KPMG Solvency II readiness survey

Transcription

1 Financial Services KPMG Solvency II readiness survey November 2010 kpmg.lu KPMG in Luxembourg

2

3 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 1 Contents Executive summary 6 Introduction 8 Survey approach and participation 11 Perception of the Solvency II directive 14 Solvency II project 17 First pillar Capital requirement approach 20 Second pillar Risk management approach 22 Third pillar Reporting and disclosure approach 24 Articles 26

4 Anzeige Riskpartner:Anzeige Riskpartner Neu :32 Uhr Seite 1 With Basel II and the coming Solvency II regulation, financial institutions are due to set up a more and more sophisticated risk management structure, and a strong evolving reporting environment (Risk, financial accounting, statistics for supervisors and central banks) for internal, supervisory and third party counterparties. Risk Partner is a consultancy company, dedicated to support you and it s customers around risk management systems and reporting systems, with an expertise in the following areas: Project Management All regulatory reportings (Financials and risk) Risk Management Internal Capital adequacy Assessment (ICAAP, Solvency ratio) Software Solutions and developments Support in the supervisory discussions Training RiskPartner S.A. 12 / 10a Rue Jean Engling L-1466 Luxembourg -Tel.: (+352) Fax: (+352) info@riskpartner.lu

5 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 3 Foreword KPMG Advisory Luxembourg is pleased to provide you with its Solvency II readiness survey. The Solvency II directive aims at implementing responsible corporate practices in the insurance and reinsurance industries. It is a European regulatory reform that sets a floor on the core capital requirements based on the various risk factors affecting companies. This report studies the readiness of the Luxembourg insurance sector with regard to this directive. It can provide Luxembourg institutions with a sense of their own preparation level compared to that of the market. The analysis, facts and trends presented here have been collected from a panel composed of 59 companies in Luxembourg. By incorporating answers from insurance and reinsurance companies, including local companies, subsidiaries from international groups, small, medium and large size companies, this report displays a quite complete picture of the current state of preparation in Luxembourg, to this new directive which will be enforced in We take this opportunity to thank all contributors to this survey, respondents, sponsors, as well as contributors who participated in the writing of the articles that you will find at the end of the survey. We hope this report will be a source of valuable information for your organization and we wish you a pleasant reading. Vincent Köller, Partner Geoffroy Gailly, Senior Manager

6 4 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey

7 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 5 Preamble This report is the 1 st edition of the KPMG Solvency II readiness survey for Luxembourg. The analysis provided is built on concatenated data collected by questionnaire sent to the Luxembourg insurance, reinsurance, and captive management market. Participation in the survey is on a voluntary basis. Respondents indicated the number of entities (companies, subsidiaries, branches part of the same group) to which their answers applied. An institution or company in the following pages refers to one entity. KPMG guarantees the confidentiality of all individual answers and comments. This document is provided free of charge to all respondents and sponsors.

8 6 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Executive Summary When we started this survey, our main fear was to discover that most of the Luxembourg market had not yet Solvency II on its agenda, waiting for the solution to come by itself, or maybe for the directive to disappear into some dark hallway of the European Commission We happily discovered through our discussions with the survey participants that it was not the case. The companies of the Luxembourg market have been involving themselves actively in the QIS, are starting to structure coherent answers to the needs created by the directive, and, even though it is too soon to say what share of the companies will effectively be ready on time for the directive s official enforcement, most of them are seriously addressing the matter today. Out of all contacted companies (all CAA insurance and reinsurance companies), 60 distinct entities took part in our survey, covering all size of companies, types of products and market of origin. The sample on which the figures presented here are built is representative of the diversity of the enterprises bound by Solvency II in Luxembourg. Even though Solvency II is considered an opportunity by most of the respondents especially in big size companies almost 60% of the companies are currently far from being ready, bringing 9% of the sample to fear that they will not be compliant on day 1 of the directive enforcement. Inline with the market being composed of mainly subsidiaries of larger international groups, 70% of the respondents expect they will receive direct or indirect group support in order to address the Solvency II needs. 38% of respondents have not started a Solvency II project yet, apart from Quantitative Impact Studies (QIS) involvement. 32% of the respondents involved themselves in the QIS from the start, growing steadily to almost 60% of the respondents for QIS4 participation, reaching an expected participation rate of more than 85% for QIS5. Unsurprisingly, when asked to define their readiness level per pillar, the respondents mark a clear difference between first pillar (65% of companies are halfway through with their preparation or better), second pillar (25% of companies are halfway through or better) and third pillar (less than 10% are halfway through or better).

