This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
“IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNISE THAT CAPTIVES ARE BEING REGULATED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITIES WHO


UNDERSTAND THEIR BUSINESS, SUCH AS BERMUDA AND LUXEMBOURG.”


based on the nature, size and complexity” of the entity, and that Europe would not simply apply measures that are a fit for the “big 15 insurance companies in Europe” to all firms within the re/ insurance space. “The rules need to be more specified and tailored to the needs of the individual companies,” he said.


Not helping matters is the fact that EIOPA and its predecessor, the


Commission of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS), have been tested by what has been, and remains, a mammoth task. With the resources the European regulators currently have at their disposal, “preparing the paperwork for what will become a complicated legal agreement must be very difficult”, Droese said, adding that the evolving re/insurance landscape and issues over linguistic interpretation were creating further complications. “They have an enormous task to understand the market in such a way that it can prepare and deliver a perfect directive.”


As it is, captives face a one-size-fits-all regime. How this will affect


individual captives and domiciles remains to be seen, although Droese is bullish that in spite of the regulatory burden, captives will remain a significant part of the European re/insurance landscape. In spite of the regulatory headwind, Droese believes “the majority of captives will survive. It will instead be a matter of adjusting to Europe’s regulatory demands”. There will be higher costs involved in the first few years, he said, particularly when it comes to documentation, but much will depend upon the approach of the individual regulators in Europe and how they apply the Solvency II guidelines and help insurance companies overcome any hurdles.


Much will depend upon “the acceptance by the local regulator of


what captives are providing them in terms of documentation and proof of compliance. We cannot yet say whether captives will be fairly treated under the Solvency II regime because we have yet to see how the local regulators will apply the rules. Final acceptance is important, but its application and the perception of proportionality may well differ from country to country”.


At the same time, EIOPA has included captives alongside commercial carriers in having to resolve a list of concerns that includes capital


position, market risk, counterparty risk and portfolio risk. But as Droese made clear: “Captives can quite easily calculate their maximum exposures.” On capital adequacy, he said that many deploy letters of credit issued by the parent to strengthen their capital positions. “The question is whether this ability to issue letters of credit is taken into consideration in the capital adequacy calculations of Solvency II.”


At the same time, captive portfolios are far simpler than those of their commercial cousins. Captives can limit their risks and catastrophe exposures by arranging appropriate reinsurance policies. They are also structurally more flexible in their management of risk and capital and are able “when they renew their programmes at year’s end, to adjust their capital position so that the programme has sufficient capital for regulatory requirements”. They act as their parent companies expect them to and remain largely detached from the wider market. The trouble is, this reality is “not really reflected in the findings of the commission”.


EIOPA’s discussion process has also—as yet—failed to take into account pillar 3 requests on disclosure, Droese said, with suggestions that Solvency II will require levels of transparency that are not desirable within the captive space, both from a commercial and a data protection standpoint. He argued that the disclosure of claims and losses would probably be read only by claimants or competitors, and that although EIOPA has indicated that it understands the captive sector’s concern, “no-one is putting anything in writing”.


It is important to recognise that captives are being regulated by competent regulatory authorities who understand their business, such as Bermuda and Luxembourg, he explained. “The Bermuda regulator has been dealing with captives for 40 years. They understand how captives function, their needs and why they have, on occasion, failed.


“There is a link between regulatory control and market success,” Droese


said, with oversight a necessary control on the market. The problem is that Europe’s current approach seems to be falling somewhat short of what is needed. As Droese made clear: “We need to introduce controls that are sophisticated, and that take into account the full intricacies of the market. Solvency II is the proper direction, it just needs to be risk-sensitive and take into account the needs of the captive sector.”


8 emea captive 2012


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