The 4 Biggest Themes from the 2018 Cayman Captive Forum

As we unpack our suitcases from another successful appearance at the Cayman Captive Forum – our 11th one attended as a company! – I’m also taking the time to unpack my thoughts on the event.

As a sponsor and exhibitor at the conference, which ran from November 27th to the 29th in the Grand Cayman Islands, our team had the pleasure of meeting a range of new faces and familiar colleagues. This is an event that we look forward to each year, and not just because it gives us a break from the cold weather. Drawing over 1,000 attendees, this is a top-notch event catered to captive professionals of all kinds, whether they are seasoned experts or newcomers.Cayman Captive Forum

The Cayman Captive Forum is one of many ways that we keep up with trends, priorities and news. So between ice cream socials and poolside receptions, I noted the four most prevalent categories from this year’s educational sessions.

1  –  Taxes
No surprise here, as taxes and captives go hand-in-hand. This year, audience members learned about captive considerations for taxable and tax-exempt entities. Further, a group of accountants and lawyers covered US tax reform in detail, highlighting how it all affects captives (i.e. CFC rules, changes to attribution rules, etc.).

2  –  Current Events
Naturally, any modern conference would take inspiration from current events, but I noticed quite a few sessions at Cayman that were focused on unrelated topics frequently seen in the headlines.

First, there was “Ridesharing in Healthcare”, which explored the role of transportation in population health management. Then, a panel explained the impact of the “#MeToo” movement on the healthcare industry – addressing harassment, bias and recommended solutions. Thirdly, a team from CHRISTUS Health told audiences of their experiences with Hurricane Harvey and its consequences, arming listeners with suggestions for future catastrophic events. Another session dealt with workplace violence, something we hear about far too often, and, finally, some healthcare specialists provided a defense strategy for an Ebola outbreak.

3  –  Blockchain
Blockchain is another hot topic, so it got some spotlight at Cayman this year. In “Blockchain Technology Global Trends”, we learned about blockchain regulations and issues pertinent to insurance and healthcare. Then a panel of accountants discussed the opportunities and challenges presented by blockchain as it relates to insurance.

4  –  Cyber
Cyber has been top-of-mind for risk professionals for several years. Unfortunately there has been no magical solution, so the subject remained front-and-center once again this year at Cayman. Charles Kolodkin and Rebecca Cady explained how to use Miscellaneous Professional Liability (MPL) to strategize for cyber risk. Their lessons learned included, “hone the ability to manage the claim” and “work with operational leadership and board”. Another session discussed how to control for vendor cyber risks, highlighting the increased interconnectivity between areas like big data, social media, cloud computing and the Internet of Things (IoT) and the role it all plays on cybersecurity.

 

All in all, the 2018 Cayman Captive Forum was an event to remember. Myself and my Spring team members enjoyed all of the networking and learning opportunities that the event brought about, and are already looking forward to next year’s!

Captive Insurance

7 Ways Captives Provide Clients a Competitive Edge

A recent report from AM Best concluded that, based on their ratings, captive insurance companies outperformed commercial market carriers yet again in 2017. This finding was based on a hard look at balance sheet strength, operating performance, and business profiles of captives as compared to their commercial counterparts.

As long-time captive consultants, we’ve seen a range of clients benefit from a captive structure and are well-versed in their advantages. The AM Best report is a testimony to the positive role captives can play and how they’re able to provide a competitive edge to the organizations using them.  Some of the key advantages include:

  1. Homogeneous Risks

Whether a Single Parent Captive or a Risk Retention Group (RRG), the insureds of a captive are going to have similar risk profiles and diversity. A Single Parent Captive insures the parent company, so all its risks belong to one entity. RRGs are made up of like companies with similar missions and business products/services, such as a group of universities. In both cases, the homogeneity of risk will benefit the captive by establishing a certain level of predictability which helps with the consistency of rates and an unsurprising loss ratio.

 

  1. Underwriting Profit/Results

According to AM Best, the Captive Insurance Composite (CIC) experienced a 86.4% five-year combined ratio, while the Commercial Casualty Composite (CCC) had a 99.9% five-year combined ratio. Captives enjoy such underwriting profits for a number of reasons, primarily the fact that risk management, control, prevention and mitigation are all at the heart of the captive’s purpose. Organizations are able to benefit from their own good experience. Captives facilitate transparency and more access to data. This allows organizations to act in a proactive manner and implement risk mitigation and control protocols in an almost real time basis. Comparatively, a fully insured commercial market policy may result in a delayed information transition – most commercial insurance arrangements provide reports a quarter after year-end.  In addition, frictional costs are lowered with a captive.Captive Insurance Advantages

 

  1. Return on Investment

A major advantage that organizations with captives have over commercial carriers is the opportunity to recapture part of the premiums. Captives require capital infusion to start and get off the ground. The profits/savings from the insurance carrier accumulate in the captive and can, over time, begin to yield impressive returns on investment. Most feasibility studies use an internal rate of return or a hurdle rate to help visualize potential savings. This makes captives a great alternative for deploying capital and earning a consistently positive return on income, in addition to being able to use it strategically for reinsurance purposes.

