The industry has just come through the hardest market in 40 years. Premiums have included
ased fast, growing by almost 40% in the last five years. Carrier profits have been at record highs now fo
r three consecutive years ($398.3 billion in net income). And yet, some companies are so incompetently managed, they have effectively gone backward and have not made any money.
At the agency and insurance distribution level, ask yourself this question: How is a carrier that cannot grow in the most rate inflationary environment in t
wo generations going to help me grow? They clearly do not have some combination of executive abilities, surplus, products, price competitiveness, or talent.
From a carrier perspective, it’s a great time to start poaching key people and accounts, because these losing carriers cannot compete. Many are on a downward spiral.
Here are the facts (all based on net written premium using AM Best data; I have focused on the top 90 carriers by NWP because they write 90% of all premiums):
4% of the top 90 carriers had negative growth for two consecutive years ending in 2024. With the hardest market and fastest industry growth in two generations
ons, how they managed to shrink is beyond me.
13% had negative growth in 2024, and 16% went backward in 2023.
The greatest volatility is with carriers ranked 31-50 in market share. The carriers in these two deciles
grow and shrink faster and move in and out of the top 50 more often. In other words, the carriers ranked 31-50 are not the same year after year.
The average NWP of the carriers ranked lower than 200 is only $36 million. That means the largest agents and brokers, as judged by market share, are multiple
times larger than carriers, completely shifting the power dynamics. Some of these small carriers are available
See more beautiful photo albums Here >>>
ntrolled by brokers or even owned by brokers. Does anyone have reason to wonder who gets the best business?
Small Carriers
Small carriers cannot afford losses. Small carriers, captives, risk retention groups (RRGs), and self-insured groups (SIGs) had better be writing the cream. If they a
re writing the cream, then cumulatively, this is creating adverse selection for the carriers who cann
ot get their acts together, and considerable evidence exists that many carriers are being saddled with adverse selection.
Small carriers, if not controlled by insurers or brokers, may also be unable to afford the same level of technology, personnel, and reinsurance, and the
y must avoid being targeted with adverse selection. This is evident when comparing the results between mutual carriers and stock carriers. The stock carriers have fa
r outperformed the mutual carriers in premium growth, surplus growth, and especially profit margins. However, this is not exclusive to small mutuals as described below.
A plethora of small carriers also means a lack of regulatory control. In many areas, these small companies need more regulatory oversight, and DOIs are not adequately staffed to provide it. These small companies cannot afford to print
ternal controls unless they achieve far better loss ratios, and if they do, the traditional shrinking companies will be saddled with more and more adverse choices.
These factors are why, even in the hardest of markets, traditional admitted commercial lines did not grow when adjusted for rates. Actually, it shrank. Again, this shows that many admitted carriers are in a downward spiral.
