MGAs: three policy admin systems is not a growth strategy
Acquisition-born system sprawl, bordereaux friction, and the consolidation window.
Fast-growing MGAs accumulate policy administration systems the way fast-growing anything accumulates tools: each acquisition brings one, each new capacity deal tolerates one, and suddenly underwriting operations means swivel-chairing between three PAS instances with three views of the truth.
Why it bites MGAs harder
An MGA's product is data credibility. Capacity providers price partly on the quality of what you report to them; bordereaux assembled by hand from multiple systems are slower, more error-prone, and visibly so. When a capacity deal changes — and they change — moving a book between systems on a deadline is existential, not operational.
The consolidation window
The right moment to consolidate PAS instances is immediately after the trigger event: an acquisition completing, a capacity provider change forcing a data move anyway. The book is already in motion; the diligence is fresh; the duplicate-running cost is at its most visible to the board.
The work itself is classic migration discipline: profile both books, write the mapping spec (watch the risk-code taxonomies — no two PAS implementations agree), reconcile premium and claims totals to the penny, and hand underwriting one system and the capacity provider one clean bordereaux pipeline. Fixed scope, fixed price, provable result.
Got a cutover date? Tell us the source system, the target, and the deadline — we'll tell you within 48 hours whether we can hit it and what the Assessment will cost.
freddie@godwit.uk