Another pro of captives is the ability to evaluate their ROI evaluated against  their hurdle rate as their internal rate of return. A company can determine if an investment will give them adequate benefit or savings over a given timeframe based on their rate of return, and then decide if that investment is worth following through with, or if another solution is more economically sound.

These factors combined allow captives a healthy sum of capital and positive balance sheets.

 

  1. Competitiveness

Commercial carriers are sometimes unable to understand the true needs of the insureds and are limited in their offerings. Captives create competitiveness in the market and can compel commercial carriers to offer better terms and costs by virtue of a captive’s existence. In many instances, commercial carriers are threatened by the captive’s ability to take on all the risk and become willing to create quota share arrangements. Captives are a unique, tailored solution for the insured(s) and offer an unbeatable level of customization and very little changes in premiums. They have the ability to insure unique risks and are able to fill in the gaps of coverage where commercial markets are unable to do so.

 

  1. Enterprise Risk Management

AM Best defines Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) as, “establishing a risk-aware culture and using tools to consistently identify and manage, as well as measure risk and risk correlations.” An organization that utilizes a captive is likely to have a stronger ERM system in place, when compared to its captiveless peers, since it is partaking in its own experience and thus is more motivated to better manage its risks. In most cases, the captive is a vital cog in the ERM wheel. This close alignment allows for better results for both parties, and a lower total cost of risk for the captive.

 

  1. Retention

Many rated captives have a retention rate of 90% or higher. This is, in part, because policyholders are routinely rewarded through dividend payments from the captive that are significantly higher than any seen in the commercial market. These profits can be used in a multitude of ways to further benefit the captive. For example, policyholders could underwrite additional lines of coverage without the need for more capital, or provide premium holidays on programs, or fund FTEs.Innovative Insurance Strategy

This, combined with the lack of competition means that captives don’t need to shop around for business each year, creating savings in acquisition costs which can then be returned to the captive (e.g. in the form of loss control) to further benefit the insureds.

 

  1. Ability to Identify Emerging Risks

A captive’s structure and foundation in ERM gives it an added advantage of foreseeing emerging risks. Typically, all key stakeholders and the entire risk team of an organization will be involved in the captive’s management and activity. Having a strong alignment between the parent company, the captive, the IT team, the risk experts, the actuaries and other main players means that everyone is on the same page. A captive can make long-term assessments while also flagging and resolving issues quickly. There is no fragmentation of knowledge in a captive setup, and all stakeholders have the same interests. In sum, captives allow organizations to be nimble and react to changing market conditions quicker than commercial market carriers.

 

Conclusion

As AM Best states, captives performed well in 2017, as did RRGs, and it’s projected that success will continue into 2018 and beyond. The US captive market has grown substantially over the past few years, with domiciles like North Carolina and Hawaii experiencing an uptick in captive formation. Further, we’re seeing captives being used more frequently for nontraditional lines of coverage, such as cyber and medical stop-loss, adding to the list of use cases.

Captives are a great tool for insureds to create unique, custom-made solution in partnership with the commercial markets. They facilitate better management of claims – their expenses and adjustments – through accurate estimations.

Lastly, one of a captive’s most important attributes is its flexibility and ability to be swift and proactive, without the typical issues in a commercial insurance relationship.

Continued Pressure from the IRS on Bad Fact Patterns – How to Avoid Trouble

The Courts recently made a decision regarding the Reserve case for the IRS. This is the second case of late that has been decided against a captive owner in an effort to crack down on captives the IRS perceives to have a poor fact pattern, and therefore cannot meet insurance tax treatment standards. For example, captives that have been set up to undertake sham transactions or undertaking transactions that do not meet the bona fide insurance company characteristics would fall into this category.

