This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more about cookies


Group Chief Risk Officer’s summary of the risks facing our business and our capital strength

Managing risk to generate value

‘As a provider of financial services the management of risk lies at the heart of our business, and effective risk management capabilities represent a key source of competitive advantage for the Group.’

Pierre-Olivier Bouée
Group Chief Risk Officer

We generate shareholder value by selectively taking exposure to risks that are adequately rewarded and that can be appropriately quantified and managed. We retain material risks only where consistent with our risk appetite and risk-taking philosophy, that is: (i) they contribute to value creation; (ii) adverse outcomes can be withstood; and (iii) we have the capabilities, expertise, processes and controls to manage them.

The control procedures and systems established within the Group are designed to manage rather than eliminate the risk of failure to meet business objectives. They can only provide reasonable and not absolute assurance against material misstatement or loss and focus on aligning the levels of risk-taking with the achievement of business objectives.

Group Risk Framework

Our Group Risk Framework describes our approach to risk management, including provisions for risk governance arrangements; our appetite and limits for risk exposures; policies for the management of various risk types; risk culture standards; and risk reporting. It is under this framework that the key arrangements and standards for risk management and internal control that support Prudential’s compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements are defined.

Open all

Risk governance

Our Group Risk Framework requires that all our businesses and functions establish processes for identifying, evaluating and managing the key risks faced by the Group. The framework is based on the concept of ‘three lines of defence’ comprising risk taking and management, risk control and oversight and independent assurance.

Primary responsibility for strategy, performance management and risk control lies with the Board, which has established the Group Risk Committee to assist in providing leadership, direction and oversight in respect of the Group’s significant risks, and with the Group Chief Executive and the Chief Executives of each of the Group’s business units.

Risk taking and the management thereof forms the first line of defence and is facilitated through both the Group Executive Committee and the Balance Sheet and Capital Management Committee.

Risk control and oversight constitutes the second line of defence, and is achieved through the operation of the Group Executive Risk Committee and its sub-committees which monitor and keep risk exposures under regular review. These committees are supported by the Group Chief Risk Officer, with functional oversight provided by Group Risk, Group Compliance and Group Security.

Group Risk has responsibility for establishing and embedding a capital management and risk oversight framework and culture consistent with our risk appetite that protects and enhances the Group’s embedded and franchise value. Group Compliance provides verification of compliance with regulatory standards and informs the Board, as well as the Group’s management, on key regulatory issues affecting the Group. Group Security is responsible for developing and delivering appropriate security measures with a view to protecting the Group’s staff, physical assets and intellectual property.

Risk appetite and limits

The extent to which we are willing to take risk in the pursuit of our objective to create shareholder value is defined by a number of risk appetite statements, operationalised through measures such as limits, triggers and indicators. These appetite statements and measures are approved by the Board on recommendation of the Group Risk Committee and are subject to annual review.

We define and monitor aggregate risk limits based on financial and non-financial stresses for our earnings volatility, liquidity and capital requirements as follows:

Earnings volatility: the objectives of the limits are to ensure that:

  1. The volatility of earnings is consistent with the expectations of stakeholders;
  2. The Group has adequate earnings (and cash flows) to service debt, expected dividends and to withstand unexpected shocks; and
  3. Earnings (and cash flows) are managed properly across geographies and are consistent with funding strategies.

The two measures used to monitor the volatility of earnings are EEV operating profit and IFRS operating profit, although EEV and IFRS total profits are also considered.

Liquidity: the objective is to ensure that the Group is able to generate sufficient cash resources to meet financial obligations as they fall due in business as usual and stressed scenarios.

Capital requirements: the limits aim to ensure that:

  1. The Group meets its internal economic capital requirements;
  2. The Group achieves its desired target rating to meet its business objectives; and
  3. Supervisory intervention is avoided.

The two measures used are the EU Insurance Groups Directive (IGD) capital requirements and internal economic capital requirements. In addition, capital requirements are monitored on both local statutory and future Solvency II regulatory bases.

We also define risk appetite statements and measures (ie limits, triggers, indicators) for the major constituents of each risk type as categorised and defined in the Group Risk Framework, where appropriate. These appetite statements and measures cover the most significant exposures to the Group, particularly those that could impact our aggregate risk limits. The Group Risk Framework risk categorisation is shown in the table below.

Our risk appetite framework forms an integral part of our annual business planning cycle. The Group Risk Committee is responsible for reviewing the risks inherent in the Group’s business plan and for providing the Board with input on the risk/reward trade-offs implicit therein. This review is supported by the Group Risk function, which uses submissions by business units to calculate the Group’s aggregated position (allowing for diversification effects between business units) relative to the aggregate risk limits.

Risk policies

Risk policies set out specific requirements for the management of, and articulate the risk appetite for, key risk types. There are policies for credit, market, insurance, liquidity, operational and tax risk, as well as dealing controls. They form part of the Group Governance Manual, which was developed to make a key contribution to the sound system of internal control that we are expected to maintain under the UK Corporate Governance Code and the Hong Kong Code on Corporate Governance Practices. Group Head Office and business units confirm that they have implemented the necessary controls to evidence compliance with the Group Governance Manual.

Group Risk Framework risk categorisation

Category Risk type Definition
Financial risks Market risk The risk of loss for the Group’s business, or of adverse change in the financial situation, resulting, directly or indirectly, from fluctuations in the level or volatility of market prices of assets and liabilities.
  Credit risk The risk of loss for the Group’s business or of adverse change in the financial position, resulting from fluctuations in the credit standing of issuers of securities, counterparties and any debtors in the form of default or other significant credit event (eg downgrade or spread widening).
  Insurance risk The risk of loss for the Group’s business or of adverse change in the value of insurance liabilities, resulting from changes in the level, trend, or volatility of a number of insurance risk drivers. This includes adverse mortality, longevity, morbidity, persistency and expense experience.
  Liquidity risk The risk of the Group being unable to generate sufficient cash resources or to meet financial obligations as they fall due in business as usual and stress scenarios.
Non-financial risks Operational risk The risk of loss arising from inadequate or failed internal processes, or from personnel and systems, or from external events other than those covered by business environment risk.
  Business environment risk Exposure to forces in the external environment that could significantly change the fundamentals that drive the business’s overall strategy.
  Strategic risk Ineffective, inefficient or inadequate senior management processes for the development and implementation of business strategy in relation to the business environment and the Group’s capabilities.

Risk culture

We work to promote a responsible risk culture in three main ways:

  1. By the leadership and behaviours demonstrated by management;
  2. By building skills and capabilities to support management; and
  3. By including risk management (through the balance of risk with profitability and growth) in the performance evaluation of individuals.

The remuneration strategy at Prudential is designed to be consistent with its risk appetite, and the Group Chief Risk Officer advises the Group Remuneration Committee on adherence to our risk framework and appetite.

Risk reporting

An annual ‘top-down’ identification of our top risks assesses the risks that have the greatest potential to impact the Group’s operating results and financial condition. The management information received by the Group Risk Committees and the Board is tailored around these risks, and it also covers ongoing developments in other key and emerging risks. A discussion of the key risks, including how they affect our operations and how they are managed, follows below.

Key risks

Open all

Market risk

(i) Investment risk

In Prudential UK investment risk arising on the assets in the with-profits fund impacts the shareholders’ interest in future transfers and is driven predominantly by equities in the fund as well as by other investments such as property and bonds. The fund’s large inherited estate – estimated at £7.5 billion as at 30 June 2014 (1 January 2014: £6.8 billion, after the domestication of Hong Kong business) – can absorb market fluctuations and protect the fund’s solvency. The inherited estate is partially protected against falls in equity markets through an active hedging policy.

In Asia, our shareholder exposure to equities relates to revenue from unit-linked products and, from a capital perspective, to the effect of falling equity markets on its with-profits businesses.

