PAI-EY IFRS 17 Presentation April 2017

(1)

IFRS 17 Update

2nd Indonesian Actuaries Summit

21 April 2017

Kelvin Yap

(2)

The objectives of today

To outline particular issues

the Indonesian industry may be

face

To understand what other insurers are

doing To outline the

impact to the insurance industry

under IFRS17 To provide an

overview of main changes and rationale for

IFRS17

To discuss operational challenges to

(3)

1. Introduction

2. Key features of IFRS 17

3. Challenges of IFRS 17

4. Numerical Example

5.

Implementation implications

(4)

Introduction

(5)

It is believed that the existing insurance contracts accounting does not provide investors, lenders and other creditors

with the information they need to understand the financial statements of entities that issue insurance contracts or

make meaningful comparisons between such entities.

Why are changes needed to Insurance Accounting?

IFRS17 brings insurance more in line with other accounting standards

Does not always reflect the economic and risks in a timely manner

• Long duration contracts measured using outdated information (eg NPV) • Economic risks such as options and guarantees embedded in insurance

contract are not reflected (eg Minimum Surrender Guarantees)

• Time value of money is not reflected (eg GI Chain Ladder)

• Little information is given about the sources of profit reported in current period or expected in future periods (Analysis of Surplus)

Little or no Comparability between entities

• IFRS 4 allows entities to maintain their existing accounting practices • Current FS not comparable (1) across insurers due to different reserving

practices (NPV, GPV wo PAD, GPV w PAD); or (2) across industries, eg Banking and Wealth Management even for similar products

Accrual accounting basis

• Information about underwriting activity is often reported on cash / cash-like

(6)

Simplified Example: Insurance vs Asset Management accounting

IFRS17 results in a more comparable P&L vs other financial institutions

Insurance Company

IFRS 4 Phase 1 Year 1

Premium Income 10,000,000

Commissions (100,000)

Increase in Reserves (1,000,000)

Investment income on underlying items 250,000

Comprehensive Income 150,000

IFRS 17 Year 1

Insurance Contract Revenue 50,000

• Fulfilment cashflows 0

• Change in RA 0

• CSM amortization 30,000

• Acquisition cost 20,000

Amortisation of Deferred Acquisition Cost (20,000)

Incurred losses 0

Underwriting result 30,000

Investment income on underlying items 250,000

Interest expense on insurance obligations (250,000)

Net investment income 0

Other Comprehensive Income

-Comprehensive Income 30,000

Asset Management Company

IFRS 15 (Revenue Recognition) Year 1

Revenue (from initial charge) 250,000

Distribution Costs (100,000)

Comprehensive Income 150,000

Simplified Example

• 5 Year Single Premium Unit Link, $10,000,000

• Mutual Fund

• SPUL Initial Allocation of 97.5% OR

• Initial Charges of 2.5% (Asset Manager)

• Acquisition Cost of 1% ($100,000) which is DAC over 5 years

• Yr 1 UL Returns of 2.56% ($250,000)

• Ignore mortality, lapse

(7)

The new standard is expected to improve financial reporting by providing more transparent and comparable information. The new standard is also seen as more in line with other IFRS standards for other industries.

A Standard that better meets the needs of financial statements users

Reflects the characteristics of the insurance contract rather than the risk

related to asset/investment activity

Single

accounting

approach

Provides up-to-date market consistent information of obligation including value of options & guarantees

Treats services provided by

underwriting activity as revenue and expenses in comparable way to other non insurance business

Provides separate information about the investment and underwriting performance Reflects time value

(8)

IFRS 9 (Financial Instruments) and 17 (Insurance Contracts) are

highly interdependent for insurers, hence timing of the standards is

aligned by the IASB

Ongoing IASB deliberations Implementation period Reporting

IF

R

S

1

7

IF

R

S

9

a

n

d

1

5

Potential IFRS 17 Final standard

Potential IFRS 17 effective date 1 Jan 2021 (**) Potential IFRS 17 start

of comparative period (**) IFRS 9 and IFRS 15 Effective

date 1 Jan 2018 (*) Possible IFRS 9 deferred

implementation date

First IFRS 9 annual financial statements (*)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

