INTM567000 - Thin capitalisation: FA2004 legislation - conduit finance
Many groups include companies, sometimes called treasury
companies, whose purpose is to borrow in order to lend the funds to
the wider group. These companies typically have very little equity
funding, and their borrowing will usually be supported by a
guarantee provided by another group company, often a holding
company. Thin cap aspects of “treasury” companies are
considered in more detail from
INTM570000 onwards.
We might expect to see a margin between interest received and
interest paid as a reward for the conduit company’s role in
procuring finance for the group, depending on the nature and extent
of its activities.
The guarantee often replaces equity for the purpose of giving
security to the conduit’s lenders, and so the conduit may be
thinly capitalised. However, secure on-lending can substantially
reduce the risk retained in the conduit and therefore
correspondingly reduce the need for equity, especially if the
conduit’s on-lending is secured against the assets of its
borrowers.
The overall profit attributed to a conduit company should be
proportionate to the activity it undertakes and the risks it
retains. This principle should be borne in mind in applying the
thin capitalisation and transfer pricing legislation, so as to
avoid either insufficient or excessive profit being realised in the
conduit.
As noted above, secure on-lending can reduce the
conduit’s retained risk, and this is especially true if the
conduit takes a charge on the on-loan. The charge allows the
conduit to take possession of the assets of the ultimate borrower
in order to enforce its rights under the loan contract. Although
the charged assets are those of the borrower, the charge does not
constitute a guarantee within the meaning of paragraph 1A(7)
because it is no more than a means of enforcing rights that already
exist under the loan contract.
In some cases, the conduit may pass on the right to enforce
the charge to its lender. This often happens in the case of
securitisations. This arrangement allows the lender (or the
lenders’ trustee in a securitisation) to take enforcement
action against the ultimate borrower if it defaults on its loan to
the conduit, in order to allow the conduit to meet its obligations
to the lender. Provided the arrangement does not grant new rights
of recovery to the lender (beyond the right to enforce the
conduit’s rights under its loan agreement), this also does
not constitute a guarantee.
