captives report 2011

20
SPONSORED BY Captives 2011 www.strategic-risk.eu [ September 2011 ] Going places Which strategic factors are at play for a company electing to set up a captive, and what influences the all-important decision of where to domicile?

Upload: nathan-skinner

Post on 10-Mar-2016

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Captives survey 2011

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Captives report 2011

SPONSORED BY

Captives 2011 www.strategic-risk.eu

[ September 2011 ]

Going placesWhich strategic factors are at play for a company electing to set up a captive, and what infl uences the all-important decision of where to domicile?

Page 2: Captives report 2011

WEALTH YESTERDAY TODAY TOMORROWFrom priceless art to the diversity of an investment portfolio, Asset Management is thriving in Qatar. With its world class regulation and secure and transparent rule of law, the QFC is leading Qatar into a dynamic and diversified future. Benefit today from the lowest tax in the world,* 100% ownership, repatriation of all profits, and an onshore trading environment. And tomorrow, why not experience one of Qatar’s oldest treasures www.qfc.com.qa

BUSINESS ENERGY

*References the 2008 ForbesTaxTax Miisers y & Reform Index

SR_Ad_Page_ID.indd 1 11/08/2011 11:34

Page 3: Captives report 2011

www.strategic-risk.eu [ 2011 ] StrategicRISK Report 1

CAPTIVES [ Introduction ]

Capturing the momentT HE QATAR FINANCIAL CENTRE

Authority is pleased to sponsor the StrategicRISK captives survey for 2011. This quantitative research on captive owners and managers, combined with a series of in-depth interviews, will provide valuable insights for market participants as well the wider insurance and captives industry.

Since the beginning of 2010, the QFC Authority has focused its eff orts on supporting Qatar’s fi nancial services industry through the creation of three hubs – asset management, reinsurance and captive insurance. The development of these hubs will complement Qatar’s fi nancial services industry and support the nation’s

aim to create the pre-eminent fi nancial centre in the Middle East.

The authority provides fi rms with a platform to access local and regional investment opportunities and conduct business in the region. It is an on-shore fi nancial centre based on English common law, and business can be transacted inside

or outside of the QFC, either in local or foreign currency. This unique characteristic allows businesses to operate both locally and internationally. Moreover, QFC-licensed fi rms can be 100% owned by foreign companies and all profi ts can be remitted outside Qatar.

Finally, the QFC off ers a competitive tax regime of a fl at 10% corporation tax rate on business profi ts, as well as additional tax incentives for reinsurance, captive insurance and asset management companies.

The QFC Regulatory Authority has recently released new frameworks for captive insurers, captive managers and insurance intermediaries as part of the drive to support the development of Qatar as a regional centre for captive insurance.

We believe StrategicRISK’s captives survey comes at a particularly important time. In the wake of the implementation of new insurance rules, we are seeing companies involved in major capital projects in the region increasing their focus on eff ective risk management, further exploring the use of captives as a method of better controlling risks and insurance costs.

This is a trend that is set to continue and accelerate. I hope you fi nd the survey both informative and useful. SR

Akshay Randeva is the director of strategic development, QFC Authority

PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITHEditor Nathan Skinner

Report author Maureen Duck

Editor-in-chief Sue Copeman

Reporter James Bray

Market analyst Andrew Leslie

Group production editor Áine Kelly

Deputy chief sub-editor Laura Sharp

Business development manager

Donna Penfold

tel: +44 (0)20 7618 3426

Production designer Nikki Easton

Group production manager

Tricia McBride

Senior production controller

Gareth Kime

Head of events Debbie Kidman

Events logistics manager

Katherine Ball

Publisher William Sanders

tel: +44 (0)20 7618 3452

Managing director Tim Whitehouse

To email anyone at

Newsquest Specialist Media

please use the following:

fi rstname.surname@

newsquestspecialistmedia.com

‘Business can be transacted inside or outside of the QFC, in local or foreign currency’

2 | Executive summaryThe facts behind the fi gures

Who we spoke to and what the main

fi ndings of the research are

4 | ResearchThe full research results, methodology

and in-depth analysis

14 | QFC AuthorityBuilding for the future

Qatar aims to build a good home

for captives

Page 4: Captives report 2011

2 StrategicRISK Report [ 2011 ] www.strategic-risk.eu

CAPTIVES [ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ]

The facts behind the fi guresHere’s how the researchers have gathered top-level opinion and pieced together a clearer picture of the captives scene

There are several further objectives to the study, and the report has been ordered under these headings:

• Establish the infl uencing factors surrounding the decision to establish captives.

• Identify whether the benefi ts of forming captives have been realised or not.

• Explore how the value of captives are being assessed.

• Identify the infl uencing factors in selecting/moving a captive domicile.

Research approachThe research sample was extracted from the StrategicRISK customer database and comprised of two audience groups: risk and insurance managers who work in global corporates; and captive managers who oversee captives on behalf of their corporate clients.

The relevant people were approached using two channels: email and telephone. The initial invitation to participate was sent by email and included a url that took the nominated individual to an online self-completion survey

containing both closed and open questions.

