SOLVENCY ll

INTRODUCTORY GUIDE
JUNE 2006
2 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide
Executive summary: the key questions of Solvency II
WHY DO WE NEED A NEW SOLVENCY
FRAMEWORK?
The current Solvency I framework, in place
since the early 1970s, uses a simple and
robust model to calculate capital
requirements. It can be implemented at
low cost and delivers fairly comparable
results across companies. So why do we
need a new Solvency framework?
The answer is because the current
framework is too simple and does not
direct capital accurately to where the risks
are. It has become clear that the capital
required under Solvency I is inadequately
allocated and so regulation in several
countries has been strengthened, resulting
in a patchwork of rules in place across
Europe. Lessons learned from 2002 –
2003, when financial markets fell sharply,
and from insurance company failures have
increased the scrutiny of both the industry
and regulators on the importance of best
risk management practice.
‘Solvency ll Introductory Guide’ is co-written by the CEA (the European
Insurance Federation) and the Tillinghast business of Towers Perrin
HOW WILL SOLVENCY II DIFFER
FROM SOLVENCY I?
Solvency II will be based on economic
principles for the measurement of assets
and liabilities. It will also be a risk-based
system as risk will be measured on
consistent principles and capital
requirements based directly on this
measurement.
A set of simple factors, as used for
Solvency I, cannot cope well with the
diversity of risks in typical insurance
portfolios. The more advanced companies
have developed sophisticated internal
models to measure the effects of adverse
events on their portfolios. Provided they
can be validated to an adequate standard,
these models will form the basis of the
capital assessment under Solvency II.
Companies that do not have an internal
model of the required standard will still be
able to use a factor-based system (the
‘Standard Approach’), although it is likely
to be more complex than the current
system.
The aim of Solvency II is not to increase
overall levels of capital but rather to
ensure a high standard of risk assessment
and efficient capital allocation. It should
also contribute to increased transparency
and help in the development of a level
playing field across Europe.
HOW WILL SOLVENCY II IMPACT…
…policyholders?
Ensuring that companies improve their
risk management practices and hold
appropriate levels of capital will give
policyholders better protection against the
risk of company failure.
A second advantage will come from a
more efficient allocation of capital across
the industry, which will ultimately be
reflected in reduced costs for consumers.
Increased competition and transparency
should also lead to improved product
development and pricing.
…the insurance industry?
Best practices in risk management have
developed rapidly in recent years.
Solvency II will provide incentives to
encourage the entire industry to adopt
these practices. We can expect that the
general standard of risk management will
steadily rise.
 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 3

The European insurance industry …the European economy? CONTENTS

includes a large number of small and
medium-sized companies which would
face significant costs if they were required
to develop internal models to calculate
their solvency capital requirements. The
proposed alternative of using a Standard
Approach will allow them to calculate
capital requirements with little extra cost,
although the approach will be slightly
more conservative, reflecting its
approximate nature.
The design and structure of the Standard
Approach is currently being assessed in
detail in the second Quantitative Impact
Study (QIS 2) led by the Committee of
European Insurance and Occupational
Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS).
If the Solvency II project is executed well,
it will not only lead to a more efficient I Insurance industry basics
capital allocation across the insurance
industry, it should also lead to a better II Why is Solvency II needed?
managed industry that is better placed to
fulfil its function of providing financial III Three pillars and a coherent economic
stability in a risky world. More efficient framework
capital allocation leads to lower prices for
consumers. A lower risk of company IV Frequently Asked Questions – the impact
failure leads to greater confidence in the of the new Solvency framework
industry and financial stability.
Appendix: reference material
Additionally, the new framework will apply
uniformly across the European Union.
Coupled with greater transparency and
improved public reporting, this should
help to speed the arrival of a true single
market in financial services.

THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN FIGURES

In 2004, the insurance industry in Europe comprised of more than 5,000 companies. Total
premium income amounted to €875bn, with a growth rate slightly under 6%. About 60% of
the premiums arose from life business and 40% from property and casualty business.

Companies employed more than 1 million people and it is estimated that another
1 million people are indirectly employed by the industry (eg, in distribution channels).

European markets show relatively high levels of concentration. The market share of the top
ten insurers is at least 55% in every country. In general, the smaller markets are more
concentrated.

While the number of insurers is large, the number of reinsurance companies is relatively small
(worldwide approximately 250). By their nature, reinsurance companies (the insurers of
insurance companies) operate internationally enabling them to diversify their risks better.