(9)

Country IFRS 17 IFRS 9 Not adopting

aligned with IFRS delay in adoption aligned with IFRS delay in adoption

Indonesia _{Note 1} _{1 January 2019}

Taiwan _{Note 1} _{Note 1}

Thailand _{1 year later than}

effective date of IFRS

1 January 2019

China _{Note 2} _

Malaysia _ _

Sri Lanka _ _

Laos _{Note 2} _{Note 2}

Korea _ _

Philippines _ _

Japan _{Note 3}

Adoption in Asia

Note 1 –Local GAAP has not decided the date of adoption, but we are expecting the date to be later than the effective date of IFRS. Note 2 –possible adoption but effective date of local GAAP is not known as of now

(10)

Key Features of

IFRS 17

(11)

IFRS 17 ED

Key areas of the proposed model will require Actuarial involvement

Separation Definition and

scope

Disclosure

Financial Instruments and other accounting changes

Reinsurance Presentation / disaggregation

Transition Expected value of future

cash flows Discount rate Risk adjustment Contractual service margin

B u ild in g b lo c k a p p ro a c h / va ria b le fe e a p p ro a c h P rem iu m a llo c a tio n a p p ro a c h Liability for remaining coverage Risk adjustment Discount rate

Cash flows of claim liability

Regulatory capital standards

(12)

Confidential _—All Rights Reserved _—EY IFRS17: latest news, implications and challenges faced by insurers | 12 A simplified statement of comprehensive income is presented below (when experience is similar to assumptions):

Sample P&L presentation: Term Insurance

Insurance Contract Revenue replaces Premium approach

Current IFRS 4

Year 1 Year 2

Premium Income 178,486 169,688

Claims & Expenses 252,685 105,090

Increase in Reserves - 44

Investment income on underlying items (156) 354

Comprehensive Income (74,355) 64,909

Future IFRS 17

Year 1 Year 2

Insurance contract revenue 308,183 183,461

• Fulfilment cashflows 223,437 105,090

• Change in RA 4,324 3,048

• CSM amortization 49,358 46,228

• Acquisition cost 31,064 29,094

Amortisation of acquistion cost (31,064) (29,094)

Incurred losses (223,437) (105,090)

Underwriting result 53,682 49,277

Investment income on underlying items 7,139 14,213

Interest expense on insurance obligations (12,852) (10,669)

Net investment income (5,713) 3,544

Other Comprehensive Income -

-Comprehensive Income 47,969 52,820

• Reserves are zeroised at the end of year 1

• Initial strain on surplus due to high acquisition expenses

• No initial strain, less volatile

• Underwriting results reflect changes in RA and CSM amortization when actual experience does not deviate from assumptions

• Drop in CSM amortization due to change in mortality assumptions

(13)

Contracts with no participation features

General model

—

overview

A component of the measurement of the insurance contract representing the unearned profit that the entity recognizes as it provides services

The compensation that an entity requires for bearing the uncertainty about the amount and timing of the cash flows

An adjustment that converts future cash flows into current amount

Expected cash flows from future premiums, expenses, claims and benefit payments

PV of expected

future cash inflows

Fulfilment cash

flows

An explicit, unbiased and probability-weighted estimate (ie expected value) of the

present value of the future cash outflows less the present value

of the future cash inflows that will arise as the entity fulfils the

insurance contract, including a risk

adjustment

Risk adjustment

Time value of

money

Future cash flows

Contractual

service margin

(14)

Contracts with no participation features

General model

–

Future Cash Flows

• The estimates of CFs used to determine the fulfilment CFs shall include all cash inflows and outflows that relate directly to the fulfilment of the portfolio of contracts:

• Current and explicit (separate from discount rate and risk adjustment)

• Market variables as consistent as possible with observable market prices

• Incorporate all available information in an unbiased manner (including trends), eg Best Estimate

