This report discusses executives' perspectives on Solvency II regulations in the UK insurance industry. It finds that while over half of organizations have started implementing Solvency II, executive understanding varies significantly. Organizations where executives have a good understanding of Solvency II are more likely to see it as an opportunity and take a strategic, progressive approach. Those with less executive understanding tend to view it as a threat and focus on minimal compliance. The report recommends organizations take a holistic view balancing risk, finance, operations to maximize benefits and avoid unintended consequences of a narrow, tactical implementation.
U.S. Blinds And Shades Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2020IndexBox Marketing
IndexBox Marketing has just published its report: “U.S. Blinds And Shades Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2020”.
The report provides an in-depth analysis of the U.S. blinds and shades market. It presents the latest data of the market size and volume, domestic production, exports and imports, price dynamics and turnover in the industry. In addition, the report contains insightful information about the industry, including industry life cycle, business locations, productivity, employment and many other crucial aspects. The Company Profiles section contains relevant data on the major players in the industry.
The document discusses the challenges that banks face in complying with the Federal Reserve's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing (DFAST) requirements. It notes that while stressful, following best practices like establishing robust processes, thoroughly documenting assumptions, ensuring strong governance, accurately quantifying risk, and increasing efficiency can help banks successfully navigate CCAR and DFAST. The document also highlights the importance of technology and potentially partnering with third parties to help smaller banks meet documentation and reporting mandates.
The document discusses the implementation of Solvency II regulations for European insurers. Key points include:
1) Solvency II is now expected to go live on January 1, 2014, though insurers may need to provide confirmed Solvency II numbers to supervisors in 2013.
2) While a one-year implementation delay has been proposed, the core rules are unlikely to change significantly. Most of the technical specifications have already been established.
3) Insurers need to have systems and processes in place by the end of 2012 to prove readiness, even if the formal go-live is delayed until 2014. Progressing implementation plans should not be delayed.
BSG (UK) Thinking strategically about compliance version 1BSG (UK)
This document discusses how compliance initiatives are often viewed reactively rather than strategically. It suggests organizations move from merely "surviving" by fixing issues reactively to "thriving" by taking a more strategic, preventative approach. Specifically, it recommends focusing on activities that introduce flexibility and prepare the organization for changing regulations rather than just addressing current problems. This strategic approach allows identifying opportunities earlier to better position the business for the future. The document advocates for a cultural shift towards more proactive long-term thinking for compliance.
The document provides information on a conceptual framework for financial reporting, including:
- It includes tables classifying questions and assignments by topic and learning objective.
- It discusses the objectives of a conceptual framework, qualitative characteristics of accounting information like relevance and faithful representation, and the elements of financial statements.
- It also covers basic assumptions of accounting like going concern, principles like revenue and expense recognition, and constraints like materiality.
The FASB’s latest proposal on going concern uncertainties introduces a new layer of accounting guidance that adds to the existing requirements set by auditing standards and SEC regulations. The proposed new guidance responds to a wave of unwelcome surprises, as scores of companies faced unexpected liquidity problems during an economic downturn that adversely affected businesses while the FASB’s previous (2008) proposal was sidetracked by other priorities. The added guidance may not eliminate these kinds of surprises altogether, but it provides a more systematic approach that is designed to promote more consistency in the nature and timing of disclosures about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. This Messenger summarizes the proposal, along with the questions, suggestions, and concerns cited in comment letters.
Solvency II is a new regulatory framework for insurance companies in the EU that replaced Solvency I. It aims to establish a risk-based approach where capital requirements are based on a company's risk profile. Solvency II introduces three pillars: Pillar 1 sets capital requirements; Pillar 2 focuses on risk management and governance; Pillar 3 addresses transparency and disclosure. While primarily affecting EU insurers, Solvency II may also impact non-EU subsidiaries of EU companies and EU subsidiaries of non-EU companies. Implementing Solvency II requirements like data management, ownership, and quality metrics poses challenges for insurers.
The Solvency II Directive, along with the Omnibus II Directive that amended it became a law on March 31, 2015. On April 1, 2015 the approval processes began, and after years of delay and negotiations, the Europe-wide capital regime for insurance companies came into effect on January 1, 2016. Insurers will have to comply with new rules and capital requirements of Solvency II across the EU.
Here is a short summary of what Solvency II is and how it’ll impact financial services institutions in the US (most of which are deemed to have fully or partly equivalent rules) along with EU.
U.S. Blinds And Shades Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2020IndexBox Marketing
IndexBox Marketing has just published its report: “U.S. Blinds And Shades Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2020”.
The report provides an in-depth analysis of the U.S. blinds and shades market. It presents the latest data of the market size and volume, domestic production, exports and imports, price dynamics and turnover in the industry. In addition, the report contains insightful information about the industry, including industry life cycle, business locations, productivity, employment and many other crucial aspects. The Company Profiles section contains relevant data on the major players in the industry.
The document discusses the challenges that banks face in complying with the Federal Reserve's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing (DFAST) requirements. It notes that while stressful, following best practices like establishing robust processes, thoroughly documenting assumptions, ensuring strong governance, accurately quantifying risk, and increasing efficiency can help banks successfully navigate CCAR and DFAST. The document also highlights the importance of technology and potentially partnering with third parties to help smaller banks meet documentation and reporting mandates.
The document discusses the implementation of Solvency II regulations for European insurers. Key points include:
1) Solvency II is now expected to go live on January 1, 2014, though insurers may need to provide confirmed Solvency II numbers to supervisors in 2013.
2) While a one-year implementation delay has been proposed, the core rules are unlikely to change significantly. Most of the technical specifications have already been established.
3) Insurers need to have systems and processes in place by the end of 2012 to prove readiness, even if the formal go-live is delayed until 2014. Progressing implementation plans should not be delayed.
