A range of different intervention actions should be taken by a supervisor depending on the event or concern that triggers the intervention. Some of these triggers will be linked to the level of an insurer’s capital resources relative to the level at which regulatory capital requirements are set.

In broad terms, the highest regulatory capital requirement, the Prescribed Capital Requirement (PCR), will be set at the level at which the supervisor would not require action to increase the capital resources held or reduce the risks undertaken by the insurer^[12]. However if the insurer’s capital resources were to fall below the level at which the PCR is set, the supervisor would require some action by the insurer to either restore capital resources to at least the PCR level or reduce the level of risk undertaken (and hence the required capital level).
 

^[12] Note that this does not preclude the supervisor from intervention or requiring action by the insurer for other reasons, such as weaknesses in the risk management or governance of the insurer. Nor does it preclude the supervisor from intervention when the insurer’s capital resources are currently above the PCR but are expected to fall below that level in the short term. To illustrate, the supervisor may establish a trend test (a time series analysis). A sufficiently adverse trend would require some supervisory action. The trend test would support the objective of early regulatory intervention by considering the speed at which capital deterioration is developing. 

The regulatory objective to require that, in adversity, an insurer’s obligations to policyholders will continue to be met as they fall due will be achieved without intervention if technical provisions and other liabilities^[13] are expected to remain covered by assets over a defined period, to a specified level of safety. As such, the PCR should be determined at a level such that the insurer is able to absorb the losses from adverse events that may occur over that defined period and the technical provisions remain covered at the end of the period.
 

^[13] To the extent these liabilities are not treated as capital resources.

The Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR) represents the supervisory intervention point at which the supervisor would invoke its strongest actions, if further capital is not made available^[14]. Therefore, the main aim of the MCR is to provide the ultimate safety net for the protection of the interests of policyholders.
 

^[14] Note that this does not preclude such actions being taken by the supervisor for other reasons, and even if the MCR is met or exceeded.

These actions could include stopping the activities of the insurer, withdrawal of the insurer’s licence, requiring the insurer to close to new business and run-off the portfolio, transfer its portfolio to another insurer, arrange additional reinsurance, or other specified actions. This position is different from the accounting concept of insolvency as the MCR would be set at a level in excess of that at which the assets of the insurer were still expected to be sufficient to meet the insurer’s obligations to existing policyholders as they fall due. The PCR cannot be less than the MCR, and therefore the MCR may also provide the basis of a lower bound for the PCR, which may be especially appropriate in cases where the PCR is determined on the basis of an insurer’s internal model^[15] approved for use in determining regulatory capital requirements by the supervisor.

^[15] The term “internal model” refers to “a risk measurement system developed by an insurer to analyse its overall risk position, to quantify risks and to determine the economic capital required to meet those risks”. Internal models may also include partial models which capture a subset of the risks borne by the insurer using an internally developed measurement system which is used in determining the insurer's economic capital. The IAIS is aware that insurers use a variety of terms to describe their risk and capital assessment processes, such as “economic capital model”, “risk-based capital model”, or “business model”. The IAIS considers that such terms could be used interchangeably to describe the processes adopted by insurers in the management of risk and capital within their business on an economic basis. For the purposes of consistency, the term “internal model” is used throughout.

In establishing a minimum bound on the MCR below which no insurer is regarded to be viable to operate effectively, the supervisor may, for example, apply a market-wide nominal floor^[16] to the regulatory capital requirements, based on the need for an insurer to operate with a certain minimal critical mass and consideration of what may be required to meet minimum standards of governance and risk management. Such a nominal floor might vary between lines of business or type of insurer and is particularly relevant in the context of a new insurer or line of business.

^[16] In this context, a market-wide nominal floor may, for example, be an absolute monetary minimum amount of capital required to be held by an insurer in a jurisdiction.

Regulatory capital requirements may include additional solvency control levels between the level at which the supervisor takes no intervention action from a capital perspective and the strongest intervention point (that is, between the PCR and MCR levels). These control levels may be set at levels that correspond to a range of different intervention actions that may be taken by the supervisor itself or actions which the supervisor would require of the insurer according to the severity or level of concern regarding adequacy of the capital held by the insurer. These additional control levels may be formally established by the supervisor with explicit intervention actions linked to particular control levels. Alternatively, these additional control levels may be structured less formally, with a range of possible intervention actions available to the supervisor depending on the particular circumstances. In either case the possible triggers and range of intervention actions should be appropriately disclosed by the supervisor.

