but for others there will undoubtedly be a practices. However, the proposed dual track, with
cost. The Standard Approach will allow the option to use the Standard Approach,
those companies to become compliant A second advantage will come from a allows them to implement the framework
without a large outlay in terms of systems more efficient allocation of capital across in stages.
and processes, although, by being slightly the industry which will ultimately be
more conservative than internal models, reflected in reduced costs for consumers. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR TO
there may be a ‘cost’ in terms of needing ASSESS THE IMPACT OF SOLVENCY
more capital if they are writing high-risk Finally, improved product development II AND PREPARE THE INDUSTRY?
business. and pricing will be fostered by increased CEIOPS, the main consultative body to the
competition and transparency. Commission involved in the development
On the other hand, it could be argued that of Solvency II, is currently in the middle of
the costs of developing best practice WILL THE ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK the Quantitative Impact Study 2 (QIS 2).
systems and processes should be treated BE APPROPRIATE FOR ALL Under this study, a wide selection of
as independent of Solvency II and as part EUROPEAN COUNTRIES? insurance companies are being asked to
of usual business development. Because the proposed framework is calculate the effects of various proposals
Companies that do not invest in such based on economic principles, it will for Pillars I and II on their own business.
systems and processes may struggle to be apply anywhere in the EU. A precondition This has a dual purpose. Firstly, it provides
competitive and attract capital because for an efficient single market in insurance valuable data which is needed to calibrate
their current systems are not risk-based is that the same supervisory standards – the new system. Secondly, and perhaps
and allow inefficient capital management. including solvency requirements – are more importantly, it raises awareness
applied consistently in all countries. among insurance companies about the
likely form of Solvency II and helps them to
start their preparations for its introduction.
10 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide

In parallel, the European Commission has

started work on the Impact Assessment to THE INDUSTRY HAS VOICED STRONG SUPPORT FOR A SOLVENCY II FRAMEWORK WHICH AIMS TO:
accompany the draft Directive. Impacts to ■ Enable institutions to absorb significant unforeseen losses and give confidence to policyholders
be considered are on the overall economy (Framework for Consultation on Solvency II)
and financial stability, on insurance
undertakings and supervisory authorities, ■ Give an incentive to the supervised institutions to measure and properly manage their risks
on insurance products and markets and, (Framework for Consultation on Solvency II)
finally, on end-users. Several stakeholders
like CEIOPS, CEA and AISAM/ACME ■ Contribute to a better managed and more competitive insurance industry that can better
(Association Internationale des Sociétés perform its key function of accepting and spreading risk (Commissioner McCreevy)
d’Assurance Mutuelle/Association of
European Cooperative and Mutual ■ Encourage a single European market for financial services
Insurers) have been invited to contribute. (European Union Lisbon Strategy 2000)

WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE

POTENTIAL OF SOLVENCY II?
A large number of different parties from WILL SOLVENCY II HAVE AN IMPACT Concerns have been raised about the
many countries have to agree on the ON THE INVESTMENT BEHAVIOUR possibility that Solvency II could change
shape of Solvency II. The need to achieve OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY? companies’ investment patterns, perhaps
agreement often brings with it the need to Potentially, yes. Insurance companies are triggering large and rapid shifts between
compromise. However, it is important to important investors in the financial asset classes and depressing markets. It
stay faithful to the principle of a coherent markets. By introducing a risk-based is not yet clear that Solvency II will alter
economic approach. If this is substituted system, Solvency II puts emphasis on the the attractiveness of any particular asset
by a mixed model lacking coherence importance of proper asset and liability class, but if it does, this will need to be
between the various jurisdictions, the management. Solvency II should provide addressed by raising awareness early and
original objectives set for the Solvency II incentives to invest in assets that suit the by fostering careful preparation of the
project will not be met. underlying risks. For example, a portfolio industry for the implementation of the
with long-term liabilities can reduce its framework.
A mixed model can easily incorporate capital requirements by investing in
double-counting of risk, which in turn longer-term assets.
increases costs for insurer and
customers. Another issue is that when
capital requirements depart from
economic principles, arbitrage
opportunities are created. For example,
companies will seek to avoid onerous
capital requirements by moving risk
offshore and thus distorting the market.
 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 11

Appendix: reference material

Solvency II projects timeline ■ Solutions to major issues for Solvency II

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 – joint submission by the CRO Forum and
CEA: raises six issues that appear crucial
for the development of the Solvency II
regulatory framework. Among others, top
Directive Development Directive Adoption? Implementation?
(Council and Parliament) (Member States) priority is given to the question of the
(Commission)
valuation of the insurance liabilities.
Solutions developed in this paper are
CEIOPS work on Pillar I partly elaborated in other documents
CEIOPS work
on implementing measures listed below, eg, in relation to the
CEIOPS work on
European Standard Approach (ESA).
Pillars Il and IIl

