Insurance Own Risk and Solvency Assessment

8/18/2019 Insurance Own Risk and Solvency Assessment

1/16

Own Risk andSolvency

AssessmentPutting an ORSA into practice

March 2014


2/16

Introduction

MAS Notice 126 on Enterprise Risk

Management (ERM) was releasedin April 2013. Included within thiswas the introduction of an Own Risk

and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)for insurers in Singapore. Insurers

have since been busy assessing the

requirements and enhancing theirERM activities. While in 2013 the

main focus was on ERM compliance,we have also seen insurers making

enhancements in areas such as:

• Increasing the frequency of their risk identication

processes and an increase in the resulting level of detail

produced for risk reporting

• Developing a more consistent risk prole reporting

mechanism through more complete risk parameters

• Aligning their risk classication systems with the

MAS’ risk types to ensure completeness and facilitate the

assessment of key relationships between material risks

• Revisiting their key risk indicators to ensure they match

the material risks and ensuring that the indicators are

monitored in the business

• Enhancing their risk management framework

documentation (such as an overarching risk managementframework, a risk management policy and risk reporting)

• Updating the terms of references for the risk committees

to reect their new responsibilities and updating the job

descriptions of employees affected by these developments

(e.g. the risk ofcer, rst line risk owners and so on)

• Developing an appropriate risk management strategy

and risk preferences aligned to their corporate objectives

• Enhancing their risk appetite and tolerance statements to

align with their material risks and developing metrics / limits

to cascade and report back to key risk committees and the

Board

• Assessing emerging risks that the business may be

exposed to in the future for escalation

• Extending their ERM activities to include all entities within

the group

• Increasing resources devoted to risk management,

particularly in the risk management function

• Undertaking Board and company-wide workshop

sessions to cascade the knowledge of these developments

throughout the organisation

2 Own Risk and Solvency Assessment

© 2014 KPMG Services Pte. Ltd. (Registration No: 200003956G), a Singapore incorporated company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.


3/16

Many insurers are starting to see business benets emerging

from these developments. These include:

• More meaningful discussions and better decision-making at

risk committees;

• Risk management providing insights to support the delivery

of the strategy;

• The development of a greater understanding of the risks and

vulnerabilities affecting the business.

A number of insurer are now starting to look beyond minimum

compliance with a view to gaining a competitive advantage by

promoting their ERM activities to external stakeholders (such

as rating agencies, key business partners and market analysts)

through the public disclosures they are required to make underNotice 124.

With many insurers in Singapore now putting the nishing

touches to their ERM frameworks, focus is now on fully

embedding the required ERM processes and procedures

within their organisation to “operationalise” the designed ERM

framework.

Insurers have also turned their attention to the ORSA

requirements and the various associated activities and

processes that are needed to be in place to perform this

assessment.

This is a natural extension of the ERM work as many rmssee ERM as the activities established to manage exposures

to expected and unexpected losses from occuring whereas

having sufcient capital is viewed as the mitigant should these

losses occur.

Even though the ORSA report is not due to the MAS until

before the end of 2014 for Tier 1 insurers, and before the end

of 2015 for Tier 2 insurers, the MAS expects ORSA processes

to have been in place from 1 January 2014 (the effective date of

Notice 126) and all rms to run an annual ORSA from this date.

This expectation was reiterated in the recent Circular

Number ID 03/14 on stress testing, where the MAS stated

that “Changes have been made to streamline the stress

testing requirements for the year ended 31 December 2013.

This is in recognition of the overlap between the Own Risk

and Solvency Assessment (“ORSA”) process and the usual

annual stress testing exercise. For example, components like

stress-to-failure, discussion about key risks and vulnerabilities

and actuary’s recommendations to mitigate those risks and

vulnerabilities will already be covered under ORSA processes,

which insurer are expected to put in place with effect from

1 January 2014 under MAS Notice 126 on Enterprise Risk

Management”.