A further four senior risk managers were approached separately to ask them to take part in longer, exploratory telephone interviews.

The research was conducted between May and July 2011.

The respondent base – online surveyA total of 125 individuals responded to the online research invitation. In order to ensure that the feedback was relevant, risk or insurance managers who worked in organisations that did not currently operate a captive, or who said that they were unlikely to have one in the future, were fi ltered out.

THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OFthis research has been to gain knowledge of captives with regard to their trends and demographics. We also wanted to understand the attitudes and behaviour of captives generally, and specifi cally to domiciliation and re-domiciliation.

Captive owners

55%

Future captive

managers

33%

May consider a captive – now

or in future

12%

Breakdown of relevant survey respondents

Respondent type Country of residence

Captive owners 55% Europe 49%

Those who may consider a captive in future 12% UK 36%

Captive managers 33% Rest of world 15%

Respondent profi le

02_03_ExecSumm_SRCap11.indd 2 11/08/2011 17:37

Page 5: Captives report 2011

www.strategic-risk.eu [ 2011 ] StrategicRISK Report 3

CAPTIVES [ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ]

This left some 107 qualifi ed respondents for our data set.

The breakdown of the online sample by respondent type and country of residence is shown in the table above.

Respondents – telephone in-depth interviewsWe conducted detailed discussions with four senior-level risk management professionals, to add depth and understanding to the study. Analysis and quotes from these interviews are included in this report. The participants included:

• a group risk manager for aglobal industrial conglomerate;

• a head of risk management for a major clothing retailer;

• a vice-president of corporate insurance risk management for a global pharmaceuticals company; and

• a vice-president of group risk management for a global electronics manufacturer.

A note on data accuracyThe online sample of 107 – 72 captive owners or potentials, plus 35 captive managers – is relatively modest by research industry standards. The data should therefore be regarded as indicative rather than highly robust.

The main fi ndings

1 CAPTIVES ARE GIVEN DETAILED

CORPORATE EVALUATION

Captives are almost always established after detailed strategic reviews, and their performance is evaluated and re-assessed at least twice yearly in most cases.

2 MANAGERS HAVE INCREASED

AWARENESS OF CAPTIVES

Senior management has become more accustomed to captives, partly because of merger and acquisition activity among major corporates.

3 WIDE RANGE OF STRATEGIC ISSUES

IN DECISION TO START CAPTIVE

The decision to establish a captive is initially driven by fi nancial considerations, but they are also set up for a wide range of strategic reasons. The most prominent of these are gaining access to specialist cover; the smoothing of costs to the business during harder and softer market conditions and minimising volatility; independence from the market; and better protection of the corporate brand.

4 POSITIVE SUPPORT FROM

MANAGERS AND OWNERS

The great majority of owners and managers believe that establishing a captive is of considerable benefi t. Owners report a wide range of strategic benefi ts to their organisations; managers focus more readily on the longer-term fi nancial upside. Both are realistic about the impact of hard-soft insurance sector fl uctuations on short-term fi nancials, but feel certain that longer-term benefi ts accrue.

5 WIDE VARIETY OF CAPTIVE

EVALUATION METHODS USED

The value and performance of a captive is assessed in a variety of ongoing ways, with few consistent metrics or models employed. Owners use their managers and auditors to measure the success of a captive. The same managers are also

regularly monitored as part of the evaluation process – although most owners tend not to change captive management arrangements often and praise their managers highly.

6 DOMICILE IS DECIDED MAINLY ON

REGULATORY, NOT TAX, GROUNDS

A captive domicile is selected and reassessed primarily on the basis of regulatory environment, ahead of purely taxation reasons. This is because few corporates see a captive as primarily a tax-saving mechanism.

7 PROXIMITY TO MARKETS ALSO

INFLUENCES LOCATION CHOICE

Location choice is also driven by other factors, including proximity to key markets and the parent company’s head offi ce. These may well change over time and therefore have an impact on the location chosen for a captive.

8 THERE’S AWARENESS OF ‘SERIOUS’

RATHER THAN ‘EXOTIC’ LOCATIONS

Good-quality management staff and a solid local reputation are also factors infl uencing domicile choice. We found evidence of a trend towards ‘more serious’ locations rather than those that could be viewed as ‘exotic’.

9 SOLVENCY II IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO

RELOCATIONS OF CAPTIVES

The implementation of the Solvency II regime in Europe may lead to a third of captives reconsidering their location. Some owners are awaiting the fi ne detail and the position of the local regulator, especially those domiciled in Guernsey.

02_03_ExecSumm_SRCap11.indd 3 11/08/2011 17:37

Page 6: Captives report 2011

4 StrategicRISK Report [ 2011 ] www.strategic-risk.eu

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

When size matters

The size of an organisation will determine the feasibility of establishing a captive operation, as this spotlight on risk managers demonstrates

The great majority of owners approached for the study were risk and insurance managers in larger corporations of more than 1,000 employees and with a global turnover exceeding £1bn or equivalent. This underlines the fact that captives are primarily considered by commercial organisations that are large and complex enough to justify establishing one.