According to the Avarhami v. Commissioner (“Avrahami”) judgement, the court provided four criteria that result in an arrangement constituting insurance.  These four criteria were also addressed in the Reserve Mechanical Corp (“Reserve”) v. Commissioner case, and are as follows:

  • The arrangement must involve insurable risk
  • The arrangement must shift the risk of loss to the insurer
  • The insurer must distribute the risk among its policy holdersIRS captives
  • The arrangement is insurance in the commonly accepted sense

Reserve outlined these four non-exclusive criteria to establish a framework for determining the existence of insurance for federal income tax purposes.  The court’s opinion focused on the idea of risk distribution, which led to investigating PoolRe Insurance Corp. (“PoolRe”), the stop loss insurer for Reserve. The judgement discusses the transaction in detail and stated there was a circularity of funds that invalidated the pooling arrangement.

To determine if a captive insurer has met the risk distribution criteria as a standalone captive without stop-loss or reinsurance protection, the courts looked at the total number of insureds and the total number of independent risk exposures. It has long been believed that the “law of large numbers” allows an insurer to minimize its total risk and reduce the likelihood of a single claim exceeding the premium received. In the Avrahami and Rent-A-Center court cases, risk distribution passing and failing thresholds have been observed as follows:

  • Rent-A-Center ultimately showed distribution of its risk by insuring the risk for 14,000 employees (workers’ compensation), 7,100 vehicles (auto coverage), and 2,600 stores (general liability coverage) in 50 states
  • Avrahami didn’t show distribution of risk by insuring 3 jewelry stores, 2 key employees, and 35 total employees. Further, one of the stores had 5 low frequency coverages and the other 2 stores had 2 low frequency coverages

Reserve, an Anguilla-domiciled captive, wrote 11 to 13 policies over the three tax years in question and had direct policies for 3 insureds.  Peak Mechanical & Components, Inc. (“Peak”), an S Corp for Federal income tax purposes, was owned in equal 50% shares by two individuals and was the primary insured under all policies. The policies were also issued to two other subsidiaries, although the operations were not significant. Peak operated two facilities and had a max of 17 employees. Reserve did not meet risk distribution based on this exposure profile alone; its exposures were similar in scale to the Avrahami’s.  Reserve contended that it still met the risk distribution safe harbor requirements, by having 30% of its gross premium for each of the tax years for unrelated parties via the reinsurance agreement with PoolRe.  A similar argument was made in the Avrahami case with their reinsurance pool.

Before it is determined whether Reserve distributed risk through the agreement with PoolRe, they evaluated whether PoolRe was a bona fide insurance company. In the eyes of the court, a captive should be able to answer “yes” to each of these questions and provide adequate support to:

  1. Is there no circularity to the flow of funds?
  2. Are the policies developed in an arm’s length approach?
  3. Did the captive charge actuarially-determined premiums?
  4. Does the captive face actual exposures and insurance versus business risk?
  5. Is the captive subject to regulatory control, and did it meet minimum statutory requirements?
  6. Was the captive created for non-tax business reason?
  7. Was a comparable coverage in the market place more expensive, or even available?
  8. Was it adequately capitalized?
  9. Were claims paid from a separately maintained account?

The court’s conclusion in Reserve’s case provided details of the concerns with evidence in support of the first six questions listed above, and concluded that the PoolRe quota share arrangement provided the appearance of risk distribution without actual risk distribution.  The court summary also highlighted the following:

  • Circularity of funds was exhibited with PoolRe receiving and distributing the same amount of money to Reserve
  • There was no evidence that the premium payments to PoolRe by Reserve and the other participants were determined by actuaries
  • Contracts were not determined in a like manner, nor using objective criteria

One of the major concerns the IRS addresses with the Avrahami and Reserve cases is that a one-size-fits-all rate for all participants in the pool/reinsurance agreement isn’t valid.  The court also addressed an alternative ground for the case, which would have been to evaluate “Insurance in the Commonly Accepted Sense”. To determine if an insurance arrangement exists, the following factors come into play:

  • Was the insurance company organized, operated and regulated as an insurance company?
  • Was it was adequately capitalized?
  • Were the policies valid and binding?Captive Checklist
  • Were the premiums reasonable and a result of an arm’s-length transaction?

The court summary pointed out several issues in Reserve’s support for answering the above questions, such as:

  • Reserve had no employees of its own performing services and the board members did not know how claims were made or handled.
  • There’s no evidence that activities were performed in its domicile.
  • Claims must have supporting documentation, yet there was no addendum for the program until after the policy date. An employee from the insured signed the checks as opposed to the insurer.
  • Binding and valid policies – policies must, at a minimum, identify the insured.
  • There were peak paid commercial market premiums of $95,828 in 2007 versus $412,089 to Reserve in 2008. This is a 330% increase in insurance premiums. In addition, Peaks premiums vary from year to year with no explanation.
    • Note, the Avrahamis similarly had significant increases in premium spend, with almost an 800% increase over a several year period.