BSG (UK) Thinking strategically about compliance version 1BSG (UK)
This document discusses how compliance initiatives are often viewed reactively rather than strategically. It suggests organizations move from merely "surviving" by fixing issues reactively to "thriving" by taking a more strategic, preventative approach. Specifically, it recommends focusing on activities that introduce flexibility and prepare the organization for changing regulations rather than just addressing current problems. This strategic approach allows identifying opportunities earlier to better position the business for the future. The document advocates for a cultural shift towards more proactive long-term thinking for compliance.
The document provides information on a conceptual framework for financial reporting, including:
- It includes tables classifying questions and assignments by topic and learning objective.
- It discusses the objectives of a conceptual framework, qualitative characteristics of accounting information like relevance and faithful representation, and the elements of financial statements.
- It also covers basic assumptions of accounting like going concern, principles like revenue and expense recognition, and constraints like materiality.
The FASB’s latest proposal on going concern uncertainties introduces a new layer of accounting guidance that adds to the existing requirements set by auditing standards and SEC regulations. The proposed new guidance responds to a wave of unwelcome surprises, as scores of companies faced unexpected liquidity problems during an economic downturn that adversely affected businesses while the FASB’s previous (2008) proposal was sidetracked by other priorities. The added guidance may not eliminate these kinds of surprises altogether, but it provides a more systematic approach that is designed to promote more consistency in the nature and timing of disclosures about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. This Messenger summarizes the proposal, along with the questions, suggestions, and concerns cited in comment letters.
Solvency II is a new regulatory framework for insurance companies in the EU that replaced Solvency I. It aims to establish a risk-based approach where capital requirements are based on a company's risk profile. Solvency II introduces three pillars: Pillar 1 sets capital requirements; Pillar 2 focuses on risk management and governance; Pillar 3 addresses transparency and disclosure. While primarily affecting EU insurers, Solvency II may also impact non-EU subsidiaries of EU companies and EU subsidiaries of non-EU companies. Implementing Solvency II requirements like data management, ownership, and quality metrics poses challenges for insurers.
The Solvency II Directive, along with the Omnibus II Directive that amended it became a law on March 31, 2015. On April 1, 2015 the approval processes began, and after years of delay and negotiations, the Europe-wide capital regime for insurance companies came into effect on January 1, 2016. Insurers will have to comply with new rules and capital requirements of Solvency II across the EU.
Here is a short summary of what Solvency II is and how it’ll impact financial services institutions in the US (most of which are deemed to have fully or partly equivalent rules) along with EU.
Special Report: Data Management Implications Of Solvency IIConor Coughlan
This is a special report that Thomson Reuters has sponsored relating to the practical challenges facing practitioners in adhering to Solvency II. This report provides the read with some unique insights into how the industry is dealing with this matter.
if you are working for or connected to an Insurer, Asset Manager, Custodian, Fund Administrator or Prime Broker this will be of interest to you.
This survey of 231 CFOs and finance directors from nine countries found the following:
1) Narrative reporting preparation is seen as highly important, with over 50% saying their department drives the process.
2) There is no clear consensus on the most important characteristic of narrative reports, with only 29% citing providing decision-useful information to investors.
3) Legal/regulatory requirements and shareholders are considered equally important drivers of narrative reporting, despite potential incompatibility of these needs.
4) The main challenges are seen as the large number of requirements and high cost/time needed for preparation, placing a significant burden on companies.
This document contains comments on proposed regulations regarding business and financial disclosures. It discusses several key points:
1) Sunset provisions should be included to evaluate new disclosure requirements based on complexity and impact. A staff review would help ensure changes are implementable without undue delay.
2) Disclosure thresholds may need updating as some are outdated. Materiality definitions do not require changes.
3) Principles-based and prescriptive approaches both have advantages and disadvantages for registrants and investors. Balancing the two could help preserve benefits while addressing concerns.
Solvency II compliance requires insurers to address all three pillars of the
regulation, namely:
Pillar1: Capital Requirements
Pillar 2: Workflow, Audit and Governance
Pillar 3: Reporting
In preparing for Solvency II, many insurers have up to this point been focusing
their efforts on addressing the quantitative requirements of Pillar 1 and are
only now turning their attention to Pillars 2 and 3. Under the new regime
insurers will face more frequent and prescriptive reporting alongside
increased levels of controls and governance.
In this paper, industry leading practitioners provide insight into the key
challenges and issues arising when managing the workflow around internal
models. They also discuss processes surrounding reporting and the integration
with risk modeling and capital calculations.
The Insurance Reporting Challenge: Building an Integrated FrameworkAccenture Insurance
The reporting component of Solvency II has become a major concern for insurance companies operating in Europe. Solvency II Pillar III increases reporting requirements in terms of volume, frequency, timeliness and complexity. These, in turn, have a direct bearing on insurers’ data, processes, methodologies and organization. The pressure put on insurers to enhance their reporting calls for a revamped closing and reporting framework where integration is part of the approach. Beyond the new Solvency II requirements, reporting, in our view, remains a pressing issue at the global level.
SFAC documents are issued by the FASB to provide broad accounting concepts and definitions that serve as a framework for establishing financial accounting standards. SFAC No. 1 discusses the objectives of financial reporting for business enterprises as providing useful information for economic decision making. SFAC No. 2 addresses the qualitative characteristics of accounting information such as relevance, reliability, and neutrality. SFAC No. 5 and 7 provide guidance on recognition criteria, measurement attributes, and using present value and cash flow information in financial statements.
This document provides an overview of chapter 1 of an accounting textbook, including a table of topics covered in the chapter and case/question assignments. It also includes sample solutions to codification exercises and answers to questions about the development of accounting standards and standard-setting bodies in the United States.
The document discusses the growing pressure on companies to improve their close-to-disclose financial reporting process. It notes that CFOs are targeting this process for improvement to reduce errors, speed reporting, increase transparency, and handle new disclosure requirements. The document provides statistics showing that companies with faster quarterly and annual close cycles spend less per $1,000 in revenue on financial reporting. It also discusses challenges companies face in gathering data from multiple systems and entities. Areas that companies are working to improve include reducing close cycle times, increasing automation, identifying error root causes, and better aligning internal and external reporting data. A holistic approach is needed that addresses people, processes, and systems.