However, a small number of those interviewed were small companies (less than 100 employees), although none were mid-scale in size.

500-999 employees

3%

1-99 employees

8%1000+ employees

89%

How many employees work in your organisation globally?

£301m-£1bn

3%

£1bn-plus

86%

Which of these brackets is relevant to your global company’s turnover?

Don’t know

3%

Less than £5m

4%

£5m-£300m

4%

WHAT DO CAPTIVE OPERATORS look like? And how can a company become one? Here, we describe the profi le of the risk and insurance managers working in captive-owning corporates (captive owners) and those who are likely to see their business form a captive (potential owners).

The great majority of owners approached for the study were risk and insurance managers in larger corporations of more than 1,000 employees

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 4 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 7: Captives report 2011

www.strategic-risk.eu [ 2011 ] StrategicRISK Report 5

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

The great majority of those taking part were insurance or risk management specialists. The four in-depth interviewees were all senior group-level risk managers from major global corporations.

The online sample of captive owners was based on a wide cross-section of popular domiciles, as indicated in the diagram on the facing page.

Captives are primarily considered by commercial organisations that are large and complex enough to justify establishing one

What is your job title?

Risk manager

Chief risk officer

Insurance manager

Other

Chief executive/managing director

Finance director

Company secretary 1%

33%

18%

7%

3%

6%

32%

Where is the business’s captive at the moment?

Guernsey

Ireland

Other

Bermuda

Luxembourg

Isle of Man

Gibraltar

Malta

Switzerland

24%

22%

12%

7%

3%

14%

10%

5%

3%

• Wide range of strategic benefi ts

• Tax advantages

• Predictable, controllable costs

• Better access to markets, specialist

cover and control of terms

• Improved risk profi le

VALUE OF THE CAPTIVE

• Should be done at least every six

months

• Use a wide variety of hard-so�

metrics

• Use fi nancial models used by

managers/actuarials/brokers

• Include a senior-level review

• Managers themselves must also be

regularly appraised

REVIEWING THE VALUE OF

THE CAPTIVE

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 5 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 8: Captives report 2011

6 StrategicRISK Report [ 2011 ] www.strategic-risk.eu

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

Respondents in Guernsey were impressed by the quality of local management available, familiarity, proximity to London and the pragmatic/helpful attitude of the regulator

£10m–£75m

45%

What is your captive’s GWP?

Don’t know

3%

£2.5m–£10m

25%

More than £75m

20%Less than

£2.5m

7%

How would you describe your company’s risk strategy?

Low risk

Don’t know

Medium risk

High risk

21%

7%

6%

67%

• Feasibility study

• Powerful communications

• Persistence

CONVINCING THE BOARD THAT

FORMING A CAPTIVE IS THE

RIGHT APPROACH

The research was particularly well represented in Guernsey, where respondents are impressed by the quality of local management available, familiarity, proximity to London and the pragmatic/helpful attitude of the regulator.

Although all the parent companies studied were large, the scale of their captives as measured by gross written premium varied considerably, as indicated.

At the lower end, about a third reported gross written premium of up to £10m, while at the top end one in fi ve reported GWP in excess of £75m. Two-thirds described their corporate risk strategy as medium, and one in fi ve as low. SR

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 6 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 9: Captives report 2011

www.strategic-risk.eu [ 2011 ] StrategicRISK Report 7

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

Captive considerations

Among the many factors to consider before establishing a captive are location, corporate buy-in and the approach of Solvency II

The closing down of captives was also commented upon by respondents. “We had to wind down the previous captive and that is neither an easy nor inexpensive thing to do,” noted one.

Owners and managers agreed that the decision to establish a captive is usually based on wide strategic considerations, although other factors also emerged during the research.

One captive owner said: “We moved the captive once because of a change in regulation. We are thinking of moving our captive in the next year based on travel diffi culties, regulations, the opportunity to manage ourselves and the attitude in Europe to our present domicile.”

Changes in the regulatory environment, such as Solvency II in Europe, have a big infl uence on domicile choice, but far less of an impact on the underlying decision to operate one at all long term.

Captive managers, with a wider portfolio of clients, are more likely to see regulation as the primary driver for setting

up a captive, while owners have a wider set of strategic considerations.

Facing the boardCaptive managers will typically face a stiff challenge in persuading cautious corporate boards of the benefi ts of taking the leap. This was indicated by several comments from managers on the biggest obstacles they encountered in this area.

One highlighted a lack of understanding of the process involved in setting up the captive – “and prior to that overcoming the fear as to whether or not the captive would be benefi cial”.

Another cited the problem of gaining senior management buy-in. “This was

overcome through educational seminars and by placing ‘good’ risks through the captive before comfort is gained about the operational management and captive concept.”

A third manager pointed to the challenge of the board getting to grips with compliance requirements, “which were overcome by the managers’ expertise and hand-holding”.

The survey also asked respondents to highlight the three most important reasons, from a list of eight, that had driven them to set up a captive.

The chart overleaf underlines the importance, both to captive owners and managers, of reducing the cost of risk and premium rates.

THE FIRST CAPTIVES WERE SET up more than 50 years ago, and some of the corporates covered by this research have operated one for 30-plus years. Several managers spoken to, while not involved in the decision to form one decades ago, have managed the consolidation and relocation of captives in recent years, especially in post-merger situations. Such decisions involved a similar evaluation to a captive start-up.

What drives a business to review the decision to form a captive/move a captive?

12%

5%

4%

When the business conducts a strategic review

When there is a change in regulatory environment

Other

Don’t know

64%

69%

35%

54%

17%

11%

3%

Captive owners (current or potential)

Captive managers

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 7 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 10: Captives report 2011

8 StrategicRISK Report [ 2011 ] www.strategic-risk.eu

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

The ability to access reinsurance markets and cover to perils relevant to their business also played an important role, again relevant to about half of both sub-groups.

“We tailor-make our own terms and conditions, which can be adapted to our own business,” said one respondent. “Sometimes you can have a situation where, for example, after 9/11 terrorist insurance was extremely diffi cult to get hold of. If you have a captive you can always say you have terrorist policies in your own coverage because you decide your own terms and conditions.”

Another highlighted the need to “leverage better underwriting deals and write policies that are not commercially available or aff ordable”, while another cited the increase in insurance premiums and “capacity shortage for my industry’s insurance coverage” as key considerations.

Gaining controlControl of process and claims was scored as important by 30% of each group. More generally, some talked about using a captive to focus senior executive minds more keenly on improving a corporation’s risk profi le.

The opportunity for a captive to provide new areas of cover to third parties motivated one in four managers but, understandably, few owners.

Respondents were also driven by:

• optimising/eliminating administration;• a hardening insurance market;• leveraging better deals when cover was

not commercially available; and• closer corporate governance.

The more detailed discussions with owners threw light on the wider strategic considerations underpinning the decision to form a captive. One commented: “The process started with a feasibility study, which was fully presented to the top management

What were the top three factors that drove the decision to form a captive?

12%

Expected long-term reduction in total cost of risk

Captive owners (current or potential)

Captive managers

78%74%

High premium rates 58%49%

Lack of commercial market coverage for specific

perils/exposures

Claims control

Desire to access reinsurance markets

Access to reinsurance market, for example Pool Re

Terrorism

44%51%

39%31%

25%

20%

22%26%

What were the bottom three factors that drove the decision to form a captive?

Other

Captive owners (current or potential)

Captive managers

Provision of insurance to third parties such as customers

Desire to outsource risk financing

10%

11%

5%

23%

5%

3%

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 8 12/08/2011 12:07

Page 11: Captives report 2011

www.strategic-risk.eu [ 2011 ] StrategicRISK Report 9

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

showing the main advantage of using a captive, in particular term mutuality? in the group between the various areas of risks and exposure of business and geographical areas.”

Another said: “In the early days it was the philosophy – and it still is – that they used the captive not as a tax vehicle but as a device to help focus the hearts and minds of the company on improving their risk profi le.

“It was created… partly as an arbitrage in the working layers of loss but also in terms of premium which would otherwise go to the commercial market. Also, the chief fi nancial offi cer saw it as a vehicle for focus and a platform for risk improvement.”

Brand awarenessA more subtle driver is the wider objective of enhancing corporate or brand reputation, although it was not clear how widely this sentiment was shared. Said one respondent:

“On the one side you have the legal obligation to pay for a claim; on the other side you have the brand issue. You don’t want to bring in an insurance company that does all it can to avoid paying, because your name is involved in it. We would like to keep and maintain the control of it so we can handle the claims in a good way for our customers.”

Increased merger and acquisition activity means that senior managers may be progressively more aware of the option of establishing a captive – or a series of them – and the varying advantages they have yielded.

Awareness will also be rising about the need for consolidation when companies merge, and the issues and complexities that go along with it.

One respondent commented: “The good thing was that [the senior management was] familiar with captives …

It didn’t take a lot of convincing. The story of our new captive was that it wasn’t going to be a vehicle that was taking large chunks of risk or requiring massive capital as we originally started the captive to take property risk.”

Solvency II rethinkAs mentioned previously, changes in the regulatory environment have an infl uence on the establishment or location of a captive. In the case of the Solvency II developments in the EU, it appears more than a third of captive owners and managers may rethink their location as a result.

One respondent remarked: “One of the drivers to move is if Solvency II was beginning to aff ect Guernsey in an adverse sense from our point of view, which would make being in Guernsey a diffi cult place to be, mainly due to cost of regulatory compliance. Then we would consider moving under those circumstances. Currently, it doesn’t look as though that will be the case.”

The changes also have an impact on potential owners. One said: “Solvency II is a further barrier to captive start-up”, while another said: “As the capital requirement in Solvency II is higher, the existence of the captive is to be reviewed.”

Rather more managers are unsure how they will act, perhaps because the decision lies primarily with the owners, who have wider issues to weigh up.

The research revealed that many are not concerned as they feel they will satisfy Solvency II requirements. Some see Solvency II as the trigger for a wider review and a few are waiting to see the detail of new regulations.

Meanwhile, some consider they will be unaff ected by the change, thanks to the likely local regulatory interpretation. “Our captive is in Guernsey and it looks like the island authorities are not seeking Solvency parity,” said one owner. SR

Is Solvency II causing you to rethink your captive strategy overall or specifically

the location of your captive? (European respondents)

12%

5%

No

Yes

Don’t know

58%

43%

33%

38%

9%

19%

Captive owners (current or potential)

Captive managers

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 9 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 12: Captives report 2011

10 StrategicRISK Report [ 2011 ] www.strategic-risk.eu

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

Fruits of the labour

There are plenty of good reasons for establishing a captive – but how many corporates have seen tangible rewards in doing so?

This success is recognised by owners and managers alike, although owners are more inclined to be cautious. One in four felt the benefi ts have only been partly realised, whereas nine in 10 managers believed the benefi ts had been completely realised.

We asked owners to expand on their rating. The main answer categories were:

Captive owners cited a number of benefi ts. “Some of our risks were not insurable in traditional markets; the captive took over the risk,” said one. “It has done what we set out to achieve, and the benefi ts would have been even greater had the market not been so soft in recent years,” commented another.

Captive managers were all the more positive, as expected. Among the remarks were: “Usually the benefi ts are obvious in both fi nancial terms and scope of cover terms, and in control of cover and claims terms.” Another said: “For most clients the rate of return on capital employed greatly exceeds those rates of return in their mainstream businesses.”

The fact that one in four owners feel that benefi ts have only been partly realised is

perhaps explained by feelings towards the relative fi nancial value of a captive in hard and soft insurance market condition. “[Benefi ts have] been realised, although there are cases where the vehicle has remained dormant due to changes in senior management who have diff erent risk appetites,” says one manager.

Several owners explained that a captive allowed their company to smooth out hard-soft market conditions and to pay more even premiums over time, thus aiding cash-fl ow and avoiding volatility.

“In terms of the insurance market conditions, a captive tends to win more when it’s tighter, when rates are higher and capacity is unavailable,” one owner said. “A captive can become more attractive under

those circumstances. In the current market, where rates are low and capacity is abundant, it is sometimes less obvious.”

Another said: “As a device for a hard market it is perfectly acceptable and you follow the philosophies and strategies and hopefully the outcomes you get in terms of an improved risk. In soft markets it doesn’t necessarily apply, but one benefi t of having a captive is you can have far greater control of the premium and get far more consistency in year on year premium expenditure… Captives tend to be used as another form of smoothing across the market cycles, but they do have the advantage of helping to focus internally to the operating companies on how to improve their risk.” SR

Overall, have the benefits of forming a captive been realised?

Yes, completely

Captive owners (current or potential)

Captive managers

Yes, in part

No

75%

89%

25%

11%

0%

0%

MOST CAPTIVES HAVE WORKED well for their holding companies. But their success goes beyond the tax-saving benefi ts – many point to the impact on corporate strategy across a range of areas.

Delivered to/exceeded expectations 11

Better access to markets 4

Improved risk profi le 4

Cost of risk declining 3

Provides a risk management tool 2

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 10 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 13: Captives report 2011

www.strategic-risk.eu [ 2011 ] StrategicRISK Report 11

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

Location, location

There are a range of positive and negative factors to be considered when deciding on the location of a captive – or when relocating one

“People smile when you say [you’re domiciled in] Bermuda but I’m only there for a day and a half. People think there’s some sort of dodgy business going on, a sleight of hand. We don’t use it as a tax-effi cient vehicle – we consolidate its accounts into the parent accounts,” one respondent revealed.

The tax environment was only chosen as a location factor by a third of owners – as was the overall reputation of a domicile location for doing business.

The top three factors infl uencing the decision on captive domicile, from a list of 18 put forward, are shown on the right.

Note that captive managers are far

more likely than owners to think of the relative taxation position as a key infl uencer of location. While the regulatory environment remains very important to them, it is not the dominant force implied by owners.

Other listed location drivers that gained at least fi ve votes from captive owners were as follows, demonstrating the breadth of considerations that come into play.

Owners talked in detail about wider reputation, and often their long-term connections with the domicile. Stability and support from that country (including its regulatory framework) are key factors behind a decision to stay there.

However, it was acknowledged that business needs and regulatory acceptance /environment might change.

One respondent pointed to possible reasons to reconsider location. “It may be if we wanted to put risks through the captive which were maybe non-traditional insurance risks, and if the regulator in the domicile where we are didn’t understand those risks and weren’t prepared to be pragmatic or specifi cally open to our approach.”

Building local relations Owners generally talked highly of their local captive managers and the ongoing relationship established with them. The

What were the top three considerations in selecting a captive domicile?

Regulatory environment

Captive owners (current or potential)

Captive managers

Tax (interaction with home

country’s rules)

Reputation of domicile

76%

57%

32%

63%

32%

34%

THE LOCATION OF A CAPTIVE has proved to be about more than simply the tax position. Three in four owners responding to the research favoured a location with a good regulatory environment, while one in three were motivated by the relative taxation benefi ts.

