Insurer solvency figures: validated-report reconciliation

Answer

Which entity, reporting perimeter and period do the figures cover?

France: identify entity, consolidation scope and reporting period before comparing capital figures. Switzerland: establish the corresponding SST entity and perimeter separately; matching labels do not prove that two amounts describe the same reporting basis.

Tool

Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation

Synthetic example: fictional records. Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation.

julie://tool/bordereauNothing leaves your browser

Synthetic example: fictional records · Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation

Jurisdiction: France
Report and version: Synthetic report R1, version V1
Validated available capital: 125
Validated required capital: 100
Available figure date: 2025-12-31
Required figure date: 2025-12-31
Available figure unit: mEUR
Required figure unit: mEUR
Validation reference: Synthetic validation A1
Arithmetic difference: 25.00
Arithmetic ratio (%): 125.00

Arithmetic of figures supplied as validated; no actuarial model, capital-eligibility or regulatory-compliance validation. Figure dates, units and a supplied validation reference are needed for comparison; otherwise results remain unknown.

Answer

What framework and validated report version define the amounts?

France: retain the validated report’s own-funds and required-capital definitions. Switzerland: risk-bearing capital and target capital belong to the actual SST framework; they are not automatically equivalent names for French Solvency II amounts.

Comparison

Preparation reference: Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation

Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation
Preparation question	Point to verify
Which entity, reporting perimeter and period do the figures cover?	France: identify entity, consolidation scope and reporting period before comparing capital figures. Switzerland: establish the corresponding SST entity and perimeter separately; matching labels do not prove that two amounts describe the same reporting basis.
What framework and validated report version define the amounts?	France: retain the validated report’s own-funds and required-capital definitions. Switzerland: risk-bearing capital and target capital belong to the actual SST framework; they are not automatically equivalent names for French Solvency II amounts.
Which available or risk-bearing capital figure was validated?	France: enter available capital supplied as already validated, with date, unit and reference. Switzerland: retain equivalent risk-bearing-capital provenance; the tool does not determine eligibility or automatically replace a negative supplied amount with zero.
Which required or target capital figure was validated?	France: retain the already validated required amount and supporting document. Switzerland: use supplied validated target capital rather than calculating an SST model; a numerical entry does not establish the regulatory method that produced it.

Answer

Which available or risk-bearing capital figure was validated?

France: enter available capital supplied as already validated, with date, unit and reference. Switzerland: retain equivalent risk-bearing-capital provenance; the tool does not determine eligibility or automatically replace a negative supplied amount with zero.

Answer

Which required or target capital figure was validated?

France: retain the already validated required amount and supporting document. Switzerland: use supplied validated target capital rather than calculating an SST model; a numerical entry does not establish the regulatory method that produced it.

Answer

Do valuation dates, currencies and scales match?

France: figure dates, currencies, scales and validation reference must support comparison. Switzerland: the same arithmetic safeguards apply; no automatic EUR/CHF conversion or mixed-period comparison is performed, and missing validation leaves results unknown.

The law

Which official provision helps explain this situation?

Code des assurances : rapport de solvabilité et situation financière : L355-5, L355-6Sources checked 3 November 2026See the texts cited

Start with figures already validated in an identified report, rather than rebuilding a solvency model. France’s capital framework and Switzerland’s SST definitions must not be combined. Record entity, perimeter, definitions, dates and units before comparing supplied available and required capital. The tool calculates a difference and arithmetic ratio only when dates and units match. It does not validate actuarial assumptions, eligible capital or regulatory compliance.

Answer

What arithmetic difference and ratio follow from the supplied figures?

France: the matching synthetic example gives a difference of 25 and an arithmetic ratio of 125%. Switzerland: the same supplied-value arithmetic is possible without validating SST; a zero denominator leaves the quotient unknown.

Answer

Which movements or discrepancies need the report owner’s explanation?

France: retain movements, scope changes and responsible-person explanations without overwriting earlier figures. Switzerland: connect equivalent version differences to evidence; the calculator does not select which report is regulatorily correct.

Answer

Why does this reconciliation not validate a model or declare regulatory solvency?

France: the output validates neither capital eligibility, a regulatory model nor solvency. Switzerland: it likewise grants no SST approval or financial-safety assurance; a displayed arithmetic percentage is not a compliance decision.

In order

Which preparation steps come first?

