Search QAs

Do you have examples of critical or important functions in the insurance sector from a DORA perspective ? We are currently reviewing the business impact analyses and trying to identify the critical functions based on the criteria "[...] or the discontinued, defective or failed performance of that function would materially impair the continuing compliance of a financial entity with the conditions and obligations of its authorisation, or with its other obligations under applicable financial services law".

From taxonomy 2.8 onwards, a 4-digit NACE code must be provided in the 'Issuer Sector' field of S.06.02 and S.11.01. This code is not always available in the market. This can happen, for example, if a company has activities in multiple (sub)sectors. How should the provision of a 4-digit code be handled in these cases? For example, is it allowed to report the first 4-digit code from the NACE list that corresponds to the available 2- or 3-digit code that is available?

CEIOPS’ Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures (https://register.eiopa.europa.eu/CEIOPS-Archive/Documents/Advices/CEIOP…) states that: "the following investments shall be treated as equity and their risks considered accordingly in the equity risk sub-module

Wish to check that for loan with guarantee, if can take the guarantor’s creditworthiness in the standard model calculation, instead of the borrower.

This question is about Taxonomy 2.9.0 PF about Validations rules We have a error rule PBV59: Items "Par amount" and "Quantity" in the template PFE.06.02 - List of assets [Pension funds with ECB add-ons] must be reported for items with CIC codes different from CIC '##71', '##9#' or '##09'.| and on the same side this one warning rule this one - PBV87: For assets with CIC codes like '##72' or '##73' or '##74' or '##75' or '##79' or '##8#' item “Par amount” should be reported, while item "Quantity" should be left empty.| how can we solve this for a CIC XT72 for instance ? if we fill Par amount AND Quantity for PBV59 automatically we'll be in warning for PBV87.

As part of my academic program, I am working on a research paper that explores the advantages and disadvantages of protected cell captives (PCCs) in the insurance industry. During my extensive research on the topic, I have encountered challenges in finding up-to-date information regarding Solvency requirements in relation with Protected Cell Companies

I have a question regarding minimum capital requirement of uncalled or undrawn investment capital into private equity under Solvency ii. If an insurance company committed to invest on private equity fund for certain amount, but due to capital-call structure of private equity fund (they draw(call) money from the insurance company on need-base),

Regards the new S.14.02 QRT for 2.8 and the associated LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Would the following be an acceptable implementation for reconciliation checking of C0120 with S.17.03 (e.g. in Plausibility tests):

1. If S.17.03.01 CCCC R0010 <> 0 then S.14.02 C0120 should include S.01.02 R0050 with a test for each column in S.17.03 for columns C0020 through C0130 and the matching LoB in S.14.02 C0010 (where S.14.02 C0020 = “”, to exclude product level records in S.14.02).

I downloaded the 'Risk-Free Interest Coding' provided by EIOPA and used part of it to calculate the 'risk-free Term Structures without VA for EUR'. The results are reasonable, but they do not match the monthly results published by EIOPA (e.g., EUR_31_01_2025_SWP_LLP_20_EXT_40_UFR_3.30). My question has two parts: