Denmark
Financial Sector Assessment Program: Detailed Assessment of Observance of the Insurance Core Principles
Author:
International Monetary Fund
Search for other papers by International Monetary Fund in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close

This paper discusses key findings of the Detailed Assessment of the Observance of the Insurance Core Principles for Denmark. Key recommendations arising from the assessment cover two main issues. First is the fact that the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority Finanstilsynet bases its system to assess the appropriateness of key functions on the assumption that it is the core responsibility of the senior management to ensure adequate personnel to be assigned to relevant tasks in the supervised companies. The second issue relates to a requirement that internal audit functions should be made compulsory for smaller companies.

Abstract

This paper discusses key findings of the Detailed Assessment of the Observance of the Insurance Core Principles for Denmark. Key recommendations arising from the assessment cover two main issues. First is the fact that the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority Finanstilsynet bases its system to assess the appropriateness of key functions on the assumption that it is the core responsibility of the senior management to ensure adequate personnel to be assigned to relevant tasks in the supervised companies. The second issue relates to a requirement that internal audit functions should be made compulsory for smaller companies.

I. International Association of Insurance Supervisors Core Principles

A. Introduction

General

1. The assessment of the observance the Insurance Core Principles (ICP) developed by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) dated October 2003, was carried out as part of the first Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) mission to Denmark, November 7–18, 2005.1

2. The assessment reviews the effectiveness of Danish insurance legislation (including supporting regulation and rules) as well as the effectiveness of the supervisory body, that is Finanstilsynet (DFSA). Given the highly developed nature of the Danish insurance market, this assessment comments on both the essential and advanced criteria underpinning each core principle. However, in accordance with Annex 2 of the ICP, only essential criteria have been taken into account in assessing the overall level of observance of a core principle.

3. A recent audit by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that further improvements, especially supervision of nonlife insurance, should be made.2 Specifically, the NAO noted that frequency of comprehensive on-site inspections needed to be shortened, and supervision of IT systems needed to be upgraded, and the follow-up of inspections made more effective.

4. Key recommendations arising from the assessment cover two main issues. One is the fact that DFSA bases its system to assess the appropriateness of key functions on the assumption that is the core responsibility of the senior management to ensure adequate personnel to be assigned to relevant tasks in the supervised companies. There was no evidence that this has led to severe problems so far. However, this may well have been justified by the limited size of the market. The second issue relates to a requirement that internal audit functions should be made compulsory for smaller companies. Guideline 9680 does not sufficiently clearly define what Finanstilsynet requires in the area of internal control. The guideline does not expand on requirements from section 71 in the Financial Business Act (FBA), the subsequent control procedure may thus not cover all relevant issues. The importance of this function requires an executive order.

5. Pension products dominate the insurance sector, and 94 percent of such products carry a guaranteed rate of return to policyholders—some with a guaranteed return above the present risk free interest rate. The investment risk matched with the interest rate risk on liabilities is still a concern, as mismatches poses a risk to the level of buffer capital, albeit several measures have been implemented to increase provisions and buffer capital.

B. Information and Methodology Used for Assessment

6. The IAIS Methodology approved in October 2003, together with an IMF template based on this Methodology, was employed in preparing this assessment. The assessment was greatly facilitated by the detailed self-assessment and other information supplied by the authorities. The assessors would like to express their appreciation for the substantial efforts, inputs, and time the DFSA provided, which facilitated the assessment. Other representatives from the public and private sectors with whom the assessors interacted were also generous with their time, hospitable, open in their views, and invariably helpful.

C. Market Analysis—The Danish Pension and Insurance Market

The pension system

7. The Danish pension system consists of several layers. The first pillar is the entitlement of all citizens in Denmark to an old-age pension from the age of 65, and the Danish Labor Market Supplementary Pension Fund (ATP). The next layer is the mandatory labor market pension schemes: L0nmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond (LD) and the Special Pension Savings Scheme (SP). The last pillar is the private and individual pension savings. The old-age pension is founded by taxation and is a “pay-as-you-go” scheme. The other pension schemes are funded by employers and employees. There are three main schemes established: (i) by law; (ii) by agreements between the parties in the labor market; and (iii) as individual contracts.