• measures that are intended to enable the supervisor to better assess and/or control the situation, either formally or informally, such as increased supervision activity or reporting, or requiring auditors or actuaries to undertake an independent review or extend the scope of their examinations;
• measures to address capital levels such as requesting capital and business plans for restoration of capital resources to required levels, limitations on redemption or repurchase of equity or other instruments and/or dividend payments;
• measures intended to protect policyholders pending strengthening of the insurer’s capital position, such as restrictions on licences, premium volumes, investments, types of business, acquisitions, reinsurance arrangements;
• measures that strengthen or replace the insurer’s management and/or risk management framework and overall governance processes;
• measures that reduce or mitigate risks (and hence required capital) such as requesting reinsurance, hedging and other mechanisms; and/or
• refusing, or imposing conditions on, applications submitted for regulatory approval such as acquisitions or growth in business.

Where insurers may be permitted to use internal models for calculating regulatory capital requirements, the models used for that purpose should be subject to prior supervisory approval. The onus should be placed on the insurer to validate a model that is to be used for regulatory capital purposes and provide evidence that the model is appropriate for those purposes. The IAIS considers that an insurer should not need supervisory approval for the use of internal models in determining its own economic capital needs.

The supervisor may prescribe requirements which will allow it to assess different models fairly and facilitate comparison between insurers within its jurisdiction. However, overly prescriptive rules on internal model construction may be counter-productive in creating models which are risk-sensitive and useful for insurers. Therefore, although a certain level of comparability can be achieved by the calibration requirements, full and effective comparison across jurisdictions to align best practice may be best achieved by dialogue between supervisors and industry.

The supervisor should require that in granting approval for the use of an internal model to calculate regulatory capital requirements, it has sufficient confidence that the results being produced by the model provide adequate and appropriate measures of risk and capital. Although the supervisor may encourage insurers to develop internal models that better reflect their risks as soon as possible, this should not lead to models being approved until there is confidence that they are calibrated correctly. The supervisor may therefore feel it necessary to evaluate an internal model over a specified period of time, for example a few years, prior to approval. For supervisors, approval of an internal model could require considerable expertise (depending on the sophistication of the model) which may need to be developed. In addition, it may be necessary to introduce different supervisory powers to allow the approval of internal models.

The supervisor should use, at least, the “statistical quality test”, “calibration test” and “use test”, as the basis of its approval process. While a broad range of internal model approaches may be suitable for internal economic capital assessment purposes, and this should not be subject to supervisory approval, supervisors may want to place requirements on the internal model approaches that would be regarded as acceptable for regulatory capital purposes. In approving the use of an internal model for calculating regulatory capital requirements, the supervisor should consider the primary role of the model as part of the insurer's risk management procedures. Any requirements imposed by the supervisor on the approval of a model for use in determining regulatory capital requirements should not prevent the model from being sufficiently flexible to be a useful strategic decision making tool which reflects the insurer's unique risk profile. Consistent standards for the approval of an insurer’s internal model should be applied by the supervisor, regardless of whether the model is developed in-house by the insurer or by an external party.

The “statistical quality test” and the “use test” are envisaged to be more insurer-specific measures which should allow the supervisor to gain an understanding of how a particular insurer has embedded its internal model within its business. The “calibration test” would be used by the supervisor to assess the results from the internal model in comparison to the insurer’s regulatory capital requirements and to those of other insurers.

• modelling criteria (risk measure, time horizon, level of safety);
• valuation bases for regulatory capital purposes;
• the risks that have to be modelled;
• treatment of intra-group transactions;
• approach to group-wide capital adequacy (eg group level or legal entity focus); and
• recognition of diversification across the group

The involved supervisors of an insurance group that conducts insurance business in more than one jurisdiction may consider their joint and common interests for the joint approval of the use of a group-wide internal model for regulatory capital purposes. If so, it may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the approval process if the supervisors agree on common requirements for the process eg standardised language or languages for the application process.

