hot topics in insurance investment accountingd1pvbs8relied5.cloudfront.net/resources/white... · an...

MARKET INSIGHT

www.clearwateranalytics.com

SPECIAL EDITION

Hot Topics in Insurance Investment AccountingUpcoming issues and changes that will impact the industry in 2016

US STAT | pg. 3Corporate Bond Factor Updates, Investment Classification Project, Electronic-Only Columns, and Schedule BA Categories

US GAAP| pg. 5Accounting for Financial Instruments Updates

SEC | pg. 6

Money Market Fund Reforms

EIOPA | pg. 7Solvency II Updates

BMA | pg. 8

Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement

IASB | pg. 8

IFRS 9: Financial Instruments

www.clearwateranalytics.comwww.clearwateranalytics.com2

MARKET INSIGHTCLEARWATER

Clearwater Contributors

Jennifer Benz, Esq. | Europe and Bermuda Regulatory Expert

Jennifer focuses on developing accounting and reporting solutions for insurers and other organizations in Europe and Bermuda. She works closely with clients, regulators, and software developers to ensure Clearwater’s solutions comply with a variety of country-specific and European Union regulations. She has a Juris Doctor and MBA from American University, and a bachelor’s in global studies from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Diana Gallinger, CPA | Insurance Accounting Specialist

Diana helps insurers improve and streamline their investment accounting and reporting. She also works on internal audits and ensuring accurate and proactive communication of NAIC investment-related updates. Diana has a bachelor’s in accounting and finance from Boise State University.

Sam Hobbs, CPA | Accounting Specialist

Sam is responsible for ensuring the Clearwater solution is in compliance with GAAP, statutory, and tax accounting standards, as well as managing the development of new accounting features and enhancements. He has a bachelor’s in accounting from Brigham Young University.

Robert Lindsay, CPA | Insurance Reporting Specialist

Robert works closely with Clearwater’s insurance clients and has deep domain knowledge of insurers’ accounting and reporting issues, especially involving RBC-related items. Robert has a master’s in accountancy and a bachelor’s in accounting from the University of Idaho. Georgina Patten, CA(SA) | EU Insurance Specialist

Georgina is an expert on IFRS, UK GAAP, local European GAAPs, and Solvency II, and works closely with Clearwater clients. She has a BCOM Honors in accounting from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University of South Africa.

Richard Pullara | Insurance Market Specialist

Richard has more than 15 years of insurance investment accounting experience. He is an expert in statutory accounting and investment systems, and is Clearwater’s liaison for the NAIC, NASVA, and the IASA. He has an MBA in finance from the University of Hartford and a bachelor’s in accounting from York College of Pennsylvania.

Ashish Shrestha | Multinational Insurance Specialist

Ashish facilitates seamless transitions of investment portfolios onto the Clearwater solution, and provides clients with reporting and accounting expertise. Ashish has a bachelor’s in applied accounting from Oxford Brookes University.

For in-depth analysis on regulatory changes and insurance investment accounting best practices, subscribe to Clearwater’s digital publication, Clear Insights. Scan this QR code or visit clearinsights.clearwater-analytics.com.

www.clearwateranalytics.com 3

MARKET INSIGHTCLEARWATERMARKET INSIGHT

Corporate Bond Factor Updates One of the hottest topics in insurance right now is the pending update to corporate bond factors. It’s an issue that’s been buzzing in the background since August 2014, when the NAIC’s Investment Risk-Based Capital Working Group (IRBCWG) released a new set of corporate bond factors (C1 Base Risk Factors), which are specific to life

insurers and were recommended by the American Academy of

Actuaries (AAA).

In the pending C1 Base Risk Factors updates, the IRBCWG recommends that the corporate bond factors change from a six

NAIC designation class to a 14 NAIC designation class.

This would permit a more detailed C1 factor charge.

However, the new proposed designation classes could be challenging for insurance companies. Industry has expressed three main concerns:

1. For an average life insurer, the new factors would cause a 33% increase in C1 factor charges. This would have a substantial impact on reserve requirements, investment strategies, and returns.

2. Changing to a 14 NAIC designation class would take years to implement, as the current six designation class model is fully integrated in insurers’ internal systems, overall accounting guidance, and state investment laws.

3. The discount rate would be measured as after- tax and risk-free. Industry believes an appropriate rate would be “significantly higher” than the proposed rate of 3.25%.