8. The general retirement age is 65 for pillar I. However, a number of schemes will include options to consumers to retire before (e.g., from the age of 60). Most pension schemes include life insurance, disability and old-age/survivor pensions. Further, spouse’s pension and child pension are usual. The options vary among the pensions funds.

9. The schemes established by law are ATP, SP, and LD. The labor market schemes consist of savings in life insurance companies, general pension funds, company pension funds, and credit institutions. The individual schemes are savings in life insurance companies and credit institutions. Table 1 shows total pension savings spilt on different types of entities.

Table 1.

Total Pension Assets Split on Types of Entities, End-2004 and End-2005

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

10. In 2005, total pension assets have grown by almost 17 percent. This is the largest growth in the last 5 year period. Credit institutions and ATP have experienced the largest increase, followed by the life insurance companies. The schemes based on law accounts for 22 percent, and the life insurance companies and general pension funds accounts for 62 percent of the total pension assets.

Life insurance and pensions

11. The life sector is dominated by a relatively small number of groups and the major insurance products are with-profit pension schemes. These products have similar characteristics to those sold in a number of other countries with minimum guaranteed rates of return. In the first half of this decade, pension suppliers suffered financial stress during the equity price downturn and in the low interest rate environment. The Danish life insurance industry has historically produced adequate profits, but the dominance of the guaranteed life products and the associated asset-liability matching issues have rendered results contingent on asset side performance. Falling asset markets and returns have introduced new financial pressures.3

12. At end 2005, there were 36 life insurance companies and 29 general pension funds (Table 2). Some of these entities are organized as groups. Effectively, there are 18 life insurance companies/pension funds (groups). Life insurance companies and pension funds are covered by the same legislative framework. In addition, there were 44 company pension funds.

Table 2.

Number of Life Insurance Companies and Pension Funds (Legal Entities), 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

13. During the last 10 years, there have been a number of new entrants and exits at the level of legal entities. However, most of these entrants and exits have taken place within individual insurance groups due to changes of tax rules. In the case of life insurance groups, the number of companies is largely unchanged. No exits were caused by winding-up or other insolvency procedures. New entrants and exits form part of normal adjustment to market conditions, including mergers. Recently, a couple of general pension funds merged, but the scope for further consolidation of general pension funds mainly depends on the parties in the labor market.

14. The life insurance market is dominated by a few large groups (Tables 3 and 4). In 2005, the top 5 companies have a market share of 59.9 percent and the top 10 companies have a market share of 79.0 percent. In the commercial market, the top 5 companies have a market share of 89.2 percent and the top 10 companies have a market share of 99.9 percent. In 2004, the life insurance companies and general pension funds amount for 63 percent of the total asset in pension saving schemes. The company pension funds amount to approximately 2 percent of these assets.

Table 3.

Market Concentration Measured by Gross Premiums of the Commercial Part of the Market of Life Insurance Companies and General Pension Funds (Excluding Company Pension Funds) 2003–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.
Table 4.

Market Concentration Measured by Gross Premiums of the Commercial Part of the Market of Life Insurance Companies and General Pension Funds (Excluding Company Pension Funds) 2003–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority. Note: The commercial part of the market amounts to approximately 55 percent of the total market of life insurance companies and general pension funds.

15. Cross-border activities are limited in both life insurance and general pension funds, as well as for foreign insurers operating in Denmark and Danish insurers operating abroad. The major reason for this is the tax legislation. Premiums paid to foreign undertakings according to the tax law are not tax deductible for the insured.

16. The major distribution channels are direct sales from the insurer, through banks, and through intermediaries. For life and pension the parties of the Danish labor market, as part of the labor market agreements, to a large extend decide the supplier, as well as the level of premiums and coverage.

17. The life insurance companies and general pension funds are mainly providing a second supplementary pension, which is a mandatory pension scheme for employees, where the major products are traditional life insurance contracts with a guaranteed return. For these mandatory pension schemes that are part of the labor market agreements, the typical contributions rates range from 12 to 17 percent of the wage. In all contracts, the profit is distributed to each contract according to the so-called contribution principle on a fair basis, unless the contract states otherwise. Policyholders are allowed to transfer their contract from one company to another, but are not entitled to undistributed profits (collective bonus reserves).