9 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 7 First pillar capital requirement currently chosen approach is massively the standard method (70%), especially in the reinsurance sector where the rate reaches 85%; but 14 out of the 60 respondents are still undecided whether they should keep their current approach or not. Regarding the alignment of the governance, processes management and risk management for the second pillar of the directive, only 13% of the companies are satisfied with their current alignment. More than half of the participants do not have a risk management tool, while the other half have in-house built tools, leaving only a few percent of the sample using a market tool for managing their risks. Only 35% of the respondents already have the required tools in order to produce the reporting and disclosure items that the third pillar of the directive will impose, and a massive 36% of the sample do not plan on equipping themselves with such a tool. Our report shows that, even though Solvency II has become one of the most important topics in the agenda of most insurance and reinsurance companies in Luxembourg, the road is still long to complete readiness for many of them. Indicators tend to show that many companies might fall short of time, for having underestimated the volume of work involved in a full Solvency II project. The clock is now ticking and the deadline approaching at a steady pace. Companies that have not done so yet should now engage on their journey as soon as possible.

10 8 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Introduction The European Union has had rules to determine the minimum required capital in the insurance industry since the mid to late 1970s. More recently, these rules evolved as more sophisticated products flourished. Between 1997 and 2002, the appropriate minimum capital requirement formulae were reviewed and modified, leading to the Solvency I directive in March While this directive improved solvency in the insurance sector, it did not have the scope and scale needed for a consistent and Europe wide regulation. Hence, in order to create a capital requirement floor consistent throughout the European Union, the Solvency II directive was formulated and voted by the European Commission through a long elaboration process. This directive, far from simply proposing a common ground based on fair market value of assets and liabilities, was built using a three pillars approach, encompassing capital requirement computation, own risk assessment and management, and figures transparency. Companies were invited to participate in the building process, in order to gather quantitative test results that allowed the commission to tune the financial part of the directive. At KPMG, we believe that Solvency II is an important overhaul of the insurance and reinsurance sector in Europe. The complexity and scope of Solvency II makes preparation in advance primordial. Indeed, while December 31 st, 2012 may at first appear far off, it is coming very quickly when viewed from a project implementation point of view. Yet, it appears that companies did not involve themselves very quickly in the quantitative impact studies process, and that Solvency II projects internally were delayed and pushed away by companies management, hoping maybe that the matter would solve itself alone one way or another For these reasons, we wanted to study the preparation of the Luxembourg insurance and reinsurance market to the new directive, as only two years remain to companies to finalize their preparation (see timeline), in order to determine and help companies understand what level of readiness was currently reached in the marketplace, and how far the finish line actually was. The result of this analysis follows. The first part of this report is focused on participation rate and respondents profile. The second part describes how companies perceive and apprehend the Solvency II initiative, together with the related project they may have. The last part of the report then focuses on each pillar of the directive, and the specific level of readiness of the companies to each of them.

11 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 9 Solvency II timeline Solvency II comes into effect QIS5 E.U. Commission votes final Solvency II proposition QIS4 QIS3 E.U. Commission adopts Solvency II proposition QIS2 QIS1 E.U. publishes Framework for consultation Solvency II

12 10 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey

13 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 11 Survey approach and participation All institutions in Luxembourg in the insurance, reinsurance and captive management segments were invited to participate in the survey. 49 respondents took part in the survey, corresponding to 60 distinct entities, some groups being composed of several companies having answered together. The Luxembourg insurance market has many institutions with less than 10 employees that are part of larger international groups. Those institutions however still have to comply with Solvency II on a local level. In order to refine the analysis on some of the questions, we have divided the participants in three groups; entities of less than 30 employees have been categorized as small ; entities counting between 30 and 99 employees have been categorized as medium ; entities above 99 employees are categorized as large entities. Respondents by company size >99 14% <30 51% Half of participants are categorized as small in the context of this survey. The least represented group is large companies %