Convenience 16

Service provider expertise in domicile 15

Professionalism of the regulator 13

Market access 8

Operational costs 7

Accessibility for meetings 5

Business infrastructure 5

Flexibility 5

Location drivers

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 11 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 14: Captives report 2011

12 StrategicRISK Report [ 2011 ] www.strategic-risk.eu

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

quality of locally available management personnel in “serious” locations can also be a factor in resisting the move of domicile, “unless really warranted for other reasons”.

One owner commented: “The trust that’s built between you is very important. In terms of the main person who is handling your account, if they are a person you trust and who does a good job, that’s more than half the battle. I think one of the problems some of the domiciles may have is attracting and keeping the right people.”

The merits of locating in Dublin were also highlighted by one owner. The city was described as a “serious, user-friendly, regulatory regime. In particular it is a serious location that doesn’t smell, isn’t a fi scal paradise or an exotic location for doing business”.

The respondent continued: “I think one of the advantages of being in Dublin is there are a lot of consultants specialising in managing captive companies. The service we get is what we expect to receive.”

Guernsey meritsOne owner explained their reasons for choosing Guernsey as the captive’s location. “Guernsey was familiar to us and we had a

Owners generally talked very highly of their local captive managers and the ongoing relationship established with them

54%

Has the business moved (or might it consider moving) its captive domicile?

27%

12%

5%

2%

Has moved, past 5 years

May consider, next 5 years

May consider, beyond 5 years

Not considering

Don’t know

Yes

38%

Don’t know

19%

No

43%

Is Solvency II causing your clients to re-think their captive strategy overall or specifically

the location of their captive?

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 12 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 15: Captives report 2011

www.strategic-risk.eu [ 2011 ] StrategicRISK Report 13

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

Percentage of captive managers who manage clients who have/are

considering moving their captive domicile

Yes, moved in the past 5 years

Is not considering

May consider migration in the

next 5 years

May consider but a�er 5 years

54%

26%

54%

43%

history there which made the move to establish a new captive quicker, easier and relatively inexpensive, which is why we chose that domain.”

This was echoed by another respondent, who remarked: “[We are] currently in Guernsey due to start-up cost and speed. Speed was the main thing. We like Guernsey because of their pragmatic approach and they are commercial, they do listen and they try to understand on a business by business sense – they don’t just take a holistic approach.”

The desire to locate captives close to the organisation’s main and growing markets, or to be near to the mother company were it to move headquarters, also emerged as a possible driver of location or relocation.

One respondent said: “One of the great advantages that we have in having a captive

in Bermuda is that Bermuda is where we engage a lot of our excess liability coverage. So it is close to the market that provides us with signifi cant capacity.”

However, this respondent also pointed to the attractions of emerging markets in Asia that are starting to have an appetite. “I look at where the business is going, where the future of the company is. There is more of a focus on emerging markets, and the Far East is one of those, so naturally you’d start to have thoughts about whether there is an opportunity to have a captive that was closer to the region.”

Relocation plansOf the sample of current captive owners, about one in four have indicated that they may consider a relocation over the next fi ve years, and that a wide range of reasons may drive this.

Managers also talked about a combination of regulatory and tax drivers that could have an impact on relocation.

In particular, they mentioned Solvency II within the EU and the position of Guernsey, as the following selection of manager comments illustrates.

“Guernsey deciding not to follow Solvency II has both potential advantageous and disadvantageous impacts and diff erent companies will view it in diff erent ways. Companies are also discussing Solvency II with various regulators to determine if their treatments will diff er,” said one manager.

Another said: “[The] strategy to form a captive as such is not infl uenced by Solvency II but adaptation of current business may be necessary – for example, to include new lines of business to better spread risk exposure. Since all current locations are within the EU, [there is] no consideration to move out.”

One manager with clients in Guernsey said: “They would certainly rethink their position were Guernsey to adopt Solvency II standards and regulatory requirements.”

This was refl ected in another respondent’s comment: “The majority of our Guernsey-based captives are very happy Guernsey has decided not to seek equivalence at this time.” SR

The desire to locate captives close to the organisation’s main and growing markets, or to be near to the mother company were it to move headquarters, was a possible driver of location or relocation

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 13 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 16: Captives report 2011

14 StrategicRISK Report [ 2011 ] www.strategic-risk.eu

CAPTIVES [ Research ]

Quality standards

Managers and owners reveal how they monitor the performance of their captive operation – including the key role of managers in that process

As one respondent said: “We tend to do a bi-annual captive review – what is the captive doing? What risks is it taking? Are there other risks it could take? Is this the best approach?”

Among the sample of 59 owners asked how they assessed the value of a captive, the main answers were grouped as follows:

The views of captive owners on these themes were refl ected in a range of comments. One said: “[We look at] the cost of risk per $100 of sales. We also look at what we might be able to obtain in the standard marketplace every couple of years.”

One owner claimed to be “regularly comparing the cost of captive capital with insurance premium savings long term”, while another said their organisation measured “return on investment, reduction in premium costs, availability of insurance”.

A respondent remarked that they had “commissioned an independent risk

fi nancing review that completed in 2009”, but added: “We do not utilise a formal metrics-based assessment process.”