Ultimately, any change in corporate bond factors will cause a significant ripple effect throughout the insurance industry, since regulators will look to leverage this change for all insurance types.

The updates to the corporate bond factors have been discussed now for several years, with no end in sight. Apparently, the NAIC was growing frustrated with this stagnation, as at the Spring NAIC National Meeting they released “The Way Forward” document. This document lays the groundwork on how the NAIC will implement the new corporate bond factors over the next year. The document introduces a number of new concepts, including a new NAIC designation used only for RBC purposes. “The Way Forward” document puts forth an aggressive goal to have the new factors implemented in time for 2017 annual reporting.

The entire industry is watching this project very closely—and with good reason.

Investment Classification Project An important topic for the NAIC’s Statutory Accounting Principles Working Group (SAPWG) in 2016 will be ongoing conversations around the Investment Classification Project, especially in regards to the treatment of securities currently reported under SSAP 26.

During the Spring NAIC National Meeting, the SAPWG decided to move forward with a proposal to separately identify and analyze bond ETFs on the Schedule D – Part 1 by reporting bond ETFs on the Schedule D – Part 1 with

US STAT

Clearwater Analytics is dedicated to keeping insurers up-to-date on the latest industry changes in investment accounting and reporting. Throughout the year, our insurance experts provide proactive education on regulatory updates. This paper is a collection of the most impactful changes that will come into play in 2016.



a new line or category. This would be a stop gap to help resolve bond ETF identification and reporting issues.

While this is being discussed, the SAPWG is also evaluating long-term solutions for mutual fund issues. In early 2015, the NAIC issued a memorandum recommending that all mutual funds, including bond-like ETFs, be measured at Fair Value. This item would effectively move bond ETFs from Schedule D – Part 1 to a new schedule for all mutual funds and ETFs.

In response to this memorandum, BlackRock Investment Management, Inc., submitted a proposal that would keep SVO-approved bond ETFs on the Schedule D – Part 1, with bond accounting treatment. Interested Parties and insurance investment accounting vendors responded to the BlackRock proposal, and asked for details on the implementation of their proposed approach. As Industry and regulators do not seem to agree on the proper reporting treatment of ETFs, the NAIC has asked for feedback that would allow insurers an option to report ETFs at either fair value or a systematic value (amortized cost). In addition, the NAIC recently introduced a proposal to report at fair value but with an RBC factor equivalent to corporate bonds. While Industry continues to weigh the pros and cons of the proposals, one thing is clear: 2016 will set the standard for how this asset class will be accounted for in the future. Electronic-Only Column and NAIC 5-Ratings Another influential SAPWG proposal requires insurers to produce full investment detail Schedule Ds on a

quarterly basis (REF #2015-27). Based on Industry feedback,

the NAIC has modified this proposal and is asking instead for additional electronic-only columns as an NAIC supplemental

filing. These electronic-only columns would

include the CUSIP, par value, book-adjusted carrying value, and fair value information for Schedule D investments.

Adding additional electronic-only columns is an interesting concept. The NAIC has noted in the past that insurers tend to fill out the electronic-only columns incompletely or inaccurately. In addition, the new electronic-only columns would add complexity to insurers’ operations. For those reasons, many expect this discussion to revert back to the original issue: the need for regulators to have more details, on a more frequent basis, and a more cost-effective way for Industry to collaborate with the NAIC on providing that data.

As a result of Industry feedback, the NAIC has exposed a proposal to eliminate the quarterly acquisition and disposition report and replace them with a Schedule of Owned Holdings on a quarterly basis. This latest option to try and meet regulators’ needs for additional information is gaining traction from both regulators and Industry. If adopted, this proposal could be implemented as early as 2017.

For insurers that are required to file an AVR/IMR, the measurement method for NAIC 5-rated securities will be an important item in 2016. The NAIC is exposing revisions to SSAP 26 and 43R that require any investments with an NAIC 5-rating to be valued at the lower of amortized cost or fair value. Industry has opposed this proposal, noting that this exposure makes fundamental changes to the accounting framework. Industry also reminded the NAIC that the current treatment of NAIC 5-rated securities was well thought out, and that the history behind that decision should not be ignored. To better understand how often these are being used, the NAIC is introducing a new data capture disclosure for 2016 reporting. Investment Reporting Process and Schedule BA Categories Outside of the potential impact of the Investment Classification Project and the possibility of additional quarterly reporting requirements, most of 2016’s key



Blanks Working Group (BWG) items will come from the

Investment Reporting Subgroup (IRSG).