Solution manual for Auditing & Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 12th ...ssuserf63bd7
Solution manual for Auditing & Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 12th Edition by William Messier Jr.docx
Full download contact u84757@protonmail.com or
https://qidiantiku.com/solution-manual-for-auditing-assurance-services-a-systematic-approach-12th-edition-by-william-messier-jr.shtml
CEI Compliance is the UK's fastest growing regulatory consultancy and provides associate opportunities to consultants and cost effective value to financial services and other regulated companies.
We show you the methodology for conducting the Compliance Risk Assessment and how to provide meaningful action plans.
The document discusses the Next Generation Controlling project at Deutsche Post World Net. The project aims to transform the company's Controlling organization into an "Advanced Navigator" that better supports management. Phase 1 involved a thorough analysis of the current performance of Controlling through interviews and a survey. While Controlling has adapted successfully to changes, the analysis found room for improvement. Phase 2 will implement the IMPACT program using 11 initiatives to address opportunities identified across 6 levels, including Controlling's mission, key processes, systems, and organization. The goal is to clearly improve efficiency and effectiveness.
1) Japan passed the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law in 2006 which empowered the FSA to create requirements for financial and internal control reports, similar to Sarbanes-Oxley but with some key differences.
2) All Japanese public companies must comply with the new J-SOX standards or state otherwise in filings after April 1, 2008.
3) MFA recommends a 4-phase approach to compliance: thorough planning and scoping (Phase 1), assessment of corporate governance environment (Phase 2), documentation and assessment of internal controls (Phase 3), and testing of internal controls (Phase 4). Proper planning and leveraging of existing SOX processes can help achieve compliance in an efficient and cost-effective
1. The document outlines the conceptual framework for financial reporting established by the FASB. The framework consists of three levels: the objective of financial reporting, fundamental qualitative characteristics and elements, and concepts for recognition, measurement, and disclosure.
2. It describes the key components of each level, including the basic objective to provide useful information to investors and creditors, qualitative characteristics like relevance and faithful representation, and defined elements like assets, liabilities, and equity.
3. Basic assumptions and principles are also discussed, such as the monetary unit and historical cost assumptions, as well as the revenue and expense recognition principles. An exception for the cost constraint is noted.
The document discusses the challenges that banks face in meeting new regulatory requirements for stress testing and capital planning. It notes that existing risk and finance systems are not well-suited to the more rigorous analysis now required, and that banks must improve data management, analytical models, and reporting in order to "break the black box" and increase transparency. The document outlines the complex data, modeling, and reporting needs to conduct comprehensive, forward-looking stress tests that meet regulatory expectations and can be useful for bank management.
Disruption, a seismic shift in the private equity industryFrenchWeb.fr
This document summarizes the key findings of a survey on the private equity industry. It finds:
1) The private equity industry is facing disruption from relentless increased regulation globally which has forced funds to redesign business models and focus on controlling costs and improving efficiency.
2) Funds are struggling to meet complex new compliance requirements while transforming operations and adopting new digital technologies, but existing technology solutions are inefficient.
3) Regulations have increased demand for new skills among finance teams, but funds are facing talent shortages, forcing them to look outside the industry and consider outsourcing functions.
Senior executives often lack full visibility across the project portfolio due to issues with culture and information quality. Operations teams are hesitant to report problems early due to fears of additional oversight. As a result, executives only receive optimistic headlines that focus on milestones and budgets rather than quality of delivery. To improve visibility, organizations need to change culture to encourage candor, analyze opportunities beyond risks, ensure clarity on suppliers and contractors, and implement impartial project assurance. Visibility can transform the portfolio from a risk collection to a strategic asset.
Confirmations are an essential component of derivative transactions and a demanding regulatory environment has left the industry facing significant mandatory change.
Economic Risk Factor Update: June 2024 [SlideShare]Commonwealth
May’s reports showed signs of continued economic growth, said Sam Millette, director, fixed income, in his latest Economic Risk Factor Update.
For more market updates, subscribe to The Independent Market Observer at https://blog.commonwealth.com/independent-market-observer.
Special Report: Data Management Implications Of Solvency IIConor Coughlan
This is a special report that Thomson Reuters has sponsored relating to the practical challenges facing practitioners in adhering to Solvency II. This report provides the read with some unique insights into how the industry is dealing with this matter.
if you are working for or connected to an Insurer, Asset Manager, Custodian, Fund Administrator or Prime Broker this will be of interest to you.
This survey of 231 CFOs and finance directors from nine countries found the following:
1) Narrative reporting preparation is seen as highly important, with over 50% saying their department drives the process.
2) There is no clear consensus on the most important characteristic of narrative reports, with only 29% citing providing decision-useful information to investors.
3) Legal/regulatory requirements and shareholders are considered equally important drivers of narrative reporting, despite potential incompatibility of these needs.
4) The main challenges are seen as the large number of requirements and high cost/time needed for preparation, placing a significant burden on companies.
This document contains comments on proposed regulations regarding business and financial disclosures. It discusses several key points:
1) Sunset provisions should be included to evaluate new disclosure requirements based on complexity and impact. A staff review would help ensure changes are implementable without undue delay.
2) Disclosure thresholds may need updating as some are outdated. Materiality definitions do not require changes.
3) Principles-based and prescriptive approaches both have advantages and disadvantages for registrants and investors. Balancing the two could help preserve benefits while addressing concerns.
Solvency II compliance requires insurers to address all three pillars of the
regulation, namely:
Pillar1: Capital Requirements
Pillar 2: Workflow, Audit and Governance
Pillar 3: Reporting
In preparing for Solvency II, many insurers have up to this point been focusing
their efforts on addressing the quantitative requirements of Pillar 1 and are
only now turning their attention to Pillars 2 and 3. Under the new regime
insurers will face more frequent and prescriptive reporting alongside
increased levels of controls and governance.