In our previous publication, Revisions to the Risk-Based Capital

Framework , we looked at some of the wider considerations

that insurers would need to be aware of given the regulatory

changes, including ERM, that are being made.

This publication aims to build upon some of the theory of the

ORSA and then details some of the practical steps an insurer

would need to take including new activities, process design,

documentation and reporting.

Our aim is to provide insights to insurance companies on their

ORSA developments by leveraging on ORSA implementation

work that we have been involved in both locally and globally.

3Own Risk and Solvency Assessment


4/16

Background and timeline

The concept of the ORSA was rst developed through the

introduction of the Solvency II regulations in Europe. The

concept was then adopted by the International Association

of Insurer Supervisors (IAIS) in their Insurance Core Principle

(ICP) 16 on ‘Enterprise Risk Management for Solvency

Purposes’.

Since the agreement of ICP16, many global regulators have

been aligning their regulatory regimes to this globally agreed

best practice. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)has done this by issuing Notice 126.

Notice 126 requires all licensed insurers in Singapore to

establish the necessary processes and procedures to

undertake an ORSA by 1 January 2014. Tier 1 insurers need

to submit their ORSA report annually to the MAS within two

weeks from the date which the ORSA report is approved

by the Board, with the rst report being due on or before 31

December 2014.

Similarly, Tier 2 insurers are required to submit their ORSA

report to the MAS within two weeks from the date the ORSA

report is approved by the Board, with the rst report being

due on or before 31 December 2015, and every third yearthereafter. However, there is still an expectation for Tier 2

insurers that an annual assessment is performed irrespective

of whether this is required to be submitted to the MAS.

The objectives of the ORSAThe ORSA has often been dened by many as the

“heartbeat” of the risk and solvency consideration in an

insurer as it pulls together many different business activities.

It has the objective of ensuring that information about the

business and its future is well coordinated and consistent in

nature.

All risks are required to be identied and a sufcient level of

solvency maintained given the business objectives and riskprole.

To facilitate this, internal “silos” that may exist in an insurer

need to be removed. Global insurers which have already

embedded the assessment in their business have found it to

be the most value-adding part among the wave of regulatory

changes as it has enable better, more consistent decision-

making. Some global insurers are now using the ORSA as a

key tool to monitor and run the business. For this reason, the

ORSA has been an area that has received signicant Board,

management and regulatory attention.

To achieve this consistency of analysis, the ORSA is

expected to be a top-down forward-looking bespoke process

which is required to link together an insurer’s ERM, capital

management and strategy / business planning.

The MAS regulations are purposely high-level in nature,

common with those we have seen from other global

regulators and ICP16, to allow rms to develop their own

assessment that is tailored to their business. In a way, the

regulators are stipulating what activities they want to see




5/16

undertaken and reported, rather than setting out how to

undertake the assessment.

Questions an insurer needs to answer to develop an

appropriate assessment including:

• How effective are our risk and capital management

activities (including the effectiveness of our key controls

around our material risks)?

• What are our current and future regulatory capitalrequirements in the business?

• How much capital do we need to hold, beyond the

regulatory capital, given our business plan and risk appetite,

now and in the future?

• What key risks threaten our nancial strength and what

mitigating actions are in place?

• What is our future risk prole given our business plan and

are we comfortable with this prole?

• What future emerging risks is our business potentially

subject to and what are we doing about them (i.e. does thecapability exist to manage them)?

• What stress tests should we perform (in addition to the

regulatory stress tests) that are linked to our specic risk

prole, and what is the potential impact of these adverse

events on our business and what would we do in these

situations?

• Through reverse stress testing, what would cause the

business to become unviable and what are we doing to

prevent this?

• How are strategy, risk management and capital

management linked within our business?

• Is our business plan within our current risk appetite?

Through answers to these questions, a number of competing

priorities can be drawn out through an ORSA that are required

to be balanced by an insurer as illustrated in the diagram.