While such comments underline the breadth of assessment methods, there does not seem to be a standard set of metrics used to assess performance. Rather there is a mix of wider strategic questioning of strategy, alongside an examination of fi nancial and loss data, and reports from independent actuaries.

Varied approachDetailed discussions on this subject revealed a range of views. “We test the reasons why we have the captive,” said one respondent. “Sometimes we look at the negatives – what we don’t want our captive to do. Our captive is not there to make money (and it’s stated in our paperwork when we do our reviews); it’s not there to avoid or gain any particular tax benefi ts. We restate and test those and some of the dynamics may change from time to time.”

One approach was to appoint a board of directors and hold regular board meetings. “In those meetings we review the strategy and how it aligns to the wishes and desires of the parent. We do challenge whether or not we’re doing the right thing.

“We don’t have a particular set of metrics. We look at whether or not the position of the captive in our programmes encourages the right behaviours and we clearly look at the loss experience and the trends we have within the programmes it runs. That’s what guides us in terms of ‘Are we doing the right thing? Should we be doing something diff erent? Are we as effi cient as we can be?’.’’

Another respondent admitted to sticking to traditional methods. “We don’t have sophisticated metrics or models. We’re hands-on; we want to know what’s

happening with the claims. We get feedback from our strategic brokers in the marketplace as to pricing and other things.”

Owners’ assessment of the captive management team emerged as an integral part of the process. Managers were seen as a prime component of the captive’s success.

“We look at captive management and their performance,” said one owner. “We use fairly stringent service level agreements with KPIs with our captive managers. Part of that is looking at the captive performance and the manager’s performance within that.”

Another pointed to “the intuitive side” to this issue. “You have this feeling that they are delivering or they are not delivering. The thing that is not intuitive is the pure numbers. If they don’t deliver on time they are not delivering. If they are delivering on time, then you have the quality side which is more subtle. It’s more your stomach feeling than how good they are.”

Management approachManagers also gave detailed feedback on the evaluation methods they are invariably involved in. As indicated above, a wide range of metrics, combined with softer or subjective input, can be used in evaluations.

One pointed to assessing the “reliability and effi ciency of operations, the extent to which the captive truly operates as a risk fi nancing mechanism whilst improving availability and breadth of cover”. Another looked at “return on equity as well as soft values such as hands-on risk management”.

“A strategic review is done every year in connection with the annual report,” said one manager, while another cited “capital-based risk modelling, other fi nancial modelling, and the implication of soft issues such as corporate governance and control”. SR

SO HOW CAN A CAPTIVE’S performance be tested? By using open text questions and through the research’s wider discussions, it became clear that big corporates discuss and review captive performance on a regular basis – typically quarterly or six-monthly.

Compare against market prices

for risk 10

Look at total cost of risk 8

Availability 5

Profi t or loss fi gures 3

Other measures used 14

04_13_Research_SRCap11.indd 14 11/08/2011 17:38

Page 17: Captives report 2011

www.strategic-risk.eu [ 2011 ] StrategicRISK Report 15

CAPTIVES [ Sponsored feature ]

Building for the future

Qatar aims to build on its soaring GDP with new rules for captives and insurance intermediaries that will give it a fi rm foothold on the global fi nancial ladder

More and more companies are grappling with the challenges of identifying, prioritising and mitigating risk. This has led them to examine the need to manage compliance, fi nancial, operational, as well as strategic risks in a comprehensive and holistic way.

A number of factors are driving these trends:

• The transfer of assets and management of projects from government to corporate institutions, resulting in more stringent reporting and control requirements.

• The listing of corporations on regional securities markets, leading to increasing stakeholder scrutiny.

• The adoption within the GCC region of international agreements – relating to issues such as anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist fi nancing – and economic sanctions, as is the case with Iran.

• Legislative developments aff ecting ERM and governance, risk and compliance, including the Qatar Financial Center Regulatory Authority (QFCRA)’s new framework for captive insurers and captive managers.

• The increasing number of insurance companies operating in the GCC, in conjunction with the expanding presence of international reinsurers within the region, providing potential captives with greater access to well-rated international reinsurance capacity and expertise.

Economic driver In 2010, the six GCC countries generated a combined estimated gross domestic product of $1.05 trillion (€740bn). This level of output ranks the GCC among the 20 largest economies in the world.

Commanding a 13.1% real annual rate of GDP growth, Qatar stands out, primarily driven by its signifi cant expansion of liquefi ed natural gas production.

Qatar is expected to remain the region’s most vibrant economy, as well as one of the world’s most rapidly growing. Growth will continue to be underpinned by huge hydrocarbon reserves, estimated to be worth between $40 trillion (based on a $55 barrel of oil equivalent) and $70 trillion (at a $95 barrel of oil equivalent), according to analysis from BP and the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) Authority.

The robust economic growth is creating widespread opportunities for the fi nancial sector. Not only will existing companies grow rapidly to support Qatar’s and the GCC region’s growth, but new companies off ering innovative solutions are likely to emerge to support this growth. These in turn will develop into regional or multinational corporations off ering their services across the globe.