In Jackson, investment risk arises in relation to the assets backing the policies. In the case of the ‘spread business’, including fixed annuities, these assets are generally bonds. For variable annuities business, these assets include equities as well as other assets such as bonds. In this case the impact on the shareholder comes from value of future mortality and expense fees, and additionally from guarantees embedded in variable annuity products. Shareholders’ exposure to these guarantees is mitigated through a hedging programme, as well as reinsurance. Further measures have been undertaken including re-pricing initiatives and the introduction of variable annuities without guarantees. Furthermore, it is our philosophy not to compete on price; rather, we seek to sell at a price sufficient to fund the cost incurred to hedge or reinsure the risks and to achieve an acceptable return.

The Jackson IFRS shareholders’ equity and US statutory capital are sensitive to the effects of policyholder behaviour on the valuation of GMWB guarantees. Jackson hedges the guarantees on its variable annuity book on an economic basis and, thus, accepts variability in its accounting results in the short term in order to achieve the appropriate economic result. In particular, under Prudential’s Group IFRS reporting, the measurement of the Jackson variable annuity guarantees is typically less sensitive to market movements than the corresponding hedging derivatives, which are held at market value. However, depending on the level of hedging conducted regarding a particular risk type, certain market movements can drive volatility in the economic result which may be less significant under IFRS reporting or vice versa as discussed above.

(ii) Interest rate risk

Long-term rates have declined over recent periods in many markets, falling to historic lows. Products that we write are sensitive to movements in interest rates, and while we have already taken a number of actions to de-risk the in-force business as well as re-price and restructure new business offerings in response to historically low interest rates, persistently low rates may impact policyholders’ savings patterns and behaviour.

Interest rate risk arises in our UK business from the need to match cash flows for annuity payments with those from investments; movements in interest rates may have an impact on profits where durations are not perfectly matched. As a result, we aim to match the duration of assets and liabilities as closely as possible and the position is monitored regularly. The with-profits business is exposed to interest rate risk as a result of underlying guarantees. Such risk is largely borne by the with-profits fund but shareholder support may be required in extremis.

In Asia, exposure to interest rate risk arises from the guarantees of some non-unit-linked investment products. This exposure arises because it may not be possible to hold assets which will provide cash flows to match exactly those relating to policyholder liabilities. While this residual asset/liability mismatch risk can be managed, it cannot be eliminated.

Jackson is exposed to interest rate risk in its fixed, fixed index and variable annuity books. Movements in interest rates can influence the cost of guarantees in such products, in particular the cost of guarantees may increase when interest rates fall. Interest rate risk across the entire business is managed through the use of interest rate swaps and interest rate options.

(iii) Foreign exchange risk

We principally operate in Asia, the US and the UK. The geographical diversity of our businesses means that we are inevitably subject to the risk of exchange rate fluctuations. Our international operations in the US and Asia, which represent a significant proportion of our operating profit and shareholders’ funds, generally write policies and invest in assets denominated in local currency. Although this practice limits the effect of exchange rate fluctuations on local operating results, it can lead to significant fluctuations in our consolidated financial statements when results are expressed in UK sterling.

We retain revenues locally to support the growth of our business and capital is held in the local currency of the business to meet local regulatory and market requirements, accepting the balance sheet translation risks this can produce. However, in cases where a surplus arising in an overseas operation supports Group capital or where a significant cash remittance is due from an overseas subsidiary to the Group, this exposure is hedged where we believe it is economically optimal to do so. We do not have appetite for significant shareholder exposures to foreign exchange risks in currencies outside the local territory. Currency borrowings, swaps and other derivatives are used to manage exposures.

Credit risk

We invest in fixed income assets in order to match policyholder liabilities and enter into reinsurance and derivative contracts to mitigate various types of risk. As a result, we are exposed to credit and counterparty credit risk across our business. We employ a number of risk management tools to manage credit risk, including limits defined on an issuer/counterparty basis as well as on average credit quality, and collateral arrangements in derivative transactions. The Group Credit Risk Committee oversees credit and counterparty credit risk across the Group.