There are several backlogged items that will simplify the investment reporting

process, including a redefined foreign

matrix table, clarification on the definition of

“foreign,” and the possible reduction in the number of Schedule BA categories. Other items up for discussion include more clarification on what values should be reported in the description column, and additional clarity on the new electronic-only columns that were added for 2015 year-end.

Accounting for Financial Instruments: Classification and MeasurementThe Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued an accounting standards update on January 5: ASU 2016-01, Financial Instruments-Overall (Subtopic 825- 10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Liabilities. These changes stem from a joint project between the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the FASB, which began in 2010. That project’s objective was to provide financial statement users with more valuable information about an entity’s investments in financial instruments, while reducing complexity. These changes could have a significant impact on insurers in 2016.

This new classification and measurement standard will require that equity investments be measured at fair value, with changes in fair value recognized through net income. There will be exceptions for equity investments that are accounted for under the equity method, or those that result in consolidation of the investee.

Essentially, this update will eliminate the available-for-sale classification for equity securities with readily determinable fair values. This could have a significant impact on insurers who hold a large volume of equity investments. This change should be applied by means of a cumulative-effect adjustment to the balance sheet.

By requiring a qualitative assessment, the new standard will simplify the impairment process for equity securities without readily determinable fair values. If the qualitative assessment shows that the investment is impaired, then an impairment loss will be recognized in income as the difference between the carrying value and the fair value. The current two-step approach under the other-than-temporary impairment guidance will no longer be required. In addition, this guidance eliminates the requirement to disclose the methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value for investments measured at amortized cost.

A few new disclosure requirements were also introduced. For example, entities will be required to use the exit price when measuring the fair value of investments and financial assets, and liabilities will need to be presented separately in the notes or on the balance sheet and grouped by measurement category and form of financial asset.

For public companies, this update will be effective for fiscal years after December 15, 2017. This date is intended to give insurers time to prepare for the changes. Overall, the final changes have a narrower impact than what was originally proposed in 2010, and a lesser impact than the similar IFRS 9 changes from 2014.

Accounting for Financial Instruments: Impairment

In addition to the classification and measurement guidance that was just finalized, the FASB has been working on updating the guidance related to the impairment of financial assets. This also stems from the joint project between the IASB and the FASB, which began in 2010. The final standard isn’t expected to be issued until the second quarter of 2016, but there are a

US GAAP



number of important changes being discussed and

tentative decisions being made. One significant item relates to the proposed Current Expected Credit Loss model. This would

apply to financial assets measured at

amortized cost.

Debt securities classified as AFS would be subject to the existing guidance in Topic 320, which also includes some proposed changes. An allowance approach would need to be used for recognizing credit losses and reversals. The measurement of credit losses on an AFS debt security will be limited to the difference between the amortized cost basis and fair value. The requirements to consider the length of time the fair value is less than the amortized cost, consideration of recoveries or further declines after the balance sheet date, and consideration of the historical or implied volatility would be removed as factors when analyzing credit loss.

There are also many proposed changes to the disclosure requirements. For example, entities will need to disclose the method applied to revert to historical credit loss experience for periods beyond which the entity is able to make or obtain reasonable forecasts. Entities will also need to provide a period-to-period roll-forward of its allowance for expected credit losses, both for financial assets measured at amortized cost and fair value through OCI.

Additional updates related to hedging and financial disclosures are in process and will require more changes once finalized. Insurers hoping for a smooth transition to this system in 2017 will need to take full advantage of the cushioned timeline.

Money Market Mutual Fund Reforms On July 23, 2014, the SEC adopted new rules that govern money market mutual funds (MMFs), and many of the amendments will come into effect in 2016. The three main objectives of the reform are:

1. Address MMFs’ susceptibility to heavy redemptions in times of stress

2. Increase transparency

3. Preserve the benefits of an MMF

The new rules will require a floating asset value (NAV) for institutional prime MMFs by removing the valuation exception that permitted institutional non-government

MMFs to maintain a stable NAV. Additionally, new tools have been created for boards to prevent heavy redemptions in times of stress, including liquidity fees that will be charged on redemptions if the MMF’s liquidity falls below a required threshold, and gates that will temporarily suspend redemptions if a certain threshold is met.

In an effort to increase transparency, MMFs will be subject to increased diversification requirements and enhanced stress testing. Additional information will need to be submitted to the SEC and to investors, including the fact that investors may lose money and the fund may impose fees and gates.

