Aligning carrier and MGA interests is now the price of entry
Why Glenn Clark argues misaligned programs have no future
By Chris Davis
Jan 20, 2026
Aligning carrier and MGA interests has become the price of entry for anyone trying to launch or grow a program business, Glenn Clark (pictured), president of Rockwood Insurance argues. The era when a dominant carrier could dictate terms and control the distribution side of economics is over, replaced by partnership-based expectations that both sides will share upside and pain.
Clark still remembers how, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the largest writer of E&S programs personified that imbalance. “The first thing this dominant player would dictate when they did a new program was: ‘We never pay a profit share,’” he said. That posture no longer works in a marketplace where MGAs bring capital, data, distribution, experience and specialist product design to the table. Their voices are no longer hidden behind carrier brands.
He saw the shift up close in the early years of Target Markets, when carriers proudly presented at the annual meetings and boasted about how selective they were. “They seemed to all say the same thing: ‘We looked at 200 programs last year and we only wrote two. It was a way of telling MGAs how selective they were. However, from the MGA’s perspective, that sounded less like discipline and more like a refusal to engage with potential partners who could not afford to look at 200 risks and only write two. TMPAA helped to give a voice to the MGA specialists.”
Resetting expectations between carriers and MGAs
As MGAs pushed back, expectations on both sides hardened and the rules of engagement changed. Carriers that wanted serious program relationships agreed to respond to submissions within clear timeframes and demonstrate to program managers to responsibly respond to program submissions within a reasonable time frame. MGAs, in turn, had to show they could originate and service businesses on a scale while treating carriers as partners for the long term. They became committed to building credible plans around data, claims handling and distribution while pursuing a path based upon shared best practices.
Clark said members pressed carriers on whether they had clearly defined the business they actually wanted, understood what it cost MGAs to enter a new market and emphasized how important it is for carriers to close the loop on every submission (regardless of the ultimate decision of go or no go).
In past practice, “we found horrible gaps in response time – often no response at all on a program not accepted. Carriers were made aware of these gaps, thus improving a dialogue of mutual respect fostered via our national meetings, board discussions and workshops. The best result of an association dedicated to the MGA world was an increase in professionalism and mutual respect. The carriers who seriously invested in TMPAA and its membership prospered mightily as secondary benefit. Those that did not adapt could not reap the same level of benefit.”
Using distribution and data as real differentiation
Rockwood Programs’ (birthed in 1996) underlines how that balance can work in practice. Clark described Rockwood as a relatively small MGA competing with giants. “We developed our own proprietary distribution as we were a start up with no brand recognition,” he said. “What facilitates our success is that we built our distribution via e-marketing and through teaching retail agents how to sell new products such as EPLI.” Through catching agents early in their development, teaching them how to sell new products (EPLI, cyber, management professional liability) we made it fast and relatively painless to place small-ticket risks. Rockwood became a default market for smaller business that would never justify a traditional wholesale driven spreadsheeted quote process.”
Behind that front end sat deliberate segmentation that mirrored the discipline expected from carriers. “Our databases are very refined: who does business with Rockwood already, who’s using us as a quote mill and not buying anything, who is actually binding more,” Clark said. “Once producers reach certain thresholds, we can increase commissions and support, thereby reinforcing behaviour that drives profitable premium while starving time-wasters of attention.”
That tactical view of distribution shapes his advice to would-be MGA founders who assume capital and a niche idea were enough. Clark is clear that a pure greenfield startup, built from scratch outside an established platform, was more fantasy than plan.
When asked how he would advise someone to start up a new MGA, his advice was quite practical. “A pure startup MGA could be an excellent dream – however, maybe not end up a great success,” he said. “If I were to advise a start-up MGA I would first suggest company experience in the program space. Secondly maybe embed yourself at a successful MGA as an employee or an ‘incubated’ program (to lessen your start-up costs via usage of their systems, licenses, etc.) until you prove concept and/or grow to critical mass. Join Target Markets and learn from the best as well.”
Risk sharing
The same realism colors his view of alternative structures and new capital. Carriers benefit from the MGA system as they can book existing or new premium without first absorbing the marketing risk (MGAs invest significantly in marketing). If a new product fails to gain traction the MGA suffers a loss as marketing investments do not make a sufficient return.
Alternative risk structures such as captives, RPGs and RRGs can help to build “buy in” and improve marketing returns . Participation in the results helps to build underwriting disciplines, perhaps lessen acquisition costs and build accountability. When insureds know they are sharing in results, Clark observes the members take underwriting discipline more seriously. “If I’m part of it, I’m going to share in the success and also in the failure,” he said.