OSFI’s Key Performance Indicators Methodology

Performance Measurement Framework (PMF)

OSFI’s PMF includes 23 performance indicators that are all documented in the table below.

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR FREQUENCY TARGET CALCULATION METHODOLOGY INTERPRETATION SOURCE

1. Percentage of estimated recoveries on failed institutions (percentage recovered per dollar of claim).

PMF: Program 1.1
Annually 90% Estimated recovery is the amount on the dollar per claim each policyholder or depositor would receive upon the completion of the liquidation.

This measure is a proxy for whether OSFI intervened early enough to protect depositors and/or policyholders.

The higher the percentage, the better the performance.

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC), Agents, Liquidators

2. Percentage of institutions with a Composite Risk Rating (CRR) of low or moderate.

PMF: Program 1.1
Annually 80% (Number of institutions with CRR of low or moderate) / (Total number of institutions)

The CRR is an assessment of a federally regulated financial institution’s risk profile.

The higher the percentage, the better the performance.

Results of supervisory risk assessments; Internal Supervisory Rating Application

3. Percentage of assessment programs which deem OSFI’s regulatory and supervisory framework as being consistent with international standards.

PMF: Program 1.1
Financial Stability Assessment Program (FSAP) - every 5 years; Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme (RCAP) – annual 100%

(Number of reviews resulting in an overall “compliant” rating) / (Number of reviews)

Example:
Three key international assessments of Canada’s regulatory and/or supervisory frameworks were completed during 2014-15, each resulted in an overall “compliant” rating:

  • March 2014 International Monetary Fund (IMF) Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) - Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision
  • March 2014 IMF FSAP - for Insurance Core Principles
  • June 2014 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision RCAP
Result: 100%
The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Reports from the International Monetary Fund’s FSAP and Basel RCAP

4. Percentage of (financial institutions) supervisory rating increasesFootnote 1 that are two or more levels within any rolling three month period.

PMF: Sub-program 1.1.1
Annually 20% (Number of rating increases that represent a second or more increase in rating within the last three month period) / (Total number of rating increases)

Any supervisory rating increases that are two or more levels within a rolling three month period may indicate that risk assessment and/or intervention activities were not timely.

The lowest the percentage, the better the performance.

Internal Supervisory Rating Application

5. Percentage of supervisory letters that are issued within established standards.

PMF: Sub-program 1.1.1
Quarterly 80% (Number of supervisory letters issued within 45 days after the last date of onsite) / ( Total number of letters issued during the year) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Internal statistics

6. Percentage of industry stakeholders who rate OSFI as good or very good at responding in a timely manner to market changes or to industry suggestions that guidance needs updating.

PMF: Program 1.1.2
Biennially 75% (Number of survey respondents who responded good or very good to survey question) / (Total number of survey respondents that responded to the question) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Financial Institution Survey (FIS) – a quantitative industry survey

7. Percentage of industry stakeholders that rate OSFI’s guidance as somewhat or very effectively indicating OSFI’s expectations.

PMF: Program 1.1.2
Biennially 75% (Number of survey respondents who responded somewhat or very effective to survey question) / (Total number of survey respondents that responded to the question) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. FIS – a quantitative industry survey

8. Percentage of industry stakeholders that rate OSFI as good or very good at consulting with industry on the development of guidance.

PMF: Program 1.1.2
Biennially 70% (Number of survey respondents who responded good or very good to survey question) / (Total number of survey respondents that responded to the question) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. FIS – a quantitative industry survey

9. Percentage of industry stakeholders that understand somewhat or very well the basis upon which OSFI makes its decisions as part of the approval process.

PMF: Sub-program 1.1.3
Biennially 85% (Number of survey respondents who responded somewhat or very well to survey question) / (Total number of survey respondents that responded to the question) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. FIS – a quantitative industry survey

10. Percentage of completed applications for FI regulatory approvals that are processed within established standards.

PMF: Sub-program 1.1.3
Annually 90%

(Number of regulatory approvals that met the standard) / (Total number of regulatory approvals)

Note: Regulatory approvals include superintendent deemed approvals, superintendent non-deemed approvals, and ministerial approvals. Each of these approval types has a different standard approval processing time.

The approval processing time is calculated from the date of receipt of a complete application until the date of approval.

The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Internal approval statistics

11. Percentage of (pension plan) supervisory rating increasesFootnote 2 that are two or more levels within any rolling three month period.

PMF: Program 1.2
Annually 20% (Number of plans with a stage rating increase of two or more levels within any rolling three month period) / (Total number of rating increases)

Large supervisory rating increases point to potential lack of proactivity in supervisory activities.

The lower the percentage, the better the performance.

Internal pension plan stage rating statistics

12. Percentage of industry stakeholders that rate OSFI as “somewhat effective” or “very effective” in monitoring and supervising their pension plan(s).