• Possibly use stochastic models if cashflows are asymmetric

• Include all CFs within contract boundary

Coverage period

Premium Acquisition costs Other expenses/taxes Claims payments C a sh o u tf lo w s C a sh i n fl o w s

Cash flows within contract boundary

(15)

Contracts with no participation features

General model - time value of money

• Adjust the estimates of future cash flows for the time value of money using discount rates that:

• Reflects characteristics of fulfilment cash flows

• Consistent with observable market prices for instruments with cash flows that have consistent characteristics with insurance contract, e.g., with respect to timing, currency and liquidity

• Adjust observed market prices to reflect the characteristics of the liability/the factors that are relevant for the contracts, e.g., exclude irrelevant risks, estimate the rate beyond the period of observable data

• Consistent with other estimates used to measure the insurance contract (e.g., inflation, discount rate for participating contracts)

• Top-down approach or bottom-up approach

• Bottom Up approach possibly: Risk Free Rate + Illiquidity Premium

• No need to discount cash flows which are expected to be paid or received in one year or less (UPR)

• Together with the Future Cash Flow, this is commonly referred to as the BEL

Risk adjustment

Time value of money

Future cash flows Contractual

(16)

• Compensation that an entity requires for bearing the uncertainty about the amount and timing of the cash flows that arise as the entity fulfils the insurance contract

• RA shall be included in the measurement in an explicit way (i.e., uncertainty/PfAD should not be included in the Future Cash Flows)

• No prescribed technique so different companies may use different techniques

• Disclosure on the confidence-level is required if the entity uses a technique other than the confidence level

Contracts with no participation features

General model - risk adjustment

Risk adjustment Time value of money Future cash flows Contractual service margin Knowledge about current estimate and trend Duration of contract Width of probability distribution Uncertainty

due to lack of experience

Low frequency but high risk

severity Knowledge about current estimate and trend Duration of contract Width of probability distribution Uncertainty

due to lack of experience

Low frequency but high risk

severity

Risk

(17)

• At initial recognition, the CSM is defined as the negative of fulfilment cash flow, floored by zero.

• Purpose of recognizing a positive initial CSM:

• To eliminate any day 1 gains (if initial Fulfilment Cash Flow is negative / CSM is positive)

• Represents the unearned profit that the entity will recognize in future, as it provides services under the insurance contract.

• If CSM is floored by zero at inception, the insurance contract is onerous. All loss should be recognized in P&L at inception

• Subsequently after day 1, future changes in assumptions and experience adjustments will affect the level of CSM, instead of flowing thru P&L

• The level of aggregation for determining CSM is therefore a key topic as it determines the cross-subsidy between different policies.

• Each cohort consists of:

• Similar product lines with similar risks (Whole Life, Annuities, …)

• Contracts issued within the same year

• Divided into the following groups at sale: Onerous (Loss Making), Profitable and no significant risk of being Onerous, Other Profitable Contracts

• This could have implications on:

• Cross-subsidy, for eg charging a single male / female premium rate • Many separate CSM cohorts to track

Contracts with no participation features

General model - contractual service margin

Risk adjustment

(18)

• Subsequently, the roll-forward calculation of CSM is summarized as follows:

• Locked-in interest rate at the inception of contract is used for accreting interest.

• An entity should recognise the remaining contractual service margin in profit or loss over the coverage period in a systematic way that best reflects the remaining transfer of the services. For contracts with no participating features, the service represented by the

contractual service margin is insurance coverage that:

• Is provided on the basis of the passage of time; and

• Reflects the expected number of contracts in force

Contracts with no participation features

General model

—

contractual service margin

Risk adjustment

service margin

CSM at the beginning of the reporting period

+ Accreted interest

— Amount recognised for services provided in the period

(19)

CSM at the beginning of the reporting period

+ Accreted interest

— Amount recognised for services provided in the period +/— Changes in the estimates of future cash flows (eg changes in mortality assumptions)

= CSM at the end of the reporting period

A simplified statement of comprehensive income is presented below (when experience is similar to assumptions):