Editorial preparation order, not a popularity or success-probability ranking. Check perimeter and version, validated amounts, dates and units before arithmetic reconciliation.

Sources

Which official references should you consult?

Code des assurances : rapport de solvabilité et situation financière : L355-5, L355-6www.legifrance.gouv.fr
Insurance Supervision Act LSA/VAG/LSA : 9fedlex.data.admin.ch
Insurance Supervision Act LSA/VAG/LSA : 9fedlex.data.admin.ch
Insurance Supervision Act LSA/VAG/LSA : 9fedlex.data.admin.ch
Insurance Supervision Ordinance OS/AVO/OS : 48, 49, 50fedlex.data.admin.ch
Insurance Supervision Ordinance OS/AVO/OS : 48, 49, 50fedlex.data.admin.ch
Insurance Supervision Ordinance OS/AVO/OS : 48, 49, 50fedlex.data.admin.ch
FINMA Insurance Supervision Ordinance 26June2024 OS-FINMA/AVO-FINMA/OS-FINMA : 1, 22fedlex.data.admin.ch
FINMA Insurance Supervision Ordinance 26June2024 OS-FINMA/AVO-FINMA/OS-FINMA : 1, 22fedlex.data.admin.ch
FINMA Insurance Supervision Ordinance 26June2024 OS-FINMA/AVO-FINMA/OS-FINMA : 1, 22fedlex.data.admin.ch
FINMA : Test suisse de solvabilitéwww.finma.ch

Texts cited last checked: 3 November 2026

Frequent questions

What other questions arise in this file?

What framework and validated report version define the amounts?

France: retain the validated report’s own-funds and required-capital definitions. Switzerland: risk-bearing capital and target capital belong to the actual SST framework; they are not automatically equivalent names for French Solvency II amounts.

Which required or target capital figure was validated?

France: retain the already validated required amount and supporting document. Switzerland: use supplied validated target capital rather than calculating an SST model; a numerical entry does not establish the regulatory method that produced it.

What arithmetic difference and ratio follow from the supplied figures?

France: the matching synthetic example gives a difference of 25 and an arithmetic ratio of 125%. Switzerland: the same supplied-value arithmetic is possible without validating SST; a zero denominator leaves the quotient unknown.

Why does this reconciliation not validate a model or declare regulatory solvency?

France: the output validates neither capital eligibility, a regulatory model nor solvency. Switzerland: it likewise grants no SST approval or financial-safety assurance; a displayed arithmetic percentage is not a compliance decision.

Next steps

Insurer solvency figures: validated-report reconciliation

Which entity, reporting perimeter and period do the figures cover?

Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation

What framework and validated report version define the amounts?

Preparation reference: Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation

Which available or risk-bearing capital figure was validated?

Which required or target capital figure was validated?

Do valuation dates, currencies and scales match?

Which official provision helps explain this situation?

What arithmetic difference and ratio follow from the supplied figures?

Which movements or discrepancies need the report owner’s explanation?

Why does this reconciliation not validate a model or declare regulatory solvency?

Which preparation steps come first?

Define the report

Identify validation evidence

Match the units

Calculate within assumptions

Explain discrepancies

Which official references should you consult?

What other questions arise in this file?

What framework and validated report version define the amounts?

Which required or target capital figure was validated?

What arithmetic difference and ratio follow from the supplied figures?

Why does this reconciliation not validate a model or declare regulatory solvency?

Which entity, reporting perimeter and period do the figures cover?

Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation

What framework and validated report version define the amounts?

Preparation reference: Validated-report figure, date and unit reconciliation

Which available or risk-bearing capital figure was validated?

Which required or target capital figure was validated?

Do valuation dates, currencies and scales match?

Which official provision helps explain this situation?

What arithmetic difference and ratio follow from the supplied figures?

Which movements or discrepancies need the report owner’s explanation?

Why does this reconciliation not validate a model or declare regulatory solvency?

Which preparation steps come first?

Define the report

Identify validation evidence

Match the units

Calculate within assumptions

Explain discrepancies

Which official references should you consult?

What other questions arise in this file?

What framework and validated report version define the amounts?

Which required or target capital figure was validated?

What arithmetic difference and ratio follow from the supplied figures?

Why does this reconciliation not validate a model or declare regulatory solvency?

Which neighbouring situations should remain separate?