14 12 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Participating groups sell mainly life insurance products. Non life insurance, reinsurance and captive management are well represented as wellt. Respondents by product type Life Non Life Reinsurance and Captive In the life and non life insurance segment, participation approaches half. 46% of ACA member institutions responded to the survey, with the lowest response rate 38% in the medium institution size basket. Answer rate for Life and Non Life (Percentage of ACA members) < >99 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Participated Did not participate Respondents by Head office location France 14% Switzerland 11% Germany 11% Autre 22% Belgium 13% Head offices are in majority located in Europe, specifically in neighboring countries. Only one head office is from another continent: North America. Luxembourg 42% Sweden 5% Nederland 2% USA 2%

15 2010 KPMG S.à r.l., a Luxembourg private limited company, is an affiliate of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG netork of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ( KPMG International ), a Swiss entity. KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 13 It s not about doing different things... it s about doing things differently

16 14 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Perception of the Solvency II directive Large institutions are more optimistic in their perception of Solvency II than medium and small institutions. Opportunity is stated 70% of the times by larger respondents, and only 33% of the times by smaller respondents. Solvency II perception by company size < >99 Solvency II is a threat to Reinsurance companies because it requires additional capital and will lead to price increases Survey Respondent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Opportunity Necessary effort Burden Risk Threat Solvency II perception by company type Insurance Reinsurance Solvency II is perceived as an opportunity and a necessary effort in 79% of the companies. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Opportunity Necessary Effort Burden Risk Threat

17 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 15 On average, institutions rank their Solvency II readiness 2.5 on a scale from 1 (not ready) to 5 (completely ready). They also rank their perception of the market readiness 2.43 out of 5. Almost 60% of the respondents are either not ready at all or far from being ready. Readiness perception company versus market Market Company 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not ready at all Far from ready Halfway through Ready Completely ready Own and market readiness perceptions are relatively close. 12 institutions see their readiness equivalent to that of the market Solvency II will require significant time investment, IT development, and brainpower to implement Survey Respondent Own readiness perception Readiness perception insurance versus reinsurance Market readiness perception Reinsurance companies tend to rate their progress lower than that of their perception of the market. On the other hand, insurance companies exhibit confidence in their progress. Reinsurance Insurance Market Company Market Company 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not ready at all Far from ready Halfway through Ready Completely ready

18 16 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey SIGMA - Life Insurance System by Switch IT 100% action - reaction 100% flexibility 100% quality Switch IT offers appropriate solutions for life insurance companies Policy management - investment products - capitalisation products - traditional products Fund administration Legal reporting e-insurance (brokers, clients, partners) Business consultancy Switch Information Technology S.A. 5 rue du Château d Eau Leudelange I Tél : (+352) I Fax : (+352) I

19 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 17 Solvency II project 77% of respondents receive group support either directly or indirectly for their Solvency II preparation. Group support received from parent company No 23% Directly 54% Indirectly 23% 4% of institutions do not have Solvency II on their agenda at all. Will they meet the deadline? Local project for preparing to Solvency II No 4% No, waiting on group support 22% Yes 62% 74% of institutions have or will have a Solvency II project apart from the Quantitative Impact Studies. The remaining quarter is waiting on group support. No, will start soon 12%

20 18 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Albeit the low level of advancement of the institutions Solvency II projects, 91% expect to conclude their migration within the next 2 years, before the deadline. 9% expect to miss the deadlines, while none will be ready before Expected completion against official timeline >2 years <2 years 9% 0% 2 years 91% Institutions have focused on first pillar so far, while progress on the two other pillars remains very low. 77% of institutions have not started working on third pillar. About 8% of the companies have finalized their project on all three pillars. Current progress perception per pillar Pillar I Pillar II Pillar III 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Participation rate in QIS rose significantly along the process. Was that a jump in awareness or an increase of the fear toward Solvency II? Not started Started Halfway through Well through Finalized Quantitative Impact Study participation rate 100% 90% 80% Participation in the first four QIS has progressed from 32% to 59%, showing a growing interest in Solvency II readiness. 87% of institutions anticipated they would participate in QIS5 (data gathered between April and July 2010). 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% QIS1 QIS2 QIS3 QIS4 QIS5* Yes No