These cases provide us and other captive professionals with guidance and clarity. As the industry grows, cases like these will form the cornerstones of how to properly operate and conduct business as a captive insurance company.

Key Takeaways

The IRS clearly has problems with some of the pooling structures used to qualify captives as meeting the risk distribution safe harbor tests. They are concerned that the premiums ceded to the pool and the transfer of risk into the insurance pool are not commensurate with one another, and that the pools are only being utilized to circle premiums to the captive participants, with each assuming no or minimal losses from the pool.

There should be clear documentation of premium determination by an actuary, illustrating why premiums are reasonable and that sufficient risk transfer exists.  Over time, if the total loss experience and premium ceded to the pool doesn’t produce a long-term average loss ratio consistent with the commercial marker, then the pool’s support in having arm’s-length contracts with each of the participants becomes weak and difficult to defend.  Long term average commercial market loss and loss adjustment expense (“LAE”) ratios for most lines of business generally fall in the range of 50% to 75%, hence the 70% loss and LAE ratio threshold in IRS Notice 2016-66 used to identify captive transactions of interest.

Finally, it is important to show sufficient support in a captive’s business plan, policies, and feasibility studies to address the questions above about an insurer/pool being a bona fide insurance company.

5 Ways VCIA is Future-Focused

The Vermont Captive Insurance Association (VCIA), founded in 1985, is the largest trade association for captive insurance in the world. As such, it’s no surprise that their annual conference yields both an impressive turnout and range of educational sessions. A long-time sponsor and member of VCIA, Spring anticipates the August event each year.

The VCIA 2018 Annual Conference, themed “Where the Captive World Comes to Meet”, was just as high-caliber as past years, but each event tends to build its own unique motif. This year, as about 1,100 insurance professionals gathered in Burlington, Vermont, and 40 presentations were made, the three-day conference seemed to emphasize “the future” most notably. The sessions below, along with general conversations I had with a range of people at the conference, are what led me to identify this theme.

  1. Future-Proofing Your Captive

    This presentation, including Spring’s Managing Partner, Karin Landry, urged audience members to consider emerging risks like climate, and highlighted ways in which one captive has and continues to prepare for the future. Then, Andrew Braille of AES Corporation outlined the organization’s plans for the future, including a 50% reduction in carbon intensity.

  2. Succession Planning: Bridging the Next Generation of LeadersEmerging Risks

    An experienced panel led this discussion on how to nurture and attract captive talent to ensure a bright future for the insurance industry, one that is aging and failing to appeal to millennials. Tips like developing mentoring relationships and utilizing updated technology were given.

  1. Blockchain & Distributed Ledger Technology

    VCIA attendees, myself included, learned a lot about blockchain during this Wednesday morning session. The presenters defined blockchain and explained how it will impact captives and the insurance industry at large in the years to come. Good news – experts expect blockchain to reduce costs, lower risks, increase trust, and save time for insurance professionals as it continues to evolve.

  1. Integrated Solutions: The Future of Risk Management

    Todd Cunningham and Carol Murphy highlighted the efficiencies to be gained by moving from a traditional insurance structure to an integrated model, where 1st excess coverage across lines all operates within the same system. They explained that this is the direction they see the industry will and should go.

  2. The Cognitive Captive: Artificial Intelligence for Smarter Insurance

    Tracy Hassett of edHEALTH, and two others informed attendees about how A.I. will affect insurance risks and the labor market, and explained the role that predictive analytics and “The Future of Mobility” will have.  A special focus was made on driverless cars and their impact on insurance.

To be clear, these are only a handful of informative and strong presentations (you can read about the others here), but the underlying theme is gear up for what’s to come.

I hope you enjoyed the summary, whether you were at VCIA or not. As you can see, I did manage to learn quite a bit despite the bike rides and cocktail receptions!

Your 6-Step Plan to Captive Optimization

Captives should adapt to their parent companies’ changing risk profiles. Following this plan helps risk managers identify and execute necessary changes.

You conducted a feasibility study before forming your captive, establishing long term goals and objectives, determining which risks to write, where to domicile, and how to finance it all.

But that was five years ago.

Since then, your company has made two acquisitions, expanded its workforce, implemented new technology, contracted with new suppliers, and been affected by a new federal regulation.  In short, the risk profile has changed considerably.

Is your captive keeping up?

