You are on page 1of 16

Capital Management in

Insurance Survey 2015


29 February 2016
Contents

Executive summary 1

Survey methodology 2

Capital management organisation, governance and resources 3

Changes in capital management 5

Capital optimisation strategies currently in use 6

Capital optimisation strategies under consideration 7

Capital management metrics 9

Capital modelling 10

Capital planning 11

Contacts 12
Executive summary

The transition to Solvency II on 1 January 2016 is Capital optimisation is high on firms agendas across
the most significant regulatory change the European Europe Optimising
insurance industry has experienced in decades. Factor While firms have been very much focused on preparing
based Solvency I requirements have now been replaced for Solvency II over the last 5 years, 90% respondents
capital under
by risk based measures for calculating regulatory expect the main focus of their attention to be on Solvency II
capital either through the EIOPA prescribed Standard
Formula or insurers own Internal Models. For the
optimising capital over the next 5.
will be the key
first time, insurers solvency capital requirements are Capital optimisation strategies are getting to a newlevel area for capital
directly impacted by their investment strategies and To date, firms have primarily engaged on implementing
more traditional capital optimisation strategies such as
management
their respective balance sheets will now be sensitive
to interest rate volatility. In such an environment, asset class/sector selection, reinsurance, internal risk over the next
effective capital management will become increasingly transfers and debt restructuring. Going forward, they 5years.
important. expect to engage on risk margin solution strategies and
VIF monetisation, along with more pervasive strategies
In the second half of 2015 we carried out a Capital such as changes to group structures and tailoring of
Management Survey which covered 50 insurance firms risk profiles through M&A or reinsurance, particularly
across 10European countries and focused on the for long-tailed risks such as longevity.
following areas:
Firms are also altering product strategies in response to
Capital management organisation and governance. Solvency II, pushing further into products with lower
capital requirements.
Changes in the capital management landscape.
Communication on Solvency II capital is a current area
Capital management metrics and modelling. of challenge
In the more immediate future, stakeholder
Strategic capital management decision process.
communication around Solvency II results and their
Key messages implications is expected to be a key area of challenge.
Capital management organisation and governance
For those involved in capital management, it is fair to
isawork in progress
say that the future is bright as it is likely to be filled
Companies are devoting more resources to capital
with many challenges. As we move past Solvency
management than before. Whilst the ultimate
II implementation, it is now time to focus on
responsibility for performing capital management
understanding how balance sheets react to economic
activities typically rests with the CFO, many
conditions in real time and the types of risks and
departments perform capital management related
volatility firms are willing to accept rather than mitigate.
activities. This reinforces the importance of ensuring
that there is appropriate organisation and governance We hope you find this survey thought provoking as you
around capital management. move forward with your capital plans.

Claude Chassain Andrew Holland


Partner Partner
EMEA Solvency II & Capital Management Co-Leader EMEA Solvency II & Capital Management Co-Leader

Capital Management in Insurance Survey 2015 1


Survey methodology

The survey is based on responses from 50 insurance % of respondents by country

50 respondents, firms covering 10 countries in Europe. Data was


collected through a combination of online responses
10 countries and faceto-face meetings with respondents between
4%
8%

represented. Julyand October 2015.


20%

Countries represented are Austria, Belgium, France, 16%


Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, the 8%
Netherlands and the UK.
4%
Respondents included CROs, CFOs and Directors of 8%
6%
Capital Management for Life, P&C and composite
(re)insurers. 10%
16%
Individual results have been treated confidentially
and results are presented in an aggregate and Austria Belgium France
anonymised format. In addition to insights gained Germany Greece Ireland
from respondents, results have been augmented with Italy Switzerland The Netherlands
local market insights provided by our experienced UK
teams across the European Deloitte network.

Results presented throughout the document % of respondents by assets under management (AUM)
arerounded.