(i) Debt and loan portfolio

Our UK business is primarily exposed to credit risk in the shareholder-backed portfolio, where fixed income assets represent 35 per cent or £28.8 billion of our exposure. Credit risk arising from £45.4 billion of fixed income assets is largely borne by the with-profits fund, although shareholder support may be required should the with-profits fund become unable to meet its liabilities.

The debt portfolio of our Asia business totalled £20.0 billion at 30 June 2014. Of this, approximately 66 per cent was in unit-linked and with-profits funds with minimal shareholders’ risk. The remaining 34 per cent is shareholder exposure.

Credit risk arises in the general account of our US business, where £30.6 billion of fixed income assets back shareholder liabilities including those arising from fixed annuities, fixed index annuities and life insurance. Included in the portfolio are £2.2 billion of commercial mortgage-backed securities and £1.6 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities, of which £0.8 billion (52 per cent) are issued by agencies sponsored by the US government.

The shareholder-owned debt and loan portfolio of the Group’s asset management operations of £2.0 billion as at 30 June 2014 is principally related to Prudential Capital operations. Prudential Capital generates revenue by providing bridging finance, managing investments and operating a securities lending and cash management business for the Prudential Group and our clients.

Further details of the composition and quality of our debt portfolio, and exposure to loans, can be found in the IFRS financial statements.

(ii) Group sovereign debt and bank debt exposure

Sovereign debt1 represented 15 per cent or £10.4 billion of the debt portfolio backing shareholder business at 30 June 2014 (31 December 2013: 15 per cent or £10 billion). 42 per cent of this was rated AAA and 91 per cent investment grade (31 December 2013: 44 per cent AAA, 92 per cent investment grade). At 30 June 2014, the Group’s shareholder-backed business’s holding in continental Europe sovereign debt1 was £483 million. 74 per cent of this was AAA rated (31 December 2013: 78 per cent AAA rated). Shareholder exposure to the Eurozone sovereigns of Italy and Spain is £59 million (31 December 2013: £54 million). We do not have any sovereign debt exposure to Greece, Cyprus, Portugal or Ireland.

Our bank exposure is a function of our core investment business, as well as of the hedging and other activities undertaken to manage our various financial risks. Given the importance of our relationship with our banks, exposure to the banking sector is a key focus of management information provided to the Group’s risk committees and the Board.

The exposures held by the shareholder-backed business and with-profits funds in sovereign debt and bank debt securities at 30 June 2014 are given in Note C3.3(f) of the Group’s IFRS financial statements.

(iii) Counterparty credit risk

We enter into a variety of exchange traded and over-the-counter derivative financial instruments, including futures, options, forward currency contracts and swaps such as interest rate swaps, inflation swaps, cross-currency swaps, swaptions and credit default swaps.

All over-the-counter derivative transactions, with the exception of some Asia transactions, are conducted under standardised International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc master agreements and we have collateral agreements between the individual Group entities and relevant counterparties in place under each of these master agreements.

Our exposure to derivative counterparty and reinsurance counterparty credit risk is managed using an array of risk management tools, including a comprehensive system of limits. Where appropriate, we reduce our exposure, purchase credit protection or make use of additional collateral arrangements to control our levels of counterparty credit risk.

Insurance risk

The processes of determining the price of our products and reporting the results of our long-term business operations require us to make a number of assumptions. In common with other industry players, the profitability of our businesses depends on a mix of factors including mortality and morbidity levels and trends, persistency, investment performance, unit cost of administration and new business acquisition expenses.

We continue to conduct research into longevity risk using data from our substantial annuity portfolio. The assumptions that we make about future expected levels of mortality are particularly relevant in our UK annuity business. The attractiveness of transferring longevity risk (via reinsurance and other external solutions) is regularly evaluated. These are used as risk management tools where it is appropriate and attractive to do so.