All rms should be aiming to ensure that the main objective

from the ORSA work undertaken is that there is an active

and engaging dialogue at the Board level at the end of this

assessment based on insightful and coordinated analysisfrom many areas within the business.

In our view, these Board discussions should be the ultimate

goal of the ORSA, given that the ORSA is expected to be

owned by the Board.

To support this view, the MAS is expecting to receive the

extract of the Board minutes detailing the deliberations made

by the Board on the ORSA report. The regulator therefore

wants to see evidence of these interactive discussions and

not just the Board minutes showing an ORSA report has been

signed-off.

The ORSA report should be the place where all theassessment work undertaken to full the ORSA requirements

is documented. This report is a chance for an insurer to

demonstrate it is a well managed integrated rm with regards

to risk management, capital management and business

planning.

CapitalRisk

Return

Capital,

performance

and risk

management

P e r f o

r m a n c

e C o

s t o

f C

a p

i t a l

S o l v en c y



6/16

Components of the ORSA –

What are you required to havein place?Key to the ORSA is building links between, for example,

economic capital and ERM, business planning and risk

appetite statements, regulatory capital and strategy, own

stress tests and risk prole etc at both a solo and group level

where appropriate.

KPMG’s ORSA implementation approach is to rst focus on

the component parts of the ORSA being in place. Ensuring

that these “inputs” are produced means that the assessment

required for the ORSA is able to be performed and there are

no missing areas to consider.

Some of the main “inputs” include:

An Own View of Your Capital Needs

As part of the ORSA, an insurer needs to determine the overall

level of nancial resources needed within the business given

its corporate objectives, its risk prole established through its

material risks, its risk tolerance / appetite limits that have been

set and its business plans.

We expect this view to be different from the regulatory

capital requirement for the majority of rms. This “own capital

assessment” is required to identify the relationship between

risk management and the level and quality of the nancial

resources needed and available within the business.

Risk quantication is therefore paramount. There are many

different ways to derive an own view of your capital needs

from simple stress and scenario testing to determining an

appropriate capital buffer to full stochastic economic capital

modelling for the more advanced insurers.

Determining own-capital needs assists the insurer to

assess the level of capital required given its risks (which

are quantiable) and how best to optimise the capital base,

whether to retain or transfer risk, and how to allow for risks in

pricing.

Being able to demonstrate these facets coherently in an

ORSA will provide the Board and supervisors with condence

that risks are being taken within the capital constraints of the

insurer so if risks materialise, meaning losses occur, these

losses are covered at a certain severity. We have frequently

seen this own capital level used within an insurer’s risk

appetite statement.

Business Planning

We have seen business plans grow in sophistication over

the past few years to include a greater analysis of the market

environment, product development, internal initiative, resource

assessment and more quantitative metrics.

As part of its ORSA, an insurer needs to analyse its ability to

continue in business and the nancial resources required to do

so over a longer time horizon than is typically used to determine

regulatory capital requirements.

ORSA

governanceprocess

Current andprojected risk

prole

Emerging risk

assessment

Capital

resources

Own capital

assessment

Current and

future liquidity

Regulatory

capital

requirement

Corporatestrategy /

business plan

Capital resources

and requirement

projections

Risk appetite

and tolerance

Stress / reverse

stress tests

ORSA




7/16

Hence, projections of different metrics are needed across a

business plan such as regulatory capital, own capital needs and

the corresponding nancial resources.

A good practice we are seeing emerging in Singapore is to have

a planning period of between 3 to 5 years with projections of acorresponding timeframe to support the ORSA.

Best-practice therefore is to also include cashow projections

to ensure the management of liquidity risk across the business

plan. These, alongside the risk prole projections, should be

compared to an insurers risk appetite statement to determine

if there are any anticipated risk appetite statement breaches

arising across the course of the business plan.