In this paper, industry leading practitioners provide insight into the key
challenges and issues arising when managing the workflow around internal
models. They also discuss processes surrounding reporting and the integration
with risk modeling and capital calculations.
The Insurance Reporting Challenge: Building an Integrated FrameworkAccenture Insurance
The reporting component of Solvency II has become a major concern for insurance companies operating in Europe. Solvency II Pillar III increases reporting requirements in terms of volume, frequency, timeliness and complexity. These, in turn, have a direct bearing on insurers’ data, processes, methodologies and organization. The pressure put on insurers to enhance their reporting calls for a revamped closing and reporting framework where integration is part of the approach. Beyond the new Solvency II requirements, reporting, in our view, remains a pressing issue at the global level.
SFAC documents are issued by the FASB to provide broad accounting concepts and definitions that serve as a framework for establishing financial accounting standards. SFAC No. 1 discusses the objectives of financial reporting for business enterprises as providing useful information for economic decision making. SFAC No. 2 addresses the qualitative characteristics of accounting information such as relevance, reliability, and neutrality. SFAC No. 5 and 7 provide guidance on recognition criteria, measurement attributes, and using present value and cash flow information in financial statements.
This document provides an overview of chapter 1 of an accounting textbook, including a table of topics covered in the chapter and case/question assignments. It also includes sample solutions to codification exercises and answers to questions about the development of accounting standards and standard-setting bodies in the United States.
The document discusses the growing pressure on companies to improve their close-to-disclose financial reporting process. It notes that CFOs are targeting this process for improvement to reduce errors, speed reporting, increase transparency, and handle new disclosure requirements. The document provides statistics showing that companies with faster quarterly and annual close cycles spend less per $1,000 in revenue on financial reporting. It also discusses challenges companies face in gathering data from multiple systems and entities. Areas that companies are working to improve include reducing close cycle times, increasing automation, identifying error root causes, and better aligning internal and external reporting data. A holistic approach is needed that addresses people, processes, and systems.
Solution manual for Auditing & Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 12th ...ssuserf63bd7
Solution manual for Auditing & Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 12th Edition by William Messier Jr.docx
Full download contact u84757@protonmail.com or
https://qidiantiku.com/solution-manual-for-auditing-assurance-services-a-systematic-approach-12th-edition-by-william-messier-jr.shtml
CEI Compliance is the UK's fastest growing regulatory consultancy and provides associate opportunities to consultants and cost effective value to financial services and other regulated companies.
We show you the methodology for conducting the Compliance Risk Assessment and how to provide meaningful action plans.
The document discusses the Next Generation Controlling project at Deutsche Post World Net. The project aims to transform the company's Controlling organization into an "Advanced Navigator" that better supports management. Phase 1 involved a thorough analysis of the current performance of Controlling through interviews and a survey. While Controlling has adapted successfully to changes, the analysis found room for improvement. Phase 2 will implement the IMPACT program using 11 initiatives to address opportunities identified across 6 levels, including Controlling's mission, key processes, systems, and organization. The goal is to clearly improve efficiency and effectiveness.
1) Japan passed the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law in 2006 which empowered the FSA to create requirements for financial and internal control reports, similar to Sarbanes-Oxley but with some key differences.
2) All Japanese public companies must comply with the new J-SOX standards or state otherwise in filings after April 1, 2008.
3) MFA recommends a 4-phase approach to compliance: thorough planning and scoping (Phase 1), assessment of corporate governance environment (Phase 2), documentation and assessment of internal controls (Phase 3), and testing of internal controls (Phase 4). Proper planning and leveraging of existing SOX processes can help achieve compliance in an efficient and cost-effective
1. The document outlines the conceptual framework for financial reporting established by the FASB. The framework consists of three levels: the objective of financial reporting, fundamental qualitative characteristics and elements, and concepts for recognition, measurement, and disclosure.
2. It describes the key components of each level, including the basic objective to provide useful information to investors and creditors, qualitative characteristics like relevance and faithful representation, and defined elements like assets, liabilities, and equity.
3. Basic assumptions and principles are also discussed, such as the monetary unit and historical cost assumptions, as well as the revenue and expense recognition principles. An exception for the cost constraint is noted.
The document discusses the challenges that banks face in meeting new regulatory requirements for stress testing and capital planning. It notes that existing risk and finance systems are not well-suited to the more rigorous analysis now required, and that banks must improve data management, analytical models, and reporting in order to "break the black box" and increase transparency. The document outlines the complex data, modeling, and reporting needs to conduct comprehensive, forward-looking stress tests that meet regulatory expectations and can be useful for bank management.
Disruption, a seismic shift in the private equity industryFrenchWeb.fr
This document summarizes the key findings of a survey on the private equity industry. It finds:
1) The private equity industry is facing disruption from relentless increased regulation globally which has forced funds to redesign business models and focus on controlling costs and improving efficiency.
2) Funds are struggling to meet complex new compliance requirements while transforming operations and adopting new digital technologies, but existing technology solutions are inefficient.
3) Regulations have increased demand for new skills among finance teams, but funds are facing talent shortages, forcing them to look outside the industry and consider outsourcing functions.
Senior executives often lack full visibility across the project portfolio due to issues with culture and information quality. Operations teams are hesitant to report problems early due to fears of additional oversight. As a result, executives only receive optimistic headlines that focus on milestones and budgets rather than quality of delivery. To improve visibility, organizations need to change culture to encourage candor, analyze opportunities beyond risks, ensure clarity on suppliers and contractors, and implement impartial project assurance. Visibility can transform the portfolio from a risk collection to a strategic asset.
Confirmations are an essential component of derivative transactions and a demanding regulatory environment has left the industry facing significant mandatory change.
