UK captive regime could attract US companies
The UK could become a credible captive domicile option for US companies, particularly for those already working closely with Lloyd’s insurers.
That was the view of Graham McCarthy, partner in specialty broking at McGill & Partners, speaking on a panel at the 2026 World Captive Forum titled ‘Where should your captive live today with so many options.’
McCarthy talked through with the audience the timeline of events that has led to the UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority promising to release a final consultation on its proposed rules this summer, with the final regulations planned to come into force in 2027.
Speaking on the panel, McCarthy, partner in specialty broking at McGill & Partners, said the UK’s evolving regulatory framework is designed to be more proportionate and aligned with the practical needs of captive owners.
“The PRA took that mandate and went ahead and conducted a subject expert group format or consultation process,” McCarthy said, adding that the regulator’s goal is to produce a framework that works for captives, including those headquartered outside the UK.
McCarthy said one of the first questions companies ask is whether a jurisdiction is workable in practice. “What does the regulatory framework look like? Is it proportionate? Is it going to be relatively streamlined and get along quite quickly?” he said.
He also pointed to the UK’s commercial convenience for companies already placing risk in the London market. McCarthy said captive owners should consider “where are your markets, where are your favourite underwriters, where do you do your deals?” adding that proximity to Lloyd’s of London can be a meaningful factor.
Accessibility matters as well, he added.
“Just think about how easy you can get there, and what it means for everybody’s schedule,” McCarthy said, noting that travel time and operational efficiency increasingly influence domicile decisions alongside regulatory considerations.
North America domiciles
Also on the panel was Vermont’s former lead regulator Sandy Bigglestone, now the chief governance, regulatory and compliance officer at SRS, who discussed the array of North American onshore and offshore domicile options available.
Reflecting on offshore, she commented on how some traditional domiciles may have become more focused on commercial insurance and building regulation around those entities.
As a result she said offshore domiciles continue to differ in regulatory approach.
“Bermuda now has a more rigorous policy framework that is aligned with Solvency II, which makes it attractive for global insurers, but does increase the cost of operating and regulatory requirements,” she said.
By contrast, Bigglestone said Cayman is often used for captives seeking a more flexible, captive-focused regulatory framework.
Turning to the US, she said onshore domiciles remain highly competitive, with jurisdictions increasingly looking to differentiate themselves.
“US jurisdictions really are highly competitive, but operating cost environments do vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,” she said.
“For most US companies, you’ll find there is a comparison happening by looking at the headquarters of the corporation.”
However, she added that size, location and regulatory capability can all play into the analysis.
She said the choice between onshore and offshore often becomes finely balanced once all factors are considered.
“There can be tax complexities offshore, increased travel costs and higher operating costs. All of these are part of the analysis and part of the feasibility,” she said.
But ultimately, Bigglestone said regulatory efficiency and responsiveness can outweigh other considerations.
“If the cost of self-procurement can be overcome by prioritising an efficient or responsive regulatory environment, then that becomes a strategy,” she said.
Did you get value from this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
