Enterprise · structuring model

Three ways to finance the same losses.

This is the model our consultants use, not a lead form. It compares guaranteed cost, a large deductible funded from cash, and a large deductible with a DLRP into a captive — and it shows every line on all three, including the ones that argue against the captive.

The programme

Insured / group name

Line or programme

Expected annual losses Your own five-year loss history, trended and developed. If you do not know it, that is the first thing a feasibility study establishes.

Per-occurrence deductible

Limit purchased above the deductible

Loss volatility, % (coefficient of variation) How much a bad year differs from an average one. Higher volatility argues for transferring more.

Third-party or embedded premium

Annual third-party / embedded premium Extended warranty, service contracts, or a programme sold alongside your product. For a technology company this is frequently what makes the structure pay for itself — and it is the cleanest route to genuine risk distribution. Leave at zero if you have none.

Expected loss ratio on that book, %

The vehicle

Domicile to model

Parent's home state (optional) Used only to rank domiciles, never to price.

The parent is not a U.S. entity

Test against the section 831(b) ceiling $2,900,000 of written premium for 2026. Eligibility is a question for your tax counsel; we only flag the threshold.

U.S. admitted paper and certificates are required Almost always yes if you sign leases, enterprise contracts or state filings.

Illustrative. Not legal, tax, accounting or actuarial advice. Market assumptions — fronting fee, excess rate relativity, collateral multiple, letter-of-credit rate, captive running cost, cost of capital, investment yield and marginal tax rate — are published defaults last checked 2026-09-06 and are negotiated per programme. Real numbers come from a feasibility study with your loss data and your actuary.