Economic Risk Factor Update: June 2024 [SlideShare]Commonwealth
May’s reports showed signs of continued economic growth, said Sam Millette, director, fixed income, in his latest Economic Risk Factor Update.
For more market updates, subscribe to The Independent Market Observer at https://blog.commonwealth.com/independent-market-observer.
How Does CRISIL Evaluate Lenders in India for Credit RatingsShaheen Kumar
CRISIL evaluates lenders in India by analyzing financial performance, loan portfolio quality, risk management practices, capital adequacy, market position, and adherence to regulatory requirements. This comprehensive assessment ensures a thorough evaluation of creditworthiness and financial strength. Each criterion is meticulously examined to provide credible and reliable ratings.
^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Duba...mayaclinic18
Whatsapp (+971581248768) Buy Abortion Pills In Dubai/ Qatar/Kuwait/Doha/Abu Dhabi/Alain/RAK City/Satwa/Al Ain/Abortion Pills For Sale In Qatar, Doha. Abu az Zuluf. Abu Thaylah. Ad Dawhah al Jadidah. Al Arish, Al Bida ash Sharqiyah, Al Ghanim, Al Ghuwariyah, Qatari, Abu Dhabi, Dubai.. WHATSAPP +971)581248768 Abortion Pills / Cytotec Tablets Available in Dubai, Sharjah, Abudhabi, Ajman, Alain, Fujeira, Ras Al Khaima, Umm Al Quwain., UAE, buy cytotec in Dubai– Where I can buy abortion pills in Dubai,+971582071918where I can buy abortion pills in Abudhabi +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Sharjah,+97158207191 8where I can buy abortion pills in Ajman, +971)581248768 where I can buy abortion pills in Umm al Quwain +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Fujairah +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Ras al Khaimah +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Alain+971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in UAE +971)581248768 we are providing cytotec 200mg abortion pill in dubai, uae.Medication abortion offers an alternative to Surgical Abortion for women in the early weeks of pregnancy. Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman
1. Elemental Economics - Introduction to mining.pdfNeal Brewster
After this first you should: Understand the nature of mining; have an awareness of the industry’s boundaries, corporate structure and size; appreciation the complex motivations and objectives of the industries’ various participants; know how mineral reserves are defined and estimated, and how they evolve over time.
OJP data from firms like Vicinity Jobs have emerged as a complement to traditional sources of labour demand data, such as the Job Vacancy and Wages Survey (JVWS). Ibrahim Abuallail, PhD Candidate, University of Ottawa, presented research relating to bias in OJPs and a proposed approach to effectively adjust OJP data to complement existing official data (such as from the JVWS) and improve the measurement of labour demand.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte degree offer diploma Transcripttscdzuip
办理美国UNCC毕业证书制作北卡大学夏洛特分校假文凭定制Q微168899991做UNCC留信网教留服认证海牙认证改UNCC成绩单GPA做UNCC假学位证假文凭高仿毕业证GRE代考如何申请北卡罗莱纳大学夏洛特分校University of North Carolina at Charlotte degree offer diploma Transcript
Abhay Bhutada, the Managing Director of Poonawalla Fincorp Limited, is an accomplished leader with over 15 years of experience in commercial and retail lending. A Qualified Chartered Accountant, he has been pivotal in leveraging technology to enhance financial services. Starting his career at Bank of India, he later founded TAB Capital Limited and co-founded Poonawalla Finance Private Limited, emphasizing digital lending. Under his leadership, Poonawalla Fincorp achieved a 'AAA' credit rating, integrating acquisitions and emphasizing corporate governance. Actively involved in industry forums and CSR initiatives, Abhay has been recognized with awards like "Young Entrepreneur of India 2017" and "40 under 40 Most Influential Leader for 2020-21." Personally, he values mindfulness, enjoys gardening, yoga, and sees every day as an opportunity for growth and improvement.
"Does Foreign Direct Investment Negatively Affect Preservation of Culture in the Global South? Case Studies in Thailand and Cambodia."
Do elements of globalization, such as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), negatively affect the ability of countries in the Global South to preserve their culture? This research aims to answer this question by employing a cross-sectional comparative case study analysis utilizing methods of difference. Thailand and Cambodia are compared as they are in the same region and have a similar culture. The metric of difference between Thailand and Cambodia is their ability to preserve their culture. This ability is operationalized by their respective attitudes towards FDI; Thailand imposes stringent regulations and limitations on FDI while Cambodia does not hesitate to accept most FDI and imposes fewer limitations. The evidence from this study suggests that FDI from globally influential countries with high gross domestic products (GDPs) (e.g. China, U.S.) challenges the ability of countries with lower GDPs (e.g. Cambodia) to protect their culture. Furthermore, the ability, or lack thereof, of the receiving countries to protect their culture is amplified by the existence and implementation of restrictive FDI policies imposed by their governments.
My study abroad in Bali, Indonesia, inspired this research topic as I noticed how globalization is changing the culture of its people. I learned their language and way of life which helped me understand the beauty and importance of cultural preservation. I believe we could all benefit from learning new perspectives as they could help us ideate solutions to contemporary issues and empathize with others.
Vicinity Jobs’ data includes more than three million 2023 OJPs and thousands of skills. Most skills appear in less than 0.02% of job postings, so most postings rely on a small subset of commonly used terms, like teamwork.
Laura Adkins-Hackett, Economist, LMIC, and Sukriti Trehan, Data Scientist, LMIC, presented their research exploring trends in the skills listed in OJPs to develop a deeper understanding of in-demand skills. This research project uses pointwise mutual information and other methods to extract more information about common skills from the relationships between skills, occupations and regions.
Does teamwork really matter? Looking beyond the job posting to understand lab...
Global services:Solvency II Regulation
1. BUSINESS COMMUNITY
RESEARCH REPORT
SGS3450
SOLVENCY II:
THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY?
An executive perspective
Dale Vile & Jon Collins
Freeform Dynamics Ltd
July 2010
The study upon which this report is based was independently designed and executed by Freeform Dynamics. Feedback was gathered
from 100 Business and IT representatives of UK insurance firms during April/May 2010. The study was sponsored by SunGard.
