Partner count can hide capacity concentration

Neptune’s 2025 filing describes a panel of 40 capacity providers and reports that its largest provider accounted for 15.9% of dollar-one premium risk at year-end. Kestrel’s filing presents a different concentration lens: two Program Services clients represented 72.1% and 21.2% of 2025 fee revenue.

The companies have different models and the figures are not comparable benchmarks. Together, however, they show why a simple provider count says little about enterprise resilience.

Build the map below the headline

A useful concentration map separates paper, reinsurance, collateral, fee revenue and operational dependency. It also captures common renewal dates and contractual termination provisions that can cause apparently separate exposures to move together.

A board-level capacity dashboard

Boards should see capacity dependency in operating terms.

• Premium and fee revenue by relationship.
• Program-level replacement difficulty and lead time.
• Renewal calendar and correlated decision points.
• Collateral, data and service obligations by counterparty.
• Management actions at defined concentration thresholds.

Correlated relationships are the hidden exposure

Providers that appear separate may share reinsurers, collateral sources, ratings sensitivities, renewal dates or views of the same catastrophe and casualty trends. A count of legal counterparties can therefore overstate economic diversification.

A credible concentration map needs to show common decision drivers as well as contractual names. The question is not only who can withdraw, but which relationships may tighten simultaneously for the same reason.

The counterpoint: dispersion can reduce influence

Spreading business too widely can leave an MGA immaterial to every partner, increasing friction and weakening willingness to solve problems collaboratively. Concentration can buy attention when the relationship is genuinely reciprocal.

MGA Index expects boards to move toward a two-axis view: dependency on the partner and strategic importance to the partner. The most fragile relationships are high-dependency and low-importance—not necessarily the largest by premium.

• Map shared reinsurers, collateral and renewal dates.
• Estimate the MGA’s importance to each partner, not only the reverse.
• Model simultaneous tightening rather than one-at-a-time exits.

Dependency has several balance sheets

Kestrel’s filing discloses fee-revenue concentration while Neptune discusses capacity-provider concentration. The measures describe different risks: loss of revenue, interruption of paper, reinsurance replacement, collateral pressure and operational transition. Combining them into a single partner count removes the information leadership needs.

A useful map separates each dependency, adds renewal timing and identifies shared drivers. Separate counterparties may react together to catastrophe exposure, casualty trends, ratings pressure or the same reinsurance market.

Concentration can still be rational

Deep relationships can produce attention, faster decisions and support through volatility. Dispersion may leave an MGA immaterial to every partner while multiplying reporting and governance costs. The objective is chosen concentration with understood economics and executable contingency—not diversification for appearance.

Boards should compare dependency on the partner with strategic importance to the partner. High dependency combined with low importance is the fragile position, even when reported premium concentration appears moderate.