Risk Management

A comprehensive risk management process is needed (including

risk identication, assessment, reporting, measuring and

monitoring) to ensure that all risks are fully captured within theORSA assessment.

The ORSA should encompass all reasonably foreseeable and

relevant material risk categories including, as a minimum

underwriting, credit, market, operational, strategic and liquidity

risks and additional risks arising due to membership of a group.

Often insurers will use the output of their risk management

activities to inform capital management and stress testing, and

use the corresponding results within ERM.

An important input into the ORSA is the identication of

emerging risks which many insurers see as those risks that could

impact the business over a longer time horizon than the business

plan. Good practice is to identify these risks and then establish

regular monitor processes to ensure that if they were to occur,

early identication and discussion arises.

Stress Tests and Reverse Stress Tests

There is a need for insurers to conduct their own stress and

scenario tests on material risks identied group-wide. Insurers

will need to dene the stress tests which are appropriate to their

own risk prole and undertake these tests across the same time

horizon as their business plan.

Effective and robust processes will need to be put in place to

determine the appropriate reverse stress tests (also known as

stress-to-failure tests) which focus on material risks within the

business across the plan. Leading practice for reverse stress

tests is to dene business failure using a number of different

scenarios in addition to a lack of capital. These tests are expectedin addition to the regulatory prescribed stress tests as set out in

MAS Circular Number ID 03/14.

Continuity analysis

An insurer’s continuity analysis should address a combination of

quantitative and qualitative elements in the medium and longer

term strategy. These include projections of its future nancial

position and analysis of its ability to meet future regulatory and

economic capital requirements.

In carrying out its continuity analysis the insurer should also

assess its stress testing to identify scenarios that would be the

likely cause of business failure and the actions necessary to

manage this.

Continuity analysis should identify relevant countervailing

measures and offsetting actions that the insurer could

realistically take to restore / improve the insurer’s capital

adequacy and cash ow position after some future stress event.

Whether the actions should be taken in advance as precautionary

measures should also be addressed.

In an insurer’s ORSA (and the insurance group’s ORSA if

applicable), an assessment should be made of the current capital

adequacy. Continuity analysis should consider the possibility of

relevant changes in group structure in adverse circumstancesand the implications this would have for risks, the existence of

any group support or demands from the group where applicable.

To deliver all these above components, input will be needed

from multiple stakeholders. Reliance on them will drive a need

for multidisciplinary teams working closely together to deliver

the components required for the process. Departments

involved should including as a minimum, risk, nance,

underwriting, claims, strategy, actuarial, audit, compliance,

HR and treasury operations.



8/16

What should the ORSA look like

in practice?

Ensuring production of the “components” that are required

for an ORSA is only half the story.

The multiple stakeholders and teams involved should be

engaged during the whole ORSA process providing inputs,

reviewing content and supporting key decision making. This is

especially important given the ORSA is designed to encouragestakeholders across an insurer to work collaboratively in

developing their view of their own capital needs given the

risks being run in the business now and in the future.

An ORSA process will need to be designed so as to

incorporate the past, present and future prspectives of the

ORSA which is then applied across the business.

In delivering the ORSA, many rms have found that they need

to go further than their current practices in certain areas to

deliver a process t for the business and regulatory purposes.

The areas involved in the process will feed inputs into the

ORSA at different stages of its development, they will be

responsible for developing content, reviewing the inputs ofothers to ensure co-ordination and considering outputs.

Evaluating

the past

and

present

ORSA

process

design

Application

across the

business

Looking for the

future

OWN ASSESSMENT

• Technical provisions

• Regulatory capital

• Own solvency needs (economic capital)

• Liquidity position

• Risk prole

• Proportionally

• Independent challenge / review

• Documentation / ORSA report

• Embedding in decision making

• Ownership

• Training /

education

• Integration -

multi disciplinary

requirements

• Frequency

• Co-ordination of

inputs

• Risk prole projections

• Solvency and liquidity

projections

• Stress / reverse stress

tests

• Contingency analysis




9/16

Implementation Journey

Given the important role that the Board are required to play

in the ORSA, Board involvement needs to occur at the very

beginning of the implementation journey.