2. CONTENTS
Introduction............................................................................................... 1
Solvency II in a nutshell............................................................................. 2
Starting at the top..................................................................................... 3
Playing the delegation game.................................................................... 6
Balancing the perspectives....................................................................... 8
Conclusions............................................................................................. 10
Appendix A – Research Sample.............................................................. 11
3. SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY? 1
INTRODUCTION
The emergence of new regulation always presents Some might take this as a huge imposition, but
a dilemma, particularly when considered against the move is not surprising given that so many high
the background of other, often-conflicting priorities profile issues in the financial services industry as
for resources and investment. On the one hand a whole have been tracked back to board level
you can respond to the immediate need, absorb behaviour and decisions. And while Solvency II was
the cost of compliance, and have done with it. conceived before the most recent global economic
This often translates to finance and operations crisis, the broad media coverage of risk related
staff simply implementing tactical changes to the issues that underpinned the 2008 crash has put
way business activities are recorded and reported, even more of a spotlight on industry regulation.
minimising the impact on core systems and
processes. On a more positive note, however, while board
members in some organisations may have mixed
The alternative approach is to take a more feelings about being forced into the root-and-
strategic view, and address new compliance branch treatment advocated by Solvency II, it is
requirements in a more fundamental manner that possible to view it as an opportunity to benefit from
leads to incremental refinement of core policies, an overdue shake-up of business practices.
systems and processes. While this may initially
cost more, responding in this way is more likely But how much have executives thought through
to have a cumulative positive effect on efficiency all this, and how prepared are they and their
and effectiveness, while avoiding the need to management teams to deal with implementing
continually reinvent the wheel when it comes to Solvency II in the most efficient and effective
new regulation. manner? These are the questions we are concerned
with in the remainder of this paper, with reference
Whichever way you have leaned in the past when to a recent research study (Appendix A) which
faced with such choices, there is an event on the provides a flavour of the kinds of sentiment and
horizon that is likely to force your hand. In 2012, activity that exist.
insurance firms in the European Union (EU) will
be expected to demonstrate compliance with Before getting into this, however, let’s just recap on
Solvency II. This new set of regulations changes some Solvency II basics.
the game by demanding a more fundamental
approach. Transparency of how the company
is directed and managed at the highest level
is mandated, with a need for executives to
demonstrate that certain principles of risk and
capital adequacy have been worked into the
review and decision-making fabric of the business
from top to bottom.
4. 2 SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY?
SOLVENCY II IN A NUTSHELL
Underlying Solvency II is a set of principles aimed care of to ensure compliance. The snag right
at ensuring that matters of risk are fully and now though is getting a firm handle on what
appropriately taken into account during the running ‘adequately’ actually translates to as Solvency II
of an insurance business, and that risk is properly does not seek to be prescriptive on mechanics; it
and transparently considered when determining simply outlines the principles that must be applied.
capital requirements. Furthermore, Solvency II is still a work in progress,
so requirements and expectations remain fluid to a
In terms of specifics, Solvency II is based on the degree at the moment. Having said this, the meat
notion of three ‘pillars’ as follows: of the principles has been defined well enough for
most insurance companies to make a reasonable
This is a very high level summary and more in- assessment of the likely impact on their business,
depth information is available from the European and to start much of the preparation work that will
Commission website (http://ec.europa.eu/ be necessary for ultimate compliance.
internal_market/insurance/solvency/index_en.htm)
as well as a variety of other sources. Suffice it to But coming back to our key questions, where are
say, however, that there is a quantitative modelling organisations and the executives that run them at
dimension, a governance and risk management the moment in terms of readiness?
dimension, and a reporting dimension to Solvency
II, and all of these must be adequately taken
THE THREE PILLARS OF SOLVENCY II
Pillar 1: Quantitative requirements Concerned with the financial and operational models
and metrics that underpin core business activity
Pillar 2: Supervisory review Concerned with the governance and risk management
framework for ensuring adherence to key principles
Pillar 3: Disclosure requirements Concerned with the reporting requirements needed to
provide adequate external visibility and transparency
5. SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY? 3
STARTING AT THE TOP
For many organisations, Solvency II is likely Data like this is useful because it reflects the views
to translate to a significant change in working of those in the organisation who are involved
practices, and as with all change programmes, in evaluating the impact and practicalities of
success will be dependent on executive Solvency II from an operational perspective. These
commitment. Without this, initiatives are likely to employees are in a good position to assess how
be starved of the necessary resources and funding, well senior management is able to enter into an
and the potential to generate strategic level informed and objective discussion of priorities and
benefit is unlikely to be realised. requirements. Such dialogue is clearly an important
prerequisite for putting the necessary plans in place
Put this together with the fundamental nature of and making sure initiatives are properly supported
Solvency II outlined above, and the finite amount and have the right level of air cover.
of time organisations have to act, and it would be
reasonable to expect most insurance company There is, however, the principle of ‘ignorance is
executives to be up to speed in this area. When bliss’ to consider. The danger is that executives
100 IT and business professionals involved in one with a limited understanding of the nature of
way or another with Solvency II related activity Solvency II and the aspects of the business it will
were asked about executive level readiness in their touch will be more likely to put off action. Indeed,
organisation, however, it became clear that this is there is evidence of this happening already, e.g.
not always the case. In fact on a scale of 1 to 5, the while it is encouraging that overall around half of
majority of executives were only regarded as being those participating in our study say they have made
at level 3 or below in terms of them having so far a start on implementation, we see a significantly
acquired the necessary level of understanding, lower level of activity in situations where senior
with over a third reportedly still not making it management is less well informed (See Figure 2).
beyond level 2 (See Figure 1).
Figure1. How much do board level execs have the necessary understanding of Solvency II at the moment?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Know as much as
they need to = 5
While just over a quarter of senior
4
executives are reported to be pretty
well informed, the majority have
3 limited or poor understanding of
Solvency II at the moment.