Morbidity risk is mitigated by appropriate underwriting and use of reinsurance. Our morbidity assumptions reflect our recent experience and expectation of future trends for each relevant line of business.

Our persistency assumptions reflect recent experience for each relevant line of business, and any expectations of future persistency. Persistency risk is mitigated by appropriate training and sales processes and managed proactively post sale. Where appropriate, allowance is also made for the relationship – either assumed or historically observed – between persistency and investment returns, and for the resulting additional risk.

Liquidity risk

Our parent company has significant internal sources of liquidity which are sufficient to meet all of its expected requirements for the foreseeable future without having to make use of external funding. In aggregate the Group currently has £2.5 billion of undrawn committed facilities, expiring between 2016 and 2019. In addition, the Group has access to liquidity via the debt capital markets. We also have in place an unlimited commercial paper programme and have maintained a consistent presence as an issuer in this market for the last decade. Liquidity uses and sources have been assessed at the Group and at a business unit level under base case and stressed assumptions. The liquidity resources available and the subsequent Liquidity Coverage Ratio are regularly monitored and we have assessed these to be sufficient.

Operational risk

We are exposed to operational risk through the course of running our business. We are dependent on the successful processing of a large number of transactions, utilising various legacy and other IT systems and platforms, across numerous and diverse products. We also operate under the ever evolving requirements set out by different regulatory and legal regimes (including tax), as well as utilising a significant number of third parties to distribute products and to support business operations.

Our IT, compliance and other operational systems and processes incorporate controls that are designed to manage and mitigate the operational risks associated with our activities. Although we have not experienced a material failure or breach in relation to our legacy and other IT systems and processes to date, we have been, and likely will continue to be, subject to computer viruses, attempts at unauthorised access and cyber security attacks.

We have an operational risk management framework in place that facilitates both the qualitative and quantitative analysis of operational risk exposures. The output of this framework, in particular management information on key operational risk and control assessments, scenario analysis, internal incidents and external incidents, is reported by the business units and presented to the Group Operational Risk Committee. This information also supports business decision-making and lessons-learned activities, the ongoing improvement of the control environment, and determination of the adequacy of our corporate insurance programme.

Global regulatory risk

Global regulatory risk is considered a key risk and is classified as a business environment risk under the Group Risk framework risk categorisation.

The European Union (EU) has developed a new prudential regulatory framework for insurance companies, referred to as Solvency II. The Solvency II Directive, which sets out the new framework, was formally approved by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council in November 2009 although its implementation was delayed pending agreement on a directive known as Omnibus II which, having been adopted by the Council of the European Union in April 2014, amended certain aspects of the Solvency II Directive. The new approach is based on the concept of three pillars – minimum capital requirements, supervisory review of firms’ assessments of risk, and enhanced disclosure requirements.

Specifically, Pillar 1 covers the quantitative requirements around own funds, valuation rules for assets and liabilities and capital requirements. Pillar 2 provides the qualitative requirements for risk management, governance and controls, including the requirement for insurers to submit an Own Risk and Solvency Assessment which will be used by the regulator as part of the supervisory review process. Pillar 3 deals with the enhanced requirements for supervisory reporting and public disclosure.

A key aspect of Solvency II is that the assessment of risks and capital requirements are intended to be aligned more closely with economic capital methodologies and may allow us to make use of our internal economic capital models if approved by the Prudential Regulation Authority.

Following adoption of the Omnibus II Directive, Solvency II is now expected to be implemented as of 1 January 2016, although the European Commission and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) are continuing to develop the detailed rules that will supplement the high-level rules and principles of the Solvency II and Omnibus II Directives, which are not currently expected to be finalised until mid-2015.