20%

35%

45%

AUM > 100 billion


25 billion < AUM <= 100 billion
AUM <= 25 billion

2
Capital management organisation,
governance and resources

Organisation & governance What areas in your firm play an important role in capital
Capital management is not organised or governed in management decisions?
Less than 50%
a standard way across the European insurers surveyed,
indicating that insurers still have some way to go to embed
of respondents
90%
Solvency II fully into their decision making processes.
Risk department
have a
Less than half of respondents have a dedicated,
A Capital Management 74% dedicated,
or Risk/Capital Committee
standalone capital management department. Even standalone
where firms have such a department, many depend
on activities performed across a number of separate
Actuarial department 58%
capital
departments such as risk, actuarial and investment.
An Asset Liability
Committee (ALCO) 46%
management
Reliance on these areas is driven primarily by the technical or Investments Committee
department.
nature of the skillsets required under Solvency II. A stand-alone capital
42%
However, most respondents with standalone capital management department
management departments indicated that the
38%
responsibility for identifying and implementing capital Investments department
Strong and
optimisation initiatives and the monitoring of capital
did lie within this department. Other within finance 22% appropriate
From a governance perspective, capital management
governance
related decisions are currently made across a number
Treasury department 22%
is needed to
of different committees such as Risk/Capital and
Other outside of finance 8%
support a
Investments committees, even where a standalone
Capital Management committee is in situ. 0% 50% 100%
holistic view
of capital
Where multiple individuals/departments are responsible
for various capital management activities, there is a Who does the department, committee or person in charge
management.
significant risk that the bigger picture will be missed due of capital management report into?
to the lack of a joined-up view. Firms should ensure
strong and appropriate governance is put in place to
support a holistic view of capital management and CFO 60% The CFO is the
ensure no potential opportunities are missed. most common
Reporting lines
CRO 21% reporting line
Whilst risk departments are deeply involved in capital for capital
management, our survey indicates that, with the 9%
exception of Ireland and Greece, the CFO typically has
CEO
management
ownership of this area.
Board 4%
activities.
In our view, this will continue to be the case under
SolvencyII, in particular because most capital Chief Actuary 4%
management initiatives require significant input and
direction from theCFO.
Head of Corporate
2%
Governance
As a reinforcement of this view, its worth noting that, of
the 11 head offices of large insurance companies included 0% 50% 100%

in our survey, 82% of the reporting lines for capital


management were into the CFO or directly into the CEO.

Capital Management in Insurance Survey 2015 3


Average # FTEs within standalone capital management Resources dedicated to capital management
5.5 is the departments, by country This question specifically focused on numbers of
Full Time Employees (FTEs) within standalone dedicated
average UK 12 capital management departments and does not take
number of into account capital management related activities
FTEs dedicated The Netherlands 7 being performed by other departments.

to capital Austria & Germany 5 Not surprisingly, the number of FTEs varies by firm size

management Ireland 3.3


from 3 up to 13, with larger firms having approximately
10 FTEs within their standalone capital management
with strong departments.
variation Belgium 3
Overall, the average number of FTEs is 5.5.
between Switzerland 3
UK firms, which are not significantly biased by size
countries and Italy 2.5 in the results, employ proportionally more FTEs with
company sizes. an average of 12. Outside of the UK, the average
France 2.2 FTE number is 4, with standalone capital management
departments relying more on other departments for
0 5 10 15
certain capital management activities than UK firms.

The larger number of FTEs may be a result of the fact


Average # FTEs within standalone capital management departments, by size of the firm
that risk based modelling has been in place within
based on AUM
the UK under the ICA regime for a number of years.
14 Consequently, capital management departments
12 maybe relatively more mature and may perform more
9.8 capital management related activities than their newer
10
European counterparts.
8

6 4.8 4.6
4 3.1

0
1 Less than 2 Between 3 Between 4 Above
25 billion 25 billion 50 billion 100 billion
and 50 billion and 100 billion

4
Changes in capital management

Changes over the last five years Changes in capital management which have occurred over the last 5 years, as it relates to
The capital management landscape has changed operating model/decision making/strategies

enormously over the last 5 years in preparation for


Solvency II with 76% of respondents enhancing their Enhances written capital 88%
management policy
operating models in response to the new regulations.
Whilst the main focus during this period has been on Stress testing 86%
procedures
meeting requirements such as:
Regulatory documentation 84%
enhanced written capital management policies; and interaction

Enhance operating model 76%


stress testing procedures; and
Capital modeling systems 58%
regulatory documentation and interaction, and approaches