2
No understanding = 1
Unsure
6. 4 SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY?
Figure 2. To what degree is Solvency II on your agenda at the moment?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Where the board is very
well informed about
Solvency II (Knowledge Overall, around half of organisations
rating 4 or 5)
indicate that a start has been made
on implementation of Solvency II,
but the level of activity is higher
Where the board is less where senior management is better
well informed about informed.
Solvency II (Knowledge
rating 1, 2 or 3)
Very firmly, we have already started preparing for it It's on our radar, but has got no further than that at the moment
It's in the plan and we have a feel for what we need to do Not even on our radar
Currently researching and assessing the impact
The other important observation we can make is the relationship between executive understanding and the
spirit and objectives associated with Solvency II activity (See Figure 3).
Figure 3. When scoping your Solvency II activity, which of the following are you likely to use as a guide for how far
you should take things?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Where the board is very
well informed about
Solvency II (Knowledge
rating 4 or 5)
Where executives are better
informed, a more positive and
proactive approach to Solvency II
Where the board is less implementation is likely to be taken.
well informed about
Solvency II (Knowledge
rating 1, 2 or 3)
Desire to take every advantage ot the spirit and principles of Solency II
Desire to take keep up with the competition, ie not to be seen to be falling behind our peers
Desire to do the minimum work possible at the minimum cost to achieve legal compliance
7. SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY? 5
As we can see, some organisations are taking a
very positive and proactive view, looking to take
every advantage of the spirit and principles of
Solvency II for the reasons we outlined earlier.
Meanwhile, others just want to keep up with the
competition. Finally there remains a significant
minority in which the intention is to do the
minimum possible to achieve compliance.
The danger with the latter perspective, which the
research shows is more likely to be associated
with executive ignorance, is that Solvency II
implementation work becomes simply about cost
management. This not only risks corner cutting
and the potential regulatory exposure that comes
with it, but it is also indicative of a fundamental
misunderstanding of what Solvency II represents,
not least how it is different from the majority of
regulation that has hit the insurance industry in
the past. Even those simply wishing to keep up
with the competition are exhibiting a defensive
or conservative rather than progressive mindset,
the upshot of which is likely to be a poor return
on investment from Solvency II related change
initiatives, which is essentially a wasted opportunity.
The picture we see highlights the wide variation in
attitudes to Solvency II, and how this is related to
knowledge and awareness, but we must obviously
be careful about making simplistic assumptions
about causality. It could be, for example, that
where management is well informed, it is not
because they have taken the lead, but because
they are responding to others in the business who
have done the initial ground work.
Another interesting situation, which is clearly
occurring in some organisations, is the one in
which subordinates are seizing the initiative and
moving forward progressively despite the relative
lack of well-informed air cover. The danger with
this last approach is that delays and roadblocks
can occur if resource or budget intensive activities
emerge that require the next level of commitment
and buy-in from the board. In practical terms, the
outcome of discussions in such scenarios will be
dependent on the mandate provided to those in
the business, which raises the topic of delegation.
8. 6 SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY?
PLAYING THE DELEGATION GAME
Few executives would attempt to plead ignorance
on the matter of the board being ultimately
responsible for Solvency II compliance. When it
comes to the detail of implementation, however,
much of the activity will need to be delegated
to specialists within the business and/or those
responsible for running specific aspects of business
operations. But to what degree can responsibility
for the overall change programme itself be
delegated, and what are the consequences of this?
When we look at who is overseeing activity,
the most prominent figure that emerges is
the individual responsible for corporate risk
management (See Figure 4).
This association with risk management is natural
given that working risk assessment into business
management and operations is a fundamental part
of Solvency II. Whether putting such emphasis on
the risk dimension is the most sensible way forward
is something we’ll look at more closely in a minute.
In the meantime, it is telling that where the board
maintains direct control of activity, the organisation
is almost twice as likely to be taking a progressive
view of Solvency II implementation (See Figure 5).
The reference to smartening the way the
organisation works and building a better business
that we see on this chart is indicative not just
of a progressive view of Solvency II, but also a
more rounded or holistic one, acknowledging
the need to think across the three dimensions of
finance, operations and risk simultaneously. This is
something worth looking at a little more closely.
9. SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY? 7
Figure 4. Who is overseeing, or likely to oversee, Solvency II related activity?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
The CEO/Managing
Director
The board of directors
(collectivity)
The CFO/Financial
Director
The CRO/Head
of Risk
Chief
Actuary When we look at who is overseeing
activity, the most prominent figure
A dedicated individual that emerges is the individual
specifically appointed responsible for risk management.
A specifically formed
body or committee
Unclear; multiple people
claim ownership
Other
Don't know yet
Figure 5. Which of the following statements best sums up what Solvency II represents to your organisation?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Where the board of
directors is taking
direct responsibility
Where the board maintains direct
control of activity, the organisation
is almost twice as likely to be taking
a progressive view of Solvency II
Where responsibility implementation.
is delegated
An opportunity to smarten the way we work and build a better business
An inconvenience but useful tightening of business practices
An unwanted and unnecessary burden on the business
10. 8 SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY?