21 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 19 Progress perception of QIS4 participants versus non QIS4 participants First pillar Non QIS4 participant Institutions that have participated in the fourth Quantitative Impact Study are more conservative when ranking their progress on the three pillars compared to those that have not participated in the QIS4. Does this mean that those that have not been involved may misjudge the time and knowledge investment needed for a successful Solvency II project? QIS4 participant Second pillar Non QIS4 participant QIS4 participant Third pillar 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not started Started Halfway through Well through Finalized 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not started Started Halfway throught Well through Finalized Non QIS4 participant QIS4 participant 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not started Started Halfway through Well through Finalized

22 20 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey First pillar Capital requirement approach The standard formula is the most often used approach for capital requirement calculation; insurance companies tend to use more alternative methods than reinsurance companies. 38% of the institutions use combined approaches. Capital requirement calculation method insurance versus reinsurance Insurance Reinsurance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 24 months before the deadline, no capital requirement calculation method is a clear favorite amongst insurance institutions The size of the institution influences the method used. About three fourth of the small and medium respondents use the standard formula, while only 48% of the large ones do so. This could be explained by the deeper resources available in large groups, and the fact that internal models require more time and knowledge investments. < >99 Standard Partial internal Standard formula Standard with entity specific parameters Full internal Capital requirement calculation method by company size 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non standard formula

23 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey out of 60 companies (23%) are still indecisive as to which capital requirement calculation method to use. QIS4 participation does not seem to strongly affect standard method usage as the final method. On the other hand, participants in the QIS4 that had chosen the non standard method were comforted in their choice. Capital requirement calculation method QIS4 participants versus non QIS 4 participants Non QIS4 participant QIS4 participant non standard method standard method non standard method standard method 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Final method Non final method

24 22 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Second pillar Risk management approach Half of respondents have not started the alignment process, while 46% are already aligned or working on alignment. 4% have no plans for alignment of the governance, processes and risk management functions. Governance, processes and risk management alignment No plan on alignment 4% Already aligned 13% Alignment foreseen in near future 50% Working on alignment 33% Insurance respondents are much more likely to already have a risk management function in place. For 62% of reinsurance companies, the function will have to be created from scratch. Risk management function insurance versus reinsurance Insurance Reinsurance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Already Have a risk Management Function Do not have a risk Management Function

25 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 23 Larger institutions use a risk management tool, while medium and small institutions seldom do. Larger institutions are more likely to have a market bought tool than smaller institutions. Yet market tools usage remains surprisingly low. Tool used for the management of risks < >99 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In-house Market None More than half of respondents have no risk management tool; an unexpected statistic

26 24 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Third pillar Reporting and disclosure approach Two thirds of institutions use or plan on using a tool to produce reporting. In-house built tools are more present than market bought Approach for preparation of reporting Do not have adequate tools and not foreseeing any investment 36% Already have the tools to address the requirement 35% Studying the possibility to get a dedicated tool 29% Larger institutions tend to use reporting tools more than smaller institutions. Size also affects the type of tool used. 70% of large institutions use a market tool, while only 17% of medium institutions and no small institutions do so. Tool used for the management of reporting < >99 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In-house Market None

27 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 25 Tool used for the management of data warehouse <30 Size does not play a large role regarding data warehouse tool usage. The survey suggests that small and medium institutions are keener to have such a tool >99 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In-house Market None

28 26 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Articles The following pages contain thematic Solvency II articles contributed by respondents and sponsors in the context of our survey. We wish to thank warmly contributors for their valuable input. Swiss Life 27 Profidata 30 Axway 33 KPMG is not responsible for, and owes no duty of care towards third parties who rely on, the content of thematic articles published in this report.