Capital source and use


about half of respondents have considered potential 58%
planning
capital optimisation strategies. Based on our
Capital optimisation 52%
observations across the market, such strategies are strategy
either in their infancy in terms of implementation or
firms are still in the process of considering the full suite Others 6%

of available options. 0% 50% 100%

Looking forward to changes over the next five years


Over the next 5 years, the focus is expected to shift
Changes in capital management expected to occur over the next five years, as it relates to
away from meeting Solvency II requirements towards operating model/decision making/strategies
examining how capital is sourced, used and can be
optimised. Capital optimisation 90%
strategy
In particular, 90% of respondents expect to focus on
Capital source and use
optimising their capital, which we expect may have 58%
planning
consequent impacts on sources and use of capital as
Capital modeling systems
54%
well as on modelling systems and approaches utilised. and approaches

Overall, such results are not surprising as firms review Stress testing procedures 36%
the structures and risks generating the greatest capital
Regulatory documentation 36%
requirements and impacting volatility levels within their and interaction
Solvency II balance sheets. In particular, we expect to
continue to see a broader range of capital optimisation Enhanced operating model 28%

initiatives from the life industry than from the non-life


Enhanced written capital 24%
industry, primarily due to there being more areas to management policy
arbitrage and thus more wins to be obtained.
Others 10%

0% 50% 100%

The development, prioritisation and implementation


of strategies to optimise capital will be firms key
challenges over the next 5 years.

Capital Management in Insurance Survey 2015 5


Capital optimisation strategies
currently in use

The most common capital optimisation strategies Almost half of the firms surveyed have started to
The most currently in use across the firms surveyed were asset alter their product strategy in response to Solvency II.
class and sector selection, internal risk transfers, In particular, we have observed that firms are beginning
common including the introduction of an intra-group reinsurer to put more emphasis on unit-linked products.
capital and debt restructuring/sub-debt issuance. It was
In the run up to year end, there was a marked increase
optimisation also interesting to observe that firms with internal
models are considering how these could be further in activity in the longevity swap market as firms looked
strategies refined, while many currently on standard formula are to offload such risk in response to the increased capital

currently in use considering the use of an internal model. requirements as well as the introduction of capital
requirements for the first time for in situ employee
are asset class Whilst such techniques are more focused on firms benefit schemes.
and sector existing business, firms are introducing new and more
innovative solutions with respect to their new business
selection, in the face of increased capital requirements and
internal risk a challenging investment environment.

transfers
and debt Capital optimisation strategies currently used

restructuring/ Asset class and sector selection to optimise returns 72%


sub-debt Introduction of an intra-group reinsurer 50%
issuance. Use of an internal model 48%

Tailoring the risk profile through internal risk transfer 46%

Introduction of less capital intensive products 46%

Debt restructuring and sub-debt issuance 42%

Review of With-Profit (WP) funds and management actions 36%

Credit portfolio optimisation 26%

Tailoring the risk profile through acquisition/disposal 22%

Longevity transactions 20%

Hedge swap/gilt basis risk 18%

Group structure changes (Branches) 18%

VIF Monetisation 10%

Risk margin solutions 10%

Equity-release and property asset solutions 8%


Transferring Non Profit (NP) business out of WP funds 8%
(e.g., annuities)
Accessing shareholder-owned assets in the residual estate 6%

Unit shorting 6%
Actions to recover the impact of contract boundaries
on technical provisions 6%

Unitising WP guarantees 2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

6
Capital optimisation strategies
under consideration

Most firms recognise the importance of optimising The types of changes to firms group structures being
their capital under Solvency II and, to this end, have investigated can vary as existing firm structures are A diverse range
already implemented those strategies which were more not standard in nature and, therefore, the solutions
straightforward in nature and/or yielded the greatest to optimise capital need to be tailored to each firm
of capital
benefit for their respective businesses. However, there individually. For example, a branch structure may make optimisation
does appear to be a reasonable proportion of firms
who still need to identify what strategies they should
more sense than a subsidiary structure if a European
insurance group has subsidiaries throughout a number
strategies
focus on post Solvency II implementation. of countries in Europe. The advantages to this include: are being
A diverse range of optimisation strategies are being the potential for higher diversification benefits;
considered.
considered, with the two most common being risk It will be key to
fewer solo reporting submissions; and
margin solutions and changes to firms respective group prioritise and
structures.
increased fungibility of capital. plan the various
The risk margin solutions being considered are typically
being driven by firms looking to both hedge their interest
For firms headquartered outside of the European options.
Economic Area (EEA), it is likely to be beneficial to
rate exposures, as well as transfer some of the underlying
separate EEA and non-EEA operations, through the
risks that drive the risk margin. In particular, the risk margin
use of holding companies, in order to avoid Solvency II
can be extremely long-tailed where firms have longevity
requirements being applied to the entire operations of
risks and/or long-tailed general insurance risks. In turn,
the group. This has been done by a number of groups
this results in the risk margin being sensitive to changes in
in recent years.
interest rates; this sensitivity is particularly acute within a
low interest rate environment, an issue which is pervasive
across most countries in Europe currently.

