The Guernsey offering

Guernsey took an early stance in 2011 not to seek equivalence under Solvency II. This decisive approach was welcomed by industry against a backdrop of uncertainty created by the delays associated with Solvency II. Guernsey took this decision because Solvency II does not distinguish between different types of insurer and the levels of capital they have to hold, and would therefore place an inappropriately large capital burden on captives, which constitute the major part of Guernsey’s insurance industry. It would also be unsuitable for the large numbers of special purpose insurers in Guernsey in the alternative risk transfer space, including issuers of insurance linked securities. Instead Guernsey has committed to fully complying with the Insurance Core Principles of the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) in the areas of solvency, corporate governance and public disclosure.

As a result, in May 2015 Guernsey introduced a new solvency regime under the Insurance Business (Solvency) Rules 2015 (Solvency Rules). The general rule is that a Guernsey licensed (re)insurer must hold capital resources in accordance with three levels: the Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR); the Prescribed Capital Requirement (PCR) and the Capital Floor. The Guernsey Financial Services Commission (GFSC) maintains a discretion to modify these requirements on a case by case basis.

The Capital Floor is £100,000 for general business and £250,000 for long term business; for protected cell companies (PCCs) the Capital Floor only applies to the overall PCC, not to individual cells or the core of the PCC.

For general (re)insurers the MCR is the higher of (a) 12% of gross written premiums net of certain amounts including premium taxes, rebates, commissions and certain reinsurance premiums; (b) 12% of claims reserves and premium reserves, net of reinsurance and amounts reserved to maximum; and (c) the Capital Floor. For life business the MCR is the higher of (a) 2.5% of total reserves, net of reinsurance; and (b) the Capital Floor.

The PCR is the capital required to ensure that the (re)insurer should be able to meet its obligations over the next 12 months with a prescribed confidence level of 99.5% for Commercial Life/General Insurers; 97.5% for Commercial Life/General Reinsurers; and 90% for Captive (Re)insurers. There is no MCR or PCR for Category 6 (re)insurers – special purpose entities including ILS cells and fully funded entities.

This is clearly very attractive for captives, which only have to hold capital equating to 90% value at risk compared to 99.5% under Solvency II, and for special purpose entities, which are exempt from the Solvency Rules altogether.

Guernsey’s regime is also less prescriptive than Solvency II on capital assessment procedures and provides an exemption from public disclosure rules for captives.

The Jersey offering

The Jersey Financial Services Commission (the Commission) sought early input on Solvency II from those in the insurance sector in Jersey who would be affected by changes to regulatory capital requirements applied in the island. This dialogue, the Commission said, did not identify any regulatory or other reason for implementing Solvency II in Jersey. Jersey therefore, has chosen not to follow Solvency II (opting for “non-equivalence”). Whilst the Commission will continue to monitor the development of Solvency II, Jersey will focus on following the international standards set by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS). It is these standards against which Jersey has previously been assessed by the International Monetary Fund.

The solvency margin requirements for Category B permit holders* in Jersey are 17.5% of net premium income for general business, and 2.5% of the value of the long-term insurance fund required to be maintained by the Permit holder or £50,000, whichever is the greater, for long-term business. An initial capitalization of £100,000 is usually required; but the Commission has the ability to amend this, both upwards and downwards, should it feel that this amount is inappropriate in the circumstances of the permit holder’s business.

Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
9 Apr 2024

The Global – your offshore corporate law questions answered: April 2024

The Global is a quarterly collection of corporate expert insights and analysis across Appleby's glob...

19 Mar 2024

Guernsey retains its EU adequacy – as expected

The post-Brexit regulatory landscape continues to throw up challenges and jurisdictional arbitrage, ...

18 Mar 2024

Parental Bereavement Leave: Jersey to implement further family leave rights

The UK introduced “Jack’s law” in 2020. Jersey is now following the UK’s example, and as of ...

10 Jan 2024

The Global – your offshore corporate law questions answered

The Global is Appleby’s quarterly collection of expert insights and analysis on the latest develop...

20 Mar 2023

Trusts: Comparison between the Crown Dependencies

Our Private Client and Trusts specialists in Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey outline some of the ke...

19 Jan 2023

The Edinburgh Reforms: An Offshore Perspective

On 9 December 2022, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of reforms to the UK fina...

27 Sep 2022

Similar but Different

While the basic features of the trust remain, there are some notable differences in how trusts can b...

23 Feb 2022

Anonymisation of decisions: an invitation to consider this more but the unscrupulous need not apply!

The adage that ‘justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done” derives from a ...

25 Nov 2021

Regulatory Approach to ESG across the Crown Dependencies

New requirements may require investment products to display a label reflecting their sustainability ...

30 Jul 2021

Fighting international fraud

First published in New Law Journal, July 2021. Appleby partners Anthony William and Jared Dann an...