Alternatively, the supervisors may independently approve the use of a group-wide internal model. Therefore, an insurance group seeking approval for a group-wide internal model may receive permission from one supervisor to use the model in that jurisdiction, while not receiving approval in another jurisdiction.

Similarly, where an insurance legal entity operates in other jurisdictions through a branch structure, the supervisors in those branch jurisdictions will have an interest in the solvency of the insurance legal entity. If local branch supervisors in these jurisdictions are not satisfied with the capital requirements of the home supervisor, possibly because they are determined using internal models, the local branch supervisors may impose limitations on the branch operations. The home supervisor, however, does not need to have the approval of the local branch supervisors in order to approve the use of the insurance legal entity’s internal model for its own purposes.

The degree of involvement of different supervisors in the approval process depends on a number of factors as illustrated in Guidance 17.13.12 - 17.13.16.

In the simplest case, an insurance group operates in one jurisdiction only. Clearly only the supervisor in that jurisdiction needs to be involved in the group-wide internal model approval process. Where there is more than one supervisor in a jurisdiction, eg where different insurance activities of a group are supervised separately, then both may need to be involved depending on the scope of the model. Nevertheless, some liaison with supervisors in other jurisdictions may be mutually beneficial to facilitate convergence and comparability across jurisdictions in respect of internal model standards and practice.

In the case of an insurance group that operates in more than one jurisdiction but only applies to use its group-wide internal model for regulatory capital purposes in one jurisdiction, eg the parent’s jurisdiction, the group does not need group-wide internal model approval of other jurisdictions provided that it is using other approaches to meet the capital requirements of those other jurisdictions. However, the supervisor considering approval of the group-wide internal model may wish to consult the other supervisors about the relevant insurance markets, the group’s operations in those markets and the standard of modelling.

In the case of an insurance group that wishes to use its group-wide internal model in more than one jurisdiction (eg to calculate insurance legal entity PCRs), the supervisor of each of those jurisdictions should consider approval of the specific application of the group-wide internal model in its jurisdiction, having regard to the considerations in Guidance 17.13.15 - 17.13.18 below.

• its group-wide regulatory capital requirements;
• whether and the extent to which its jurisdiction allows the use of internal models for regulatory capital purposes (eg PCR or both PCR and MCR);
• how its jurisdiction interacts with the other jurisdictions potentially involved when supervisory intervention is being considered; and
• the arrangements for collaboration between the supervisors of the legal entities within the insurance group.

A supervisor may delegate the approval process to another supervisor or agree to be bound by its decision while retaining supervisory responsibility. Alternatively, a group-wide supervisor may have ultimate decision-making authority over some or all of the supervisors involved. If more than one jurisdiction is concerned, making such authority legally binding may require a treaty between these jurisdictions. To be effective, each arrangement requires a high level of collaboration between supervisors. To require the model appropriately addresses all categories of risk, the supervisor making the decision needs sufficient knowledge of the local circumstances in which the group operates.

Supervisors should require that the approval process for the use of a group-wide internal model for regulatory capital purposes is sufficiently flexible to achieve an approach appropriate to the nature, scale and complexity at each organisational level in an insurance group (group/sub-group/individual insurance legal entity). Risks which may have a large impact at insurance legal entity level may have much smaller significance at insurance group level. Conversely, risks that may have a small impact at insurance legal entity level may aggregate to have a larger impact on risk at the group level. The nature and complexity of risks may also vary at different levels in the insurance group.

Whether the group-wide internal model is appropriate for regulatory purposes given the nature, scale and complexity of the risks depends on the regulatory capital requirements of a jurisdiction. While the risk coverage by an internal model may look reasonable from a group-wide perspective, it may not be reasonable from the point of view of each member of the insurance group. For example, in a group of many non-life insurers and one small life insurer it may be appropriate from an overall perspective to place less emphasis on the modelling of the life insurance risks. However this may not be appropriate from the life insurer’s or supervisor’s perspective. In such circumstances, it may be necessary for the group to upgrade its model to include an adequate life insurance risk component or to set up a self-contained internal model for the life insurer in order to gain approval.