Europe has the largest market in the world, with a 37% share of worldwide direct premium
income, closely followed by North America with 36%, while Asia has 23%.

Insurers and reinsurers play an important role in mitigating the impact of natural catastrophes
and man-made disasters. In 2004, the insurance industry paid out about US$1.2bn of insured
losses. In 2005, this figure soared to US$7bn mainly in respect of winter storms, floods, hail
storms and various man-made/engineering catastrophes1.
1 Source: Sigma no. 1/2005 resp. no. 2/2006, Natural
catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2004 resp.
2005, Swiss Re Publications.
4 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide
l Insurance industry basics
WHAT IS INSURANCE?2
The idea of insurance derives from the
need of individuals and businesses to
achieve economic security when faced
with risks. The first examples of insurance
go back to the pre-Christian era in marine
commerce. It grew in importance with
economic development in the Middle
Ages, the expansion of trade in the great
Italian cities, in Flanders and in the
Hanseatic cities. The insurance industry
has strong roots in Europe: the first two
professional insurance companies were
founded in Germany and the UK3.
Today, insurance is common both in our
individual lives and for all industrial
undertakings, covering the financial
consequences everything from small
everyday risks to large catastrophes. On
the life side, insurance offers a broad
range of savings solutions, in addition to
protection against disability or death. By
promising to pay future claims in return
for a premium today, insurers replace
uncertainty with certainty and stability.
Insurers enable development and growth,
and are therefore a catalyst for Europe’s
economies.
WHO OFFERS INSURANCE?
Europe benefits from an excellent
geographic and product coverage. There
is a wide variety of insurers which range
from stock companies, pension funds and
mutuals to multi-line companies and
niche specialists. In general, larger
companies are active internationally while
smaller ones concentrate on a country, a
region, or a limited range of products.
Reinsurance companies also play an
important role. They provide insurance to
insurers for risks that they are unable or
unwilling to retain fully themselves.
Reinsurance is a global business which
deploys capital across geographic
boundaries and lines of business. This
part of the industry also has strong roots
in Europe, with the three top reinsurance
companies located here.
2 See ‘An introduction to Reinsurance’, Swiss Re
Technical Publishing, 2002.
3 Hamburger Feuerkasse, in 1676, and Amicable and
Perpetual Assurance, in London, in 1706.
WHAT ARE THE LATEST TRENDS IN THE
INDUSTRY?
■ Insurance companies in the new EU
members are attracting interest and
capital from established companies
looking to expand.
■ Concerns about the sustainability of
state pension systems due to demographic
developments, in particular the ageing
population, are driving growth in the
private sector.
■ The industry is strengthening its risk
management practices following the
turbulence of financial markets in 2002
and 2003.
 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 5

II Why is Solvency II needed?

The current Solvency framework,

introduced in the early 70s, defined new
capital requirements for insurers by
specifying requirements for solvency
margins. Since then, the science of risk
management has progressed considerably.
Many large companies have now
developed sophisticated risk management
systems, both for defining required capital
levels and for putting in place
management structures to identify,
measure and manage risk levels.
From Solvency I to Solvency II
In the current Solvency I framework, many ways of assessing solvency exist which
are not always consistent and are even sometimes contradictory. Certain rules can
also conflict with best risk management practices, eg, a company that increases its
non-life premiums with no changes in liabilities reduces its risk of insolvency, but its
capital requirements increase.
In Solvency II, the aim is to develop a coherent framework with consistent solvency
measures across all types of business. The framework will also take into account the
quality of risk management as well as the accuracy of risk assessment.

Increasingly accurate link to true risk profile

Over recent years, there has been a
progressive strengthening of insurance
regulation in some countries to address
known inadequacies, but this is being True risk profile
done in a piecemeal fashion. The time
has come for an overhaul of the system. Future
SCR* - internal models
Solvency II is an opportunity to improve SCR* - standard approach
insurance regulation by introducing:
Current
■ A risk-based system situation Rating agency models

Current Solvency l
■ An integrated approach for insurance
provisions and capital requirements
Range of solvency measures