Sample P&L presentation: Term Insurance

Insurance Contract Revenue replaces Premium approach

IFRS 17

Year 1 Year 2

• Change in RA 4,324 3,048

Amortization of acquisition cost (31,064) (29,094)

• Underwriting results reflect changes in RA and CSM

amortization when actual experience does not deviate from assumptions

• Changes in assumptions does NOT affect UW result, as it is absorbed into CSM

BEL Expected Claims

(20)

From Non-participating to Participating contracts

(21)

IFRS 17 proposed simplified accounting model overview

(Applicable for policies with contract boundary <= 12 months)

B

u

il

d

in

g

b

lo

ck

a

p

ro

a

c

h

(B

B

A

)

P

re

m

iu

m

a

ll

o

c

a

ti

o

n

a

p

ro

a

c

h

(

P

A

)

Pre-claims liability (unearned premium)

Liability for remaining coverage

Liability for Incurred claims

Contractual Service margin

Expected future cash flows Expected future cash flows

Time value of money Time value of money

Risk adjustment Risk adjustment

Expected future cash flows

Time value of money

(22)

Impact of IFRS 9

Aside from IFRS17, IFRS9 (Financial Contracts) will simultaneously come in force

•

Fair value through other

comprehensive income (FVOCI)

no longer an election but the

result of two tests (Single

Project Professional Indemnity

and business model)

•

No available-for-sale (AFS) for

equity securities; only

irrevocable election (FVOCI with

no recycling)

•

Accounting mismatches

•

Insurance liabilities often

still locked-in under current

IFRS 4

Classification



•

All debt securities held at FVOCI

or amortised cost in scope of

new expected credit loss (ECL)

model

•

Significant impact on large

portfolio of commercial loans

(banks)

•

A number of systems, processes,

governance changes required

•

Significant reliance on the

existing credit risk modelling

capabilities

Impairment



•

Less rules based

•

More economic hedging

strategies qualifying for hedge

accounting (e.g., aggregated

exposures, risk components)

•

Accounting for costs of hedging

•

Significant disclosures to ‘tell the

story’

Hedge accounting (micro)



(23)

Challenges

for insurers

(24)

Main impact on life insurers

Performance

reporting

• New concept of “Insurance Contract Revenue” very different from “Premium”

• P&L similar to an “Analysis of Surplus”, more complex than current accounting

• More stable P&L –changes to assumptions no longer affect CY P&L result but absorbed in CSM

Accounting for

CSM

• Additional work to calculate CSM, including managing multiple groups (level of aggregation) and storage of initial interest rate

• CSM roll forward will need to be understood and explained,

Disclosures

• Significantly more information needs to be provided compared to current IFRS

• Additional processes and data are required to gather the disclosure information

Internal accounting

systems

• New IFRS9 and IFRS17 processes and information to be recorded will involve substantial accounting and actuarial system updates

• For multinational groups may help with consistency —

(25)

Main impact on Non-life insurers

Reserving

• Policies w. Term > 1 year will require using Building Block Approach (Similar to Life)

• Remove PAD - Moving to best estimates may make results more volatile

Discounting

• CF > 1 year will be required to be discounted

• Additional process work to determine time value of money (More significant for long-tailed liability insurers)

• Need to explain to stakeholders

Disclosures

• Additional process/effort • More explicit margin

information available for market for comparison across companies

Internal accounting

systems

• Changes, in particular for longer duration liabilities

• New processes and

information to be recorded will involve substantial system updates

• For multinational groups may help with consistency —

(26)

Some additional areas of challenges for Indonesian (life) insurers

Revenue recognition

•

Many contracts are Unit Link with contain a

large investment component (RPUL, SPUL)

•

Investment components will be stripped out, which

will have a material impact on

“revenue”

Measurement model

•

Insurers will have to use a VFA model for Unit

Link contracts. This is different from the current

Unit Reserve / UPR Non Unit Reserve approach

and require enhancement

•

Determination of

“current

discount

rate”

might

be challenging due to lack of market data, and

may result in multiple approaches

•

This is different from the current GPV discount

approach

Regulatory changes

•

The IFRS 17 model is different compared to

Tax, OJK regulations

•

Parts of current Indonesian GPV / RBC models

can be used for the new IFRS-17, such as BEL,

RA, DAC, experience studies

•

Some components are new, such as CSM and

Insurance Contract Revenue

•

OJK / Tax / PSAK regulations may differ

significantly from IFRS 17, forcing insurers

to report on multiple bases

•

Actuaries will be in high demand.

