An independent read on whether a captive makes sense for you
Most feasibility studies are written by firms that expect to manage the captive they recommend. On a decision that runs for a decade, that leaves you with an answer you cannot rely on.
The problem, plainly
You want to know whether to do this. Nearly everyone qualified to tell you is paid more if the answer is yes. Captive managers run the study and then manage what it recommends. Brokers place the business. Some will run the study for nothing, which tells you where their revenue comes from.
The industry does not really dispute this. Its own reference publications warn that providers tend towards a recommendation to proceed, particularly where they expect to manage the result.
What I do instead
- I look at your loss history, your retained layers, and what you are actually paying once claims and administration are counted.
- I tell you whether a captive earns its place, and which structure fits if it does.
- I tell you what it will cost to run, including the years it will look like a bad idea.
- And I tell you when it does not make sense, which happens often.
The assessment as it arrives. Roughly twenty pages, written to be read by a board.
What you receive
A written assessment you can put in front of a board. The recommendation, the reasoning, the numbers behind it, and the questions a full actuarial and domicile study would need to answer if you proceed.
What it costs
A fixed fee, agreed on the first call.
When the answer is no
A good share of the situations I look at do not justify a captive. Premium volume too thin, losses too volatile, or no appetite for a commitment measured in years rather than renewals.
You still get something usable: what your retained risk costs you today, what would have to change, and what to do in the meantime. A no is a finished piece of work, not a failed sale.