As with all other business matters, your company’s captive needs and goals are likely to change over time, especially with new and emerging risks sprouting up frequently. We recommend a ‘refeasibility’ study at least every five years to reassess risk appetite and exposure.

A ‘refeasibility’ study ensures your captive insurance company is still serving your organization’s needs and furthering its mission, rather than holding it back. Unlike the initial feasibility study, this periodic checkup must consider your existing captive structure and financing strategies, and take into account how the captive has performed thus far.

To gain a holistic view of your captive’s performance and evaluate the need for change, captive owners should ask themselves these five questions:

  1. Do your captive’s goals align with your risk profile?

    Evaluating your captive’s goals in the first step of a refeasibility plan. And that begins with collection of data. Claims experience, reserve and surplus levels, loss ratios and other measures of efficiency indicate how successfully the captive has operated and where it has underperformed.

    This indicates whether it has met initial goals, and whether those goals should change. This decision is also largely dependent on changes in the insured organization’s risk profile and the subsequent impact on insurance needs.

    Moving employee benefits into a captive may be a more efficient way to provide coverage for a larger payroll. Greater reliance on automation or IoT technology may likewise increase the need for cyber coverage tailored to an organization’s specific needs. Emerging risks should be considered in this assessment. For example, new technologies like driverless cars and drones and increasing automation will create both risks and opportunities across various industries.

    Performance metrics can help risk managers identify areas where resources can be shifted to support the coverage needs demanded by organizational change and emerging risks.

  2. How will proposed changes impact other parts of the captive company?

    The second stage of the study considers how adjustments to long term goals affect other pieces of the captive puzzle, such risk financing and use of reinsurance.

    Adding new lines of coverage or expanding or reducing existing ones will necessitate an evaluation of risk financing strategies and could lead to changes in an organization’s investment mix or retention levels. This may also impact reliance on reinsurance as a component of the overall risk transfer strategy.

    The best way to pinpoint the extent to which these changes should be made is through stress-testing.

    Running through scenarios with reasonable adverse case outcomes highlight where more or less financing is needed to service claims and maintain favorable loss ratios.

  3. What specific implementation strategies will make your changes stick?

    As with any enterprise-wide change, a detailed roadmap lays the groundwork for successful outcomes and can gain the confidence of stakeholders.

    This stage identifies lines of insurance that could be moved into the captive or other coverages that would be more cost effective to insure through the traditional insurance market. Along with cyber and employee benefits, some of the most common risks to insure in captives include professional liability, auto liability, reputation, and business interruption.

    Capital management strategies should also specify how surplus will be used going forward.

    There are several considerations in appropriately managing the capital and surplus levels over the life of a captive, including average cost of capital, retention levels, reinsurance use and taxes, among others.  A team of actuaries and consultants could review and develop strategy to address these.

  4. Does your existing captive structure still work?

    Captives have taken on a number of different forms since their inception — single parent, group/association, rental captives, sponsored captives, non-controlled foreign corporations, etc. The primary differences between these structures center on the way risk is shared among the parties involved and how the captive is financed and regulated.

    Sponsored captives, for example, offer a way for companies to take advantage of the established infrastructure of a traditional insurer and avoid the upfront costs of forming a captive — though they are not accepted in all domiciles.  Group captives allow companies with unrelated risks to spread out their exposure and reduce their total cost of risk, but can present management challenges.

    A captive’s domicile, the scope of risk it seeks to cover, and the financial strength of its parent company all help to determine which structure will work best.

  5. Does your captive account for recent case law and regulations?

    The technology industry isn’t the only one that is always changing. Laws, regulations and court cases, especially lately, have an impact on captives and need to be considered asCaptive optimization you are taking a fresh look at your strategy.

    Firstly, there’s tax reform. The tax rate reduction under the Trump administration has had a direct impact on captives, and a consolidated tax return that includes a captive insurance company should have its tax sharing agreement reviewed.

    Further, payments to a foreign captive should be reviewed to determine if the Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) is applicable, and anyone in the U.S. with an owner’s interest in a foreign insurance company needs to review their holdings. IRS Notice 2016-66 with respect to microcaptives should also be considered, which leads us to our next point.

    In light of two recent court cases – Avrahami vs. Commissioner and Reserve Mech. Corp. v. Commissioner – we now have more insight into what the IRS believes to be the criteria for a bona fide insurance company. As a result, we recommend going through a checklist of sorts to ensure the following regarding your captive:

    • Is the captive created for a non-tax business reason?
    • Is comparable coverage available in the market?
    • Are the policies valid and binding?