Capital optimisation strategies being considered for the future


Risk margin
Risk margin solutions 28%

Group structure changes (Branches) 26%


solutions
Introduction of less capital intensive products 24% and changes
VIF Monetisation 24% to group
Longevity transactions
Actions to recover the impact of contract boundaries
22%
structures are
22%
on technical provisions
Use of an internal model 20%
the highest
Introduction of an intra-group reinsurer 20% priority capital
Unit shorting 20% optimisation
Tailoring the risk profile through internal risk transfer 20% strategies
Tailoring the risk profile through acquisition/disposal 18%
under
Asset class and sector selection to optimise returns 18%

Hedge swap/gilt basis risk 16%


consideration.
Debt restructuring and sub-debt issuance 14%

Credit portfolio optimisation 14%


Transferring Non Profit (NP) business out of WP funds 14%
(e.g., annuities)
Review of With-Profit (WP) funds and management actions 12%
Equity-release and property asset solutions 12%
Unitising WP guarantees 6%
Accessing shareholder-owned assets in the residual estate 4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Capital Management in Insurance Survey 2015 7


In particular, following the confirmation of equivalence In the run up to Solvency II, the European insurance
VIF monetisation decisions by the European Commission for Bermuda market experienced strong growth in both internal
and Japan recently (pending European Parliamentary reinsurance and M&A activity. From the results, we can
is being actively approval), we expect to see an even greater drive for see that both activities can be expected to continue,
looked at firms to further consider group restructuring and the with 22% and 18% of firms respectively still considering
and we can use of reinsurance through such territories. tailoring their risk profile through internal risk transfer,
M&A activities and longevity transactions.
expect other Together with actions being taken on the new business

restructuring side to introduce less capital intensive products, other


common optimisation strategies under consideration
At present, only companies in the UK, Ireland and, to
some extent, France are considering unit-linked matching.
activities such are VIF monetisation, strategies which recover the The relative significance of the unit-linked market in the
as M&A and impact of contract boundaries on the technical UK, Ireland and France is likely one of the main drivers
provisions, internal or external transactions e.g. of this; however, as unit-linked matching becomes more
reinsurance longevity treaties which tailor the risk profile and prevalent and accepted, it will likely be considered in
of capital unit-linked matching. future by peers in other European countries.

consuming and/ VIF monetisation came through quite strongly, in From our experience across the market, only the large
or volatile risks particular in France and Ireland, where there was the firms have considered the full suite of optimisation
highest number of firms currently considering this opportunities. Other firms have been more focused
to continue. technique. VIF monetisation is not a new concept and on implementing Solvency II, in particular PillarIII.
it has been used many times across Europe over the However, as we are now post implementation,
last decade. However, increased capital requirements, we expect the focus to significantly shift to the
contract boundaries and potential drains on liquidity are identification, prioritisation and implementation of
likely some of the main drivers behind its resurgence. capital optimising strategies.

For firms who do not want to monetise their VIF or


want to minimise the amount of such monetisation,
looking at strategies which lengthen the contract
boundary make sense. Such strategies include the
addition of accidental death benefit riders to regular
savings contracts amongst others.

8
Capital management metrics

Metrics used for capital management That being said, it is acknowledged that for territories
Key metrics being used to project firms growth where the regulator has publicly stated that transitional Return on
strategies from a capital management perspective have measures will not be a restriction to paying dividends,
changed. In particular, a high return on Solvency II or their use by firms in these territories will be looked upon
Economic
economic capital is the most common high-priority more favourably. In addition, it will be interesting to see Capital is now
capital management metric being used by the European
insurers surveyed. The second most common metric is
the Solvency II metrics presented by firms within public
disclosure documents such as Solvency and Financial
a key capital
ahigh return on equity from an IFRS/GAAP perspective. Condition Reports during 2017. Such documents will management
We observed similar results across survey respondents in most certainly become very important documents for metric.
all countries. firms in terms of communicating explanations of their
Solvency II results to analysts. Weexpect firms will focus
Our observations of discussions with the analyst considerable attention on drafting and/or refining these
community for the European insurance markets suggest documents during 2016.
that cash generation will continue to be a key focus
post the introduction of Solvency II, and may even
become a greater focus. The expectation is that analysts
will continue to look at IFRS earnings and operating
income in the same way as they do presently. However,
with respect to Solvency II metrics, some analysts have
indicated that they will look-through any transitional
measures that a firm may have implemented for
SolvencyII.