■ A comprehensive framework for risk * Solvency Capital Requirements (SCR)

management

■ Capital requirements defined by a

standard approach or internal model

■ Recognition of diversification and risk

mitigation.
6 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide

RISK-BASED CAPITAL ALLOCATION

WHY IS DIVERSIFICATION SO CENTRAL TO THE INSURANCE BUSINESS?
A risk-based system strives to allocate
Diversification is based on the principle that not all risks will crystallise at the same moment –
capital accurately to where the risks are.
provided that the underlying sources of risk, ie, risk drivers or triggers, are independent. An
If the system is inaccurate, then
insurance company that underwrites a large number of risks is unlikely to suffer claims on all of
companies have to hold more capital
them at once. The larger the number of risks, the more likely it is that the actual level of losses will
against some risks than is necessary, thus
be close to the expected level, ie, the effect of random fluctuations reduces (the law of large
increasing the cost of insurance for
numbers).
customers. For other risks, too little
capital will be held, leading to a higher
Diversification effects occur on different levels: for example, between individual risks within a
risk of failure. Ideally, a risk-based system
portfolio, between different types of risks within a portfolio, between different geographical
will accurately measure the level of risk in
regions and between legal entities in a group company.
a portfolio, and indicate a proportionate
amount of capital, leading to the most
Thanks to diversification, the capital requirements for a whole insurance undertaking will be less
efficient use of capital possible.
than the sum of the single capital requirements when calculated for each component separately.

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR

INSURANCE PROVISIONS AND
CAPITAL MARGINS
Solvency I specified capital requirements
in terms of a simple set of factors to be
applied to technical provisions or
premiums. These defined additional
‘solvency margins’ to be maintained over
and above the technical provisions. The
problem with this approach is that it
usually did not consistently take into
account the strength of the provisions
themselves, which varied widely by
country and by product. Solvency II offers
the opportunity to move to a holistic
approach where assets and liabilities are
valued consistently with market
principles.
A COMPREHENSIVE RISK
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Solvency II will not only define capital
requirements but will also require
companies to establish systems, processes
and controls for risk management.
Companies that do this well will be
rewarded with lower capital requirements,
thus providing an incentive to improve.
ASSESSING THE RISK FOR
SOLVENCY CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
The level of risk in an insurance portfolio
depends on many different factors. The
level of premium rates will have an effect
as a company writing more profitable
products will require less capital than a
company writing less profitable business.
The existence of options and guarantees
in the product range has an effect, as
does investment policy. The degree to
which assets and liabilities are matched
will have an impact on the capital
requirements, but also an aggressive
investment strategy, investing in high-risk
assets, will obviously require more capital.
Risk management techniques, such as the
use of reinsurance and hedging, can
reduce risk levels. Finally, the level of
diversification within a portfolio can have
a significant effect on capital
requirements.
It is impossible to develop a simple set of
factors that accurately captures all of the
above effects. Many companies have
developed highly sophisticated computer
models to test the effects of different
events on their insurance portfolios.
These models can be used to calculate
how much capital is needed to withstand
various adverse circumstances that may
arise. Provided that there are robust
procedures for ensuring the quality and
accuracy of such models, they provide
the best available means for defining a
capital requirement that is tailored to a
particular portfolio.
 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 7

THE ‘STANDARD APPROACH’ AS AN THE PROPER RECOGNITION OF

ALTERNATIVE TO INTERNAL MODELS DIVERSIFICATION AND RISK
Not all companies have sophisticated MITIGATION
internal models which can pass the tests of Solvency I usually makes no explicit
independent review necessary for regulators allowance for diversification and risk
to rely on them. Small and medium-sized mitigation, effectively not providing any
companies may have difficulty in meeting incentive for companies to manage their
the costs of building such models. The businesses to achieve high levels of
proposed Solvency II framework will provide diversification or develop appropriate risk
an alternative ‘Standard Approach’ which mitigation strategies. Solvency II provides
can be used instead. This approach will be the opportunity to recognise both risk
risk-based and therefore follow the same mitigation and diversification effects,
principles as internal models. Its structure subject to appropriate rules about the
will be designed to achieve similar results as mobility of capital.
internal models, but will also need to
incorporate margins for conservatism to
account for the fact that it is not tailored to a
specific risk profile. Although the ‘Standard
Approach’ will be cheaper and easier to use
than an internal model, there will be a trade-
off between simplicity and conservatism
which will provide an incentive for all
companies to move to the more sophisticated
approach over time. The decision on which
option to choose will remain with the
company.
8 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide

