Wed 31 Oct 2018
The September Transition Resource Group (TRG) meeting provided further clarity in a range of areas related to insurance under IFRS 17. Our analysis addresses the points that we expect will affect most insurers. Other topics discussed applicable to mutuals and associations will be analysed in a separate blog.
Insurance liability is the insurer’s obligation to investigate and pay valid claims arising from insured events and is split into two components based on whether the insured event has already occurred:
When does the insured event occur if the insurance risk is consequent to an incurred claim? For example, in the case of disability coverage in the form of an annuity for the period in which the policyholder is disabled: is the insured event a) the accident or illness that made the policyholder disabled or b) the policyholder becoming disabled following an accident or illness specified in the contract?
Practical aspect: In reality either interpretation could apply. Different interpretations will give rise to different coverage periods, ie the coverage period will be longer in the case of disability coverage if b) is the insured event rather than a). A longer coverage period means that in the case of view b) revenue is recognised over an extended period. Judgement is required to determine the accounting policy that will provide the most useful information to the users of the insurer’s financial statements.
Premium waiver can be in the form of a contractual term that allows a policyholder not to pay premiums in specified circumstances. For example, a term life contract that provides primary coverage for mortality risk might allow the policyholder not to pay premiums for that contract if the policyholder becomes unable to work due to a disability.
Practical aspect: The premium waiver does not depend on the death of the policyholder (primary coverage – mortality risk) but on an additional insurance risk of the policyholder becoming disabled. The additional adverse effect of the policyholder becoming disabled suggests the insurer provide the same benefits without receiving consideration, ie additional coverage. Additionally, coverage units for mortality and disability risk can lead to a different coverage period over which the contractual service margin will be recognised when the coverage period with the waiver differs from the coverage period related to the base contract without the waiver.
Under the top down approach, the starting point to determine the IFRS 17 discount rate is an asset rate that is adjusted to exclude factors present in the assets but not present in the group of insurance contracts, for example expected credit losses and differences in amount, timing or uncertainty of cash flows.
However, there is a simplification in the standard not to adjust the asset rate for differences in liquidity between a reference portfolio of assets and the group of insurance contracts. The simplification is available on the basis that the asset rate will be derived from a reference portfolio that is expected to have similar liquidity characteristics to the group of insurance contracts.
Practical aspect: if the simplification is used, measurement will be easier on initial recognition, but, subsequently, more disclosures may be required. That is because small fluctuations in the liquidity of the reference portfolio may lead to discount rate changes. Discount rate changes, even if small, may lead to material changes to the insurance liabilities measured.
Disclosure point: any material effect of a change in the composition of the reference portfolio of assets on the discount rates would be required to be disclosed in accordance with paragraph 117 of IFRS 17.
Premium experience adjustments are differences between expected and actual premiums. Judgment should be applied in deciding whether the premium experience adjustments relate to current, past or future service. For example, in the case of workers’ compensation coverage, if the premium is based on the expected headcount and the expected headcount differs from the actual one, then the difference between expected vs actual premiums should:
Consistently with premium experience adjustments, acquisition cash flows might be settled in an amount different from the one originally expected (acquisition cash flows experience adjustments). Acquisition cash flow experience variances adjust the contractual service margin if they relate to future coverage or affect insurance revenue and insurance service expense if they relate to current or past service.
Practical aspect: The additional premium recognised as revenue in the current period because the actual headcount was higher than the expected does not affect the release of CSM, i.e. CSM is based on expected coverage units. Instead the premium experience adjustment is an additional component of revenue based on paragraph B124 of IFRS 17.
Not all commissions meet the definition of IFRS 17 insurance acquisition cash flows. For example, policy administration and maintenance costs in the form of recurring commissions due to intermediaries do not meet the definition of insurance acquisition cash flows, instead they are treated as administrative or maintenance costs.
Those cash flows that are insurance acquisition cash flows under IFRS 17 may also be higher than the premiums, i.e. not fully recoverable. In this regard, the Standard does not require entities to separately identify the recoverable amount of insurance acquisition cash flows at each reporting date. The remeasurement of fulfilment cash flows at each reporting date will capture any lack of recoverability arising from all expected cash flows including acquisition cash flows.
Practical aspect: The insurance revenue cannot exceed the amount the entity is expected to receive as consideration for services provided. If, for example, the acquisition cash flows cannot be recovered from premiums, they should be expensed in profit or loss because the CSM cannot be negative. Insurance revenue, in other words, will be the total reduction of the liability for remaining coverage (closing LRC minus opening LRC) relating to services for which the entity expects to receive consideration, excluding the loss component (that will reflect the irrecoverable cash flows)
Contract boundary determines which cash flows pertain to existing contracts and which to future contracts. Cash flows that pertain to expected claims or premiums arising from future contracts are outside the initial contract boundary.
