Insurance Pools and on Ad-Hoc Co(Re)Insurance Agreements on the Subscription Market New Edition July 2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Study on co(re)insurance pools and on ad-hoc co(re)insurance agreements on the subscription market New edition July 2014 Written by Competition EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Competition Directorate D — Markets and Cases III – Financial Services Unit D2 E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Study on co(re)insurance pools and on ad-hoc co(re)insurance agreements on the subscription market New Edition July 2014 [Catalogue number] This study was produced by Ernst & Young for the European Commission and represents its authors' views on the subject matter. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved by the Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the Commission's views. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made thereof. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014 ISBN 978-92-79-39286-3 doi: 10.2763/76809 © European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. New edition New edition The present report is an amended version of the edition published on February 8th, 2013. Following the first edition of the report and comments received by some pools E&Y updated the report and corrected inaccuracies. The changes have been validated by E&Y with the undertakings concerned before publication. This Final Report has been elaborated on the basis of information communicated to us and issued in accordance with the contract entered into with European Commission DG Competition. i Executive summary Executive summary The objective of the study is to perform an in-depth review of co(re)insurance pools and ad-hoc co(re)insurance agreements across the EU. The study also records similarities and differences between these two forms of co(re)insurance arrangements. The study is performed in the context of the European Commission’s ongoing monitoring of the operation of the Insurance Block Exemption Regulation (the BER),1 the conduct in 2007 of the Business Insurance Sector Inquiry (BISI)2 and the issue in 2008 by the European Federation of Insurance Intermediaries (BIPAR) of its high-level principles for placement of risks with multiple insurers. To obtain a range of market perspectives, different market participants were interviewed in each Member State (MS), including associations of insurers, brokers and corporate risk managers, as well as individual insurers, brokers and risk managers. For co(re)insurance pools, the interviewees included pool managers and members. Overview of co(re)insurance pools The current study has identified 46 pools, for 42 of which it has been possible to gather information on their characteristics. The 4 pools identified for which it was not possible to gather information declined to participate in the survey due to considerations of commercial confidentiality of the data sought. In addition to these pools, 15 pools were identified as in run-off and for these we investigated the reasons of their cessation. The statistics presented in the remainder of this study are based on information gathered from 42 pools. Concerning the distribution of pools at the EU level, one factor has been detected as main drivers. The presence of nuclear power plants is often accompanied by the presence of pools to cover the associated risks. Many pools are established to cover catastrophic risk (nuclear, environmental, terrorism) but are not the sole alternative for such risks, as insurance markets and other mechanisms, such as state-guaranteed insurers, also cover some of these risks . Alongside such pools for major risks, other arrangements between insurers exist to deal with risks that the insurance market does not want, or to take advantage of a market niche where insurers combine to provide capacity in the subscription market. The functioning of pools is heterogeneous and each pool requires assessment on its individual merits. Some general conclusions can be drawn based on the analysis conducted on the 42 pools whose members participated in the survey. The majority of pools surveyed were not-for-profit organizations with no own funds maintained. State involvement appears in few cases and, when the state is present, is mainly because the pool has been founded by law or the state retains a role of supervision on the pool’s board. In most cases pools take the legal form of a multilateral contract. Some pools also 1 Commission Regulation (EU) No. 267/2010 of 24 March 2010 and its predecessor regulations 2 Sector Inquiry under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on business insurance This Final Report has been elaborated on the basis of information communicated to us and issued in accordance with the contract entered into with European Commission DG Competition. ii Executive summary reflect national public policy decisions, for example, in the labour market or a desire to have state control of risks considered strategic: there are significant differences in the number and nature of pools between different countries, ascribable to this reason. Although most pools are specific to a country, several including nuclear pools operate across national borders, including by way of reinsurance. Where a pool’s activity extended beyond only one MS, the number of MS concerned was typically large. Of 12 pools which reported that they were active in more than one MS, 6 indicated that they were active in more than 10 MS. The majority of the pools have standard admission conditions to enter the pool such as, for instance, financial strength, willingness to commit to premiums as prescribed by the pool, establishment in certain EU MS. However, there is usually no requirement for the adoption of a standard method of determining premiums for their clients. Response rates to questions relating to self-assessment, relevant market and market shares were disappointing. Some of these pools had not conducted a full self-assessment because they considered themselves exempted from covering new risks or they were confident that their market share was below the 20% threshold. Overall, awareness of the Insurance BER appeared mixed, though those pools that had reassessed their position since the issue of the new BER did not report a change in their compliance status. There are uncertainties as to definition, with a risk of mismatch between industry perceptions of pools and the intentions of the BER, which may indicate a need for clarification: these affect both the identification of pools themselves and the definition of the relevant market. There are also questions as to the boundaries of the definition where pool-like arrangements are set up by parties other than insurers, particularly intermediaries, which may warrant study outside the scope of this report. Concerning the rationale of pools, the two main reasons provided by pool members were that pooling risk gave access to cheaper/more efficient cover for pool members and that individual pool members would not have the capacity to cover risks insured in pools. Brokers considered that a pool is often not the cheapest and most efficient option, but may be often the only available choice to place certain types of risks if cover is not available in the market. Intermediary pools were identified in some of the most mature markets. An intermediary might hold delegated underwriting authorities from more than one insurer, to each of which it agrees to assign a pre-agreed share of the risks that it intermediates. An intermediary pool may also involve the designation of one or more participating insurer as a leader, making decisions on acceptance and claims which then bind the other participants. These collective underwriting arrangements are mainly developed in specific markets but on risks which are usually not covered by classical pools. Intermediary pools were identified particularly in the Netherlands. In the UK, solutions developed by intermediaries for particular types of business or groups of customers might be offered to a panel of insurers, or to one. Respondents indicated that such arrangements were formed by intermediaries, not by insurers, and were not considered to be pools for that reason. These pool-like arrangements compete with insurers in the open market including potentially with ad-hoc co(re)insurance agreements, some participate as co(re)insurers on ad-hoc co(re)insurance agreements. The varying range of This Final Report has been elaborated on the basis of information communicated to us and issued in accordance with the contract entered into with European Commission DG Competition. iii Executive summary activities and being set up by intermediaries may explain why these arrangements are not considered by many respondents to be pools according to the insurance BER and consequently have not been subjected to systematic individual self assessment under that Regulation. However, such arrangements have come to the attention of the Dutch competition directorate as potentially restrive of competition, resulting in the development of a market protocol for high-level self- assessment by each such arrangement in that country. Overview of ad-hoc agreements Results presented for ad-hoc co(re)insurance agreements are based on responses by 131 participants in ad-hoc co(re)insurance agreements surveyed across the EU (brokers, underwriters, customers/risk managers).