III Three pillars and a coherent economic framework

BASEL II IS BUILT ON A THREE- WHAT ARE THE THREE PILLARS? While the first pillar focuses on
PILLAR APPROACH. IS SOLVENCY II Pillar 1 defines the financial resources quantitative requirements, Pillar 2 defines
HEADING IN THE SAME DIRECTION? that a company needs to hold in order to more qualitative requirements and
As with Basel II for the banking industry, be considered solvent. Two thresholds are supplements Pillar I. For example, it
Solvency II aims at building a new defined. The first is called the Solvency defines the framework of supervisory
regulatory framework for the insurance Capital Requirement (SCR); supervisory control, focusing attention on internal risk
sector. The three pillars developed under action will be triggered (based on rules to management processes and aspects of
Basel II provide an obvious model for be defined under Pillar II) if a company’s operational risk.
Solvency II, but the similarities are limited. resources fall below this level. The lowest
The insurance industry’s business model threshold, the Minimum Capital Pillar 3 addresses risk disclosure
is very different to that of the banks, and it Requirement (MCR) will define the level requirements. Transparency, open
is developing its own set of principles to at which the supervisory authority can information and comparability assist
take into account the insurance invoke severe measures, including closure market forces in imposing greater
specificities4. of the company to new business. The SCR discipline on the industry.
– calculated either with a relatively simple
Standard Approach or an internal model – HOW DO THE THREE PILLARS
will allow a company to withstand adverse INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER TO
4 See ‘Regulatory and market differences: issues and
observations’, The Joint Forum, Basel Committee on
circumstances, even severe ones. BUILD A COHERENT FRAMEWORK?
Banking Supervision, May 2006. It is important that the three pillars should
not overlap with each other, imposing
double layers of conservatism. Combined
with harmonisation across Europe, it is
the nature of the business and the risks
that determines solvency, and not the
location of the company.
Measurement of assets,
Supervisory review process Disclosure requirements
liabilities and capital
Reflecting the principle of coherency,
Eligible capital Internal control Current disclosure requirements: Pillar I capital requirements will capture
Technical provisions Risk management
National GAAP and adequately quantify all risks on a
Capital requirements Corporate governance
National regulatory reporting balance sheet. Pillar II will supplement
Asset valuation Stress testing
IFRS 4 Pillar I and promote good corporate risk
Risks to be included Continuity testing
IFRS 7 management. Pillar III completes the
Risk measures and Future disclosure requirements: framework by fostering market discipline
assumptions
IFRS (Phased 2 and IFRS 7) and a risk dialogue among stakeholders.
Risk dependencies
IAIS
Calculation formula
EU legislation
Internal model approach

Great Unifying Theory

PILLAR l PILLAR ll PILLAR lll

 Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 9

IV Frequently Asked Questions –

the impact of the new Solvency framework

Many questions are being asked about the impact of the new framework on the industry. It is
difficult to answer all of these at this stage of the legislative process, but a lot of work is going on
to find the answers. The European Commission is currently conducting an Impact Assessment
and the CEA has launched a survey that will shed more light on some of the key topics.

WHAT WILL BE THE COST OF
IMPLEMENTING SOLVENCY II?
A study will be needed to quantify the
costs of implementing the new framework
and this has not yet been done. Some
companies already have the systems and
processes in place to implement it easily,
but for others there will undoubtedly be a
cost. The Standard Approach will allow
those companies to become compliant
without a large outlay in terms of systems
and processes, although, by being slightly
more conservative than internal models,
there may be a ‘cost’ in terms of needing
more capital if they are writing high-risk
business.
On the other hand, it could be argued that
the costs of developing best practice
systems and processes should be treated
as independent of Solvency II and as part
of usual business development.
Companies that do not invest in such
systems and processes may struggle to be
competitive and attract capital because
their current systems are not risk-based
and allow inefficient capital management.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES FOR
CONSUMERS?
The main advantage will come in the form
of better protection against the risk of
failure, by ensuring that the capital held is
appropriate for the risks undertaken and
also by promoting better risk management
practices.
A second advantage will come from a
more efficient allocation of capital across
the industry which will ultimately be
reflected in reduced costs for consumers.
Finally, improved product development
and pricing will be fostered by increased
competition and transparency.
WILL THE ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK
BE APPROPRIATE FOR ALL
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES?
Because the proposed framework is
based on economic principles, it will
apply anywhere in the EU. A precondition
for an efficient single market in insurance
is that the same supervisory standards –
including solvency requirements – are
applied consistently in all countries.
WILL THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
WORK FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-
SIZED COMPANIES?
Small and medium-sized companies
would face significant costs if they were all
required to develop internal models to the
standard required for external validation.
However, the proposed dual track, with
the option to use the Standard Approach,
allows them to implement the framework
in stages.
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR TO
ASSESS THE IMPACT OF SOLVENCY
II AND PREPARE THE INDUSTRY?
CEIOPS, the main consultative body to the
Commission involved in the development
of Solvency II, is currently in the middle of
the Quantitative Impact Study 2 (QIS 2).
Under this study, a wide selection of
insurance companies are being asked to
calculate the effects of various proposals
for Pillars I and II on their own business.
This has a dual purpose. Firstly, it provides
valuable data which is needed to calibrate
the new system. Secondly, and perhaps
more importantly, it raises awareness
among insurance companies about the
likely form of Solvency II and helps them to
start their preparations for its introduction.
10 I Solvency ll Introductory Guide