Practical aspect: a proportional reinsurance contract held that covers all risks arising from underlying insurance contracts issued in a 24-month period and provides the unilateral right to both the entity and the reinsurer to terminate the contract with a three month notice period has a contract boundary of 3 months (1 January – 31 March). This is because the cedant has no substantive right to receive services with respect to new business that may be ceded in the following 21 months.
Contract boundaries are reassessed in each reporting period if there are changes in circumstances on the entity’s substantive rights and obligations. The contract boundary reassessment should be based on ‘changes in circumstances’ that are ‘narrow’, such as changes in the economic environment (debt spiral situations) or contract term whose commercial substance status has changed from one reporting period to the other.
Practical aspect: a restriction previously assessed as having no commercial substance, could in later years begin to have commercial substance. For example, in the case of a five year health insurance contract which can be re-priced annually, the insurer may initially determine the contract boundary as 1 year, but at the end of the year restrictions on re-pricing that had no commercial substance initially, may have commercial substance at the reporting date. In that case, at the end of the reporting period, the contract boundary is no longer 1 year but reassessed to be 5 years.
Commissions due to a policyholder and reinstatement premiums charged to a policyholder are amounts exchanged between the (re)insurer and the policyholder and should be accounted for under IFRS 17 based on their economic substance and not based on what they are called in the contract.
In this regard the following two questions are relevant:
KPI point: the above guidance applies to both insurance (property/casualty contracts with experience-rating provisions or similar features) and reinsurance contracts issued (where the cedant is the policyholder) and is different from existing practice. It is expected to have an impact on important metrics, eg loss ratio and may have an impact on the information provided on the claims development tables.
The challenges brought about by IFRS 17 are significant and many insurers are looking for solutions that capitalise on existing practice. The extent to which these solutions and implementation approaches will reflect IFRS 17’s new principles is an area of much interest. It is expected that many of these views and approaches will be deliberated and positions clarified through discussion forums and as implementation experience develops.
With the application date of IFRS 17 approaching, insurers are trying to understand what changes need to be made in order to be IFRS 17-ready. If you would like to discuss your transition to IFRS 17, please feel free to contact Maria Karamanou or any other member of the Mazars Financial Reporting Advisory team.
Blog author: Maria Karamanou, Insurance specialist, Mazars Financial Reporting Advisory
The Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) has issued Amendments to FRS 101 – 2018/19 cycle, which prohibit insurers applying FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework (“FRS 101”) in their financial statements when IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts (“IFRS 17”) becomes effective. Why – what’s the background? FRS 101 requires entities to apply the recognition and measurement requirements of […]
A few final technical issues prior to publication of the ED At the May 2019 meeting, the IASB discussed a few final technical issues on the proposed amendments to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts prior to finalising the exposure draft, which is expected imminently. The Board tentatively decided: to specify criteria that must be met for an insurance […]
At the March meeting, the IASB continued its discussions on the amendments necessary to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts, which are looking to address the criticisms raised by stakeholders and thus to more faithfully represent the performance of insurance contracts in financial statements. At the end of this meeting the IASB tentatively decided to add additional […]
At the January meeting, the IASB decided to make amendments to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts, relating to the following topics: reinsurance contracts purchased by a primary insurer (reinsurance contracts held); and amortisation of the contractual service margin (CSM) in profit or loss for contracts that include an investment return service.These changes are intended to address criticisms […]
1. Group insurance policies Under a group insurance policy an entity provides insurance coverage to members of an association or to customers of a bank (members or customers that purchase insurance coverage are referred to as ‘certificate holders’). Some of those policies give the entity the right to terminate the coverage for all certificate holders […]
A year and a few months after the issue of the new insurance contracts standard, insurers (issuers of insurance contracts) are recalibrating their IFRS 17 implementation approaches based on the latest technical developments and positions adopted by their peers. Latest developments include the IASB’s transition resource group discussions, the recent clarifications to IFRS 17 discussed […]
On 26 June 2019, the IASB published the exposure draft: ED/2019/4 Amendments to IFRS 17, proposing the long-awaited amendments to the insurance contracts standard. Set out below is a summary of the key points of the exposure draft covering what the concerns are with the existing requirements and how the IASB proposes to amend IFRS 17 […]
At the April 2019 meeting, the IASB concluded its deliberations on amendments to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts (see previous blog articles for further details) and authorised its staff to start the drafting of the exposure draft. The IASB has also confirmed that it intends to amend the effective date of IFRS 17, deferring it to […]
At the February meeting, the IASB continued its discussions on the amendments necessary to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts, which are looking to address the criticisms raised by stakeholders and thus to more faithfully represent the performance of insurance contracts in financial statements. At the end of this meeting the IASB tentatively decided to add additional […]
This website uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are necessary, while others help us analyse our traffic, serve advertising and deliver customised experiences for you.
This website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Analytical cookies help us enhance our website by collecting information on its usage.
We use marketing cookies to increase the relevancy of our advertising campaigns.