29 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 27 Solvabilité II : Une progression à géometrie variable vers un probable succès By Jean-Paul André-Dumont Executive Counsel Swiss Life L échéance de Solvabilité II approche à grands pas. Le marathon entre dans sa phase finale, mais le marché se prépare à des rythmes variables selon les différents «piliers» du référentiel. Je voudrais brièvement mettre en lumière quelques défis qui restent posés à ce stade, en partant de l expérience d une entreprise moyenne par ses ressources, comme on en rencontre souvent sur le marché luxembourgeois. Rappelons, si besoin est, que Solvabilité II est une norme prudentielle visant à intégrer la prise en compte globale du risque dans l entreprise. Le référentiel repose sur trois «piliers» : une analyse quantitative visant à déterminer le niveau de fonds propres approprié à la couverture des risques courus par l entreprise, la mise en place d une gouvernance et de processus internes visant à contenir le risque opérationnel et à promouvoir dans l ensemble des organisations une véritable culture de l identification et de la gestion des risques et un vaste chapitre sur le reporting censé fournir une vision exhaustive de l activité de l entreprise et de ses risques spécifiques, dans un esprit de transparence et de comparabilité. Premier pilier : formule standard, modèle interne ou voie moyenne? Le premier pilier est assurément celui auquel ont été consacrées le plus de discussions et le plus de littérature. Nous en sommes aujourd hui à la cinquième étude QIS (Quantitative Impact Study), initiée par le CEIOPS pour tester en vraie grandeur les dernières interprétations données à la directive pour la fixation d une méthode standard de détermination des fonds propres requis qui puisse être utilisée par toutes les entreprises qui ne souhaiteraient pas développer leur propre modèle de risque. La participation des entreprises luxembourgeoises aux éditions précédentes a progressivement atteint un niveau élevé, toutes tailles et tous profils confondus. Le marché se prépare donc activement. Dans cet ordre d idées, le Commissariat aux Assurances a demandé aux entreprises de calculer leurs provisions en «best estimate» dès cette année. C est une étape importante du point de vue technique et la mesure mérite d être saluée comme une anticipation et un accompagnement bienvenus dans la mise en place du processus.

30 28 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey Des modèles internes sont déjà développés de manière centralisée dans les grands groupes. A l évidence, ils sont les seuls à pouvoir cerner au plus près la réalité de l entreprise et une formule standard, quelle qu elle soit, est destinée à couvrir le plus de cas possibles en incluant une certaine sécurité. Dans la plupart des situations, la formule standard devrait donc conduire à des exigences de fonds propres plus élevées, sans qu on puisse totalement exclure le contraire dans certains cas de figure. A la poursuite d une exigence optimale de solvabilité, les modèles internes ajoutent à leur crédit le besoin d une connaissance approfondie de l entreprise et de ses affaires, ce qui répond en même temps à un défi du seconde pilier, ainsi que nous le verrons bientôt. En revanche, le coût de la mise en place d un tel modèle, qui doit, évidemment, être soigneusement justifié et cerner de près l évolution de l entreprise peut faire reculer plus d un acteur local ou de taille moyenne. La calibration des modèles internes ne soulève pas moins de questions que celle du modèle standard, tandis que leur auditabilité reste un point sensible. On gardera à l esprit qu une fois implémenté, le modèle interne doit présenter une stabilité dans le temps qui exclut, par exemple, le retour opportuniste au modèle standard. En revanche, le passage du modèle standard à un modèle spécifique reste ouvert. Les entreprises qui ne disposent pas encore d un modèle interne éprouvé seront dès lors bien avisées de partir du modèle standard, dont on peut attendre une efficacité déjà élevée, après les dernières mises au point qui résulteront du QIS 5. Ensuite, elles pourront le faire évoluer de façon cohérente au travers d un modèle mixte, vers un modèle qui intègre ses spécificités de manière optimale. Parmi ces spécificités, un niveau de corrélation entre lignes de produits qui s écarterait sensiblement du marché européen, donc des paramètres du modèle standard. Cet aspect revêt une importance particulière sur le marché luxembourgeois, plutôt morcelé et qui compte de nombreuses entreprises et captives spécialisées. Second pilier : les défis de la gouvernance C est probablement ici que l on note les disparités les plus marquées entre les entreprises. Le domaine est d ailleurs moins bien couvert que le premier pilier par les textes officiels et les discussions officieuses. Parmi les nombreux aspects que traite le second pilier, nous retiendrons ici la gouvernance d entreprise. La gouvernance comporte notamment l identification et la mise en place de «fonctions» définies comme des capacités à traiter certains risques ou certains aspects du risque. Idéalement, ces fonctions doivent se répartir sur un nombre suffisant de personnes agissant avec un degré élevé d indépendance mutuelle: risk manager, risk controller, compliance officer, responsable de la fonction actuarielle, audit interne, externe. Cette liste n est pas exhaustive. Les entreprises de taille réduite ou même de taille moyenne devront composer avec une approche pragmatique de cet aspect de la gouvernance, ce que la directive prévoit par ailleurs, sans entrer dans les détails. Plus délicate est l intégration de l approche «risk based risk minded» de l ensemble de l activité de l entreprise, telle qu elle est clairement recommandée par les articles 41 à 49 de la Directive. L organisation traditionnelle des entreprises d assurance confine souvent l étude du risque dans des entités

