Proposed Investments in Subsidiary, Real Estate and Tier 2 Debt: Limits and Solvency
Tara General Insurance has shareholders' funds of ₹120 crore and policyholders' funds of ₹380 crore. It proposes to invest ₹50 crore in a subsidiary that provides health claims processing, ₹35 crore in a commercial real estate project, ₹80 crore in an infrastructure debt fund and ₹20 crore in Tier 2 subordinated debt issued by another insurer. It already has ₹45 crore of equity and debt exposure to a single group entity. The CFO argues that all the proposals are 'approved investments' because the issuers are Indian and regulated. The board wants a compliance assessment against the IRDAI investment regulations, including approved versus other-than-approved categories, single-issuer and group exposure limits, related-party approval and the treatment of the subsidiary in the solvency calculation. The investment policy has not been updated for three years.
1. Assess each proposed investment against the approved/other-than-approved categories and the applicable limits. Is the CFO correct?
Read the worked answer
The CFO's test is not the regulatory test. Approved investments are defined categories, and 'Indian and regulated' does not make an instrument approved.
(i) ₹50 crore in a subsidiary: this is a related-party/group investment, not a routine approved security; it needs prior IRDAI approval where required, board approval and aggregation with existing group exposure. (ii) ₹35 crore commercial real estate: direct real estate is generally 'other than approved' and is subject to a cap and to the insurer's investment policy; it is also illiquid. (iii) ₹80 crore infrastructure debt fund: infrastructure debt can qualify as approved if the instrument meets the rating and sector conditions, but it still counts against single-issuer and sector limits. (iv) ₹20 crore Tier 2 subordinated debt of another insurer: it may be approved only within the prescribed limits and rating; cross-holding and related-party issues must be checked.
Each proposal must be tested against the policyholders' fund limits and the shareholders' fund rules, not treated as automatically approved.
2. How should the group exposure be measured and approved? What related-party issues arise?
Read the worked answer
Group exposure: existing ₹45 crore plus ₹50 crore subsidiary = ₹95 crore to the group. That must be compared with the group exposure ceiling, typically a percentage of owned funds or total investments as prescribed, and with the 'other than approved' bucket. The subsidiary investment also requires audit committee and board approval as a related-party transaction and must be disclosed.
The real estate and the unrated or illiquid exposures increase concentration and duration mismatch. The prudent-person principle requires diversification, liquidity and matching of assets to liabilities; a plan that puts a large share into a subsidiary and real estate may fail that test even if each item is individually permitted. The board should also consider whether the subsidiary's services are priced at arm's length, because the investment and the service contract are related-party arrangements.
3. What governance, documentation and solvency steps should the board require before approving the plan?
Read the worked answer
Before investing, update the investment policy, obtain board approval, document the intent and ability to hold, and obtain prior regulatory approval for the subsidiary where required. The three-year-old policy is not adequate evidence of current limits.
For solvency, the subsidiary investment is not a free asset: it may be deducted from available solvency margin or risk-weighted, and the insurer must test the solvency impact. The Tier 2 debt of another insurer may not count as regulatory capital for Tara. Report the exposures in the regulatory returns, obtain statutory auditor certification and disclose related-party transactions.
If any limit is breached, the remedy is to reduce the exposure within the prescribed timeframe and report the breach, not to reclassify the instrument. The board should also set a monitoring trigger for group exposure and review the plan against the company's liquidity and liability profile.