MGA program performance analytics that redraw every program’s loss ratio the day its bordereaux land
An early warning on each program before it needs re-pricing or exit.
See one case, screen by screen ↓It is how a program carrier tracks each MGA’s program on loss ratio, rate, mix and large losses against the binder and business plan. MGA Program Performance Analytics does it as each month’s bordereaux land, not in a quarterly pack, and shows each program’s distance to its re-price and off-ramp levels.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
A program carrier judges each MGA on a handful of numbers: loss ratio against the business plan, rate achieved against the rate guide, the mix of what is written, and the large losses. Then it acts: grow, re-price, cut the line or exit. But the risk, premium and claims bordereaux arrive from each MGA in its own layout, and analysts re-key them into templates before anyone can read them.
So the review runs quarterly, and the pack shows a loss ratio, not why it moved. Rate shortfall, mix drift and large losses are argued over in the meeting. A surcharge the MGA did not charge turns up at the on-site audit. By the time the pack says a program is off plan, it has been off plan for a quarter, and the business is already written on the wrong terms.
Estimated days for one program’s quarterly review, by hand and with the solution. Re-keying follows practitioner estimates of 3–5 days a cycle.
Six agents check each bordereau, re-rate, re-project and redraw the bridge; the actuary and head of program business sign.
Corbel Program Underwriters writes the Brickline Habitational Program, apartment property and general liability in five states, on Harlow Ridge Specialty paper. On June 17 at 08:12 its May bordereaux land. Here is that morning, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Nadia opens Brickline’s loss ratio bridge: a 58.0% plan, plus rate (+2.0), mix (+1.5) and large losses (+3.1), less attritional (−1.2), to a projected ultimate of 63.4%. The re-price level in clause 9.3 is 1.6 points away. A banner says Corbel’s May bordereaux landed at 08:12, 13 days before they are due: 4,982 risk rows, 1,204 premium rows, 318 claims rows.
“Six agents are ready to check, re-rate, re-project and redraw. Nothing changes on the bridge until you apply.”
The run plays out in the right-hand rail. Corbel’s three files are mapped to one standard and checked against binder BH-2026-01. 212 May renewals are re-rated on rate guide v4.2. Two new large losses are found, the ultimate is re-projected, and the bridge redraws while April stays on screen as a ghost.
The large-loss bar grows from +3.1 to +9.4 points and is tagged “+6.3 since Apr”. Projected ultimate is now 69.4%, above the 65.0% re-price level and 2.6 points under the 72.0% off-ramp. The strip below updates too: written $36.8M against a $35.0M plan, six large losses for $2.6M, 99.5% of rows passing checks.
“May bordereaux applied at 08:14. Large losses moved most: +6.3 points since April. The re-price trigger at 65.0% is crossed.”
Row counts tie to Corbel’s control totals, and the $7.41M written in May ties to account statement ST-CPU-2026-05. One risk in Lake Charles, Louisiana sits outside the binder territory and goes to Rhea Banerjee as a referral. 23 risks with $41.3M of TIV have no year built. They are queried back to Corbel and held out of the mix step.
“Held out of the mix step until Corbel replies. Nothing was filled in.”
Six claims over $250,000 come to $2,613,000, or 18.4 points of the $14.2M earned against a 9.0-point load. The biggest is new in May: Westmoor Commons in Houston, a dryer-vent fire in building C with 14 of 168 units out, $905,000 incurred, from claims bordereau row 112. Cypress Landing in Jacksonville, a negligent-security suit, adds $365,000.
“Large losses are taken at reported incurred, uncapped. Excess of $1M per risk is ceded under the per-risk treaty and is not on this bridge.”
On 1,146 renewals, rate achieved is +5.4% against +9.0% planned, and Texas is weakest at +4.0% against +10.0%. Rate guide v4.2 §3.1 adds 15% for frame buildings built before 1980. Corbel did not charge it on 61 of 214 pre-1980 renewals. Westmoor Commons is one of them: charged $96,400 where the rate guide gives $110,900.