•

In addition to Liabilities, actuaries will also be

involved in Revenue Recognition

•

We need to work together with accountants to

implement the necessary changes.

•

Actuarial Systems (Prophet/MoSes) and Finance

Systems (SUN/Oracle) will both have to be

(27)

Numerical

Example

(28)

Case study: background

Presentation title



Term product sold in Singapore, pure protection with death and TPD coverage



Total 132 policies incepted since January 2016



No future new business



First valuation at the end of 2016

Approach

 All policies are considered homogeneous, hence CSM is aggregated at product level

 Amortization of CSMis performed at product level by remaining coverage and number of policies in force  Risk adjustment is set similarly as PAD under current Singapore RBC framework

 Economic assumptions remain unchanged for same calendar year

(29)

At inception

Insurance contract liabilities are equal to zero at inception

Contractual

Service Margin

Expected contract profit

Best estimate liability

Risk adjustment

=

-

+

BEL = - 713

RA = 250

CSM = 463

(30)

Inception Projected end Year

1

Experience adjustment

Change in non-economic assumptions

BEL (713) (769) (799) (757)

RA 250 246 255 289

CSM 463 415 435 359

ICL - (109) (109) (109)

463

415 435

359

-(109) ₍₁₀₉₎

(109)

Term product (Year 1)

Inception Projected end Year 1

Change in non-economic assumption

Experience adjustment

Analysis:

►

CSM is expected to reduce to 415 at

the end of 2016 due to amortization

►

More contracts remaining in-force at

the end of 2016 have resulted in higher

CSM than expected (i.e. 435 vs 415)

►

Heavier mortality assumption has

resulted in lower CSM in order to

maintain the level of ICL

►

Overall insurance contract liabilities

remain unchanged

Scenario 1: changes related to future estimates

Changes related to future estimates are absorbed by CSM

►

At the end of year 1 (31 Dec 2016)

►

The company expected 126 policies to remain in force mainly due to lapse

►

In fact, 130 contracts remain in force at the end of 2016.

►

This is due to good lapse experience but worsening mortality experience.

(31)

A simplified statement of comprehensive income is presented below (when experience is similar to assumptions):

Sample P&L presentation

Insurance contract revenue replaces premium approach

Current

Year 1 Year 2

Premium Income 178,486 169,688

Claims & Expenses 252,685 105,090

Increase in Reserves - 44

Investment income on underlying items (156) 354

Comprehensive Income (74,355) 64,909

IFRS 4 Phase 2

Year 1 Year 2

• Change in RA 4,324 3,048

Amortisation of acquistion cost (31,064) (29,094)

• Reserves are zeroised at the end of year 1

• Initial strain on surplus due to high acquisition expenses

• No initial strain, less volatile

• Underwriting results reflect changes in RA and CSM amortization when actual experience does not deviate from assumptions

(32)

Sample profit signature

Smoother profit signature under IFRS 4 phase 2

(100) (80) (60) (40) (20) 20 40 60 80 100 120

Y1 Y6 Y11 Y16 Y21 Y26 Y31 Y36 Y41 Y46 Y51 Y56 Y61 Y66 Y71 Y76 Y81

Comparison of profit signature

(33)

Some practical challenges we encountered

► Availability / granularity of historical data

► Defining homogeneity and grouping of policies (“Level of Aggregation”)

► Ability to capture historical data for all periods in storage element

Data

Assumptions

► Setting of assumptions which are not required under the current RBC framework, e.g. split acquisition expense by directly attributable vs non-directly attributable, liquidity premium, risk adjustment, etc

► Storage of locked-in economic assumptions for all historical years (for CSM)

► Storage of non-economic assumptions for previous period

► Interest accreting rate basis –forward rate?