Key metrics used from a capital management perspective when projecting a growth strategy

Cash
High ROE (Economic Capital or Solvency II) 72% generation
High ROE (IFRS) 60%
continues to be
an important
High operating income 50% KPI.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Capital Management in Insurance Survey 2015 9


Capital modelling

Departments involved in capital modelling Shortfalls within the current systems/modelling


Capital, risk processes
Capital modelling is significantly more complex
and actuarial 17% under Solvency II and requires strong technical skills.
resources need 34%
Consequently, it is not surprising that the risk and
to improve actuarial departments came through quite strongly
as the main departments involved in this capital
their skills 13% management activity.
and expertise However, despite the use of the risk and actuarial
in scenario, departments in capital modelling activities, respondents
stochastic and 15% indicated relatively significant shortcomings in the
21% definition and generation of scenarios, stochastic
dependency modelling capabilities and aggregation. These
modelling. Risk management
shortcomings appear to point strongly to the need for
capital, risk and actuarial resources to improve their
Actuarial
skills and expertise within these key areas. Aggregation,
A stand-alone capital management department
in particular, featured quite strongly as an area of
Other witin finance
shortcoming for larger firms. (IE: those most likely to
Other
have an internal model). In our experience, this is not
surprising as dependencies are typically a key challenge
for internal model firms.
Shortfalls in current systems & modelling processes

Finally, half of respondents identified stakeholder


Stakeholder
communication
50% communication as an area of particular challenge.
This certainly aligns with our market observations,
Scenario definition and 44% inparticular for internal model firms. Some firms have
generation
developed simplified proxy models in an effort to
Stochastic modelling 40%
capabilities/expertise explain their internal model results and the associated
volatility to the Board. However, it remains to be seen
Aggregation 32%
how Boards will react in practice to the increased
volatility, inparticular in relation to decisions on dividend
Model governance 20%
payments. Certainly, we expect significant attention will
need to be paid to this area by firms during 2016.
Assumption setting 20%

Avaibility of required 18%


computing power/grid

Data storage 12%

Other 12%

0% 50% 100%

Stakeholder communication is a particular challenge


as firms explain Solvency II results and their
implications.

10
Capital planning

Strategic capital management decisions & capital Capital planning projection horizon
planning projections In terms of capital planning projections, there is a Dividend and
More areas of the business are now involved in capital 60/40split by respondents between a 3 year versus
planning processes, with an increased focus by firms on alonger planning cycle.
reinsurance
strategic capital management decisions as part of the decisions are
Firms writing life business tend to plan over a longer
process. Such capital management decisions are being
informed by outputs from multi-year projections of time horizon, with almost half using a planning cycle
informed
capital source and use. greater than 3 years. The equivalent figure is 25% for by capital
Currently dividend policy and use of reinsurance are the
firms writing both life and non-life business. Interestingly,
larger firms typically only plan over a 3 year time
planning.
two strategic capital management decisions most closely horizon(82%).
linked with a multi-year planning horizon, followed by
product strategy. For head offices of large European In France, the local supervisor has recently requested
insurance firms, debt/equity financing came through ORSA scenarios over a 5 year time horizon. This may
strongly possibly reflecting the types of decisions trigger changes to firms planning horizons in the future.
made locally versus at head office. The use of multi-year It will be interesting to see if other European regulators
planning horizons is not surprising given that firms want follow suit, especially for firms with longer duration
to ensure they fully understand the consequences of liabilities.
particular decisions on their Solvency II balance sheet
and that they are demonstrating good governance and
Planning cycle for the annual corporate operating plan,
use test evidence of decisions they are taking. including capital sources and uses Planning
It will be interesting to see if firms adopt a more horizons tend
conservative approach to strategic decisions, in particular to be between
dividend payments in the first years of the Solvency II
regime due to the additional volatility in both balance 3 and 5 years
sheets and capital metrics. In some jurisdictions, the 38% depending
regulator has a right of objection to certain strategic
decisions and again how they will act in the context of
on business
the information presented will be interesting to observe. duration.
62%