“About a third of the shortfall is one rule not applied.”
Buildings from before 1980 are 26.4% of insured value against 18.0% in the business plan, mostly new accounts in Houston and Atlanta. At the plan’s loss relativity for older frame (1.18), that is 1.6 points. The 23 risks with no year built stay out of the step. If all of them were pre-1980, it would be +1.8.
The watchlist shows every program against its own re-price and off-ramp levels, month by month. Brickline’s re-price review is open under clause 9.3, with rate changeable on 60 days’ notice and a decision due July 17. Small Fleet Auto is above its 72.0% off-ramp level for a second month. Landscapers & Tree Care is on watch at 62.5% against 64.0%.
The agents open the review. They never send a notice; that needs Nadia’s signature.
The May commentary was drafted at 08:16 in the house layout: headline, large losses, rate, mix, attritional and what we ask of Corbel. Every sentence carries its source: a bordereau row, a binder clause, the rate guide or the business plan. Owen signs the 69.4% loss pick: chain ladder on incurred, with Bornhuetter-Ferguson at 58.0% a priori for months under 12. Nadia then approves the commentary, and it goes to Graham Tolliver at Corbel.
“We ask Corbel to (1) charge the pre-1980 surcharge on every renewal from July 1, (2) send the year built for the 23 risks by June 26, and (3) meet us on June 24 to review rates under clause 9.3.”
The capacity review sets out four options with UY2027 projections: continue as written (68.1%), re-price (60.8%), reduce the line to 60% (68.1% on $52.9M), or off-ramp, which is closed because clause 14.2 needs two months above 72.0%. Nadia chooses re-price: the pre-1980 surcharge on every renewal, +6% on Houston and Atlanta frame, pre-1980 capped at 22% of insured value. A clause 9.3 notice is drafted for Graham Tolliver, with new rates on renewals from August 16, 2026.
“The agents project; they do not choose. The decision, the reason and the notice are yours.”
The same May bordereau, seen by the five people who carry it: what the quarter used to look like for them, and what it looks like now.
Six agents check each bordereau, re-rate, re-project and redraw the bridge; the actuary and head of program business sign.
Reads each MGA’s risk, premium and claims bordereaux, maps them to one standard and checks every row against the binder: row counts against control totals, premium against the account statement, limits, territory, classes and binder dates. It scores data quality.
Re-rates every renewal on the program’s rate guide, measures rate achieved against plan by state and segment, and lists each surcharge or credit not applied, with the premium short.
Compares what the MGA writes with the business plan by state, year built, insured-value band and class, and applies the plan’s loss relativities to express the shift in loss-ratio points.
Develops incurred to ultimate with the program’s factors, using Bornhuetter-Ferguson on the plan loss ratio for months under 12, separates claims above the large-loss threshold, and explains every change from last month with the claims behind it.
Walks each program from plan to projected through rate, mix, large losses and attritional, flags any step that moved 0.3 points or more since last month, and tests the re-price and off-ramp levels in the binder.
Drafts the monthly program commentary, notices and the capacity review pack in the house layout, citing every number to its file and row or clause.
Decides; program actuary signs the loss pick. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any program, step or bordereau row, or say what to change. Every answer cites its source and opens the screen behind it.
Why did Brickline jump six points in May?
Two large losses in the May bordereau. The Westmoor Commons fire in Houston is reserved at $905,000, with 14 units out after a dryer-vent fire in a 1978 frame building, and the Cypress Landing negligent-security suit is at $365,000. Large losses are now 18.4 points against a 9.0 load, so that step went from +3.1 to +9.4. Rate, mix and attritional together moved −0.3.
Where was the pre-1980 surcharge missed?
On 61 of 214 pre-1980 renewals since January: $486,000 of premium. Rate guide v4.2 §3.1 requires 15% on frame buildings built before 1980. Most are in Houston and the Atlanta suburbs; the largest is Westmoor Commons, which also had May’s big fire. It explains 1.1 of the 3.6-point rate shortfall.
