Insurance regulators around the world are adopting risk-based capital and Singapore has been a frontrunner with our current Insurance Risk-Based Capital (RBC) framework introduced in 2004. This risk framework has served us well, and our insurers have navigated largely unscathed through recent financial crises; while the framework allowed for regulatory 2  BIS central bankers’ speeches  intervention in a timely and effective manner. Now, I know this begs the question – if it isn’t broken, why fix it? 17. The answer is that the operating environment for global finance including insurance, has and will become increasingly complex given the more connected global markets, the vulnerability of contagion, an overall low interest rate environment that pushes investors including insurers to target more risky higher-yielding products and potential new risk areas such as in some emerging markets or in technology risks. 18. It is important that our insurance capital framework remains relevant and effective and that insurers operating in Singapore are well-capitalised to weather different crises and risk forms. 19. At the global level, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) has also embarked on the development of capital standards for internationally Active Insurance Groups (“IAIGs”); while the International Accounting Standards Board is expected to finalise its guidance on insurance contracts under IFRS4 sometime this year. Progress on RBC2 20. Last year, MAS published our second consultation paper, which outlined our key proposals for RBC2. We also conducted the first quantitative impact study (QIS1) to assess the potential impact of the proposed changes on the industry.
All direct life and composite insurers had participated in QIS1. I would like to thank the LIA and its members for the active participation and feedback. Indeed, many of you have expressed understanding and support for many of the proposed enhancements in the RBC2 framework. 21. Let me share a couple of high level observations from the QIS1 results with you. 22. First, there is an increase in risk requirements compared to the existing RBC framework. This is to be expected, given the more comprehensive risk coverage and higher target confidence level under RBC2. RBC2 targets a 99.5% confidence level over a one-year period, which is increasingly seen as the benchmark for insurers globally. From the results that I have seen, most of our insurers are able to maintain capital adequacy ratio or CAR of well above 100% under the preliminary set of RBC2 proposals. 23. Some industry players are naturally anxious if they will still have to maintain the same high buffers of way above 100% CAR or FSR under RBC2, as they do currently for RBC. This is not our expectation, given that the risk requirements under RBC2 are designed to be more risk sensitive, comprehensive and calibrated to a higher target confidence level. 24. A second observation is the greater differentiation in CAR between firms with different risk profiles.