The MAS stated in Notice 126 that “An insurer shall ensure

that its board and senior management take responsibility for

the ORSA”. We have seen many insurers undertake Board

engagement sessions to provide a high-level overview of

the regulatory expectations around the ORSA to their Board.

This is to explain to them what is expected from them, obtain

the Board approval on a common understanding of what the

ORSA means for their company, set out the implementation

steps involved and agree some of the outputs. For example,

by presenting a template ORSA report, the Board can agree

the expectation of the nal deliverable.

During implementation and at the results stage, the Board isexpected to challenge and discuss the outputs of the ORSA.

As mentioned, the Board minutes of the ORSA discussion are

to be submitted to the MAS alongside the report as evidence

of this thorough engagement. This places a challenge

for the Board to get the right level of reporting at correct

points to enable them to fully engage and understand the

ORSA process and results. Senior management also face a

challenge in presenting insightful information to their Board

in the ORSA report to support the facilitation of a meaningful

discussion.

After the initial project set up (and Board engagement), there

is no singular approach to designing an ORSA reecting the

intent by regulators who have been deliberate in not providing

prescription. This has been done this in an effort to keep this

very much the rm’s “own” assessment, which itself provides

implementation challenges. The development of a suitable

bespoke ORSA process will be key. However, after this Board

engagement and initial design, We believe there are three

generic steps which will need to be considered:

POLICY DESIGN

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

PROCESS REPORTING



10/16

Step 1: ORSA Policy

As good practice, we have seen rms develop an ORSA policy

dening the areas which need to be completed to enable the

ORSA process to occur.

We suggest that the ORSA policy should outline the following,

as a minimum:

A policy can be used to provide staff with guidelines

to perform the ORSA and embed relevant controls and

processes.

When developing the policy it is essential to involve all

relevant stakeholders to ensure a common understanding.

Step 2: ORSA Process Design

In developing the ORSA, we have seen insurers focus on their

own internal processes and activities to be able to undertake

an ORSA.

In its illustrative ORSA report template in Notice 126, the MAS

requires the ORSA report to include a “Summary of the ORSA

process” along with a “Summary of key changes to its ORSA

process and underlying assumptions” in subsequent years.

To develop a process, insurers have looked at the “linkages”

that should exist between the various components to ensure

that they are consistent.

In this process design stage, an insurer should, at a

minimum, be aiming to ensure full process integration

of risk management, capital management, business

planning and decision-making processes.Often this means

that components may need to be reviewed by different

departments or used as inputs into other department’s

activities where they might not have done before.

For example, the results of stress tests should be reviewedby nance, risk and actuarial; the business plan should be

reviewed by the risk team for future risks; the risk prole

should be reviewed by underwriting, nance, actuarial,

results of the liquidity projections should be reviewed by the

risk function and other relevant teams. This process design

ensures a joined up approach to the ORSA and support

breaking down internal silos.

To support this activity, we have seen insurers use process

documentation to look to articulate their ORSA process by

mapping activities and links across an annual cycle. Insurers

should go through their own process evaluation exercise

to derive their relevant processes as part of the ORSAimplementation.

There are a few other important points to consider here:

Co-ordination of reporting points

Given the ORSA inputs will come from a multitude of

stakeholders and the outputs will be in varied formats / on

different reporting bases, ensuring appropriate and timely

management information is critical in providing a rm the

ability to adequately report on its current status.

Usually among insurers, the various components required for

the ORSA will be produced at different reporting points in theannual cycle of the insurer. This means that when they are

bought together they will not be consistent.

This coordination has been a challenge, from our observations

worldwide, to produce a consistent ORSA report.

Governance

In setting up the ORSA, a rm will

need to consider the structure it

intends to put around this process.