Which programs are closest to an off-ramp?
Small Fleet Auto is past it: 73.6% in April and 74.8% in May, both above its 72.0% level, so clause 14.2 is open. Brickline Habitational is at 69.4%, past re-price (65.0) but 2.6 points from off-ramp. Landscapers & Tree Care is 1.5 points from its re-price level.
Add a trigger when pre-1980 frame passes 25% of insured value
Done. New trigger: “Pre-1980 frame above 25% of insured value → re-price review.” It applies to habitational programs; Brickline is at 26.4% today, so it shows as crossed. You can change it in Settings.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Plans, triggers, clocks and who signs are set per program, from each binder and business plan.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Plan, large-loss load, re-price and off-ramp levels | Brickline: 58.0 · 9.0 · 65.0 · 72.0 | Per program, from its binder |
| Large-loss threshold | $250,000 ground up, per claim | Any amount |
| Compare the bridge with | Previous month | Previous month · Same month last year · Last quarterly pack |
| Highlight a step that moves by | 0.3 points or more | Any number of points |
| Off-ramp rule | Above the level in 2 consecutive months | Any number of months |
| Custom triggers | Rate more than 3 points under plan · data quality under 97% · bordereaux more than 5 days late | On or off; add your own in plain words |
| Who signs | Loss pick: program actuary · re-price, line, off-ramp and notices: head of program business | Any named person |
| Commentary goes to | The MGA’s CEO, the program underwriter, the capacity review file | Any named recipient |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate (re-keying days from practitioner estimates) · “typical” = published figures (Target Markets 2025 State of Program Business Study, via Insurance Business: 84% of carriers exited at least one program in two years; NAIC MGA Model Act 225 and state MGA Acts such as C.R.S. §10-2-1005: on-site review of the MGA at least semiannually). Carriers, MGAs, programs, buildings and people named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
It is how a program carrier tracks each MGA’s program on loss ratio, rate, mix and large losses against the binder and business plan. MGA Program Performance Analytics does it as each month’s bordereaux land, not in a quarterly pack, and shows each program’s distance to its re-price and off-ramp levels.
The bridge walks a program from its plan loss ratio to the projected ultimate in four steps: rate achieved against plan rate, written mix against plan mix, large losses against the load, and attritional frequency and severity. Last month stays on screen as a ghost, and any step that moved 0.3 points or more is highlighted. Every bar drills to the bordereau rows behind it.
No. The agents read bordereaux and binders. They never edit the MGA’s data, change a rate or premium, or set a case reserve. A missing field goes back to the MGA as a query, and the original files are kept as sent.
The bordereaux screen shows when each MGA’s files landed against the binder’s due date and the share of rows passing every check. Late bordereaux and low data quality can trigger a reminder to the MGA. Rows with missing data, such as year built, are held out of the step they affect and counted, never guessed.
Yes. The loss projector proposes a loss pick and the program actuary signs it. The head of program business decides re-price, line size and off-ramp, and signs any notice to an MGA. The agents open a review when a trigger is crossed; they never send a notice.
Yes, for its own program only. The MGA’s CEO and CUO see their program’s bridge and receive the signed monthly commentary, so a rate or mix problem can be fixed before renewal.
Yes. Plan loss ratio, large-loss load, re-price and off-ramp levels are set per program from each binder. The large-loss threshold, the comparison month, the off-ramp months-running rule, custom triggers and who signs are settings, and you can add a trigger by asking for it in plain words.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents: your binders, business plans, rate guides and a sample of your MGAs’ bordereaux. It goes live once every quality gate has passed.
Every bordereau in your layout on arrival, each rejected row with its reason.
1-min demoBinding Authority ComplianceBreaches flagged the day the risk is bound, not months later at audit.
1-min demoBinder Guidelines SearchFewer needless referrals, and every answer shows the clause that decides it.
1-min demoWe’ll run MGA Program Performance Analytics on your own binders and a recent month of your MGAs’ bordereaux.