According to Financial Times News, UBS chair Colm Kelleher warned at the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s Global Financial Leaders’ Investment Summit that insurers are creating a “looming systemic risk” through ratings arbitrage on private credit assets, drawing direct parallels to pre-2008 subprime lending practices. Kelleher specifically criticized the growth of small rating agencies providing “private letter ratings” that are only visible to issuers and select investors, while noting that US life insurers have been major buyers of such debt. The warning follows last month’s Bank for International Settlements report indicating private credit ratings for US insurers may be inflated, with recent bankruptcies of Tricolor and First Brands highlighting industry opacity. Kelleher’s comments represent a significant escalation in concerns about the multitrillion-dollar insurance industry’s exposure to illiquid private credit loans. This emerging pattern suggests we may be witnessing the early stages of a systemic threat that could dwarf previous financial crises.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Uncomfortable Parallels to Subprime
What makes Kelleher’s warning particularly alarming is how precisely it mirrors the mechanisms that fueled the 2008 crisis. The “ratings arbitrage” he describes involves insurers shopping for favorable ratings from smaller, less-regulated agencies to meet compliance requirements while taking on excessive risk. This is structurally identical to how mortgage-backed securities received inflated ratings before the housing collapse. The private letter ratings system creates an information asymmetry where the true risk profile remains hidden from the broader market, exactly as occurred with complex CDOs. When the Bank for International Settlements warns of potential fire sales during stress periods, they’re describing the same liquidity evaporation that froze credit markets in 2008.
Why Insurance Poses Greater Systemic Danger
The insurance sector’s exposure to private credit represents a fundamentally different systemic risk than banking sector problems. Insurance companies hold long-term liabilities and are considered stable investors, making their potential failure more catastrophic for pension funds, retirement accounts, and long-term savers. Unlike banks, which have access to central bank liquidity facilities, insurers facing a run would have no lender of last resort. The SEC’s ongoing scrutiny of private credit markets hasn’t kept pace with the explosive growth in these assets, creating regulatory blind spots that could allow problems to accumulate unseen until it’s too late for orderly resolution.
The Coming Regulatory Crackdown
Kelleher’s comments signal an inevitable regulatory response that will reshape private credit markets within the next 18-24 months. We’re likely to see mandatory disclosure requirements for private letter ratings, capital charge increases for opaque private credit holdings, and potentially even limits on insurance company exposure to these assets. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners will face pressure to standardize valuation methodologies for illiquid private credit, moving away from the current mark-to-model approaches that can mask deteriorating credit quality. This regulatory tightening will likely compress returns in private credit and force a reallocation of insurance assets toward more transparent investments.
Broader Market Implications
The unwinding of this risk will have cascading effects across financial markets. As insurers face pressure to reduce private credit exposure, we’ll see reduced financing availability for middle-market companies that have come to rely on this funding source. This could trigger a credit crunch for precisely the business segment most vulnerable to economic slowdown. Meanwhile, the search for yield that drove insurers into private credit will now push them into other asset classes, potentially inflating new bubbles in commercial real estate or infrastructure debt. The transparency demanded by regulators will also create opportunities for fintech platforms specializing in private market data and analytics.
Switzerland’s Warning and Global Competition
Kelleher’s criticism of Switzerland’s banking regulation and competitive position reflects broader tectonic shifts in global finance. The 39% US tariffs on Swiss exports and wealth management competition from Hong Kong and Singapore signal that traditional financial centers can no longer rely on historical advantages. His comments about Switzerland’s “identity crisis” in banking regulation highlight how post-2008 regulatory frameworks are being tested by new market realities, including the rapid growth of private credit and digital assets. This suggests we’re entering a period where financial centers will compete not just on tax advantages but on regulatory clarity and market transparency.
