Investment Classification and Impairment in a General Insurer's Portfolio
Nila General Insurance has policyholders' funds of ₹500 crore. The portfolio includes ₹180 crore of central government securities, ₹40 crore of a perpetual AT1 bond issued by a scheduled commercial bank (8.5% coupon, first call 2030), ₹60 crore of AA-rated corporate bonds, ₹25 crore of equity in a group company, ₹15 crore in a fixed deposit with a cooperative bank rated A-, ₹30 crore in an unrated infrastructure SPV and ₹10 crore in a venture capital fund. The finance team proposes to classify all bonds as held to maturity and carry them at amortised cost, and to treat the AT1 as equity. The investment committee wants to know whether the proposal is acceptable, which exposures breach the IRDAI investment framework, and how the AT1 and unrated SPV should be measured and impaired.
1. Evaluate the finance team's proposal to classify all bonds as held to maturity and carry them at amortised cost. Identify the correct treatment for each instrument.
Read the worked answer
HTM is not a free choice for all bonds. It is available only for debt instruments that the insurer has the positive intent and ability to hold to maturity. The G-secs and the AA corporate bonds may qualify if the company documents intent and ability and does not need to sell them for liquidity.
The AT1 is perpetual and callable; it has equity-like loss absorption and cannot be assumed to mature at the call date. It should not be classified as equity; it is a debt-like instrument with embedded features. If held, use a conservative maturity assumption, for example the regulatory 10-year treatment or the call date with stress, and fair value it if AFS. The unrated SPV and the venture capital fund cannot be HTM; the venture capital fund is equity and must be fair valued. The cooperative bank fixed deposit is a debt instrument, but its rating affects approval status, not HTM eligibility.
The finance team's 'all bonds at amortised cost' proposal is therefore not acceptable. It would avoid fair-value volatility and conceal credit deterioration.
2. Assess the group equity, the A- cooperative deposit and the unrated SPV against approved-investment and exposure limits. What action should the investment committee take?
Read the worked answer
Aggregate exposure to the group: ₹25 crore equity plus any group debt and any proposed subsidiary investment. Single-issuer and group limits apply to the total, not to each instrument separately. The unrated infrastructure SPV and the A- cooperative fixed deposit are likely to be 'other than approved' investments; they must fit within the small 'other than approved' bucket and the single-issuer ceiling.
The ₹30 crore unrated SPV is the most obvious breach risk because it is unrated and is a single exposure. The committee should either reduce the exposure, obtain a rating, or reclassify and report it under the correct bucket. The group equity also needs related-party approval and disclosure. The A- deposit may be approved only if the rating meets the prescribed minimum; otherwise it is an 'other than approved' exposure. The committee should map every instrument to the approved/other-than-approved categories and test the aggregate, not rely on the issuer being Indian or regulated.
3. How should the AT1 and the unrated SPV be measured and impaired at year-end?
Read the worked answer
AT1: do not treat as equity and do not assume the 2030 call. Value it as a debt instrument with a long maturity, accrue coupon income, and test for impairment if the issuer's capital ratios deteriorate. If classified as AFS, mark to market; if held at amortised cost, disclose the call feature and the sensitivity to a delay in call. A prolonged delay in call can reduce the effective value, so the valuation should not rely on the earliest call date without stress.
The unrated SPV should be fair valued or provided against if recoverability is uncertain; amortised cost is acceptable only if it is a debt instrument intended to be held to maturity, which is unlikely for an unrated SPV. The venture capital fund is fair valued through the revenue account or reserves, depending on the policy. Impairment should be recognized when there is objective evidence of credit loss, not only when the issuer defaults.