31 KPMG Solvency II readiness survey 29 d experts ou de contrôle a posteriori, voire dans des bureaux de consultance externe. Il est pourtant indispensable que l approche du risque soit intégrée aussi bien horizontalement que verticalement et qu une authentique culture de la gestion des risques s installe dans l entreprise. A ce propos, j ai l occasion d expérimenter avec bonheur des structures transversales qui réunissent spécialistes des branches concernées, fonctions commerciales ou de direction et techniciens de l analyse des risques par exemple pour la détermination des conditions de souscription en assurance vie ou pour l Asset-Liability Management. De telles structures, outre leur intérêt opérationnel, favorisent la prise de conscience des risques et de leurs aspects multidimensionnels. L intégration verticale n est pas moins importante. Elle englobe la stratégie d entreprise et remonte jusqu à ses plus hauts organes. Selon ma perception, c est ici que résident les gisements de progrès les plus importants pour rejoindre l esprit de Solvabilité II. On notera aussi que les groupes internationaux auront sans doute une préoccupation globale et prioritairement centrée sur le risque de l actionnaire. Les autorités de surveillance mettront davantage l accent sur le risque local des preneurs d assurance. Il faudra trouver, dans les entreprises, une répartition de la capacité décisionnelle qui concilie ces deux aspects. Troisième pilier : menace ou opportunité? Le troisième pilier est souvent considéré comme le plus lourd fardeau dont Solvabilité II va charger les organisations. Ce n est pas le lieu d entrer dans des détails qui doivent d ailleurs être précisés dans bien des cas. Une chose est certains, la requête d informations s intensifiera et il convient de s y préparer. D un point de vue opérationnel, sans data warehouse et data mining de qualité point de salut. D un point de vue plus stratégique, la menace est de consacrer beaucoup d argent et d énergie pour garder l œil rivé sur le rétroviseur ; l opportunité est de pouvoir transformer la masse des rapports en véritables outils d analyse qui donneront aux entreprises une meilleure connaissance d elles-mêmes et une aide précieuse à la décision. Conclusion Le processus avance. Les entreprises s y préparent, surtout dans le premier pilier. Les autorités de contrôle conduisent un effort d accompagnement et de mise en place pragmatique où le monde de la consultance joue également un rôle important. Le succès est aujourd hui prévisible, même s il n est pas encore acquis pour tout le monde. Il n empêche que certaines entreprises tireront un avantage concurrentiel de la révolution Solvabilité II. Ce sont celles qui l auront intégrée dans l ensemble de leur organisation, en auront transformé les contraintes en capacité d analyse et de décision, sans jamais perdre de vue qu une bonne gestion des risques n est pas forcément synonyme d aversion aux risques, que du contraire.