There is significant uncertainty regarding the final outcome from this process. In particular, certain detailed aspects of the Solvency II rules relating to the determination of the liability discount rate for UK annuity business remain to be clarified and our capital position is sensitive to these outcomes. Further, the effective application of a number of key measures incorporated in the Omnibus II Directive, including the provisions for third-country equivalence, are expected to be subject to supervisory judgement and approval. There is a risk that the effect of the measures finally adopted could be adverse for us, including potentially a significant increase in the capital required to support our business and that we may be placed at a competitive disadvantage to other European and non-European financial services groups. We are actively participating in shaping the outcome through our involvement in industry bodies and trade associations, including the Pan-European Insurance Forum, Chief Risk Officer Forum and Chief Financial Officer Forum, together with the Association of British Insurers and Insurance Europe.

Having assessed the requirements of Solvency II, an implementation programme was initiated with dedicated teams to manage the required work across the Group. The activity of the local Solvency II teams is coordinated centrally to achieve consistency in the understanding and application of the requirements. We are continuing our preparations to adopt the regime when it comes into force on 1 January 2016 and are undertaking in parallel an evaluation of the possible actions to mitigate its effects. We regularly review our range of options to maximise the strategic flexibility of the Group. This includes consideration of optimising our domicile as a possible response to an adverse outcome on Solvency II.

Over the coming months we will remain in regular contact with the Prudential Regulation Authority as we continue to engage in the ‘pre-application’ stage of the approval process for the internal model. In addition, we are engaged in the Prudential Regulation Authority’s ‘Individual Capital Adequacy Standards Plus (ICAS+)’ regime, which is enabling our UK insurance entities to leverage the developments made in relation to the Solvency II internal model for the purpose of meeting the existing ICAS regime.

Currently there are also a number of other global regulatory developments which could impact the way in which we are supervised in our many jurisdictions. These include the Dodd-Frank Act in the US, the work of the Financial Stability Board on Global Systemically Important Insurers (G-SIIs) and the Common Framework for the Supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups (ComFrame) being developed by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS).

The Dodd-Frank Act represents a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry within the United States that, among other reforms to financial services entities, products and markets, may subject financial institutions designated as systemically important to heightened prudential and other requirements intended to prevent or mitigate the impact of future disruptions in the US financial system. The full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our businesses is not currently clear. However, many of its provisions have a delayed effectiveness and/or require rulemaking or other actions by various US regulators over the coming years.

In July 2013 the FSB announced the initial list of nine insurance groups that have been designated as G-SIIs. This list included Prudential as well as a number of its competitors. Designation as a G-SII will lead to additional policy measures being applied to the designated group. Based on the policy framework released by the IAIS and subsequent guidance papers these additional policy measures will include enhanced group-wide supervision, effective resolution measures of the group in the event of failure, loss absorption and higher loss absorption capacity. This enhanced supervision commenced immediately and includes the development by July 2014 of a Systemic Risk Management Plan (SRMP) under supervisory oversight and its implementation thereafter and by the end of 2014, a group Recovery and Resolution Plan (RRP) and Liquidity Risk Management Plan (LRMP). The Group SRMP was submitted to the Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) in June 2014 and work is ongoing to produce the RRP and LRMP. We are monitoring the development and the potential impact of, the framework of policy measures and are engaging with the PRA on the implications of the policy measures and Prudential’s designation as a G-SII. The G-SII regime also introduces two types of capital requirements, the first, a Basic Capital Requirement (BCR), designed to act as a minimum group capital requirement and the second, a Higher Loss Absorption (HLA) requirement for conducting non-traditional insurance and non-insurance activities. A consultation paper on BCR was released in July 2014. Details of the HLA are currently unknown as the IAIS has yet to begin work on this requirement. The IAIS currently expects to finalise the BCR and HLA proposals by November 2014 and the end of 2015 respectively. Implementation of the regime is likely to be phased in over a period of years with the BCR expected to be introduced in 2015 on a confidential reporting basis to group-wide supervisors. The HLA requirement will apply from January 2019 to the insurance groups identified as G-SIIs in November 2017.