18. The market for individual life insurance contracts and unit link products from the insurance sector is limited (Table 5).4 Unit link products were introduced in the late 1980’s, and just recently the market share of these contracts has begun to increase. Some life insurance companies have introduced unit linked products with an embedded zero interest rate option.

Table 5.

Distribution of Gross Premiums, 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

19. As in a number of other countries, the principal vulnerabilities for the insurance sector arise from the requirement to achieve a specified return for the duration of in-force policies, which may span several decades, in an environment where higher returns are difficult to achieve. Until mid-1994, pension companies applied mostly a maximum technical interest rate of 4.5 percent on the traditional insurance contracts with a guaranteed return. It was then lowered by the DFSA to 2.5 percent. In 1999, the maximum technical interest rate was reduced further to 1.5 percent. The agreed guaranteed interest rate applies throughout the lifetime of an in force pension scheme, so that the agreements established up to mid-1994 still yield a guaranteed rate of interest of 4.5 percent. These are maximum guaranteed rates of interest, and the pension companies have been at liberty to create pension schemes based on lower guaranteed rates of interest, or without any guarantees at all.

20. The sector remains susceptible to low interest rates, and also to other market risks, including equity prices and property prices. These factors place an important premium on sound risk management by life insurance institutions, and effective oversight by supervisors. Albeit several measures have been implemented to increase provisions and buffer capital, as well as hedging risk in the form of derivatives, this is an area that still needs to be closely monitored. The investment risk matched with the interest rate risk on liabilities still is a concern as mismatches poses a risk to the level of buffer capital.

21. The investment strategy has changed over time (Table 6). Until 1999, the proportion of shares in the investment portfolios was growing. After 1999, this changed to an increased bond portfolio. This development came even more through in 2001. In 2004, the mix between bonds and shares accounts for 61.7 percent and 13.8 percent, respectively. The return on investments fell substantially in the years 2001 and 2002. Due to the rise in equity prices in recent years, the investment returns increased in 2003, 2004, and 2005. In 2003, the profit on investments was above the high guaranteed rate of 4.5 percent, and 2004 showed the best investment profits during the last 5 year period. As the life insurance companies and pension funds are large institutional investors, situations could arise were the market would not be sufficiently liquid, if there was a sudden need for changes in the investment mix. This is most dominant for the equity market, since the bond market in Denmark is large and liquid. This would mainly be a problem in the event of solvency problems of one of the larger companies.

Table 6.

Distribution of Investments of Life Insurance Companies and General Pension Funds, 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

22. The return on investments have been quite volatile in recent years (Table 7). In 2005, the insurance companies and pension funds achieved a result before tax of over DKr 16 million, with the result on investments amounting to DKr 165 million. The results are the best during the recent five year period. The administration costs have been reduced from 6.49 percent in 2001 to 5.33 percent in 2005.

Table 7.

Return on Investments for Life Insurance Companies and General Pension Funds, 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

23. The owners and policyholders in life-insurance companies may have diverging interests regarding the distribution of profits. On the one hand, the owners may be interested in carrying the profit to equity capital, while on the other hand the policyholders may prefer distribution to policyholders. The life insurance companies and pension funds must set up rules for the return on equity. These rules generally comprise two elements, a return that is in line with the yield paid to policyholders, and a risk premium that must be reasonable in relation to the risk associated with providing equity capital. The actual profit to policyholders has been equal for all policyholders independent of the level of guaranteed returns.

Table 8.

Return on Equity for Life Insurance Companies and General Pension Funds, 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority. Note: The ratio of profit before/after tax to average equity capital

24. The life insurance companies’ and pensions funds’ buffers against losses comprise: the collective bonus potential, the bonus potential related to benefits on premium-free policies, and the capital base. The two first buffers belong to the policyholders, while the capital base, comprising equity belongs to the owners of the company. In principle, the bonus potential related to benefits on premium-free policies cannot be regarded as an aggregate buffer for the entire company, as this bonus potential is related to the individual policy and can only be used to cover negative results for policies within the same portfolio.

25. The weighted average solvency ratio was 2.6 at the end of 2005 (Table 9). In 2004, half of the companies had a solvency ratio under this average. The companies with a solvency ratio less than 2.8 represent approximately 73 percent of the market, indicating that some of the largest companies have a solvency ratio below average. In 2005, the 10 percent of the companies with least capital had a solvency ratio below 1.5—none less than 1.2—and the 10 percent best capitalized companies had a solvency ratio exceeding 6.4.