In parallel, the European Commission has

started work on the Impact Assessment to
accompany the draft Directive. Impacts to
be considered are on the overall economy
and financial stability, on insurance
undertakings and supervisory authorities,
on insurance products and markets and,
finally, on end-users. Several stakeholders
like CEIOPS, CEA and AISAM/ACME
(Association Internationale des Sociétés
d’Assurance Mutuelle/Association of
European Cooperative and Mutual
Insurers) have been invited to contribute.
THE INDUSTRY HAS VOICED STRONG SUPPORT FOR A SOLVENCY II FRAMEWORK WHICH AIMS TO:
■ Enable institutions to absorb significant unforeseen losses and give confidence to policyholders
(Framework for Consultation on Solvency II)
■ Give an incentive to the supervised institutions to measure and properly manage their risks
(Framework for Consultation on Solvency II)
■ Contribute to a better managed and more competitive insurance industry that can better
perform its key function of accepting and spreading risk (Commissioner McCreevy)
■ Encourage a single European market for financial services
(European Union Lisbon Strategy 2000)

WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE

POTENTIAL OF SOLVENCY II?
A large number of different parties from
many countries have to agree on the
shape of Solvency II. The need to achieve
agreement often brings with it the need to
compromise. However, it is important to
stay faithful to the principle of a coherent
economic approach. If this is substituted
by a mixed model lacking coherence
between the various jurisdictions, the
original objectives set for the Solvency II
project will not be met.
A mixed model can easily incorporate
double-counting of risk, which in turn
increases costs for insurer and
customers. Another issue is that when
capital requirements depart from
economic principles, arbitrage
opportunities are created. For example,
companies will seek to avoid onerous
capital requirements by moving risk
offshore and thus distorting the market.
WILL SOLVENCY II HAVE AN IMPACT
ON THE INVESTMENT BEHAVIOUR
OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY?
Potentially, yes. Insurance companies are
important investors in the financial
markets. By introducing a risk-based
system, Solvency II puts emphasis on the
importance of proper asset and liability
management. Solvency II should provide
incentives to invest in assets that suit the
underlying risks. For example, a portfolio
with long-term liabilities can reduce its
capital requirements by investing in
longer-term assets.
Concerns have been raised about the
possibility that Solvency II could change
companies’ investment patterns, perhaps
triggering large and rapid shifts between
asset classes and depressing markets. It
is not yet clear that Solvency II will alter
the attractiveness of any particular asset
class, but if it does, this will need to be
addressed by raising awareness early and
by fostering careful preparation of the
industry for the implementation of the
framework.

