Simon Glairy is a pivotal figure in the Insurtech landscape, renowned for his surgical approach to risk and his deep understanding of how technology reshapes traditional insurance frameworks. With years of experience navigating the complexities of the European market, he has become a leading voice for sustainable growth over mere expansion. In this discussion, we explore the current state of the European Managing General Agent (MGA) sector, which has recently reached a historic valuation. We touch upon the dangers of prioritizing premium volume over technical discipline, the shifting dynamics of carrier relationships in a softening market, and how emerging technologies like AI are refocusing the role of the underwriter toward specialized niche risks like cyber and rising global insolvencies.
The European MGA sector has seen gross written premiums climb past $23 billion, yet scale is increasingly described as an overrated metric for long-term success. How do you view the tension between rapid growth and the necessity of maintaining underwriting profitability?
While the 15% growth we saw in 2025 is certainly an impressive milestone, chasing scale for its own sake is a dangerous game that often masks underlying weaknesses. When you see gross written premiums surpassing $23 billion, it is easy to get swept up in the momentum of the market, but premium volume alone is a vanity metric if it isn’t backed by technical excellence. In my experience, the most successful firms are the ones that realize that underwriting profitability is the only true anchor during a storm. If an MGA focuses solely on expanding its footprint, it risks diluting its core expertise and alienating the very carriers that provide its lifeblood. It is a delicate balancing act, but profitability must always be the priority because scale without margin is simply a faster way to encounter financial distress.
With the current renewal environment showing a widening gap between technical pricing and what the market is willing to pay, how vital is the discipline to walk away from potentially lucrative contracts?
Maintaining the discipline to walk away is perhaps the most difficult but essential skill a firm can possess in today’s softening market. Carriers are becoming incredibly sensitive to the gap between what a risk technically requires and what the competitive market is actually paying. If a firm chases market share at the expense of its loss ratio, it risks a total loss of carrier confidence, which is far more expensive than any missed contract. We have already seen some insurers begin to withdraw capacity from MGAs that underperform, which serves as a cold reminder that capacity is a privilege, not a right. Being disciplined enough to say “no” is not just about protecting a single portfolio; it is about securing the long-term survival of the organization by proving to partners that you are a responsible steward of their capital.
You’ve noted that exposure management is becoming just as critical as pricing in a softening market; what are the material consequences when a premium drops significantly while the coverage limit remains unchanged?
The economics of a risk change fundamentally when you see a premium drop from €100,000 down to €50,000 while the policy still carries the same €10 million limit. This is a scenario where the margin for error effectively evaporates, leaving the underwriter with much more to lose and much less to show for it. In these cases, exposure must adjust alongside pricing, or the risk profile becomes unsustainable for the carrier involved. It requires a very granular level of analysis to ensure that you aren’t essentially giving away millions of euros in potential liability for half the price you received just a year ago. Without adjusting the underlying exposure, you are essentially gambling with the carrier’s balance sheet, which is a sure way to destroy trust.
Transparency is often touted as a buzzword, but how does providing carriers with direct access to portfolio data and disclosing earnings on every risk fundamentally change the partnership dynamic?
True transparency is the bedrock of trust, especially when market conditions become more volatile and difficult to navigate. By giving capacity providers direct, real-time access to portfolio performance data and being open about earnings on every single risk, an MGA removes the “black box” element that often makes carriers nervous. This level of honesty creates a partnership rather than a traditional vendor-client relationship, allowing both parties to see the technical pricing requirements clearly. When a carrier can see exactly how a risk is being quantified and where the margins are, they are much more likely to stand by the MGA during a downturn. It’s about proving that you have nothing to hide and that your interests are perfectly aligned with the long-term health of their capital.
Operating with a lean infrastructure—by avoiding long-term leases and outsourcing core functions—seems to be a strategic pivot. How does this flexibility help an MGA survive where traditional insurers might struggle?
The traditional insurance model is often weighed down by massive fixed costs, from sprawling office leases to enormous internal departments for every possible function. By opting for a more flexible footprint and outsourcing non-core functions like HR and compliance, an MGA can keep its overhead significantly lower than a legacy insurer. This agility allows the firm to pivot quickly when a specific niche becomes unprofitable or when new opportunities arise in underserved areas. Instead of managing a heavy administrative burden, the focus remains entirely on the quality of the underwriting and the strength of the broker relationships. This lean approach ensures that more resources can be funneled into the areas that actually generate value, such as specialist expertise and advanced risk assessment technology.
As you invest heavily in AI and automation for risk analysis, how does this shift in workload actually change the daily lives of underwriters and their relationships with brokers?
The goal of investing in AI and automation is not to replace the human element, but to strip away the mountain of administrative drudgery that currently consumes so much of an underwriter’s day. When risk analysis and pricing components are automated, underwriters are suddenly free to spend their time where it matters most: in deep conversation with brokers and clients. This shift allows them to apply their professional judgment to complex, high-value cases rather than getting bogged down in routine data entry. There is a palpable sense of relief when a team can stop being “process monkeys” and start being true strategic partners who solve difficult problems. Ultimately, technology should be the engine that powers better human decisions, making the entire underwriting process both faster and more insightful.
Looking at specific market pressures, such as the 5% rise in global insolvencies predicted for 2026, where should specialists be focusing their attention to mitigate these emerging liability exposures?
The fact that we are looking at a potential fifth consecutive year of rising business insolvencies should be a major red flag for anyone working in financial lines. This trend suggests that the impact of economic headwinds has yet to be fully reflected in current pricing, which means specialists need to be incredibly cautious and forward-thinking. In addition to the insolvency threat, we are seeing increasingly complex cyber risks, particularly around supply-chain disruptions and emerging liability exposures that are notoriously difficult to quantify. These are not the types of risks that can be managed with a “set it and forget it” mentality; they require constant monitoring and a willingness to adjust terms as new data emerges. Specialists must dig deeper into the interconnected nature of these risks to ensure they aren’t blindsided by a cascade of claims.
As major insurance carriers continue to centralize their European operations and reduce local infrastructure, how will the role of the MGA evolve as a primary “underwriting arm” across Europe?
We are witnessing a significant shift where carriers are consolidating their businesses into single regulated entities, which naturally leads to a reduction in their local underwriting presence. This creates a massive opportunity for MGAs to step in as the specialized, local “underwriting arm” for these large companies, providing the market access and expertise that the carriers no longer want to maintain internally. The future of the MGA model is to be the localized boots on the ground that can navigate specific regional nuances while utilizing the massive capacity of a centralized insurer. It is a highly efficient way for insurers to maintain a presence in every country without the massive overhead of building their own local infrastructure. This evolution positions the MGA as an indispensable partner in the modern, centralized insurance ecosystem.
What is your forecast for the European MGA market?
I expect that we will see a “flight to quality” where premium volume becomes a secondary concern compared to the ability to maintain underwriting profitability. While the sector has the potential to keep growing at a healthy clip, the MGAs that survive and thrive will be those that embrace technical discipline and invest heavily in transparency with their capacity providers. We will likely see more consolidation as smaller players struggle with the costs of technology and the demands of carriers for deeper data insights. My forecast is that the most successful firms in 2026 and beyond will be the ones that act more like specialized technology platforms—lean, data-driven, and capable of pivoting instantly to address emerging risks like the ongoing surge in corporate insolvencies. Profitability, not just scale, will be the ultimate arbiter of who remains a leader in this increasingly competitive landscape.