The IAIS is developing a common framework (‘ComFrame’) for the supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIG). ComFrame is designed to outline a set of common global principles and standards for group supervision and may increase the focus of regulators in some jurisdictions. One of the framework’s key components is an Insurance Capital Standard (ICS), which would form the group solvency capital standard under ComFrame. In May 2014 the IAIS published a memorandum setting out the approach to the development of the ICS. The three-year development phase of ComFrame ended in December 2013 and the IAIS is now undertaking a field testing exercise from 2014-2018 to assess the impacts of the quantitative and qualitative requirements proposed under ComFrame. ComFrame is expected to be implemented in 2019.

Risk factors

Our disclosures covering risk factors can be found on the Risk factors page.

Risk mitigation and hedging

We manage our actual risk profile against our tolerance of risk. To do this, we maintain risk registers that include details of the risks we have identified and of the controls and mitigating actions we employ in managing them. Any mitigation strategies involving large transactions such as a material derivative transaction involving shareholder business are subject to review at Group level before implementation.

We use a range of risk management and mitigation strategies. The most important of these include: adjusting asset portfolios to reduce investment risks (such as duration mismatches or overweight counterparty exposures); using derivatives to hedge market risks; implementing reinsurance programmes to manage insurance risk; implementing corporate insurance programmes to limit the impact of operational risks; and revising business plans where appropriate.

Capital management

We continue to operate with a strong solvency position, while maintaining high levels of liquidity and capital generation. This is testament to our capital discipline, the effectiveness of our hedging activities, our low direct Eurozone exposure, the minimal level of credit impairments and the natural offsets in our portfolio of businesses which dampen the effects of movements in interest rates.

estimated IGD capital surplus covering capital requirements


Open all

Regulatory capital (IGD)

Prudential is subject to the capital adequacy requirements of the European Union Insurance Groups Directive (IGD) as implemented by the Prudential Regulation Authority in the UK. The IGD capital surplus represents the aggregated surplus capital (on a Prudential Regulation Authority consistent basis) of the Group’s regulated subsidiaries less the Group’s borrowings. No diversification benefit is recognised. We estimate that our IGD capital surplus is £4.1 billion at 30 June 2014 (before taking into account the 2014 interim dividend), with available capital covering our capital requirements 2.3 times. This compares to a capital surplus of £5.1 billion at the end of 2013 (before taking into account the 2013 final dividend).

The movements in the first half of 2014 mainly comprise:

  • Net capital generation (net of market and foreign exchange movements) mainly through operating earnings (in-force releases less investment in new business, net of tax) of £0.8 billion;

offset by:

  • The cost of renewing the bancassurance partnership agreement with Standard Chartered PLC of £0.7 billion, representing the aggregate amounts settled and committed that are not dependent on the achievements of sales volumes;
  • £0.2 billion due to reduction in the shareholders’ interest in future transfers from the UK’s with-profits fund asset allowance (as discussed below) and other smaller one-off items;
  • Final 2013 dividend of £0.6 billion; and
  • External financing costs and other central costs, net of tax, of £0.3 billion

IGD surplus represents the accumulation of surpluses across all of our operations based on local regulatory minimum capital requirements with some adjustments, pursuant to the requirements of Solvency I. The calculation does not fully adjust capital requirements for risk nor does it capture the true economic value of assets. Global regulatory developments, such as Solvency II and ComFrame, aim to ensure that the calculation of regulatory surplus evolves over time into a more meaningful risk sensitive measure.

There is broad agreement that ultimately it would be beneficial to replace the IGD regime with a regime that is more risk-based. Solvency II aims to provide such a framework and is expected to be implemented on 1 January 2016.

