For SiriusPoint’s Patrick Charles, strategic partnerships in P&C insurance come down to one thing: operational credibility.
“We're looking for folks who really know their space,” said Charles, the company’s head of North America insurance. “People who have been underwriters and operators in a space for a long period of time, almost people who are so obsessed about it that they can't talk about anything other than their space.”
Depth of knowledge is only the starting point. Charles isn’t interested in people who’ve inherited portfolios or coasted on someone else’s book. What matters is whether a partner has built something from scratch and taken full responsibility for its performance. “We're looking for folks... who have not just kind of inherited someone else's book, but have had to build a book themselves and run a book themselves,” he said.
Adaptability is another baseline requirement. Partners need to know how to scale operations up and down without losing control. Those who can't adjust with the market don’t make the cut. Access to distribution is also non-negotiable. Charles pointed to the importance of brokers and agents who know the operator personally and continue to deliver business over time.
But capability isn’t just about production. It also comes down to infrastructure. SiriusPoint is targeting platforms with real back-office muscle – those that can offer consistent transparency and data access. “More and more, we're looking for folks who are part of a platform that is sophisticated enough... including people who are willing to give us access to data and MI,” he said. That level of visibility isn't optional. “So that we can manage our own aviations... have a really close look at... how a book is performing.”
As distribution models shift, Charles is watching digital platforms and program administrators try to streamline engagement and cut costs. So far, the results are uneven. “It's very different by space,” he said.
Full-scale digital ecosystems are starting to take hold in small commercial and low-touch specialty lines. Other areas, like claims triage, are also seeing automation take hold. But most platforms haven’t figured out how to transfer those gains into actual desk-level efficiency for underwriters.
“I haven't seen people quite figure out … is how to turn it into more underwriting desk-level efficiency,” Charles said. That inefficiency remains a drag.
However, a few platforms are moving in the right direction. “I've seen a couple demos where folks are able to literally click a button and have 80% of what they need for a submission just pop up on their screen,” he said.
But the tech isn’t widespread, and the results aren’t always clear. Charles isn’t convinced it’s delivering real back-office value yet. “The question is, how much real back-office lift do they get out of that versus it's more of a marketing pitch, and I don't know the answer yet.”
When it comes to balancing innovation with underwriting discipline, Charles sees both opportunity and risk. MGAs that know their space often move faster and design better products because of how close they are to customers and brokers. “The beauty of that is having a real finger on the pulse of what matters most to customers and brokers,” he said. They’re often first to identify gaps and build products around them. But without a process to check that innovation, they can expose themselves – and their partners – to unnecessary risk.
“Sometimes, I think... without a discernment process that looks at the downside of those innovations, there can be a level of risk that people open up to that they're not intending,” he said. That’s where Charles draws a hard line. The ideas aren’t the problem. The lack of rigor behind them is. “It’s incumbent on us to work through those ideas as fast as possible and as open-minded as possible, while also being eyes wide open and bring to the table some of the unforeseen consequences we’ve seen in the past in this industry,” he said.
He’s seen it firsthand. He described one instance where a firm built an “all risks” project delay policy for construction, which unintentionally included exposure to acts of God. The outcome wasn’t what the underwriters had expected, and the experience reinforced a core belief: unchecked product design opens the door to losses.
“I’m not sure people always know what they don’t know,” he said. “And it’s our job as the... kind of the balance sheet, we have to be really, really deliberate about thinking about all the unforeseen consequences.”
The payoff, if it’s done right, is faster innovation with fewer blind spots. But that outcome depends entirely on discipline. Charles doesn’t see the MGA model as inherently risky. What makes the difference is whether ideas get challenged early and often. “If we do it right, we get to really good answers, and we get to them fast, and hopefully we help people innovate,” he said.