Insurance markets in the GCC mirror the macro-economic growth dynamics of the region. Total non-life and

life premium volume in the GCC was estimated to be more than $14.3bn in 2010 and the market is projected to grow to more than $17bn by 2012. And while the life insurance market business grew at an even more rapid rate, it remains a relatively small sector.

Overall between 2005 and 2009, GCC insurance premiums expanded almost fi ve times as fast as the global average, with Qatar registering a 25% nominal growth rate per year.

The single biggest factor driving insurance demand remains the massive scale of infrastructure and construction spending across the region. In Qatar alone, contracts worth more than $75bn were awarded to infrastructure projects between 2004 and 2010. At the start of 2011, $88bn worth of projects were under way in the country and a further $130bn are in the pipeline for the next three years.

Aspiring regional hubQatar is determined to capture the momentum created by the region’s economic dynamics, the rapid growth in insurable corporate assets and the increasing awareness of the benefi ts arising from a holistic approach to corporate risk management.

The QFC Authority’s strategy to focus on captive insurance, alongside reinsurance and asset management, is part of a wider aim to diversify the national economy away from hydrocarbon revenues. Captives are beginning to be considered by GCC-based corporations as viable solutions for their insurance requirements and an integral part of their overall risk strategy.

An important step of Qatar’s captive hub strategy is to ensure a reliable and

THE RISK LANDSCAPE OF the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates – is evolving rapidly. And that means enterprise risk management has risen up the strategic agenda of companies operating in the region.

15_16_QFCA_SRCap11.indd 15 11/08/2011 17:39

Page 18: Captives report 2011

16 StrategicRISK Report [ 2011 ] www.strategic-risk.eu

CAPTIVES [ Sponsored feature ]

eff ective regulatory and supervisory environment.

Regulatory changesThe QFCRA has introduced a dedicated rulebook for captive insurance – the Captive Insurance Business Rules (CAPI) – and a rulebook for insurance intermediaries – the Insurance Mediation Business Rules (IMEB).

These insurance regulatory frameworks, which apply to captive insurers, captive managers and insurance intermediaries, commenced in July.

They have established a new class of insurance captive – class 4 – which covers any other captive insurer as determined by the QFCRA on a case-by-case basis. This class of captive is designed to allow innovative or unique structures to be developed that don’t meet the strict defi nitions of captive classes 1 to 3.

The rules have also brought about a big change in how the minimum capital requirement is calculated. This now focuses on a risk-based model, refl ecting the generally lower risk profi le of captive insurers, the expansion of the defi nition of ‘eligible capital’ to include alternate instruments such as letters of credit (provided certain conditions are met) and to allow broader categories of captive insurers to establish protected cell companies.

There have also been changes aimed at customising the approved individual process, reducing application and annual fees to ensure that they support the captive hub strategy.

The changes allow foreign captive insurers to re-domicile to the QFC environment if appropriate standards and requirements are met.

The CAPI and IMEB rules also aim to reclassify the activities conducted by insurance intermediaries and captives along lines that more clearly diff erentiate these activities in terms of their risk profi le.

Platform for growthThese changes will provide a platform for growth for captives within Qatar. One of the

GCC insurance premiums by type

2012f

2009

2011f

2010e

2008

2007

2006

2005

$15bn

$13.7bn

$10.4bn

$6.9bn

$4.4bn

$12.5bn

$8.7bn

$5.5bn

$2.2bn

$2bn

$1.8bn

$1.6bn

$1.3bn

$1.1bn

$80m

$60m

Life

Non-life

greatest benefi ts of establishing or redomiciling a captive in Qatar is location. Given the proximity of Qatar to Europe, Asia and Africa, it is an ideal location from which to conduct insurance activities that require global co-ordination.

In addition, more and more companies in the GCC and Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region are looking at using the robust QFC framework to set up captive insurers. Large corporations are expected to further develop their understanding of captives, establishing captives and encouraging the development of expertise for both captive managers and ancillary service providers.

The QFC has introduced a competitive tax regime, including a fl at rate 10% corporation tax on business profi ts and specifi c tax incentives for captive insurance.

Additionally, QFC-registered fi rms benefi t from Qatar’s growing network of double taxation agreements with more than 37 countries, while unilateral tax relief applies to

several countries including the USA and Japan. Many of these benefi ts were recognised

by the OECD’s 2010 Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, a multilateral framework in the area of tax transparency and exchange of information, which Qatar joined in 2009.

And to add to its global credentials, the QFC legal framework is based on English common law, which allows for civil and commercial disputes to be brought before the QFC Civil and Commercial Court (in English). Its laws are independent from the state and adapted from major fi nancial jurisdictions across the world.

Overall Qatar is regarded as a highly competitive place to do business, ranking it in 17th place in the 2010/11 Global Competitiveness Report, and number one in the Middle East. SR

Akshay Randeva is the director of strategic development, QFC Authority

15_16_QFCA_SRCap11.indd 16 12/08/2011 12:07

Page 19: Captives report 2011
Page 20: Captives report 2011