We continue to have further options available to manage available and required capital. These could take the form of increasing available capital (for example, through financial reinsurance) or reducing required capital (for example, through the mix and level of new business) and the use of other risk mitigation measures such as hedging and reinsurance. A number of such options were utilised through the last financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 to enhance the Group’s IGD surplus. One such arrangement allowed the Group to recognise a proportion of the shareholders’ interest in future transfers (SHIFT) from the UK’s with-profits business and this remained in place, contributing £0.4 billion to the IGD at 31 December 2012. As per guidance received from the PRA in January 2013, credit taken for the SHIFT asset was reduced to zero at end January 2014.

Stress testing

As at 30 June 2014, stress testing of our IGD capital position to various events has the following results:

  • An instantaneous 20 per cent fall in equity markets from 30 June 2014 levels would reduce the IGD surplus by £50 million;
  • A 40 per cent fall in equity markets (comprising an instantaneous 20 per cent fall followed by a further 20 per cent fall over a four-week period) would reduce the IGD surplus by £350 million;
  • A 100 basis points reduction (subject to a floor of zero) in interest rates would reduce the IGD surplus by £100 million; and
  • Credit defaults of 10 times the expected level would reduce IGD surplus by £550 million.

The impact of the 100 basis points reduction in interest rates is exacerbated by the current regulatory permitted practice used by Jackson, which values all interest rate swaps at book value rather than fair value for regulatory purposes. At 30 June 2014, removing the permitted practice would have increased reported IGD surplus to £4.2 billion. As at 30 June 2014, it is estimated that a 100 basis point reduction in interest rates (subject to a floor of zero) would have resulted in an IGD surplus of £4.4 billion, excluding the permitted practice.

Prudential believes that the results of these stress tests, together with the Group’s strong underlying earnings capacity, our established hedging programmes and our additional areas of financial flexibility, demonstrate that we are in a position to withstand significant deterioration in market conditions.

Other capital metrics

We use an economic capital assessment calibrated on a multi-term basis to monitor our capital requirements across the Group. This approach considers, by risk drivers, the time frame over which each risk can threaten the ability of the Group to meet claims as they fall due, allowing for realistic diversification benefits. This assessment provides valuable insights into our risk profile and for continuing to maintain a strong capital position.

All of our subsidiaries continue to hold strong capital positions on a local regulatory basis. Jackson’s risk-based capital ratio level as of 31 December 2013 was 450 per cent and since then it has been able to remit £352 million to the Group while supporting its balance sheet growth and maintaining adequate capital. The value of the estate of our UK with-profits fund as at 30 June 2014 is estimated at £7.5 billion after the effect of completing the domestication of the Hong Kong branch business of the PAC with-profits fund which was effective on 1 January 2014 (1 January 2014: £6.8 billion, after the effect of the transfer). The value of the shareholders’ interest in future transfers from the with-profits funds in the UK is estimated at £2.4 billion (1 January 2014: £2.3 billion, after the effect of the transfer).

Furthermore, on a statutory (Pillar 1) basis the total credit default reserve for the UK shareholder annuity funds also contributes to protecting our capital position in excess of the IGD surplus. Notwithstanding the absence of defaults in the period, at 30 June 2014 we have maintained sizeable credit default reserves at £1.9 billion (31 December 2013: £1.9 billion), representing 51 per cent of the portfolio spread over swaps, compared with 47 per cent at 31 December 2013.

Capital allocation

Our approach to capital allocation is to attain a balance between risk and return, investing in those businesses that create shareholder value. In order to efficiently allocate capital, we measure the use of, and the return on, capital.

We use a variety of metrics for measuring capital performance and profitability, including traditional accounting metrics and economic returns. Capital allocation decisions are supported by this quantitative analysis, as well as strategic considerations.

The economic framework measures risk adjusted returns on economic capital, a methodology that ensures meaningful comparison across the Group. Capital utilisation, return on capital and new business value creation are measured at the product level as part of the business planning process.


  1. Excludes Group’s proportionate share in joint ventures and unit-linked assets and holdings of consolidated unit trusts and similar funds.
Return to top

Reporting tools

Save pages of the report
to download, print or email

View your pages


Your comments and ideas
help us to shape future reports
to suit your needs

Tell us your views