For corporates
For the board that owns the risk.
Insurance is usually treated as a purchasing function and a line in the budget. For a large corporate it is a capital decision: how much volatility to keep, how much to buy, how to finance the rest, and whether the price being paid is rational against the risk actually carried. Our work is to solve the risk problem itself, rather than to place a product against it.
Who we work with
The company
Large corporates with significant strategic risk issues — complex, concentrated or hard-to-place — typically multi-line, multi-territory, or carrying a single exposure that matters more than the rest of the portfolio combined.
The sponsor
A CFO, CRO, treasury lead or board member who owns the decision and wants to be able to defend it. Advice commissioned by a procurement function rarely changes anything.
The data
Typically five or more years of loss history, or a usable external index where the loss history is thin. Without data the analysis becomes an opinion, and opinions are what you already have.
Four questions we are usually hired to answer
Is our insurance priced rationally?
What is the expected loss on this risk, and how does the current premium compare with it? If the loading is persistent, that is a finding — not a negotiating position.
How much should we retain?
Where is the line between volatility the balance sheet can absorb and volatility it should not? Retention is a capital decision with a number attached.
Should we have a captive?
For risks priced persistently above what the loss experience justifies, a captive can turn a premium cost into a controlled balance-sheet exposure. It is a serious decision and deserves a serious model.
Could a parametric structure do better?
A faster, more certain payout against an index rather than an indemnity — provided the basis risk is quantified and accepted by the board with eyes open.
What an engagement looks like
Frame
A short, paid diagnostic: what is the decision, what does the programme look like today, and what data exists. We form the initial view of the risk here.
Analyse
The full analysis: expected loss by layer, drivers, volatility, basis risk, and the four routes priced against each other. Delivered as a recommendation with the working behind it.
Structure
Design and placement of the chosen route, or the advice to retain. Terms are benchmarked against the analysis, not against last year.
Review
After the year turns, the realised outcome is compared with the analysis. That comparison is what makes the next renewal an argument with evidence behind it.
What you end up with
Documented, with the reasoning and the analysis attached — something a board or an audit committee can actually approve.
An independent view of expected loss, so that next year’s price can be measured rather than merely negotiated.
The evidence to change a structure, move a market, or justify a retention — instead of asking a broker to try again.
If a renewal is approaching and the only benchmark is last year’s premium, start there.
A short conversation is usually enough for both sides to know whether there is a piece of work worth doing.
Start a conversation