Table 9.

Buffer Capital, Weighted Average, 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

26. Four life insurers have not been able to meet the solvency requirements during the last five years. For all four life insurers the capital was successfully restored by restoration plans accepted by the DFSA. All four failures were due to losses on investments (decrease of equity prices and low interest rates) and were related to mismatch between interest rate sensitivity of assets and liabilities. All companies have continued their business and no direct losses were observed.

Sensitivity test

27. In 2000, the regulatory limit for investments in equities was raised to 70 percent of the technical provisions on the condition that the match between the assets and the liabilities of the industry should be improved. In June 2001, after negotiations with the industry, the DFSA introduced the red and yellow “traffic light” stress test scenarios for life insurers and pension funds. From end-2003, similar test scenarios were introduced in nonlife insurers. Companies and funds report the result of the stress tests biannually. The traffic light system supplements the required capital margin. At the end-2005, there were no life insurance companies or general pension funds in red light, but 6 companies in yellow light.

28. The red light scenario is a decrease of 12 percent in the price of stocks, a decrease of 8 percent in the price of real estate, and a change of the interest rate level of 0.7 percentage points. Credit risk and foreign exchange risks are stressed as well. If a company cannot meet the red scenario, the DFSA requires monthly reporting and the company in question is not allowed to increase its overall risk.

29. The yellow scenario is an early warning indicator. The yellow light scenario is a decrease of 30 percent in the price of stocks, a decrease of 12 percent in the price of real estate, and a change of the interest rate level of 1.0 percentage point. In case a company cannot meet the yellow scenario, the DFSA requires quarterly reporting.

Company pension funds, ATP, LD/SP

30. There are additional funded pension plans established by law, and these can also be characterized as private pension plans. The largest funded pension plan is the Labor Markets Supplementary Pension Scheme (ATP). There are also several private pension funds covering mandatory pension schemes. Company pension funds administer pension schemes for employees or a group of employees in one single firm or in a group of firms. According to the law, company pension must be autonomous legal entities segregated from the company where the beneficiaries (members) are employed. According to the law, pension liabilities must be fully funded. Three company pension funds for the telephone operator, TDC, accounts for more than half of the total assets of the company pension funds. The total assets of these company pension funds amounts to approximately € 5 billion (pension fund assets). The company pension funds cover 2 percent of the total pension assets in the Danish market.

31. The regulatory framework, the financial prudential supervision and the supervision practices for LD, ATP/SP and company pension funds are largely the same as those that apply to the insurance companies. The licensing procedures for company pension funds are also in line with the licensing procedures for insurance companies. LD and ATP/SP are also partly supervised by the Danish Ministry of Employment.

32. The number of company pension funds has been steadily decreasing for many years (Table 10). Only a few new funds have been established and old pension funds are discontinued. Some of the pension schemes established in company pension funds have also been transferred to life insurance companies. The schemes of the company pension funds are mostly defined benefit. However, three schemes are defined contribution. A large part of the funds are closed for new members.

Table 10.

Number of Company Pension funds (legal entities) 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

33. In 2004, the company pension funds, in contrast to ATP, LD/SP, showed a negative result after taxes (Table 11). The negative result was caused by the pension risks due to a marked increase in the technical reserves, and paid contributions amounting to the double of the premiums paid. A lot of company pension funds are under liquidation and there are more passive than active members of these schemes.

Table 11.

Aggregate Balance Sheet and Income Statement for ATP, LD, AES, SP, and Company Pension Funds (CPF), Selected Items, 2004 (€ million)

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

34. The investment result was the best during the last five years. The bond portfolios have increased and amounted to 67 percent of total assets ultimo 2004. Equity investments have decreased and amounted to 15 percent ultimo 2004.

35. These pension schemes have the same capital requirements as insurance companies and general insurance funds, but the possibilities of easing the regulation for the small pension funds with less than 100 members, as set out in Directive 2003/41/EC, have been implemented to the full extent. By end-2004, the total company pension funds had a solvency ratio of 6, meaning a buffer capital is 6 times the minimum capital requirements. At end-2004, five company pension funds were in red light and eight companies were in yellow light in the DFSA’s traffic light stress test.

