Sponsored: Spring Consulting Group

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.
By: | August 1, 2018 • 7 min read

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,” said Karin Landry, managing partner, Spring Consulting Group.

“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?

Karin Landry, Managing Partner, Spring Consulting Group

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,” Landry said. “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, Landry said, 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,” Landry said.

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,” Landry said. “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 as 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,” Landry said. “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,” Landry said. 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!

To learn about Spring’s services, please visit  http://springgroup.com/services/alternative-risk-funding-solutions-and-captives/captive-optimization/

SponsoredContent
BrandStudioLogo

This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Spring Consulting Group. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.





Advertisement




Spring Consulting Group, an Alera Group Company, LLC is a Boston-based employee benefits, risk management and actuarial consulting firm with clients across the globe.

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

4 Companies That Rocked It by Treating Injured Workers as Equals; Not Adversaries

The 2018 Teddy Award winners built their programs around people, not claims, and offer proof that a worker-centric approach is a smarter way to operate.
By: | October 30, 2018 • 3 min read

Across the workers’ compensation industry, the concept of a worker advocacy model has been around for a while, but has only seen notable adoption in recent years.

Even among those not adopting a formal advocacy approach, mindsets are shifting. Formerly claims-centric programs are becoming worker-centric and it’s a win all around: better outcomes; greater productivity; safer, healthier employees and a stronger bottom line.

Advertisement




That’s what you’ll see in this month’s issue of Risk & Insurance® when you read the profiles of the four recipients of the 2018 Theodore Roosevelt Workers’ Compensation and Disability Management Award, sponsored by PMA Companies. These four programs put workers front and center in everything they do.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top,” said Steve Legg, director of risk management for Starbucks.

Starbucks put claims reporting in the hands of its partners, an exemplary act of trust. The coffee company also put itself in workers’ shoes to identify and remove points of friction.

That led to a call center run by Starbucks’ TPA and a dedicated telephonic case management team so that partners can speak to a live person without the frustration of ‘phone tag’ and unanswered questions.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top.” — Steve Legg, director of risk management, Starbucks

Starbucks also implemented direct deposit for lost-time pay, eliminating stressful wait times for injured partners, and allowing them to focus on healing.

For Starbucks, as for all of the 2018 Teddy Award winners, the approach is netting measurable results. With higher partner satisfaction, it has seen a 50 percent decrease in litigation.

Teddy winner Main Line Health (MLH) adopted worker advocacy in a way that goes far beyond claims.

Employees who identify and report safety hazards can take credit for their actions by sending out a formal “Employee Safety Message” to nearly 11,000 mailboxes across the organization.

“The recognition is pretty cool,” said Steve Besack, system director, claims management and workers’ compensation for the health system.

MLH also takes a non-adversarial approach to workers with repeat injuries, seeing them as a resource for identifying areas of improvement.

“When you look at ‘repeat offenders’ in an unconventional way, they’re a great asset to the program, not a liability,” said Mike Miller, manager, workers’ compensation and employee safety for MLH.

Teddy winner Monmouth County, N.J. utilizes high-tech motion capture technology to reduce the chance of placing new hires in jobs that are likely to hurt them.

Monmouth County also adopted numerous wellness initiatives that help workers manage their weight and improve their wellbeing overall.

“You should see the looks on their faces when their cholesterol is down, they’ve lost weight and their blood sugar is better. We’ve had people lose 30 and 40 pounds,” said William McGuane, the county’s manager of benefits and workers’ compensation.

Advertisement




Do these sound like minor program elements? The math says otherwise: Claims severity has plunged from $5.5 million in 2009 to $1.3 million in 2017.

At the University of Pennsylvania, putting workers first means getting out from behind the desk and finding out what each one of them is tasked with, day in, day out — and looking for ways to make each of those tasks safer.

Regular observations across the sprawling campus have resulted in a phenomenal number of process and equipment changes that seem simple on their own, but in combination have created a substantially safer, healthier campus and improved employee morale.

UPenn’s workers’ comp costs, in the seven-digit figures in 2009, have been virtually cut in half.

Risk & Insurance® is proud to honor the work of these four organizations. We hope their stories inspire other organizations to be true partners with the employees they depend on. &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]