This will require decisions about the

committees which will be involved and

the level of senior management com-

mitment. The scope of the governance

structure will include a denition of

the key roles and responsibilities of

those involved in the process and the

wider approval process for the differentstages.

Standards / ProcessAn ORSA process will need to be es-

tablished and embedded (see below)

Reporting

A description of the ORSA outputs in-

cluding the reporting and timing should

be developed. This will include outputs

expected from various assessment

stages within the process.

Frequency / Review

The ORSA should be undertaken on

an annual basis so that it continues to

provide relevant information for deci-sion making puposes. The insurer will

need to regularly assess the causes of

risk and the extent to which particular

risks are material. Signicant changes

in the risk prole should prompt it to

undertake a new ORSA and many

insurers have pre-dened what would

trigger an ORSA run.




11/16

Independent validation and ORSA approval

The MAS stipulated in Notice 126 that “Where it is

appropriate to the nature, scale and complexity to do so,

the effectiveness of the ORSA process should be assuredthrough internal or external independent review by a suitably

experienced individual who reports directly to, or is a member

of the board of directors”.

There is therefore a need to independently review the

integrity, accuracy and reasonableness of the ORSA process

and report. The results of this will need to be reported to the

Board and described in supervisory reporting. This validation

should be undertaken by people not performing the ORSA

itself. Consideration of the timing of this review is required.

Given for many this is the rst ORSA undertaken, an

independent review should be used to benchmark your

analysis, identify any missing activities and suggest

recommendations for improvement. As a result it is key for

both internal and external stakeholders that the ORSA is well

documented and tracked.

Step 3: ORSA Reporting

The ORSA report is the place where the annual assessment

undertaken by the insurer is fully documented. This report

should provide an explanation of the ORSA process

undertaken as well as main ndings, conclusions and

discussion points.

In an ORSA report, we would expect (as a minimum), to seethe report cover the following:

The ORSA report itself would need to be consistently bought

together to ensure a meaningful nal analysis is undertaken

despite the fact that different sections may be written by

different stakeholders.

The report itself may be lengthy. For example, we have seen

in Europe some ORSA reports for the largest insurers stretch

to nearly 200 pages. However, proper consideration should

be given to the length and nature of the report given the scale

and complexity of the insurer. Careful consideration should

also be given to the information shared with the Board for

their discussions and deliberations.

In 2014 (or 2015 for Tier 2 insurers), and well before the

submission deadlines, good practice would suggest the

undertaking of an ORSA dry-run to ensure the inputs to the

ORSA process can be produced, that the assessments of

these inputs can be performed and analysis can be carried out

to develop insights, and that the ORSA report can be suitably

completed.

The Board should have early sight of this report to ensure

sufcient time is permitted after their review for any

comments to be taken into account in the nal draft.

Executive Summary

Signoffs / Appendices / Version controls / Assurances

Business Overview ORSA Process Business strategy Risk appetite / tolerance

Risk prole Current solvency position Projected risk prole Projected solvency position

Stress and reverse stress testing Capital requirements Monitoring and control Board discussion and decisions



12/16

Common challenges

As there is unlikely to be further prescription from the MAS, at

least in the short term, it will be left for rms to embed a bespoke

assessment into their business.

We foresee a number of key challenges that we have observed

globally, that insurers will face in developing an ORSA that need

to be addressed. We have split these into Implementation

Challenges and Technical Challenges

Implementation challenges:

• A clear strategic view is required by the Board and

senior management to establish sponsorship and

ownership of the ORSA. Setting clear deliverables and

assigning responsibilities for delivery is essential.

• A clear and well articulated programme plan

is necessary to obtain key stakeholder buy-in and

support in order to deliver a high quality roadmap for

continued stakeholder input and contribution. Failing to

appropriately manage the various cultural perspectives

and appreciating the differences in approach, input and

emphasis amongst group entities can be a considerable

weakness of many large group change programmes.