    Domicile-related regulations are also changing. Is yours compliant with your current domicile, and have you looked at the new domiciles available? Lastly, it’s imperative to take a look at the Dodd Frank Act, specifically the self-procurement tax to ensure your captive is appropriately aligned.

  6. Are the changes having the effect they’re supposed to?

    You’ve identified new opportunities for your captive, supported proposed changes with data and stakeholder feedback, and developed detailed and holistic plans to move forward. But you’re not done.

    The final step of any refeasibility study is to measure outcomes. Collect data again to see if newly established goals are being met and how the rest of the captive organization has been impacted.

    A great deal of this stage relies on solid industry benchmarks against which to measure current and future captive performance. Furthermore, it’s important that the optimization team takes this data and edits their implementation plan accordingly to keep captive performance on track, making actionable recommendations for staff to follow.

    To execute your plan, turn to expert help.

    These findings should serve as a baseline for measurement going forward. But look for a team of experts ranging from employee benefits, risk management and actuarial services to walk you through the steps and, ultimately, implementation. This is especially important as new risks continue to emerge and evolve; routine maintenance on your captive is important, just like it is on your car!

6 Buzz Words from CICA 2018

The Spring team has been participating in the CICA organization and events for about a decade now, and we find that their annual international conference yields one of the strongest turnouts and value in the captive industry. This year was no exception. Not only was the event enriching from a professional standpoint, but I was also pleased to have missed yet another Nor’Easter here in Boston as I soaked in some warmth in this year’s conference locale, Scottsdale, Arizona.

While it might take some time for me to put pen to paper to document all my thoughts, during such a busy conference season. As a team we like to recollect key learnings and themes from each event we attend. It helps us ensure we are up-to-date on industry trends, and, we hope, it helps you stay in the loop too! Here are my initial thoughts recapping of the 2018 CICA International Conference.

 

  1. Change

Given that the theme for this year’s conference was “The Challenge of Change”, I was not surprised that the topic was prevalent. The captive industry is just one of many that is facing changes on many aspects. One that everyone’s been talking about are the implications of the new tax law. Luckily we had a few speakers there to help and advice.Captive Insurance Innovation

The other major topic of discussion regarding change was the growing use of captives to address cyber risks. I spoke regarding the benefits of using a captive for cyber risks along with a high level overview of a survey Spring undertook with the objective of understanding captive owner’s outlook to cyber insurance and their interest in placing captive risks in the captive.

 

  1. Going Global

CICA, being the only non-domicile specific conference, is one that addresses issues both domestic and international. A session that particularly interested me was one where (insert names of the speakers) two representatives from the European Captive Insurance and Reinsurance Owners’ Association (ECIROA) provided a big picture overview of the European captive space, including domiciles and trends. A later session outlined lessons learned from setting up large captives for multinational organizations, going over things like baseline data and requirements, internal marketing, optimum capital retention and diversification. Further, Nicholas Frost, Gabriel Hoschneider and Esperanza Mead led a discussion on Latin American captives and other emerging markets, highlighting opportunities for growth and expansion.

 

International Captive Trends

 

 

  1. Future-ThinkingThe Future of The Captive Industry

     

It’s not enough to be armed for the present, but in all professions, captive and otherwise, it’s critical to be prepared for what the future might bring, and try to shape it positively. That’s why a panel from Butler University spoke to the CICA audience about recruiting and training millennials, emphasizing the importance of captives to further their knowledge of the insurance industry. The group went through a case study in which students conducted a captive feasibility study and established a process for implementation. They also offered tips on how to attract and retain young talent. On a similar note, Temple University students, staff and colleagues presented “Fueling the Quality and Quantity of the Next Generation of Captive Leaders”, which underlining mentorship as critical and explaining best practices for creating a mentor program.

 

 

  1. Actuarial

Actuarial work is obviously at the heart of risk management, but sometimes it doesn’t get a lot of spotlight at conferences. At CICA 2018, that wasn’t the case.

Firstly, a group of consultants, actuaries, regulators and captive managers offered a comprehensive view of actuarial reports – what should be included, how to pull it together, how it should be utilized and items often overlooked throughout the process. A later session, including legal and compliance professionals, provided a thorough review of risk distribution and how it can be achieved and measured.

Captives and Tax Reform

  1. Taxes

As I mentioned earlier, tax reform and its implications for captives were a major discussion items at the conference.

