Slightly tricky one this! My understanding of how it works is a bit hazy and largely based on Solvency II. Here’s what I think happens.
The issuer of the subordinated debt would record the debt under own funds (i.e. the capital part of the balance sheet) rather than liabilities because the funds are available to pay claims, which is what the regulator is most concerned about. The debt would be recorded at market value.
The purchaser of the subordinated debt would include it as an asset, also at market value, on the basis that this is the value that could be realised by the purchaser in order to pay claims if necessary. However when calculating the purchaser’s regulatory capital requirement, due allowance would have to be made for the likelihood of the issuer defaulting on the debt (subject to the principle of proportionality) and possibly also for the correlation between the underlying cause of such a default and the risks that the purchaser is directly exposed to (e.g. a large natural catastrophe might threaten the solvency of both the issuer and the purchaser.) Indeed, this may prove so difficult that a purchaser with ample available capital might choose to write off the subordinated debt for S2 purposes.
So I don’t think it’s actually as much of a con as it might seem. Of course, if the purchaser is a non-EU insurer then it may be that some “regulatory arbitrage” is possible.
Hope that helps and glad you asked - it got me thinking!
Last edited by a moderator: Apr 3, 2012