Calculation

Mechanism

► Asymmetrical treatment of CSM due to experience change

► Aggregate level calculation complexity –CSM amortization, accreting interest, etc

► Onerous contract treatment and its subsequent measurement

(34)

Implementation

implications

(35)

IFRS 17/IFRS 9 High Level Roadmap

Involve both Actuaries and Accountants

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Potential IFRS 4 Phase II final standard

Jan 2018

IFRS 9 effective date*

Jan 2020

Potential IFRS 4 Phase II start of comparative period

Q1 2021

Potential IFRS 4 Phase II first

reporting

• Central and local team structure

• Program governance: decision making and technical support

• Work streams and overall plan

• Budget assessment

• Business case

• Impacts on statements and accounting policies, reporting and other processes of Risk and Finance, data and technology

• 2nd_{analysis when final ED}

available

1

2

• Big bang, incremental or minimum efforts

• Accounting & reporting choices

3

• Deep dive analysis in key areas

• Unit of account

• Participating contracts

• Enrichment policy data

• Central vs. local approach

• Adjustment cash flow models

• Implementation strategy

• Impact on processes

• Assessment of data gaps and system changes

4

• Depends on general implementation vision and deep dive analysis

5

• New data gathered, validated and stored

• System changes built (reports & engines)

• Training of Finance, Risk and other personnel

6

• Preparation of opening equity adjustments and comparative information (IFRS 4 Phase II and IFRS 9 elements)

7

• Dry run of IFRS 4 Phase II and IFRS 9 reporting elements on 30 June 2019 numbers 8 High level impact analysis General imple-mentation vision Design smart tailored solution

Solution implementation Dry run Restatements and

comparatives

Program set up

1 2 3 5 6 7 8

Selected deep dive analysis 2nd impact analysis 4 2

(36)

we observe ..

… to ensure an optimal implementation strategy Potential bottlenecks

1. Starting question to be analyzed is the unit of account at which reporting will take place

What is the unit of account:

• Loss recognition

• CSM allocation

Given the unit of account, which historically information will be available:

• Transition: Fully retrospectively, Moderate

retrospectively, Fair Value, participating contracts

• Current design for IFRS/EEV/RBC is not appropriate for the level of granularity required for IFRS 4 (unit of account) —data —models —reporting.

• Additional storage and enhancements to actuarial systems will be required

• At transition date a number of legacy source systems will exist, which could impact the unit level of account.

2. Analyze how to treat participation and unit link contracts

• Which contracts fit within the variable fee model?

• How to apply BBA for indirect participating contract?

• How to treat company profit sharing?

Within some insurers different types and variations in profit sharing exist for and within different products. All these types of profit sharing (and their variations) should be analyzed.

3. Analyze different ways to enrich (policy) data (depending on unit of account)

Enrichment of data could take place at different places:

• Source systems

• Data warehouse

• Companies should determine first whether the ‘optimal’ solution is to enrich data and results in the source systems or within data warehouses.

• Although the optimal solution could be source systems, probably some legacy systems can’t adjusted in an appropriate way.

• A hybrid approach could affect auditability.

4. Analyze the pros and cons of centrally (finance) or locally (actuarial) driven solutions

• The pros and cons should be analyzed in different areas: data, models, output, tools (e.g., reporting tools (CSM), general ledger.

• It should also be analyzed whether a hybrid approach is feasible (including pros and cons).

In the centrally finance driven solution, more functionality is necessary with the General Ledger. This functionality is currently not available.

(37)

The themes of analysis

we observe … … to ensure an optimal implementation strategy Potential bottlenecks

5. In which way should the cash flow models (eg Prophet) and reporting (output) be adjusted?

• Requirement regarding cash flow models and reporting tools

• How could (source) systems, models and reporting tools be adjusted to required output?

• What are the criteria regarding target architecture (how much manual effort is acceptable)?

Current IFRS/EV/RBC models are not sufficient to meet the requirements for IFRS4 (speed —interaction —level of output necessary).

