Canada Life Re in September 2026 said tailored capital solutions have been an important contributor to its growth. The company reported net earnings of CAD 353 million in the first quarter of 2026 and base earnings of CAD 310 million in the second quarter. These are company-reported accounting measures and are not directly comparable with every competitor’s figures, but they indicate that the business entered the year with substantial earnings momentum.
The strategic signal is broader than a quarterly result. Reinsurance discussions increasingly start with a client’s capital, earnings or risk objective rather than with a standard product. A solution may combine risk transfer, financing, asset considerations and regulatory constraints. That makes the design process more consultative and increases the importance of understanding the insurer’s jurisdiction, liability profile and desired accounting outcome.
Discipline matters when structures become bespoke
Bespoke structures can solve problems that a conventional treaty does not address, but complexity is not automatically value. A transaction must have a clear economic purpose, transparent risk allocation and credible performance under stress. Boards should be able to explain what risk has moved, what risk remains and how the structure behaves if assumptions about mortality, lapse, markets or regulation change.
Canada Life Re has identified potential opportunities in Asia and South America and has also referred to possibilities beyond life reinsurance. Each market will present different licensing, currency, data and supervisory conditions. Expansion therefore requires local expertise as well as central capital and risk discipline.
For buyers, the growing supply of capital solutions can be positive. More providers and more design options may improve competition. However, it also increases the need for a consistent evaluation framework. A lower near-term capital requirement should not obscure counterparty exposure, collateral mechanics, recapture provisions, model risk or the operational burden of maintaining the arrangement.
Questions for insurers and benefit risk owners
A useful governance process begins by stating the problem in measurable terms: capital volatility, earnings sensitivity, reserve strain, duration mismatch or concentration. The buyer can then compare a reinsurance solution with alternatives such as changes to product design, investment policy, hedging or retained capital. The comparison should include economic cost, regulatory treatment, liquidity, operational requirements and exit options.
For employee benefit captives and multinational risk programmes, the same discipline applies even if the exposures differ. Before considering a structured solution, sponsors should identify the risk they want to retain, the volatility they can tolerate and the data available to price the transfer. Cross-border tax, fronting and regulatory considerations must be assessed locally.
This editor’s recommendation is to use a one-page transaction logic before detailed modelling begins. It should record the objective, risks transferred and retained, key assumptions, stress scenarios, dependencies and decision criteria. This creates a common language for finance, risk, actuarial and business teams. Innovation is most useful when it makes the client’s problem more manageable and its residual risk more visible—not when complexity becomes an end in itself.
The Board of Directors of the captive needs to be involved from the beginning, bearing in mind that complex reinsurance structures need to be explained to non-specialist members in a simple but not simplistic way. Here too, independent board members have an important role to play.
Make comparability part of the design
When several providers propose different structures, the buyer should translate them into a common set of economic scenarios. Present value alone may hide differences in timing, collateral, optionality and tail exposure. A common scenario pack can show capital relief, cash flows, earnings sensitivity and counterparty exposure under base and adverse conditions.
Independent challenge is especially useful when a transaction depends on proprietary models. The review should test whether favourable outcomes arise from genuine risk transfer or from assumptions that could reverse. Decision papers should identify the indicators that would trigger renegotiation, additional collateral or exit. This turns ongoing monitoring into part of the original design rather than an administrative task added after execution.
The next review should test the recommendation against fresh operating evidence, identify any unintended consequences and record who owns the resulting action. That discipline keeps the proposal proportionate and allows governance to evolve as market practice, technology and regulation change.
Share this:
- More [2]