• Identication of key resources and specic skill sets

across all relevant business units will be required in order

to ensure that appropriate personnel are fully engaged.

Educating and training staff on the ORSA process and

their associated role.

• The requirement to provide evidence of the ORSA will

make documentation extremely important particularly for

external reporting purposes.

• The ultimate success of an ORSA is in being able to

demonstrate a seamless integration of the process and

outputs within business as usual activities. These include

Board oversight and responsibilities, strategic planning,

risk and capital management, governance and internal

controls and reporting and disclosure elements.

Technical challenges:

• Aligning the ORSA with the strategic planning process

• Testing an ORSA process within business as usual

• Deriving own capital needs• Projecting a risk prole

• Developing and using robust projection methodologies

• Undertaking meaningful stress and reverse stress tests

• Coordinating the timing of the various inputs to the ORSA

to ensure alignment in the date of inputs to facilitate a

consistent report, such as the date of the capital adequacy

assessment, the liquidity positions, the stress testing and

the business planning.

• Providing insights to the Board to allow them to make

decisions

• Obtaining a useful independent review




13/16

Conclusion

The ORSA presents one of the newest prudential

regulatory challenges globally, including in Singapore.

It will require Boards to be fully involved in developing

a top-down process which links together risk, capital

and strategic planning to determine the current and

future regulatory and own capital requirements of their

rm.

However, the ORSA is also an opportunity for rms

who feel that relevant internal processes are not

optimally set up to address this and ensure that the

‘heart’ is effectively pumping the ‘blood’ around the

organisation.



14/16

How can we help?

Supporting Your ImplementationWe can help you each step of the way to develop an ORSA

from the initial visioning stage to report writing. With our

previous experiences in this area gained both locally and

globally on ERM and ORSA developments, we can work with

you in drafting the nal report for your review.

We can also work with you to review your ORSA

implementation as it develops and suggest improvements,

provide relevant templates and guidance, review outputs anddiscuss ways to overcome challenges.

Presenting to Your Key StakeholdersAs one of the important rst steps an ORSA journey is to

ensure all key stakeholders including the Board have a clear

understanding of the ORSA. Given KPMG’s experience

worldwide in undertaking such an assessment, we can

assist your understanding of ORSA. We have undertaken a

signicant number of Board sessions on ERM and ORSA.

Independent ReviewGiven there is a MAS requirement for an independent review

by a suitably experienced individual where appropriate, we are

well placed to undertake such a review having implemented

many ERM and ORSA framework along with having seen

numerous ORSA reports before.

Our professionals can provide you with a meaningful

comparison to both local and global leading practice as

well as recommendations to achieve minimum regulatory

compliance. Working with your internal audit function for

example, we can facilitate adequate knowledge transfer in

future reviews if these are later required.

How can we help?




15/16

We are ‘Thought Leaders’ in the insurance sector with numerous publications, whitepapers and surveys published globally. For copies of any of these publication pleasedo not hesitate to contact us.

KPMG Thought Leadership



16/16

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate

and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such

information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

© 2014 KPMG Services Pte. Ltd. (Registration No: 200003956G), a Singapore incorporated company and a member rm of the KPMG network of independent member rms afliated with

KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity

Contact us

Frank Dubois

Insurance and Actuarial Partner,

Singapore

T: +65 6411 8187E: [email protected]

Lau Kam Yuen

Partner and Head of Insurance,

Singapore

T: +65 6213 2550

E: [email protected]

Paul Brenchley

Insurance Advisory Director,

Singapore

T: +65 6411 8402


John Tan

Actuarial Director,

Singapore

T: +65 6411 8058


KPMG

16 Rafes Quay

#22-00 Hong Leong Building

T: +65 6213 3388

F: +65 6225 0984

Insurance Own Risk and Solvency Assessment

Documents

Transcript of Insurance Own Risk and Solvency Assessment