Nonlife insurance

36. There are currently 124 nonlife insurance companies in the Danish market (Table 12). The number of companies has declined during the last five years, but there is still room for further consolidation. Exits from the market were mainly due to normal changes in market conditions, including mergers. A number of small nonlife insurers have recently merged and some are planning to do so in near future.

Table 12.

Number of Nonlife Insurance Companies, 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

37. During the last five years, one nonlife insurers failed and one went into run-off. The reason for one of the nonlife insurers failing in 2001 were claims after September 11. A restoration plan is running to wind up the company, and no direct losses are observed. The other direct nonlife insurer failed for a number of reasons: mispricing, underpricing, excessive overheads, inadequate reinsurance, decrease of equity prices, and poor management. The company is under forced liquidation by the court. No direct losses were observed for private costumers, as the guarantee fund has covered the losses for these costumers. The cost for the guarantee fund is estimated to € 16 million.

38. The nonlife market is also highly concentrated (Table 13). It is dominated by four insurers, Tryg, Topdanmark, Codan, and Alm. Brand. Increasing competition is seen in the Danish market from foreign insurers. In 2003, 19 foreign insurers chose to be member of The Danish Insurance Association (Forsikring & Pension). However, foreign insurers overall market share is still limited for the private lines of business.

Table 13.

Market Concentration Measured by Gross Premiums, 2003–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

39. The total nonlife market is small representing 0.46 percent of the world nonlife insurance market. The market is mainly one of personal line business, motor and household insurance, representing approximately 70 percent of the nonlife market (Table 14). The market is not thought to be vulnerable to the withdrawal of one of the major suppliers, as this type of business, characterized by homogeneity of products, can be supplied by market entrants from other countries.

Table 14.

Nonlife Insurance Premiums by Class of Business, 2004 and 2005

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

40. The financial results suggest that premium rates are sufficient to allow an adequate underwriting profit across all participants. In 2004, net profit of the nonlife insurance companies increased by 11.1 percent and the technical result doubled compared to 2003. The growth in premiums mainly stems from risk adjustment of premiums due to more sophisticated risk assessments in the commercial market, but also from increased cover due to regulatory requirements (e.g., workers compensation). The return on equity increased further from 14.5 percent in 2004 to 17.0 percent in 2005 (Table 15).

Table 15.

Return on Equity for Nonlife Insurance Companies, 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority. Note: The ratio of profit after tax to average equity capital

41. Both the loss ratio and the expense ratio of the nonlife insurers have decreased the last two years (Table 16). The combined ratio is now below 100, which makes profit on investments a direct return on capital.

Table 16.

Loss and Expense Ratio for Nonlife Insurance Companies, 2000–05

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

42. The improved situation also allows nonlife insurance companies to have a more risk sensitive portfolio, with a larger part of the portfolio in the stock market (Table 17). The investment mix has given higher yields the last two years. At end-2005, only one nonlife insurance company was in red light and no companies in yellow light. The company in red light is in run off.

Table 17.

Investments of Nonlife Insurance Companies, 2000, 2004, and 2005

article image
Source: Danish Financial Supervisory Authority.

43. The solvency ratio has been stable for the last five years. In 2004, half of the nonlife insurance companies had a solvency ratio of more than 5 according to the current minimum capital requirements. In 2005, the solvency ratio increased marginally. The 10 percent of the companies with least capital had a solvency ratio below 1.9, while the 10 percent of the companies being best capitalized had a solvency ratio exceeding 13.7. Effective January 1, 2007, the minimum capital requirement will increase to the equivalent of the requirements in EU Solvency I Directive. The capital requirement may be reduced for mutual insurance companies, which fulfill certain conditions, and after application, the DFSA may extend the time limit to January 1, 2009. So far no companies have been granted an exemption. There are 6 limited companies and 22 mutual companies, which at the moment do not fulfill these new minimum capital requirements; however a number of these will qualify for the exemptions according to the Directive. During 2005, the DFSA will ask the companies to report on how they plan to fulfill the stricter requirements. Market participants are also anticipating changes to the capital levels in future years, when the EU continues to make progress on the insurance capital adequacy (Solvency II). Minimum levels of regulatory capital are also likely to increase under Solvency II.

