SA QIS2 Group Qualitative Questionnaire1

SA Quantitative Impact Study 2 (SA QIS2)

Questionnaire for Insurance Groups

Group Details

G.1.Name of the insurance group:

<G1>

</G1>

Scope of the Group

G.2.Do you agree with the interpretation of the scope of the group as set out in section G.1.4 of the SA QIS2 Technical Specifications. If you do not agree with the interpretation of the scope, do you have alternative interpretations?

G2

</G2

G.3.How do you think materiality should be applied when considering which entities should be included or excluded from the scope of the group?

G3

</G3

G.4.Please provide details of any arrangements where a third party holds a share in an entity where that third party has the option to return the shareholding to the group.

G4

</G4

Calculation of Group Solvency Position

G.5.Please complete the following table, setting out information relating to the various alternatives approaches to the calculation of the group solvency position tested under SA QIS2:

<G5

Calculation completed in SA QIS2 / Preparedness for calculation / Representation of the financial soundness position of the group / Preference
D&A – Alternative 1
D&A – Alternative 2
D&A – Alternative 3
AC – Alternative 4
Combination – Alternative 5

</G5

Notes on completing the table:

Calculation completed in SA QIS2: Please answer “Yes” if you completed this alternative in the SA QIS2 groups submission, and “No” if you did not.

Preparedness for calculation: Please rank your group’s overall preparedness for SAM with regard to the calculation of the various alternatives between 1 and 4, where:

4 is fully prepared, all data available and no problems with methodologies.

3 is no problems with data, but problems with methodologies.

2 is no problems with methodologies, but problems with data.

1 is do not feel prepared at all.

Representation of the financial soundness position of the group: Please provide your view of how the various alternative calculations reflect the financial soundness position of your group by ranking each alternative between 1 and 4, where:

4 is calculation provides an accurate reflection of the financial soundness position of the group.

3 is calculation provides a fair reflection of the financial soundness position of the group.

2 is calculation provides an poor reflection of the financial soundness position of the group.

1 is calculation provides a totally inaccurate reflection of the financial soundness position of the group.

Preference: Please order the various alternatives from 1 to 5, where 1 is your least favoured option and 5 is your most favoured option. When applying the ordering, please use each number only once.

G.6.Please provide an assessment of the quality of data and results for the various alternatives (1 – poor; 2 – fair; 3 – good; 4 – excellent; 5 – not applicable)

<G6>

Results / Input data
Reliability / Appropriateness / Completeness / Accuracy
D&A – Current
D&A – Alternative 1
D&A – Alternative 2
D&A – Alternative 3
AC – Alternative 4
Combination – Alternative 5

/G6>

G.7.Please set out any concerns that you have with the methodology used for the Deduction and Aggregation approach on the “current” basis.

<G7

</G7

G.8.Please set out any concerns that you have with the methodology used for the Deduction and Aggregation approach on the “Alternative 1” basis.

<G8

</G8

G.9.Please set out any concerns that you have with the methodology used for the Deduction and Aggregation approach on the “Alternative 2” basis.

<G9

</G9

G.10.Please set out any concerns that you have with the methodology used for the Deduction and Aggregation approach on the “Alternative 3” basis.

<G10

</G10

G.11.Please set out any concerns that you have with the methodology used for the Accounting Consolidation approach on the “Alternative 4” basis.

<G11

</G11

G.12.Whenapplying the Accounting Consolidation approach on the “Alternative 4” basis, what difficulties did you encounter when applying stresses to the consolidated group position?

<G12

</G12

G.13.Whenapplying the Accounting Consolidation approach on the “Alternative 4” basis, did you need to make any simplifications when applying the stresses?

<G13

</G13

G.14.Please set out any concerns that you have with the methodology used for the Combination approach on the “Alternative 5” basis.

<G14>

</G14>

Group Specific Risks

G.15.In order to reflect the total risks that the group may face, the group SCR should reflect the risks that arise at the level of the group and that are specific to the group. Groups are asked to give information on any specific risks existing at the group level (group specific risks) that would not be sufficiently covered by the various alternatives tested under SA QIS2.

<G15

</G15

G.16.To what extent do you think there should be diversification between entities in the group solvency calculation?

<G16

</G16

G.17.Do you have any suggestions of how to allow for diversification between entities?

<G17

</G17

G.18.Please set out whether you have any suggestions on the treatment of non-regulated entities for the purpose the group solvency position, if you are of the opinion that the approach tested in SA QIS2 does not adequately reflect the contribution of the non-regulated entities to the overall group risk profile.

<G18

</G18

Own Funds

G.19.Did you experience any specific difficulties in the calculation of group own funds? If so, please describe which and whether additional guidance would be needed.

<G19

</G19

G.20.Are there, in your specific case, any legal or other barrier that may conflict with the free transfer of own funds in cases listed below. If there are please provide details of these barriers.

a)From Non-South African entities?

<G20a

</G20a

b)From participating business?

<G20b

</G20b

c)From ring fenced structures?

<G20c

</G20c

d)From other sectors entities?

<G20d

</G20d

e) From non-regulated entities?

G20e

</G20e

Non-South African Entities

G.21.Groups are invited to rank in order of importance (most important first) the key non-South African jurisdictions for the purposes of their group calculations.

<G21

</G21

G.22.For the deduction and aggregation approach tested under “Alternative 2” of the group solvency calculation, were simplifications used in the calculations for non-SA entities? If simplifications were used, please provide details.

<G22

</G22

G.23.In addition to the simplifications described above, do you have any further suggestions on simplifications that could be used for non-SA entities under “Alternative 2” of the group solvency calculation?

<G23

</G23

Other Information

G.24.Are there any views you wish to express which are not covered elsewhere?

<G24>

</G24>

SA QIS2 Group Qualitative Questionnaire1