Insurance Company Financial Regulation: Risk-Focused Process for Examinations
This content showcases a risk-focused process for financial examinations conducted by the Office of Corporate and Financial Regulation in insurance companies. It covers identifying key functional activities, assessing risk current and prospective, documenting examiners' understanding of risk mitigation strategies, independently evaluating effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies, and reporting and follow-up procedures.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Clarifying roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, resourcing and risk at country level as part of GPE s Efficient Partnership Review Action Plan Inception proposal 3 September 2018 IOD PARC
Ways of working Open partnership with GPE Secretariat team throughout Actively using GPE team meetings to: Test and review thinking Identify risks and issues arising for the assignment Explore options for their practicality, sensitivities and implications Maintaining an independent stance Ensuring transparent, inclusive process
Scope of the exercise Advantages Implications of not making a choice GPE does not need further analysis, it needs crunchy options to resolve tensions and clarify ambiguities Risks Options for the roles, accountabilities and responsibilities of GA, CA, Secretariat Drawing on the analytical base (not undertaking further analysis) Role of government and government capacity needs Implications Considering how/if institutional arrangements may need to change (but not changing the GPE model and ethos) Contextual consideration and adaptation
Inception meeting Define and agree purposive sample Review available materials 3rd Sept 4-11 Sept 20th June Sept 4-11 4-14 Sept 27th August 2018 GPE Clarifying roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, resourcing and risk at country level 10-14 Sept Inception ppt Set up interviews Initial interviews with board and staff Consultation process Pressure test options developed with key users and stakeholders Develop initial options 10-21 Sept 11-21 Sept Framing Options Benchmarking interviews First review of options Presentation of options Board retreat; Washington DC GPC meeting, Washington DC 6-7 Dec 8-26 Oct 5-7 Nov 10-12 Oct 2019 Presentation of final options paper Board meeting; Dublin, Ireland Consultations with focus groups Road testing of options with potential users
Framing options: key activities Document review to clarify problem identification, fault lines in accountabilities, and clarity of actors TORs and boundary issues Speak with Gavi, GEF, GFATM, GCF to gain learning Interviews with GPE Secretariat to check understanding Stress test problems and context summary with GPE team Continue to develop and clarify options for consultation Final consultation with GPE on consultation options Draft clear accessible summary of options as a basis for consultation
Framing options: Key Activities Clarify, refine, focus Options will set out the following: Implications For different actors For the partnership For the GPE model For resources Identify risks and opportunities Map accountabilities and responsibilities Identify changes needed Test for sensitivities/risks and implications
Consultation arrangements Purposive selection will be developed based upon clear criteria and developed in consultation with GPE. The selection will be based upon: Purposive selection GPE intelligence; Diversity of CA and GA organisations; GPE grant type; Length of GPE engagement; Country context fragility/stability; Country capacity. Identify Consultation groups will be combined to elicit diverse opinions. Groups will be designed: consultation groups and individuals Toinclude representatives of different actor groups; With potential to combine actors from different countries in groups To maximise participation, we will use a combination of face-to-face and virtual methods, engaging with groups and individuals. Consultation methods include: Interviews with GPE Board members and Secretariat staff Virtual groups using an appropriate platform (to review with GPE) Face to face groups to confirm with GPE who, when, where Remote interviews for purposively selected individuals
Consultation structure and process Structured process for eliciting comments on assumptions (rationales) and options and for confirming preferred options (e.g. quick polls) Summary of options will be sent to participants beforehand with brief rationale Set out purpose of each consultation, and how findings will be used Potential for earlier consultations findings to inform later consultations
Communications and project management to facilitate a strong process and result Effective communications by GPE to publicise to partners the consultation purpose and process to increase awareness, transparency and buy-in. Strong project management to meet deadlines facilitated by weekly meetings, regular updates on progress, agree risk mitigation actions when needed. Flexible team deployment by IOD PARC to be responsive and agile to address issues arising
Presenting options to the Board Present options to GPC and Board meetings as part of a phased consultation process leading to a Board decision. Identify clearly the problems to address Set out for each option the principal roles of each actor; lines and boundaries of accountabilities, responsibilities; flows of communication and information. Identify for each option the implications, risks and opportunities for each actor. Identify implications, risks and opportunities of each option for the GPE Partnership including the implications of not making a decision.
Products Three PowerPoint presentations with supporting short papers. Use of graphics to show for each option the lines and boundaries of accountabilities, responsibilities; flows of communication and information. Clearly written products capable of translation to French. Supporting options paper will include annexes of summarised source material, findings, consultation methods and summary of consultation coverage.
Timeline September October November December S t a g e Timing (date of completion) 27-Aug Activity 30 29 26 22 10 10 19 12 15 17 8 6 3 3 5 1 Weekly updates with GPE Secretariat Inception Inception meeting Initial request of materials Submission of draft inception ppt Validation of inception plan with GPE Finalisation of inception ppt 27-Aug 27-Aug 2-Sep 3-Sep 4-Sep Consultation Hold interviews with board, staff, country level actors Define purposive sample/selection of consultation groups/individuals 11-Sep 14-Sep Review available materials Consultations with GPE board and staff Benchmarking interviews Develop initial options Plan and set up consultations Interviews with country level actors Remote group discussions x6 Face to face consultation on options with focus groups 14-Sep 14-Sep 21-Sep 14-Sep 14-Sep 5-Oct 5-Oct 26-Oct Framing options Draft options paper and ppt 1 Present options to GPC Draft options paper and ppt 2 Attend Board Retreat Veterans Day Draft options paper and ppt 3 Thanksgiving holiday Revisions and preparation for Board meeting Attend Board decision meeting Follow-up as needed 7-Oct 10-Oct 17-Oct 5-Nov 12-Nov 14-Nov 22-Nov 3-Dec 6-Dec KEY Activity Milestone/Deliverable
