Captive Review June Edition

The cover for this month’s edition went through various iterations, with one version particularly hard to stomach – splattered blood and a stray tooth lay on the boarding pass. In the end, our editorial team decided simply the pass itself, carrying the passenger’s name, was enough to communicate the important message of reputation risk. The facts – United, Chicago, David Dao – are likely to remain in frequent flyers’ minds for some time.

Incidents such as that on flight UA 3411 take on a whole new life in today’s media and online landscape. Such events can be mitigated and avoided by putting in place robust staff training and stress-tested processes, but when the unexpected does take place, how do companies measure the financial impact?

Steel City Re has talked a good game in recent months on providing a solution to companies of varying sizes and types, so I wanted to explore this a little further.

The perspective and solution outlined by Dr Nir Kossovsky is certainly intriguing but the reality remains that very few captives have the appetite to take on this risk and it will be interesting to see how this develops over the next five years.

One certainty is that United Airlines will not be the last company to experience an incident of this kind and the consequences of reputational damage will continue to be felt across industries. Beyond better governance, training and company behaviour, it will be fascinating to watch how and where companies seek solutions that might soften the after-effects.

Bermuda is now more than a year into its Solvency II journey and in one of our News Analysis pieces Jeremy Cox, CEO of the Bermuda Monetary Authority, discusses the measures taken since equivalence with the European directive was gained.

It is telling that Guernsey and the Isle of Man are considering replicating Bermuda’s approach to Solvency II equivalence. Bermuda achieved what even European Union members could not – putting its commercial (re)insurance sector under the Solvency II regime, while keeping its captives separate.

Only time will tell what impact the greater capital and reporting requirements will have on Bermuda’s commercial (re)insurers, but it’s safe to say its captive clientele is relieved not to have been dragged down the same path as those in Luxembourg, Dublin and Malta.

Richard Cutcher

Editor

London’s ILS imitation is highest form of flattery – Dominic Wheatley

The Government of the United Kingdom has published its regulations for insurance-linked securities (ILS) business expected to come...
MORE

Nuclear group captive rated ‘Excellent’

The Delaware-domiciled group captive serving the United States’ nuclear power industry has had its financial strength rating of ‘A’ (Excellent) affirmed by A. M. Best. Nuclear Electric Insurance...
MORE

OECD provides guidance on intra-jurisdiction reporting

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has added further guidance concerning the country-by-country reporting (CBCR) procedure. CBCR is found in Action 13 of the Base Erosion...
MORE

Treasury snubs Notice 2016-66 in interim report

Notice 2016-66 has not been included on the Treasury’s interim list of tax regulations that meet the criteria...
MORE