In initial Industry feedback, many expressed concerns about the potential accounting and tax reporting implications. To ease investors’ tax reporting concerns related the new SEC amendments, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department released a new regulation that would permit investors to elect to use a simplified aggregate method of account rather than tracking the timing and price of purchase and sale transactions at a lot level to report capital gains and losses. They also released a new regulation that exempts floating NAV MMFs from the wash sale rule. From a GAAP reporting

SEC



perspective, no formal pronouncement has been made by the FASB, but the SEC did state that under normal circumstances floating NAV MMFs meet the definition of a cash equivalent. SEC Chair Mary Jo White said the reforms will:

[F]undamentally change the way that [MMFs] operate. They will reduce the risk of runs in [MMFs] and provide important new tools that will help further protect investors and the financial system in a crisis. Together, this strong reform package will make our financial system more resilient and enhance the transparency and fairness of these products for America’s investors.

Changes for funds related to diversification, stress testing, disclosure, Form PF, Form N-MFP, and clarifying amendments were due April 14, 2016. The compliance date for the floating NAV and liquidity fees and gates amendments is October 14, 2016.

Solvency II 2016 will be a year of change for EU insurers. In accordance with the new Solvency II regulation, as of January 1, 2016, insurers in the EU must provide local regulators with a detailed look into their investment portfolio. The impact of Solvency II regulations cannot be understated.

The goals of Solvency II include a harmonized supervisory regime throughout the EU, robust risk management and governance requirements to protect consumers, increased awareness of internal risks for insurers, and increased understanding of market risks for European regulators.

Solvency II is comprised of three pillars, and each is equally important:

• Pillar I: Calculation of Capital Reserves outlines the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) and Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR) formulas that insurers use to calculate their capital reserves for all types of risks.

• Pillar II: Management of Risks and Governance contains the Own Risk Solvency Assessment (ORSA) requirements for the governance and management of potential risks.

• Pillar III: Reporting and Disclosure defines the reports that insurers must submit to the national regulator.

At the crux of Solvency II is the Prudent Person Principle, which places the power—and the responsibility—of an insurer’s investment decisions back in their hands. The Prudent Person Principle replaces the individual country restrictions regarding the composition of an insurer’s investment portfolio, and requires that EU insurers invest only in instruments whose risks they can continuously identify, measure, monitor, manage, control, and report:

One of the benefits Solvency II will bring to insurers is a widening of the scope of their investment portfolio. The Prudent Person Principle introduced in Solvency II removes the restrictions on types of assets an insurer can hold and gives undertakings much more freedom in their investment choices and portfolio construction. This higher freedom needs to be balanced with the guarantee of policyholders’ protection. To achieve this, two main requirements must be met: an adequate system of governance ensuring a high level of responsibility and accountability, and an adequate level of reporting to supervisors - Carlos Montalvo, Executive Director, EIOPA

As an entirely new regulatory framework, Solvency II will challenge insurers worldwide, not just in the EU. Solvency II requires significantly stricter requirements on insurers’ capital holdings, risk awareness, and investment transparency. Any insurer with subsidiaries that operate or compete in EU markets will need to adapt to the stricter Solvency II requirements.

Solvency II will also reverberate beyond day-to-day investment operations; overall competitive strategies will also likely need to change as insurers struggle to overcome Solvency II challenges without interrupting their core business.

EIOPA



Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement With many Bermuda-based insurers having a presence in Europe, the BMA has requested EIOPA consider the Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR) reporting requirements to be equivalent to the standards of Solvency II. While EIOPA has deemed it equivalent, nothing will be official until approval is granted by the European Parliament and Council. Approval is expected in the early months of 2016.

In order to be deemed equivalent, the BMA made several changes to its domicile and reporting requirements. One notable amendment is the new public disclosure requirement for Bermuda insurers. The Insurance Amendment (No. 2) Act 2015 grants the BMA the power to set standards on public disclosure (amendment to section 6A Insurance Act). In addition to the BSCR, financial reports, and other filing obligations, the BMA now requires all commercial insurers and insurance groups to publish a Financial Condition Report (FCR) on their website.

Each insurer’s published FCR must inlude six sections:

1. Business and Performance: Particulars regarding the organizational/group structure, its insurance business activities, and financial performance.

2. Governance Structure: Particulars regarding the corporate governance, risk management, and solvency self-assessment frameworks.