6. Which implementation strategies can be identified?

Based on the outcome of the previous steps, the following questions should be answered:

• Is the implementation strategy dependent on the unit of account

• Which implementation steps should be performed sequentially or in parallel

• In which way can be leveraged on previous projects optimization?

The number of products, source systems, models complicate the choice (s) regarding the implementation strategy.

7. What is the impact on the processes (including controls) under the different implementation strategies?

• What is the optimal process (depending on the implementation strategy)?

• Which (new) risks and controls should be defined. Which current risks and related controls could be removed?

• Which part of the process could be outsourced?

Including extra risks and controls in the closing path because of IFRS17 reporting without reducing the current risks and controls, will severely impact the manageability of the process.

8. What accounting changes need to be considered? •

Accounting choices will need to be made and updated policies will need to be formalised.

• Examples include whether to accrete interest on liabilities through OCI or P&L, when to apply BBA, PAA,

Prophet models to be updated to allow for changes to liability valuation methods and accounting policy decisions.

(38)

Incremental

approach

Big Bang

approach

Potential approaches for implementing IFRS 4 Phase II

Minimum efforts

approach

01

02

03

• Only implement those changes that are

unavoidable •

All lines of businesses and processes are migrated to new system in a single operation

• Redesign the existing modelling infrastructure and process

• Focus on the changes that benefit the existing process

• Step by step process by which the existing infrastructure is amended towards the desired infrastructure

• Easiest to implement

• Built primarily on SII/RBC approach

• Minimal investment required

• Opportunity to implement the most efficient system setup

• Benefits of migration are realized immediately

• Build upon SII/RBC efforts

• Higher flexibility of the implementation process (easier to prioritize key

bottlenecks)

• Can be broken down in subprojects to make it more manageable

• Lower critical path risk

• Potentially does not fit the current reporting timelines

• Inefficient system setup

• Likely to have considerable manual steps, resulting in higher cost and higher risk of errors

• More complex setup leads to complex audit trail

• Complexity of the process leads to major implementation risks

• Huge upfront cost

• Critical path risk

• Takes longer to realize benefits from migration

(39)

For more information, please contact:

Thank You!

Kelvin Yap, FIA Associate Director Actuarial Services

Ponno Jonatan, FSAI Senior Manager

Performance Improvement Sumit Narayanan, FIA

Partner

(40)

About EY: We have the market leading insurance advisory and

actuarial practice in ASEAN

We have the largest insurance advisory team in ASEAN and Asia Pacific:

1

► EY’s Actuarial Advisory team in ASEAN has around 30 actuaries, the largest actuarial team in the ASEAN region, serving many life and non-life insurers in all ASEAN markets. We are part of a wider Asia Pacific Actuarial Advisory team which has 300+ actuaries, and we work closely with our actuarial teams in Hong Kong, China, Korea, Australia etc. to assist project delivery in the rest of Asia

► Our team has worked on a variety of projects including appointed actuary work, Prophet and MoSes development, product development and regulatory approval, actuarial transformation, fund management, asset liability management, actuarial reviews, transition support, customer analytics and distribution, and model reviews

► We have a very strong presence in the insurance industry in Asia Pacific with over 2,000 insurance professionals working in over 70 offices.

► Our Asia Pacific team advises our clients on a wide range of advisory services, ranging from M&A transactions to operational performance improvement.

We have the largest actuarial team in ASEAN and Asia Pacific:

2

We have the most globally connected insurance advisory team:

3

► We have a global insurance sector dedicated to offering industry insight and coordinating a network of more than 9,500

insurance professionals

► Our areas of expertise include accounting compliance and reporting, financial accounting advisory services to work with regulators and private sectors on the introduction of new and revised requirements

► Our teams are able to connect globally and access any relevant expertise from around the globe

EMEIA 3,900 insurance professionals 238 offices Americas 3,500 insurance professionals Actuaries 300 in Asia Pacific Over 1,200 globally

Asia Pacific

2,000 insurance professionals

(41)

EY| Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EY

EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our

communities.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com.

UEN 198905395E

This material has been prepared for general