Blog · Board and management reporting · Insurance brokers
How a commercial insurance broker analyses the business it lost at renewal from the placement ledger and the renewal outcome file: lost premium by line, by carrier, by account executive and by stated reason, the share lost to a named competing broker, the clients lost after a remarketing exercise against those lost without one, and the pattern that says whether the book is losing on price, service or coverage.
A broker's retention rate is 88 percent and the leadership team is content. The 12 percent lost is $6m of premium, two thirds of it in one line, half of it to one competitor, and most of it never remarketed. The placement ledger and the outcome file say all of that. This guide sets out lost-at-renewal analysis, the splits, and the pattern that names the problem.
Per renewal:
Outcome: renewed, lost to broker, lost to direct, non-renewed Remarketed before outcome: yes or no Reason, as recorded
Per line, carrier, account executive, competitor, reason:
Lost premium, lost count, lost share of premium due
Client and policy identifiers only.
premium due for renewal = renewed + lost to broker + lost to direct + non-renewed
Every renewal in one outcome. A renewal with no outcome past its date is listed as unresolved, which is often a lost placement nobody recorded.
Premium due: $48m. Lost: $5.9m.
| Split | Largest cell | Lost premium | Share of lost |
|---|---|---|---|
| By line | Property | $3.8m | 64% |
| By competitor | Broker category B | $2.9m | 49% |
| By account executive | AE-07 | $2.1m | 36% |
| By reason | Price | $3.6m | 61% |
| By remarketed | Not remarketed | $4.1m | 69% |
| Pattern | Present? |
|---|---|
| Losing on price, not remarketed | Yes: process |
| Losing remarketed placements to one competitor | Partly: $1.2m |
| Losing on service or coverage | No |
Two thirds of the lost premium left on price from placements that were never taken to market. The client got a quote and the broker had not. That is a renewal process finding with the account executive named, and it is a cheaper fix than a proposition problem.
| AE | Premium due | Lost | Lost share | Not remarketed share of lost | Top reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AE-07 | $9.1m | $2.1m | 23% | 88% | Price |
| AE-12 | $11.4m | $0.6m | 5% | 20% | Coverage |
Account executive AE-07 loses at four times the rate and almost never remarkets. The one-to-one has a list.
Retention rate only. Eighty-eight percent, and no split.
Outcomes not recorded. Half the losses are unresolved renewals.
Reason taken at face value. Every loss is price. Show the distribution per executive.
Remarketed flag missing. The process finding is invisible.
Mapped once, the placement ledger and the outcome file produce the outcomes, the five splits, the pattern and the per-executive view every quarter. Covirage builds this from the exports as they are. The insurance brokers page describes the setup, and the renewal watch guide covers the remarketing activity that this analysis shows the cost of skipping.
The account executive records it at the outcome: price, coverage, service, relationship, or client change. It is imperfect and it is the only source. The report shows the reason distribution per account executive, and an executive whose every loss is 'price' is a pattern in itself.
One where the broker approached alternative carriers before renewal and presented options. Lost placements that were never remarketed are the clearest process finding: the client went to market and the broker did not.
No. Client identifiers, line, carrier, premium, outcome, reason and the account executive. The competing broker, where known, is a category or a coded identifier.