2025-06-09

GFSC Guidance Note Solvency 2: Reinsurance Counterparty Credit Risk

The Gibraltar Financial Services Commission issued this guidance to set expectations for insurance and reinsurance undertakings regarding the management of reinsurance counterparty credit risk. It requires firms to ensure robust risk management systems that accurately reflect risk transfer and concentration exposures within their Solvency Capital Requirements and Own Risk and Solvency Assessments. The regulator mandates prudent mitigation strategies for significant counterparty default concentrations, including the use of collateral or funds withheld, to maintain financial stability and facilitate orderly resolution.

Gibraltar Financial Services Commission logo

Gibraltar

Gibraltar Financial Services Commission

Click to view thumbnail

www.gfsc.gi GFSC Guidance Note Solvency 2: Reinsurance – counterparty credit risk 1 Month 2017 Version: 1 Publication Date: 13 June 2025

Gibraltar Financial Services Commission Guidance Note - Solvency 2: Reinsurance – Counterparty Credit Risk 2 Contents

  1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
  2. General considerations.................................................................................................. 3
  3. Counterparty credit risk ................................................................................................. 4

Gibraltar Financial Services Commission Guidance Note - Solvency 2: Reinsurance – Counterparty Credit Risk 3

  1. Introduction 1.1. This Guidance Note is addressed to all insurance undertakings1 and reinsurance undertakings2 (collectively called ‘firms’ in this Guidance Note). It sets out the GFSC’s expectations of firms with respect to general issues regarding reinsurance and the management of reinsurance counterparty credit risk. 1.2. This Guidance Note should be read in conjunction with the Financial Services (Insurance Companies) Regulations 2020 (the ‘Insurance Companies Regulations’) 3 and the Financial Services (Solvency 2) (Technical Standards) Regulations 2025 (the ‘Solvency 2 Technical Standards’)4 and any relevant GFSC policy material. 1.3. This Guidance Note expands on the GFSC’s general approach as set out in its ‘Approach to Insurance Regulation’ document5 . By clearly and consistently explaining its expectations of insurers and audit firms in relation to the particular areas addressed, the GFSC seeks to advance its statutory objectives. 1.4. This Guidance Note is intended to complement existing legislation, policies and guidance and is not intended to conflict with, amend or supersede them.
  2. General considerations 2.1. The GFSC recognises that reinsurance can be an important part of risk management. As firms decide on appropriate reinsurance to place, the GFSC expects boards to: a) understand the risk transfer taking place; b) ensure that the economic impact is adequately reflected in business planning, capital setting and reserving; and c) appreciate the wider associated risks to which reinsurance placements can give rise. 2.2. The GFSC is aware that complex reinsurance arrangements exist in the market. For these, as for all reinsurance contracts, the GFSC expects appropriate treatment, both in terms of: a) whether there is an effective transfer of risk; and b) the appropriate solvency capital requirement (‘SCR’) treatment, recognising the scope of the risk transfer and the counterparty credit risk. Boards should satisfy themselves that the methodology chosen to calculate the SCR, whether that be the standard formula or an internal model, continues to remain appropriate for the firm’s risk profile. 1 Financial Services (Insurance Companies) Regulations 2020 (Insurance Companies Regulations 2020), reg 3 2 ibid. 3 Insurance Companies Regulations 2020 4 Financial Services (Solvency 2) (Technical Standards) Regulations 2025 5 GFSC's 'Approach to Insurance Regulation' Document

Gibraltar Financial Services Commission Guidance Note - Solvency 2: Reinsurance – Counterparty Credit Risk 4 2.3. Additionally, the GFSC expects firms’ risk management systems to be sufficiently robust to ensure that the level of risk transfer arising is reflected appropriately within their SCR requirements, and that the total uncertainty and risk over the time horizon of the run-off of the obligations of both life and non-life firms has been considered within the own risk and solvency assessment (‘ORSA’). 3. Counterparty credit risk 3.1. The Insurance Companies Regulations and the Solvency 2 Technical Standards promote wider interests for the insurance sector such as competition, the freedom of movement of capital and the removal of restrictive practices. They also require management of risk in a prudent fashion. The GFSC appreciates that, to some extent, these aspects can potentially be in conflict, for example when firms have significant concentrations of reinsurance counterparty default risk. 3.2. Where a firm reinsures to a single or only a few counterparties (or connected counterparties), that firm can be exposed to a significant concentration of counterparty default risk. Although various factors play an important role in assessing counterparty credit risk, the GFSC nonetheless expects firms to manage prudently concentration aspects of reinsurance counterparty default risk under the Insurance Companies Regulations and the Solvency 2 Technical Standards. Regulation 45(3)(d) of the Insurance Companies Regulations requires firms to have a risk management system covering concentration risk management. This includes all risk exposures with a loss potential which is large enough to threaten the firm’s solvency or financial position. Regulation 45(2) and (3) of the Insurance Companies Regulations makes clear that the risk management system must cover risks which are covered by the SCR as well as those which are not, or not fully, included in the calculation of the SCR. 3.3. Where a significant level of risk is transferred to a few counterparties, the GFSC expects firms to consider the impact of such concentrations (particularly in stressed scenarios) as part of their risk management systems. In light of their analysis, firms should review the need for additional measures that may be required to manage appropriately risks over and above the SCR components covering counterparty default risk and risk concentrations. 3.4. While recognising that the Insurance Companies Regulations and the Solvency 2 Technical Standards promote the removal of restrictive practices, for example by prohibiting requirements concerning the localisation and pledging of assets in relation to certain reinsurance cessions, the GFSC will continue to expect firms to mitigate reinsurance counterparty default risk concentrations by demonstrating prudent risk management and compliance with other relevant requirements within the Insurance Companies Regulations and the Solvency 2 Technical Standards. When the assessment indicates additional measures are appropriate, mitigation may take various forms (examples include, but are not limited to, funds withheld and collateral agreements) and will often be uniquely tailored to a firm’s specific business.

Gibraltar Financial Services Commission Guidance Note - Solvency 2: Reinsurance – Counterparty Credit Risk 5 3.5. The GFSC expects firms’ assessment of reinsurance counterparty default risk to include their appetite for this risk, and their identification, reporting and mitigation of major instances of this risk. Firms are expected, among other actions, to continue monitoring the level of annual cessions as a proportion of their gross premiums and the quantity of reinsurance recoverables compared to their available capital resources and take appropriate actions to manage risks arising. Additionally, firms should consider aspects relating to the prudent person principle (set out in Chapter 5 of Part 6 of the Insurance Companies Regulations) as well as to what extent reinsurance concentrations may impede effective resolution. Note that the GFSC expects firms to prepare for resolution so, if the need arises, it can be resolved in an orderly manner with a minimum disruption of critical services. 3.6. The GFSC’s expectations of risk management increase in proportion to the size of the concentration and the risk it poses to a firm. Conversely, the GFSC also recognises that, for smaller firms, the consideration of the trade-off of different component aspects contributing to the credit risk might be materially different to those for larger firms. In situations where satisfactory mitigation is absent and viewed necessary, the GFSC will make clear to firms that better management of counterparty default risk is required and, where necessary, take a proportionate approach to enforcing this.

www.gfsc.gi Published by: Gibraltar Financial Services Commission PO Box 940 Suite 3, Ground Floor Atlantic Suites Europort Avenue Gibraltar www.gfsc.gi © 2025 Gibraltar Financial Services Commission