PMF: Program 1.2
Triennially 75% (Number of survey respondents who responded somewhat or very effective to survey question) / (Total number of survey respondents that responded to the question) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Pension Plan Survey (PPS) – a quantitative industry survey

13. Percentage of industry stakeholders that rate OSFI guidance as “somewhat effective” or “very effective” in providing an indication of OSFI’s expectations.

PMF: Program 1.2
Triennially 75% (Number of survey respondents who responded somewhat or very effective to survey question) / (Total number of survey respondents that responded to the question) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. PPS – a quantitative industry survey

14. Percentage of members of a panel of three Canadian peer actuaries selected by an international independent body that attest that the Office of the Chief Actuary (OCA) provides accurate, high quality and professional services and advice.

PMF: Program 2.1
Triennially 100% agreement among all three members of peer review panel (Number of peer review panel members who attest that the OCA provides accurate, high quality and professional services and advice) / (Total number of peer review panel members) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Report from Canada Pension Plan independent peer review panel

15. Use of the OCA’s work by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) as an independent evidence for the Public Accounts Canada.

PMF: Program 2.1
Annually Confirmation from the OAG OAG letter content confirming the use of the OCA’s work. Receiving the annual letter confirms that the OAG intends to use the OCA’s work. Annual letters from the OAG

16. Percentage of reports that are provided to the Minister for tabling in Parliament as per statutory deadlines.

PMF: Program 2.1
Annually 100% (Number of reports provided as per statutory deadlines) / (Total number of reports) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Internal record of communication

17. Percentage of members of a panel of Canadian peer actuaries selected by an international independent body that deem the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) actuarial valuation accurate and high quality.

PMF: Sub-program 2.1.1
Triennially 100% (Number of peer review panel members who attest that the OCA provides accurate, high quality and professional services and advice) / (Total number of peer review panel members) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Report from CPP independent peer review panelFootnote 3

18. Percentage of recommendations from the previous peer review report and within the scope and influence of the OCA that are implemented before the next peer review.

PMF: Sub-program 2.1.1
Triennially 80% (Number of recommendations from the previous report that are implemented before the next review) / (Total number of recommendations within the OCA’s scope and influence) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Report from CPP independent peer review panel

19. Percentage of reports on the CPP and the Old Age Security Program (OAS) that are provided to the Minister for tabling in Parliament as per statutory deadlines.

PMF: Sub-program 2.1.1
Triennially 100% (Number of reports provided as per statutory deadlines) / (Total number of reports due in a given fiscal year) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Internal record of communication

20. Percentage of Public Pension and Insurance Plans valuations that are deemed accurate and high quality by an independent actuarial firm.

PMF: Sub-program 2.1.2
Annually 100% (Number of valuations deemed accurate [i.e. with no qualified statements, opinions or observations] by OAG) / (Total number of valuations) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Auditor’s report in the Public Accounts of Canada

21. Percentage of reports on actuarial valuation of Public Pensions and Insurance Plans that are provided to the President of Treasury Board for tabling in Parliament as per statutory deadlines.

PMF: Sub-program 2.1.2
Annually 100% (Number of reports provided as per statutory deadlines) / (Total number of reports due in a given fiscal year) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Internal record of communication

22. Percentage of reports on actuarial valuation of the Canada Student Loan Program (CSLP) that are used by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) as an external audit evidence for the Public Accounts of Canada.

PMF: Sub-program 2.1.3
Annually 100% OAG letter content confirming the use of the OCA’s work = 100% result. The absence of a letter of confirmation received = 0% result. Receiving the annual letter confirms that the OAG intends to use the OCA’s work. Annual letter from the OAG

23. Percentage of actuarial reports on CSLP and Employment Insurance (EI) programs that are submitted to the Minister/ Employment Insurance Commissioner for tabling in Parliament as per statutory deadlines.

PMF: Sub-program 2.1.3
Annually 100% (Number of reports provided as per statutory deadlines) / (Total number of reports due in a given fiscal year) The higher the percentage, the better the performance. Internal record of communication

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Supervisory ratings are aligned with the risk profile of institutions and range from 0 (normal) to 4 (non-viable/insolvency imminent). Significant increases in ratings, as opposed to progressive ones, can signal issues with the timeliness or effectiveness of OSFI supervisory efforts.

Return to footnote 1

Footnote 2

Supervisory ratings are aligned with the risk profile of pension plans and range from 0 (normal) to 4 (non-viable/insolvency imminent). Significant increases in ratings, as opposed to progressive ones, can signal issues with the timeliness or effectiveness of OSFI supervisory efforts.

Return to footnote 2

Footnote 3

Panel of three Canadian peer actuaries selected by an international independent body.

Return to footnote 3