Strategic capital management decisions made in conjunction


with multi-year capital planning projections

Dividend policy 88% 2 years to 3 years


Current yr + 4 years to 5 years
Reinsurance 74%

Product strategy 64%

M&A or other corporate


48%
structuring decisions

Debt/Equity financing 48%

Macro hedging 40%

Surplus notes and/or


other creative contingent 24%
capital planning
Granular (dynamic)
hedging 16%

0% 50% 100%

Capital Management in Insurance Survey 2015 11


Contacts

France Ireland Spain


Claude Chassain Sinad Kiernan Jose Gabriel Puche
Partner, Enterprise Risk Services Director, Actuarial Partner, Enterprise Risk Services
+33 (0)1 40 88 24 56 +353 (1) 417 2897 +34 (9) 14 43 20 27
cchassain@deloitte.fr sikiernan@deloitte.ie jpuche@deloitte.es

Baptiste Brechot Ciara Regan Juan Miguel Monjo


Senior Manager, Enterprise Risk Services Director, Actuarial Director, Consulting
+33 (0)1 55 61 79 12 +353 (1) 407 4856 +34 (9) 14 43 22 69
bbrechot@deloitte.fr cregan@deloitte.ie jmonjo@deloitte.es

United Kingdom Greece The Netherlands


Andrew Holland Despina Xavi Koen Dessens
Partner, Audit Partner, A&A Partner, Risk Services
+44 (0) 20 7303 8603 +30 (210) 678 1100 +31 (8) 82 88 00 05
aholland@deloitte.co.uk dxenaki@deloitte.gr KDessens@deloitte.nl

Naomi Burger Vasilis Aggelou Zeno Deurvorst


Director, Consulting Principal, A&A Senior Manager, Risk Services
+44 (0) 20 7007 0644 +30 (210) 678 1100 +31 (8) 82 88 30 75
naburger@deloitte.co.uk vaggelou@deloitte.gr ZDeurvorst@deloitte.nl

Belgium Italy
Arno de Groot Alessandro Ghilarducci
Partner, Governance, Regulatory and Risk Partner, Consulting
+32 (2) 800 24 73 +39 (0)2 83 32 30 57
adegroote@deloitte.be aghilarducci@deloitte.it

Frank Inghelbrecht Mirko Maestrucci


Director, Governance, Regulatory and Risk Director, Consulting
+32 (2) 800 29 36 +39 (0)2 83 32 35 45
finghelbrecht@deloitte.be mmaestrucci@deloitte.it

Austria Poland
Daniel Thompson Renata Onisk
Partner, B&W Deloitte Partner, Consulting
+43 (153) 700 547 4 +48 (22) 511 0529
danthompson@deloitte.com ronisk@deloittece.com

Germany Switzerland
Peter Bruhns Colin Forrest
Partner, Deloitte Consulting GmbH Partner, Consulting
+49 (511) 302 331 41 +41 (0)58 279 7050
pbruhns@deloitte.de colforrest@deloitte.ch

Michael Koch Marc Sarbach


Director, Deloitte Consulting GmbH Senior Manager, Consulting
+49 (69) 97 13 74 11 +41 (0)58 279 6809
MiKoch@deloitte.de msarbach@deloitte.ch

12
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (DTTL), its network
of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL
(also referred to as Deloitte Global) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a more detailed
description of DTTL and its member firms.

At Deloitte, we make an impact that matters for our clients, our people, our profession, and in the wider society by delivering the
solutions and insights they need to address their most complex business challenges. As one of the largest global professional services
and consulting networks, with over 220,000 professionals in more than 150 countries, we bring world-class capabilities and high-
quality services to our clients. In Ireland, Deloitte has approximately 2,000 people providing audit, tax, consulting, and corporate
finance services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. Our people have the leadership capabilities, experience, and
insight to collaborate with clients so they can move forward with confidence.

This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or their
related entities (collectively, the Deloitte Network) is, by means of this communication, rendering professional advice or services.
Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified
professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies
on this communication.

2016 For information, contact Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.All rights reserved

Designed and produced by The Creative Studio at Deloitte, London. J4774

You might also like