Don’t Put All Your Eggs in One Basket
Its easy to see how it happens. Your insurance broker comes to you with a great idea about how to more efficiently finance and manage your insurance risk. They bring in the brokerage’s experts to conduct feasibility studies and work with you to license a captive insurance company. The have their reinsurance brokers place the reinsurance and have their captive manager take care of the regulatory and management operations. Because of their fully integrated capabilities your broker has delivered a captive insurance solution entirely from within the broker’s organization. That’s good, right?
One of the biggest decisions that face the owners of captive insurance companies is whether or not to consolidate all the insurance and captive management services in one basket. There are some obvious advantages to doing this. It is simpler, and may be less expensive initially to let your broker put your entire program together. They may even be willing to do the feasibility work within the existing fee structures, only charging for the ongoing management and collecting the commissions on the reinsurance placements. But what are the disadvantages?
- When a captive insurance program is created entirely from within a single organization with no outside input then you get that organization’s cookie-cutter program. They only do things a certain way and that is what you will get, whether its the best structure for you or not.
- With no outside involvement there is no “gate keeper” making sure that the broker’s organization is doing everything it can to advantage the captive owner even if it means that it might disadvantage the broker’s organization.
- Most broker organizations are limited in the number of domiciles that they can effectively do business in which means that they cannot be completely domicile neutral. You may end up being steered to a domicile that suits their operational characteristics but may not be the best choice for your company.
- Even in the best of brokerage organizations things slip through the cracks. The broker is less likely to spend the same amount of time reviewing work done by an internal department then they might work from outside. The checks and balances of having a diverse makeup in the captive’s support mechanisms are eliminated.
- Pricing for captive services can often be overstated when billed all together as opposed to being presented on a line by line basis.
- Brokerage organizations are typically polarizing in the industry. Some companies get along well with other companies and frankly some don’t get along at all. An independent manager can often involve service partners that a brokerage could not because of conflicts in corporate cultures.
In my consulting practice I have reviewed programs that have had the captive services completely integrated within one brokerage organization. My reviews always turn up issues. In one case a mismatch between the terms and conditions of the policies being written by the captive and the reinsurance treaty could have caused an enormous financial problem for the captive. In an another case the overall charges for the program were much higher than average because they were being billed in a lump rather than being detailed line by line.
If you are considering a new captive program be sure to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of an integrated approach. Try to involve at least one outside advisory component to the program in order to mitigate the potential problems. If you already have an integrated program, hire a consultant to do a review of your captive and make suggestions on structure and operations as well as benchmark your costs. Its never a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket.
Tags: actuarial, actuary, agency, agent, agents, alternative risk, alternative risk financing, alternative risk transfer, broker, brokerage, brokers, captive, captive insurance, captive management, captives, Cedar Consulting, insurance, insurance agency, risk management, risk transfer