Stephen Morris, Thomas Miller


I


n these increasingly challenging times the focus of attention for many captive boards is, understandably, turning towards asset and treasury management. It has become something of a balancing act maximising shareholder returns while minimising counterparty exposure and the


issue has shown no sign of abating as many of the traditional homes for a captive’s reserves are now facing increasing scrutiny and uncertainty.


Boards are faced with many tough decisions as they steer a course


through the minefield of preserving capital, reducing counterparty exposure and maximising yield. At the same time their portfolios need to remain liquid to ensure claims can be paid as they fall due. Under these pressures, the options available to a board—self-manage the portfolio, appoint an external investment advisor, or identify if retained funds could be better used elsewhere in the group by way of loan or dividend—are frequently mooted.


A self-managed portfolio is frequently considered the easiest option for a


simple captive with a modest asset base. The board benefits by retaining full control of the asset allocation and, once cash flow and risk appetite requirements have been determined, can spread the captive’s funds across various institutions to reduce counterparty exposure. By employing a variety of products with varying maturity it can be possible to maximise return. The further attraction is that this is considered a low cost solution.


Bells and whistles can be added by way of an agreed, liability-driven investment policy that sets the boundaries of what can be placed, where and for how long. This should be a long-term financial planning document which sets out the captive’s aims, investment objectives, risk tolerances and restrictions in respect of its investments. It goes without saying that the investment policy should be reviewed regularly to ensure the strategic asset allocation remains in line with the needs of the captive and reflects the ever-changing market place.


For many, however, the disadvantages of a self-managed portfolio outweigh


the perceived advantages. Deciding which institutions or products to use is a big responsibility: what may be secure today may not be secure tomorrow, and questions remain over how long a captive’s funds should be tied up. Attractive returns may be available for simple cash deposits locked away for 12 months, but counterparty exposure may then start to play on the mind. In many cases if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.


Identifying who is responsible for monitoring the stability and credit quality of investments can be an onerous task and a lot can happen between board meetings as evidenced by the recent crisis in the eurozone. Finally, there is the problem of what to do when bonds or deposits mature, as the process then starts all over again.


An option for many is to appoint an investment advisor to guide


the captive through the troubled waters. The disadvantages outlined previously are sidestepped and instead are passed on to a third party who is specifically equipped to address each of the investment concerns. The pain of establishing investment guidelines, within which the advisor has discretionary powers, is reduced and the board is free to concentrate on its primary objective of insurance-related matters.


Having an expert investment adviser also opens up the possibility of


risk being seen as an opportunity rather than a threat. It is recognised as being desirable to include higher returning but more volatile asset classes, such as equities and alternate asset classes, on the grounds that the resulting asset mix enhances the overall return and, in some instances, can reduce risk through diversification.


As ever there is a counter argument. Whom to choose as investment manager? In whom should the board place their trust as a safe pair of hands that will deliver consistent and, as far as possible, no- surprise returns? Naturally an advisor’s track record is an important consideration but so too is their independence. Track records are open to manipulation and may originate in, for example, private wealth rather than the institutional client sector. Equally, a number of the larger advisors may be restricted to offering only in-house products which may not lend themselves to the needs of a captive insurance company. This leaves captives with a tough choice.


The final option to explore is to return surplus cash to the owning structure


by way of a loan or dividend. This is attractive as it can reduce the borrowing costs and ensure the most efficient use of capital across the wider group.


Isle of Man matters


Isle of Man-regulated captive insurance companies, when making loans to associates under the current regulations, must take care that the solvency of the captive is not detrimentally impacted. The complication for a captive that wishes to lend a significant portion of its assets back to its parent or associated company is the negative adjustment to its solvency margin calculation under the regulations laid down by the Isle of Man Insurance and Pensions Authority (IPA).


Unless full admissibility is applied for, and granted by the IPA, a captive can lend only up to 25 percent of its total net assets to an associated company without penalty. Any amounts lent in excess of this regulatory ceiling are deemed inadmissible when calculating the captive’s solvency margin, and are eliminated from consideration.


emea captive 2012 31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68