One group specifically addressed tax reform and how its code will affect captives and their entities, including tips on revisiting your strategy for sound tax efficiencies with your captive. A group of tax lawyers later closed out the conference with a presentation on the consequences of the Avrahami case, IRC modification due to tax reform, and tax provisions to consider state-by-state.

 

  1. Utilization

Due in part to emerging risks and markets, every captive needs a thorough review every now and then to ensure it’s having the maximum effect. This is what Spring’s Managing Partner, Karin Landry, presented on, along with Steve McElhinney and Brian Johnson. The group emphasized the need for regular captive refeasibility studies and highlighted new areas of opportunity for captives. Spring has led many projects involving captive optimization and refeasibility, and we have an effective, recommended process to help companies undergo such initiatives. From a needs assessment to new and emerging coverages, to restructuring your captive to allow for modifications, we are experts in finding a solution that’s right for you. You can learn more about our captive optimization practices and suggestions here.

Further, during “Expanding Your Captive Utilization”, a panel further expanded on the subject, pointing out the importance of regulatory changes, particularly when it comes to hospital-owned captives, in discovering and reassessing lines of coverage. Lastly, CICA attendees learned how to “spice up their captives” by exploring new benefits and advanced captive program placements that may now be an option due to changing tax and insurance landscapes. This session covered federal and state regulations, ERISA implications and more.

 

I hope you enjoyed my overview, whether or not you were able to make it to the CICA International Conference this year. I found it a valuable experience and particularly enjoyed meeting new people and visiting with existing clients and colleagues. As you can see, I wasn’t just in it for the Arizona craft beer tour that kicked off the three-day event. I was paying attention too!

State of the Industry: Cyber Risk & Captives

The threat of a cyber attack seems to increase with each passing day. With every new technology and security measure developed, somehow hackers always seem at least a step ahead. On a personal level, it’s scary – the possibility of a stolen identity or a hacked bank account is enough to keep you awake at night. However at the corporate level, there’s even more at stake: national security, the safety and livelihood of customers and employees, etc.Cyber Risk

We’ve all seen the headlines: Target, Yahoo!, Equifax, Verizon, and the list goes on. These companies made the news because they are large, global organizations with influence. However, it is not the size or scale of the companies that caused them to fall victim to cyber attacks. Gone are the days when tech firms were the only ones who really have to worry about hackers; the threat is very real for all kinds of organizations.

So as cyber attacks continue to grow in both frequency and impact, we wanted to ask our colleagues in Risk Management about their thoughts on cyber risk and insurance. Further, what does the commercial insurance market look like for cyber coverage? It is extensive? Are companies well protected? Are captives being utilized?

Through our proprietary survey and research, we uncovered some surprising insights on cyber risk and insurance. We can’t give it all away, but we can tell you that the commercial market for cyber insurance is new, imperfect and fluctuating, causing gaps in coverage for most organizations, some of which are questioning the validity of such a purchase. This creates an opportunity for captives in the cyber space, but you’ll have to fill out the form below to learn more.

 

When Was Your Captive’s Last Check-Up?

You’ve had your P&C captive for years and it has continued to perform well throughout. So, what next? How do you capitalize on this success and build on your captive or rebuild an underperforming aspect of it? One word: Refeasibility. Okay, so ‘refeasibility’ isn’t really a word (according to Oxford Dictionary). At least it hasn’t been traditionally, but it is one that needs to be on the tip of the tongue of every captive owner. It is a word that has become somewhat synonymous with captive optimization and very accurately describes what captive owners need to do with an older captive: conduct a new (re)feasibility study.

The Importance of Refeasibility

As with all other business matters, your company’s captive needs and goals are likely to change over time, especially with new and emerging risks sprouting up frequently. Much like your family car, a captive should have a check up on a periodic basis. As a captive matures and companies evolve, captives need to be re-examined to determine if changes should be made to align with current organisational needs. Key reasons for this re-examination include the following:

  • Positive or negative experience
    • Example: unexpected adverse loss experience, such as supply chain interruption, resulting in business income loss not covered by insurance
  • Surplus release or addition
    • Example: surplus growth for the captive has been good and, as a result, there is now opportunity to add/expand coverages insured in the captive
  • Opportunities to add new lines of coverage (that perhaps didn’t exist or weren’t relevant before)
    • Example: Employee benefits or cyber risk
  • Change in the risk profile of various risks
    • Example: Litigiousness is on the rise in the insured’s industry and additional protection is needed
  • Changes in the regulatory environment
    • Generally speaking, regulatory changes have impacted business directly or indirectly, resulting in loss of revenue. This is a leading concern for small business owners.
  • Changes in law (such as those resulting from case law outcomes like the recent Commissioner vs. Avrahami case)

To address all these potential changes, our Spring CARE (Captive Analytical Risk Evaluation) team recommends a captive evaluate its risk appetite and risk exposure at least every ? ve years. Are you still writing the right lines in your captive? Are you still in the right domicile? Would a different structure be more profitable? Would other service providers make a difference? Have your claims changed signi?cantly? Have regulations changed over the years? All this and more can be answered with a good review of your captive by a professional consultant.