Reinsurance

44. Reinsurance cover is mainly provided from the international reinsurance market. There are five pure Danish reinsurance companies, which primarily reinsure risks originating from the group (captives). The direct insurers in Denmark typically buy reinsurance cover from foreign reinsurers in the international reinsurance market. In 2004, gross reinsurance premiums of companies on the Danish market amounted to DKr 2.5 billion. Gross reinsurance premiums of the largest reinsurer—GE Frankona—amounted to DKr 1.2 billion. Of the total insurance business of GE Frankona, direct insurance accounts for more than half. A number of large companies in Denmark formed captive insurance companies in 2004. This tendency has continued in 2005.

D. Principle-by-Principle Assessment

article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
Table 18.

Summary Observance of IAIS Insurance Core Principles

article image

E. Recommended Action Plan and Authorities’ Response to the Assessment

Recommended action plan

20. The main recommendations are summarized inTable 19.

Table 19.

Recommended Action Plan to Improve Observance of IAIS Insurance Core Principles

article image
article image
article image
article image

F. Authorities’ Response

We are broadly in agreement with the assessment team of the IMF, but would like to elaborate on the following issues.

As a follow-up to the recommendations by the IMF assessment team, consideration will be given to establish the DFSA as an independent institution by providing the agency a statutory basis in the legislation. Correspondingly, a separation of its regulatory and supervisory budget will be considered. In our view, how the budgetary procedure is organized is not the most important issue—instead it is essential to ensure that adequate funds are available at all times. A more distinct division of the budget, where the resources allocated to the supervisory activities are separated, would give a more clear and transparent overview.

The fit and proper test in place in Denmark is compliant with the EU directives. We understand that the IMF assessment team assessed ICP 6, 7, 21, and 22 “largely observed” because the suitability of auditors, actuaries, investment officers, and derivative functions are not subject to direct fit and proper. In view of this assessment, we will consider the possibility to adjust the regulation so that the DFSA will be able to take measures in case we discover that a person employed in one of these functions is not fit and proper. In our view, it would not be cost efficient to extend the fit and proper test to the functions mentioned, as it would increase the administrative burden of the industry as well as require the DFSA to allocate resources to this task. Furthermore, the management has the incentive to hire persons, who are suitable for the job. Thus from a corporate governance point of view, it seems preferable that the management of the company is responsible for hiring persons, who are fit and proper, and that the DFSA has the means to act in case it discovers that a person was not fit and proper after all.

The IMF team finds that ICP 15 is “largely observed,” as the DFSA does not possess the power to dismiss controlling owners and managers or to restrict their powers in case they are not fit and proper. We would like to stress that the DFSA is able to abolish the voting right of shareholders in case a qualified owner counteracts the sound and safe operation of the company. In such cases the DFSA may also give specific instructions to the firms. Hence we do not see a need for further measures.

The IMF assessment team finds that ICP 6, 10, 18, and 19 are only “largely observed” because the rules are set out in guidelines rather than executive orders and because the requirements for companies’ operational plans, internal control systems, risk assessment frameworks and insurance activities should be more detailed. The IMF also suggests that it should be compulsory for smaller companies to have an internal audit function. We would like to reiterate that in Denmark, the internal auditors participate in the financial auditing of the company. An internal auditor is not a part of the control system of the company. Therefore we do not se a need for a compulsory internal audit function in small companies. We realize that the Danish system differs from other jurisdictions in this regard. In addition, it is our experience that it may be difficult for small firms to attract internal auditors. Nevertheless, we will consider to make the requirements more detailed and to change the guidelines into an executive order. However, the benefits will have to be viewed against the general intension to keep the administrative burden on the industry at the lowest level possible.

1

The assessment was performed by Henning Goebel (Bafin, Germany) with the assistance of Kirsten Nordbø Steinberg (Kredittilsynet, Norway).

2

The report was published in September 2005 on http://www.rigsrevisionen.dk/, but is only available in Danish. It covered the period 2001–04, but with the focus on the supervision of small and medium-sized banks and non-life insurance companies during the period 2003–04.

3

See the technical note Pensions with Profit Contracts by Kirsten Norbø Steinberg.

4

Unit link products mean that the policy holder carries the investment risk.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Denmark: Financial Sector Assessment Program: Detailed Assessment of Observance of the Insurance Core Principles
Author:
International Monetary Fund