BALANCING THE PERSPECTIVES
Effective risk management may be at the centre this cost could be very substantial. Beyond this, any
of the rationale for Solvency II, but risk matters introduction of a new way of working will then have
cannot be considered in isolation. an impact on the cost and effectiveness of ongoing
business process execution. There will be situations,
Firstly, putting measures in place to manage for example, in which additional overhead is
different aspects of business risk effectively will incurred, which could have a tangible impact on
often have operational consequences. Business margins. Of course, approached intelligently and
processes and the systems that support them with the right spirit, the reverse could also be
may need to be adjusted or even completely true. Taking steps to better integrate information
re-engineered to deal with new or modified risk systems, for example, might not only deal with the
requirements, impacting multiple parts of the immediate Solvency II requirement, but also have
organisation including finance, IT and, of course, positive operational spin-offs in general.
the actuarial function. Solvency II implementation
is therefore likely to translate to significant Against this background, it makes little sense to
disruption, which ironically creates a whole set of take a checklist approach to Solvency II compliance,
new risks around the execution and management without due consideration of the dependencies
of the change itself that needs to be understood and trade-offs, and the opportunities for offsetting
and taken care of. short term implementation costs against longer
term benefits that stem from a more proactive and
Secondly, enhancements to the risk management holistically managed change programme.
regime will almost certainly have financial
implications. Implementation and management of With this multi-dimensional view of Solvency II in
the change and disruption we have just referred to mind, we would expect a broad range of roles to
will obviously have a cost associated with it. And be involved in defining requirements and making
depending on the gap between where processes decisions, and this is confirmed by the research
and systems are today and where they need to be, findings (See Figure 6).
Figure 6. Who will actually be involved in defining requirements and making decisions on implementation specifics?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Board level
execs
Finance
management
Risk
management
A broad range of roles are involved
Chief in defining requirements and
actuary making decisions.
Actuarial
staff
IT management
External
advisors
Involvement in decision making
Input into requirements
11. SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY? 9
Again, we see the delegation game in play if if the cost or performance impact is going to lead
we compare the degree to which board level to financial difficulty or significant competitive
executives are involved in requirements definition disadvantage. It is important, however, not to let
versus decision making on implementation tactical financial considerations override strategic
specifics. This is fine if it is a case of managing risk management decisions.
different levels of granularity from a requirements
perspective, but if it’s more a case of kicking the Indeed, the same warning could be issued with
entire problem down the management hierarchy regard to operational input from the actuarial and
and taking a rubber stamp approach to approval, IT functions. In both these contexts if tactical cost
then that’s clearly an issue given the nature of related pressures lead to process or system level
Solvency II. At the very least there is a need workarounds being implemented, rather than
for executives to be involved in the definition re-engineering or re-architecting where it’s really
of performance and risk indicators, and the necessary, short term compliance may be achieved,
metrics that underpin them – not necessarily at a but the shortcuts are likely to come back to bite
mathematical and statistical modelling level, but at down the line, with longer term risk, cost and
least in terms of the business rationale. This is not performance implications.
something that can be safely delegated blindly.
Given the high stakes and importance of making
Another key observation from this last chart sure all appropriate angles are covered and
is the relative prominence of the financial and balanced as we have discussed, it is important that
risk management roles. While we don’t see the various stakeholders and advisors are properly
much difference from a requirements definition prepared so they contribute in an objective and
perspective, which makes sense given the need informed manner. When we look overall, however,
to consider multiple dimensions, the financial we see that a lot of knowledge gaps currently
card clearly trumps the risk card in most cases exist, with two important groups standing out as
when it comes to decision making. At one level being particularly weak – the executives as previous
this is understandable, as there is no point in discussed, and the IT department (See Figure 7).
implementing extreme risk management measures
Figure 7. How well would you say these people or groups have the necessary understanding of Solvency II at the moment?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Board level
execs
Finance
management
Risk A lot of knowledge gaps currently
management
exist, with two important groups
standing out as being particularly
Chief
actuary weak – board level executives (as
we previously saw), and the IT
Actuarial department.
staff
IT management
External
advisors
5=As much as they need to 4 3 2 1=Not at all
12. 10 SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY?
Given that the insurance business is so information they will be aware of not just the practical aspects
intensive, and the information involved is largely of modifying the existing systems infrastructure,
held in electronic format, the lack of preparedness but also the technology options available in the
of IT is particularly concerning. While a lot of the market that could ease implementation of the
work associated with Solvency II will be policy and necessary operational changes at a business level.
process related, there is no getting away from the In information management in particular, it is worth
fact that information management and systems bearing in mind that from an IT perspective, things
integration are going to figure prominently in the that were considered impractical or cost prohibitive
detailed work plan. Involving the IT function early even a few years ago can nowadays be achieved
in the process could have significant benefits, as efficiently and economically.
CONCLUSIONS
With a more proactive and holistic executive
From the considerations and research findings
driven approach, however, the Solvency II
outlined in this paper, it should be evident that
imperative can be thought of as an opportunity
dealing with Solvency II in the most appropriate
to achieve significant positive change that will
manner in your business environment is
deliver long term benefits to the organisation.
something that is worthy of serious management
With the necessary re-engineering, integration
time and attention. Sure, you can elect to take
and optimisation of business processes and
a minimalist approach, but the chances are that
support systems, however, the strategic payback
you will not only incur significant short term cost
is there for the taking. But it all starts with
for little or no business benefit, but also have to
executive commitment coupled with the right
revisit the question of Solvency II compliance at
mindset and attitude.
some point down the line.
We hope the material in this paper helps
you optimise your approach to Solvency II
implementation.
13. SOLVENCY II: THREAT OR OPPORTUNITY? 11
APPENDIX A – RESEARCH SAMPLE
The charts presented in this report were derived from a research study completed in May 2010, during which
feedback was gathered from 100 Business and IT representatives of UK insurance firms. The makeup of the
sample was as follows:
Which of the following best describes your role?
I am an IT
professional 12%
I am a senior
business manager All respondents were qualified into
or director 27%
the study on the basis of their ability
and willingness to discuss the
implementation of Solvency II in
their organisation.
I am a senior IT
manager or
director 38%
I work in the
actuarial part of
the business 23%
Sample composition by size of asset base
Small
(£250m-£2.5bn)
20%
Large (£25bn+)
40% The sample was composed of a
range of organisation sizes, with an
emphasis on medium and large
insurance companies.
Medium
(£2.5Bn-£25bn)
40%
All design, execution, analysis and reporting were conducted on an independent basis by Freeform Dynamics
Ltd. The study was sponsored by SunGard.