Appendix: reference material
Solvency II projects timeline
2005 2006 2007
Directive Development
(Council and Parliament)
(Commission)
CEIOPS work on Pillar I
CEIOPS work
on implementing measures
CEIOPS work on
Pillars Il and IIl
QIS 1 QIS 2 Further QIS
Internet resources
www.cea.assur.org with link to the National
Associations websites
www.ceiops.org the official website of
CEIOPS
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/
insurance/solvency2/index_en.htm the
official website of the European
Commission, DG Internal Market
CEA’s information material and position
papers (all available under
www.cea.assur.org)
■ Comparative Study of Existing Solvency
Assessment Models: factual overview and
comparison of a number of prevailing
solvency assessment models, jointly
produced by CEA and Mercer Oliver Wyman.
■ Political/Structural Issues on the
Solvency II Project: this position paper
outlines the main structural questions
underlying Solvency II, eg, in relation to
the assessment of acceptable level of
capital, the role of the MCR, etc.
2008 2009 2010 2011
Directive Adoption? Implementation?
(Member States)
■ CEA Building Blocks on Solvency II:
following-up on the Paper on Structural
Issues, this document describes the
industry’s view on the underlying general
principles and the building blocks of the
overall Solvency II framework, and more
specifically related to the standard
approach SCR.
■ Glossary of Solvency II terminology:
a useful reference document to get a
definition for all concepts used in the
Solvency II context.
■ CEA’s Comments on the CEIOPS’ Draft
Answers to the ‘Second Wave’ of calls for
advice: focus is given on questions related
to both Pillar I – Financial Resources and
Pillar II – Supervisory Review.
■ CEA’s Comments on the CEIOPS’ Draft
Answers to the ‘Third Wave’ of calls for
advice: focus is given mostly on questions
related to Pillar II – Supervisory Review.
Solvency ll Introductory Guide I 11
■ Solutions to major issues for Solvency II
– joint submission by the CRO Forum and
CEA: raises six issues that appear crucial
for the development of the Solvency II
regulatory framework. Among others, top
priority is given to the question of the
valuation of the insurance liabilities.
Solutions developed in this paper are
partly elaborated in other documents
listed below, eg, in relation to the
European Standard Approach (ESA).
■ Working documents on the European
Standard Approach – Life and Non-Life
Standard Approach: CEA has developed a
preliminary European Standard Approach
(ESA) to calculate the Solvency Capital
Requirements beyond Solvency II Pillar I.
The ESA aims at capturing the
requirements of a consistent risk-based
approach based on a total balance-sheet.
The relevant axes of the ESA are
presented in this technical document.
■ Working document on the Cost of
Capital: technical document presenting a
workable approach to the calculation of a
risk margin based on the cost of capital
approach (solution integrated into the
European Standard Approach – ESA). The
risk margin is a key component for the
market-consistent valuation of liabilities in
the context of a total balance sheet
approach.
■ CEA Comments on CEIOPS draft paper
on QIS 2 technical specifications:
technical document providing support for
the participants of the second Quantitative
Impact Assessment.
About CEA
CEA is the European insurance and reinsurance federation. CEA’s 33
national member associations represent more than 5,000 insurance and
reinsurance companies. Insurance makes a major contribution to Europe’s
economic growth and development. European insurers generate premium
income of €970bn, employ over one million people and invest more than
€6,300bn in the economy.
About Towers Perrin & Tillinghast
Towers Perrin is a global professional services firm that helps
organisations around the world optimise performance through effective
people, risk and financial management. The firm provides innovative
solutions to client issues in the areas of human resource strategy, design
and management; actuarial and management consulting to the financial
services industry; and reinsurance intermediary services.

Gérard de La Martinière CEA President
Email: g.delamartiniere@ffsa.fr
Eric Fischer CEA Acting Director General
Email: Fischer@cea.assur.org
Jos Streppel Chairman of CEA Economics and Finance Committee
Email: Jos.Streppel@aegon.com
Olav Jones Chairman of CEA Solvency II Steering Group
Email: Olav.Jones@fortis.com
Secretariat Project Team: +32 2 547 58 14
Patricia Plas Director Economics and Finance
Email: Plas@cea.assur.org
Benoît Malpas Manager Economics and Finance
Email: Malpas@cea.assur.org
The firm has served large organisations in both the private and public
sectors for 70 years. Our clients include three-quarters of the world’s 500
largest companies and three-quarters of the Fortune 1000 US companies.
Towers Perrin has offices in 25 countries.
Our businesses include Tillinghast, HR Services and Reinsurance.
The Tillinghast business of Towers Perrin provides global actuarial and
management consulting to insurance and financial services companies
and advises other organisations on risk financing and self-insurance. We
help our clients with issues related to mergers, acquisitions and
restructuring; financial and regulatory reporting; risk, capital and value
management; products, markets and distribution; and financial modelling
software solutions.
Steve Taylor-Gooby
Email: steve.taylor-gooby@towersperrin.com
Peter Wright
Email: peter.wright@towersperrin.com

Jérôme Berset Solvency II Project Team Santiago Arechaga

Email: Berset@cea.assur.org Email: santiago.arechaga@towersperrin
Michael Kluettgens
Comité Européen des Assurances Email: michael.kluettgens@towersperrin.com
Square de Meeûs 29 Naren Persad
B-1000 Brussels Email: naren.persad@towersperrin.com
Publication: Brussels Ming Roest
June 2006 Email: ming.roest@towersperrin.com

© 2006 Towers Perrin, CEA