■ Working documents on the European

QIS 1 QIS 2 Further QIS Standard Approach – Life and Non-Life
Standard Approach: CEA has developed a
preliminary European Standard Approach
Internet resources ■ CEA Building Blocks on Solvency II: (ESA) to calculate the Solvency Capital
www.cea.assur.org with link to the National following-up on the Paper on Structural Requirements beyond Solvency II Pillar I.
Associations websites Issues, this document describes the The ESA aims at capturing the
industry’s view on the underlying general requirements of a consistent risk-based
www.ceiops.org the official website of principles and the building blocks of the approach based on a total balance-sheet.
CEIOPS overall Solvency II framework, and more The relevant axes of the ESA are
specifically related to the standard presented in this technical document.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/ approach SCR.
insurance/solvency2/index_en.htm the ■ Working document on the Cost of
official website of the European ■ Glossary of Solvency II terminology: Capital: technical document presenting a
Commission, DG Internal Market a useful reference document to get a workable approach to the calculation of a
definition for all concepts used in the risk margin based on the cost of capital
CEA’s information material and position Solvency II context. approach (solution integrated into the
papers (all available under European Standard Approach – ESA). The
www.cea.assur.org) ■ CEA’s Comments on the CEIOPS’ Draft risk margin is a key component for the
Answers to the ‘Second Wave’ of calls for market-consistent valuation of liabilities in
■ Comparative Study of Existing Solvency advice: focus is given on questions related the context of a total balance sheet
Assessment Models: factual overview and to both Pillar I – Financial Resources and approach.
comparison of a number of prevailing Pillar II – Supervisory Review.
solvency assessment models, jointly ■ CEA Comments on CEIOPS draft paper
produced by CEA and Mercer Oliver Wyman. ■ CEA’s Comments on the CEIOPS’ Draft on QIS 2 technical specifications:
Answers to the ‘Third Wave’ of calls for technical document providing support for
■ Political/Structural Issues on the advice: focus is given mostly on questions the participants of the second Quantitative
Solvency II Project: this position paper related to Pillar II – Supervisory Review. Impact Assessment.
outlines the main structural questions
underlying Solvency II, eg, in relation to
the assessment of acceptable level of
capital, the role of the MCR, etc.
About CEA About Towers Perrin & Tillinghast
CEA is the European insurance and reinsurance federation. CEA’s 33 Towers Perrin is a global professional services firm that helps
national member associations represent more than 5,000 insurance and organisations around the world optimise performance through effective
reinsurance companies. Insurance makes a major contribution to Europe’s people, risk and financial management. The firm provides innovative
economic growth and development. European insurers generate premium solutions to client issues in the areas of human resource strategy, design
income of €970bn, employ over one million people and invest more than and management; actuarial and management consulting to the financial
€6,300bn in the economy. services industry; and reinsurance intermediary services.

Gérard de La Martinière CEA President The firm has served large organisations in both the private and public
Email: g.delamartiniere@ffsa.fr sectors for 70 years. Our clients include three-quarters of the world’s 500
largest companies and three-quarters of the Fortune 1000 US companies.
Eric Fischer CEA Acting Director General Towers Perrin has offices in 25 countries.
Email: Fischer@cea.assur.org
Our businesses include Tillinghast, HR Services and Reinsurance.
Jos Streppel Chairman of CEA Economics and Finance Committee
Email: Jos.Streppel@aegon.com The Tillinghast business of Towers Perrin provides global actuarial and
management consulting to insurance and financial services companies
Olav Jones Chairman of CEA Solvency II Steering Group and advises other organisations on risk financing and self-insurance. We
Email: Olav.Jones@fortis.com help our clients with issues related to mergers, acquisitions and
restructuring; financial and regulatory reporting; risk, capital and value
Secretariat Project Team: +32 2 547 58 14 management; products, markets and distribution; and financial modelling
software solutions.
Patricia Plas Director Economics and Finance
Email: Plas@cea.assur.org Steve Taylor-Gooby
Email: steve.taylor-gooby@towersperrin.com
Benoît Malpas Manager Economics and Finance Peter Wright
Email: Malpas@cea.assur.org Email: peter.wright@towersperrin.com

Jérôme Berset Solvency II Project Team Santiago Arechaga

Email: Berset@cea.assur.org Email: santiago.arechaga@towersperrin
Michael Kluettgens
Comité Européen des Assurances Email: michael.kluettgens@towersperrin.com
Square de Meeûs 29 Naren Persad
B-1000 Brussels Email: naren.persad@towersperrin.com
Publication: Brussels Ming Roest
June 2006 Email: ming.roest@towersperrin.com

© 2006 Towers Perrin, CEA