Captive optimisation starts with a captive refeasibility study. Every refeasibility study is different to varying degrees; the scope and resources required to conduct the study are dependent on the captive’s current structure, the events (if any) that triggered the study and the goals of the company. That said, through our Spring CARE system, we follow a carefully-constructed evaluation structure when our team works through the process of evaluating captive client’s existing captive. Generally speaking, we follow and recommend the following ? ow process in conducting a refeasabiity study, starting with goals and ending with measurement.

Goals StageRisk Transfer Vehicles

In this initial stage, it is important to focus on con? rming the goals and objectives of your captive, both new and old. Have the older goals been achieved? How have the goals changed over the years? This is a critical step in laying the groundwork and direction of your refeasibility project. Also critical at this early point is the collection of data. We consider the data to be collected here as not only the stats and facts of the captive, but also the more subjective (non-paper) data that can be gleaned through management interviews and informal stakeholder surveys. Finally, in any good refeasibility study, it is very important to identify changes in your risk pro?le. The risk matrix to the right shows the four classic actions a company can use to handle each of their risks (DeLoach 2000).

Typically,  high probability or high impact risks should be considered for insuring in your captive. Some of the most common risks to insure in captives are listed below . Emerging risks should also be considering in this assessment. For example, A new technology like driverless cars will create both risk and/or opportunities across various industries.

Coverages commonly written into captives:

Employee Benefits Risks Property & Casualty Risks
AD&D Auto Liability
Life/Loss of Key Employee Business Interruption
Long-Term Disability Directors & Officers Liability
Medical Stop-Loss General Liability
Voluntary Benefits Professional Liability
Retiree Benefits Property (deductible or excess layer)
Pension Buy-Outs/Buy-Ins Trade Credit
Workers’ Compensation
Commercial Policy Excluded Risk

 

Impact Stage

You want to be sure you have a clear idea of what you’re looking to accomplish, and to what extent. The Impact Stage of a refeasibility study involves looking at all the different pieces of tCaptive Optimizationhe captive puzzle to determine how they would be affected by the changes you’re considering. A few activities that a professional captive optimizer would look to accomplish in this phase would be:

  • Conducting an analysis of your risk financing optimization
  • Reviewing your current reinsurance levels and optimizing your reinsurance use
  • Stress testing of the captive with reasonable adverse case outcomes

Strategies Stage

It’s important to outline the methods you plan on utilizing in your captive refresh; in this Strategies Phase, a professional captive optimizer would ?rst analyse any additional lines of coverage that could be insured by your captive.

Secondly, a surplus management strategy would be developed. There are various considerations in appropriately managing the capital and surplus levels over the life of a captive, including average cost of capital, retention levels, reinsurance use, taxes and a number of others that a team of actuaries and consultants would review and develop strategy to address.

Structure Stage

Now that you know what you want to do and how, it’s time to take a closer look at how it will all work together in a logical structure. Market changes should give you some food for thought. For example, pure captives are increasingly changing to sponsored entities. In this Structure Stage, it is important to identify investment management best practices as well as the optimal collateral structure.

Measurement

Finally, all sound captive projects end with measurement. This is the time to collect new data and determine to what extent goals were met, and impacts made. A great deal of this stage relieCaptive Refeasibility s on the creation of solid industry benchmarks to measure current and future captive performance against. It is also important in the Measurement Stage for the optimization team to develop implementation plans based on their findings and make actionable recommendations for helping you achieve the goals that were established in the first phase of this project. At the conclusion of the measurement phase, a professional captive optimization team, such as our Spring CARE team, would produce a refeasibility report for your captive. In this report, all of the ?ndings of the refeasibility study are outlined and reviews along with the recommendations developed in this phase. These ?ndings can serve as a base line for measurement.

Conclusion

Regardless of how old or new your captive is, there are a number of internal and external factors that have changed since it was created. With all the changes taking place in the industry, it is a great time to have a professional come in and not only take a snapshot of how your captive is currently performing, but also help you project and strategize where your captive should be in the future. Now is a great time for a captive refeasibility study.