3. Risk Profile: Particulars regarding exposures on underwriting risk, market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, operational risk, and other material risks. This section shall also include information on how these risk areas are assessed and managed.

4. Solvency Valuation: Particulars regarding the valuation bases, methods, and assumptions on the inputs used to determine solvency.

5. Capital Management: Particulars regarding an assessment of their capital needs and their regulatory capital requirements.

6. Subsequent Event: Any significant event which takes place after the financial year-end and before the filing of the FCR with the Authority as part of its annual filings.

On December 9, 2015, the BMA published the 2015 BSCR models and the accompanying Capital and Solvency Return Instruction Handbook for individual and group insurers. The BSCR 2015 model includes a variety of trial run reports that are identical to the regular reports, with the exception of values that should be calculated using the Economic Balance Sheet (EBS) framework. EBS is based on UK GAAP, and on the premise that assets and

liabilities should be valued on a consistent economic basis. Per the Bermuda Monetary Authority Consultation Paper: Economic Balance Sheet Framework:

This common principle postulates the reduction or elimination of accounting mismatches where no underlying economic mismatches exist.

New Financial Instruments Standards Since November 2008, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has been working to replace IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement with an improved and simplified standard, IFRS 9: Financial Instruments. Once this project is complete, IFRS 9 will replace IAS 39 in its entirety. Although the effective date is not until 2018, insurers should begin preparing now, in order to stay ahead of any data reclassification or regulatory changes that might impact their portfolios.

IASB

BMA



IAS 39 IFRS 9Classified as:1. Fair Value through Profit & Loss2. Held to Maturity3. Loans & Receivables 4. Available for Sales

Classified as:1. Amortized Cost2. Fair Value

OCI as the residual FV category FVTPL as the residual FV category

Reclassification into the FVTPL category after initial recognition is prohibited. Reclassifications out of FVTPL are permitted, subject to meeting certain criteria.

Reclassifications are required when there is a change in business model.

Incurred Loss model for impairment Expected Loss model for impairment

Table 1: Key Differences in Standards

The new IFRS 9 standard is streamlined to determine the measurement treatment of financial assets. This approach is based on how an entity manages its financial instruments (also known as its business model) and the contractual cash flow characteristics of the assets.

IFRS 9 splits all financial assets currently within the scope of IAS 39 into two classifications: those measured at amortized cost and those measured at fair value. Fair value measurements include Fair Value through Other Comprehensive Income (FVOCI), or Fair Value through Profit & Loss (FVTPL). The classification decision is made at the time of initial recognition, and any reclassifications are done prospectively from reclassification date. Restatement of any previously recognized gains, losses, or interest is not required.

All financial instruments are initially measured at fair value, and adjusted for any incremental transaction costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition of the instrument. For a security to be recognized at amortized cost, it must satisfy the requirements of both the Business Model Test and the Cash Flow Test:

Business Model Test: The entity’s objectives must be to hold the asset in order to collect the contractual cash flows, rather than to sell the instrument prior to its contractual maturity date to realize fair value changes.

Cash Flow Test: The contractual terms of the asset must give rise on specified dates to cash flows that consist solely of payments of principal and interest on the outstanding principal.

If an asset does not qualify for amortized cost, it will be measured at FVOCI only if it passes the cash flow test, and if the assets are managed to achieve the business model objectives through both the collection of contractual cash flows and sales. Interest income (using the effective interest rate method) and impairment losses (and reversals) would be recognized in profit and loss, and the net cumulative fair value gain or loss would be recognized in OCI.

All other debt instruments will be measured at FVTPL, effectively making FVTPL the residual category. There is also an irrevocable option to designate an asset as FVTPL, but only if the result eliminates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an “accounting mismatch”).

Although the standard does not mandate the level at which the business model should be assessed, it is not an instrument-by-instrument approach and should rather be determined at a higher aggregation level. A single entity may have more than one business model, thus the assessment does not need to be determined at the reporting entity level either.



All equity investments should be measured at fair value, with changes recognized in profit or loss. If an equity investment is not held for trading, at initial recognition an entity may choose to measure the investment at FVOCI, with only dividend income recognized in profit or loss. The associated OCI gains and losses should not be subsequently transferred to profit or loss, although the cumulative gain or loss may be transferred within equity.

Reclassifications between fair value and amortized cost are required only when an entity changes how it manages its financial instruments. Such changes are expected to be infrequent. If reclassification is appropriate, it must be done prospectively from the reclassification date with no restatement of any previously recognized gains, losses, or interest.

