Article

If there was one idea that ran through every room at this year's Global Captive Congress in London, it was this: the captive is no longer the afterthought in a risk program. It is becoming the starting point. Session after session, whether the conversation was about corporate strategy, reinsurance, Lloyd's, or the new UK regime, speakers kept circling back to the same shift in thinking.

There was too much worth sharing to fit in one piece, so I have split my recap into two parts. This first part covers the strategy sessions: how mature captive owners think about risk appetite, what a captive-first approach really means, how reinsurance shapes what a captive can keep, and what brokers and carriers are seeing in the market. Part 2 turns to domiciles and structures, from Lloyd's captive syndicates to the new UK regime and the rise of home-based captives.

Starting with Risk Appetite

The day opened with a risk leader from a global consumer brand sitting alongside their broker, and the conversation set the tone for everything that followed. Rather than talking about the captive as a vehicle, they talked about it as an expression of risk appetite. The real work, they suggested, is deciding what the organization is genuinely comfortable retaining. Once that is clear, the captive becomes the natural place to put it.

What stood out to me was how comfortably they spoke about using the captive across multiple primary lines and taking a "Captive First" approach. The captive leads their risk financing strategy, the rest can be transferred out to the standard market. For a mature program, a single-line captive leaves value on the table. Bringing several lines under one roof creates flexibility and makes better use of the capital already sitting in the structure.

It is worth pausing on why that matters. Many captives are formed to solve one problem, often a single line where pricing or capacity became painful. That is a perfectly good reason to start. But once the captive exists, with its capital, governance, and service providers already in place, the cost of adding another line is far lower than the cost of forming the captive was in the first place. Each additional line spreads that fixed infrastructure across more premium, and lines that do not move together give the captive a steadier overall result than any one of them would on its own.

The harder part is the conversation that has to come first. Risk appetite is not just a number on a page. It reflects how much earnings volatility leadership will accept, how much capital the organization is willing to commit, and how confident it is in its own loss data and risk controls. Organizations that do this work up front tend to make better decisions about which lines belong in the captive and which do not, and they are better prepared to explain those decisions to their boards.

Flipping the Script: Captive-First

This session tied in exceptionally well to the key note presentation. The premise was simple but pointed: too many organizations buy their commercial program first and then look around for whatever is left to put in the captive. A captive-first strategy reverses that order. You begin by asking what the captive can write and what your organization is comfortable retaining, and only then decide what needs to be transferred out to the commercial or reinsurance market.

The speakers also made a strong case for diversification. A captive that adds lines and risk types over time builds a more balanced portfolio, and that balance is what lets it grow with confidence. Just as important was the point about alignment. When an insured holds meaningful risk in its own captive, the carrier and the insured are finally pulling in the same direction. Both have a reason to control losses and run the program well.

In practice, a captive-first review tends to follow a simple sequence:

1. Take inventory. Gather the full picture of current lines, premiums, limits, and several years of loss history, so the discussion starts from data rather than assumptions.
2. Find the predictable layers. Identify where losses are frequent enough and stable enough to fund with confidence. These working layers are usually the most natural fit for the captive.
3. Mark the edge of tolerance. Decide where volatility exceeds what the organization is willing to carry. That point becomes the boundary between what the captive keeps and what gets transferred.
4. Transfer the rest. Place the excess and catastrophic layers with commercial carriers or reinsurers, ideally structured around the captive rather than the other way around.
5. Revisit every year. As the captive builds surplus and data, its capacity to retain grows, and the boundary can move.

None of this is new to experienced captive owners. What felt different in London was how firmly speakers framed it as the default approach rather than an advanced one.

The Reinsurance Question

The second session turned to the market behind the captive: reinsurance. Every captive owner eventually runs into the same reality, which is that what you can retain depends heavily on what you can cede. The discussion centered on the supply and demand for reinsurance capacity available to captives, and how reinsurer appetite ultimately shapes structure, pricing, and how much risk an owner can sensibly keep.

This is where the captive-first idea meets the real world. A captive can only retain as much as its capital and its reinsurance protection allow. When reinsurance capacity is plentiful and reasonably priced, an owner can set retentions where they make the most sense and buy protection above them. When capacity tightens, the math changes. Protection costs more, attachment points may move, and the captive may need to hold more risk, or more capital, than it originally planned.

Tight markets cut both ways. Higher reinsurance costs make the traditional market more expensive too, which often strengthens the case for retaining more in the captive. But retaining more demands discipline: sound actuarial support, honest reserving, and a clear view of what a bad year would do to the captive's balance sheet. The owners in the best position are the ones whose reinsurance relationships are built on good data and a track record, because reinsurers commit capacity most readily to programs they understand.

The View from Brokers and Carriers

The broker and commercial market session picked up the alignment theme from earlier in the day. The panel described captives at their best as a genuine partnership, where the carrier and the insured both have skin in the game and both benefit when the program performs.

One line from this session deserves repeating: captives are not a tax play. Panelists noted that the market's perception has been shifting in a positive direction, with captives increasingly seen for what they should be, which is a serious risk management tool. The conversation also touched on what makes a strong captive candidate, a question every one of us in this business fields regularly.

From my own work, the answer usually comes down to a handful of traits:

• A credible loss history. Several years of reliable data that shows losses are understood and reasonably predictable.
• A real risk management culture. Safety programs, claims oversight, and leadership attention that actually influence outcomes.
• Meaningful premium spend. Enough premium in the lines under consideration for the captive's economics to work.
• Financial strength. The ability to capitalize the captive and absorb the occasional bad year without strain.
• A long-term view. A commitment to the captive as a multi-year strategy rather than a one-year pricing fix.

When those pieces are in place, the alignment the panel described follows naturally. The insured has every reason to keep losses down, the carrier can support the program with confidence, and the captive becomes something both sides want to see succeed.

Closing Thoughts

The strategy sessions in London painted a consistent picture. The organizations getting the most out of their captives are the ones that start with their own risk appetite, put the captive at the center of the program, and build the rest of their insurance purchasing around it. Reinsurance and carrier partnerships still matter enormously, but they are increasingly structured to support the captive rather than replace it.

In Part 2, I will look at the other big theme of the congress: where captives are domiciled and why. That includes Lloyd's captive syndicates, the UK's new captive regime, what is driving growth in the US, and the rise of home-based captives around the world.