Bermuda Captive


A youthful partnership


Bermuda has signed a number of tax information exchange agreements in recent months, but none appears to have been more significant than that signed with Canada. Here, its implications for the captive sector and future growth are discussed.


R


atified on July 1, 2011, the Bermuda-Canada tax information exchange agreement (TIEA) looks set to have lasting implications for the Island’s captive sector. As Lawrence Bird, president of the Bermuda Insurance Management


Association (BIMA) and managing director of Marsh IAS Management Services (Bermuda) indicated, the agreement is a “significant development and cements the already close links between Bermuda and Canada”.


The agreement has helped to level the tax playing field for Bermuda,


the Island having previously been at a disadvantage vis-à-vis Canadian firms’ captive domicile of choice, Barbados, which had enjoyed a long- standing tax agreement with Ottawa. As Bird made clear: “Bermuda is an important additional option for Canadian captive owners and prospective owners, and they are, rightly, exploring their options.”


Addressing the level of interest that the agreement has prompted among Canadian parent companies, David Gibbons, director of the captive assurance unit at PwC, Bermuda, said that it was difficult to fully assess the lasting implications of the treaty as it is only nine months in, but added that there had been “significant interest thus far, especially from the larger companies that typically already had captives in Canadian treaty countries. Some have already moved to Bermuda and others are expected to move in the coming year”.


Kilian Whelan, chief executive officer of JLT Insurance Management, Bermuda spoke of a similar rise in interest. “We now have two major Canadian energy companies on the books since the TIEA came into place and we are actively working on a strong pipeline of companies that are looking to form a captive in Bermuda.” He said that while interest had begun with the larger, established energy companies, JLT had started to field interest from mid-size Canadian firms considering the merits of Bermuda and captive insurance. For these firms, JLT is expecting a longer lead time—12 to 36 months—Whelan said, with new formations necessarily taking a time to appear.


Island excellence But what exactly is it that sets Bermuda apart from the competition,


and why might Canadian firms opt to redomicile away from somewhere such as Barbados? Gibbons said that three key factors are attracting Canadian firms to Bermuda. The first is “the ability to come here to underwrite business and form your entire programme out of Bermuda—a factor that cannot be overestimated”.


“Second is the prevalence of management companies and other service providers here that have the knowledge. If you have to have mind and management outside Canada, the best place to go is Bermuda. Finally, if you are looking to establish a director base, the experience and skill set is here in abundance.”


Bird spoke in a similar vein, adding that “its location, its robust yet pragmatic regulation and even its cost, which despite misconceptions compares favourably with most competing domiciles, makes Bermuda an attractive alternative”. Finally, there is the not insignificant ability to access the Island’s significant commercial re/insurance market. As Whelan outlined, companies often have group interests in Bermuda and, by locating their captives on the Island, they can access group reinsurance, finance and subsidiary functions all in one location.


Captive structures


Casualty risks predominate among those Canadian captives that are opting for Bermuda’s shores, said Bird, with property risks backed by reinsurance or excess placements an increasingly prevalent addition to captive programmes. Thus far the larger single-parent captives have dominated the field, reflecting the size and nature of the Canadian energy firms that have led the charge, and it seems likely that such an emphasis on single-parent captives will continue.


As Gibbons indicated, the early movers were dominated by larger captives because “their insurance and reinsurance structures were so significant that an immediate move made sense to them”. Nevertheless, Bird and Whelan were keen to make it clear that Bermuda is equally geared up for small and medium-sized captives from Canada, and beyond.


Regulatory leadership


For many captive owners the issue of Solvency II has been an ongoing concern, and with Bermuda opting for equivalency for the commercial sector there might have been a danger that Europe’s regulatory regime would prompt some Canadian parents to consider other, less prescriptive captive domiciles. However, recent discussions between Bermuda and Brussels appear set to allow Bermuda to apply a segmented approach to regulation, in which captives may fall outside the full scope of Solvency II.


As Bird indicated, “being in the first round of equivalency testing for Solvency II purposes has benefited Bermuda as it has embraced the


bermuda captive 2012 19


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