IAS 39 used an incurred loss model for impairment, while IFRS 9 uses a three-bucket, expected-credit-loss approach, which reflects the deterioration in the asset’s credit quality. This will apply to debt instruments held at amortized cost or FVOCI, and means that it will no longer be necessary for a loss event to occur before an impairment allowance is recognized. The three-bucket method is set-up as follows:

Bucket One: Consists of financial assets where there has been no identified credit deterioration since initial recognition. All financial assets, except for purchased credit-impaired assets, will start in this bucket, regardless of credit quality level. Assets in this category will have a credit allowance for 12 months of expected losses. The 12-month expected credit losses are the expected shortfalls in contractual cash flows over the life of an asset that will result if a default occurs within 12 months after the reporting date, weighted by the probability of that default occurring.

When there has been a significant deterioration in credit quality since initial recognition, then assets will be transferred from Bucket One to Bucket Two or Three.

Buckets Two and Three: Consist of assets with an allowance measured as the lifetime expected credit losses. Transfers from Bucket One to Bucket Two will beat the portfolio level, while transfers to Bucket Three will be at the individual instrument level.

IFRS 9 amends some of the requirements of IFRS 7: Financial Instruments: Disclosures, including added disclosures about investments in equity instruments designated at FVOCI.

For in-depth analysis on regulatory changes and insurance investment accounting best practices, subscribe to Clearwater’s digital publication, Clear Insights. Scan this QR code or visit clearinsights.clearwater-analytics.com.



Date Event or Deadline

March 1 NAIC Annual Statement Filing (Property, Life, Health, Fraternal, Title)

March 1 Exceptions to the Reinsurance Attestation Supplement (Property)

March 15 Actuarial Opinion Summary (Property)

April 1 Accident and Health Policy Experience Exhibit (Property, Life, Health, Fraternal)

April 3 - 6 Spring NAIC National Meeting

April 14 MMF funds deadline

April 26 Clearwater Spring NAIC Recap Webinar*

May 1 Combined Annual Statement Filing (Property)

May 15 NAIC Quarterly Electronic Filings Due

May 19 Solvency II “Day 1” Solo & Group Filing Deadline

May 26 Solvency II Q1 Solo Filing Deadline

June 1 Accountant’s Letter of Qualifications (Property, Life, Health, Fraternal, Title)

August 15 NAIC Quarterly Electronic Filings Due

August 25 Solvency II Q2 Solo Filing Deadline

August 26 - 29 Summer NAIC National Meeting

Early September Clearwater Summer NAIC Recap Webinar*

September 19 - 20 Clearwater User Conference*

October 6 Solvency II Q2 Group Filing Deadline

October 14 MMF Reform Compliance Due

November 15 NAIC Quarterly Electronic Filings Due

November 25 Solvency II Q3 Solo Filing Deadline

December 10 - 13 Fall NAIC National Meeting

Mid-December Clearwater Fall NAIC Recap Webinar*

January 6, 2017 Solvency II Q3 Group Filing Deadline

Important 2016 Events and Deadlines

*visit cw-an.co/insure or email [email protected] for more information

www.clearwateranalytics.com


This material is for informational purposes only. The information we provide is from sources Clearwater Analytics considers reliable, but Clearwater Analytics provides no warranties regarding the accuracy of the information. Further, nothing herein should be construed as legal, financial, or tax advice, and any questions regarding the intended recipient’s individual circumstances should be addressed to that recipient’s lawyer and/or accountant.

©2016 Clearwater Analytics. All rights reserved. Clearwater is a registered trademark of Clearwater Analytics, LLC.

About Clearwater Analytics

Clearwater Analytics® is the leading provider of web-based investment portfolio accounting, reporting, and reconciliation services for corporate treasuries, insurance companies, and asset managers. Clearwater aggregates, reconciles, and reports on more than $1.4 trillion in assets across 25,000+ accounts daily. For more than a decade, Clearwater has helped firms such as CopperPoint Mutual Insurance Company, Group Health Companies, The Main Street America Group, SBLI, C.V. Starr & Co., Sagicor, Enstar, Wilton Re, and WellCare streamline their investment and accounting operations. Clearwater remains committed to continuous improvement and encourages insurers to rethink how they approach their investment accounting and reporting challenges.

hot topics in insurance investment accountingd1pvbs8relied5.cloudfront.net/resources/white... · an...

Documents