With so much uncertainty in global markets, there seems to be more appetite for any way to help protect against risk, and deals that might have felt routine a few years ago now need deeper analysis and stronger capacity behind them. It also brings the focus back to where that capacity is coming from and who stands behind it.

Managing general agents, or MGAs, are gaining a foothold in segments of credit and political risk insurance that reward specialised expertise. This subset of underwriting firms appeal to underwriting teams that want to build focused propositions and to insurers seeking flexible ways to support niche markets. Yet the rise of MGAs has also prompted questions about stability, oversight and the long-term availability of capacity. These tensions shape the debate around delegated underwriting in credit and political risk.

The broader environment helps explain why MGAs are appearing more frequently. Global trade flows have been volatile, and the demand for risk mitigation has risen. The Berne Union, an association for the export credit and investment insurance industry, recorded nearly $3 trillion in new short-term trade credit insurance commitments last year and a 40 per cent increase in medium and long-term support to more than $165 billion. 

Meanwhile, estimates from the private sector indicate that short-term trade credit insurance backed around 15 per cent of world trade in 2023. This combination of pressure and demand has strengthened interest in specialist underwriting. But this picture is only part of the story. In the United States, MGAs have grown at a scale that looks very different from London. According to Aon’s 2025 MGA Market and Outlook report, the US MGA market has more than doubled in a decade, rising from $40.9 billion in 2014 to $109.2 billion in 2024. Much of this expansion has come from property and casualty, particularly surplus lines, but the platform has also attracted more specialty classes, including credit, surety, and aviation.

Harpreet Mann, President of Amynta Trade Credit and Political Risk Solutions, said, “In credit insurance, like other specialty lines, an MGA offers a robust platform where high-performing teams can thrive and deliver good results consistently. The growth in the US MGA market reflects the efficiency of the platform and the ability to respond to the needs of customers quickly. We will continue to see the US MGA market grow.”

Delegated authority (which is when an insurer grants an external underwriting team, such as an MGA, the power to underwrite, price, and bind risks on its behalf under a defined set of rules and limits) has also grown across the wider insurance market. Worldwide delegated arrangements now account for a substantial share of the premium, and at Lloyd’s of London, an insurance marketplace, they represent more than 40 per cent of the market. That growth does not automatically translate into credit insurance or political risk insurance. These remain classes where most capacity continues to be written directly by insurers and Lloyd’s syndicates. In London, the MGA model appears primarily where underwriting depth is needed and where a focused segment can sustain a standalone proposition. In contrast, US MGAs often operate as generalists, writing across industries and borrower types. Carriers in the US view the MGA route as a way to support strong teams, reduce expense burdens, and maintain underwriting continuity, meaning the model is less tied to narrow niches and more to the overall economics of program business.

Calling in the experts

Green project finance is one example of specialisation in the London market. Here, long-dated credit insurance has an important role in renewable energy and energy transition projects. Tierra Underwriting, a UK-based MGA, has positioned itself squarely in this space, offering long tenor credit insurance written on behalf of A-rated capacity providers, including Ascot, Westfield, and Everest. Its proposition reflects the need for technically strong underwriting aligned with the investment cycles of large-scale green infrastructure and for decisions to be made by teams who understand the risks well enough to write them confidently.

Another specialist example is the political risk and non-payment market, where long maturities and dense country or counterparty analysis are required. Pernix, an MGA specialising in the space, operates within a framework that provides continuity of authority over extended periods, which aligns with the multi-year nature of political risk. Its model shows how a specialist team can work closely with capacity providers to deliver underwriting that is differentiated from broader multiline products.

A related development is the emergence of hybrid structures that combine carrier balance sheets with specialist underwriting teams operating under controlled delegated arrangements. Mosaic Insurance is a prominent example in the wider specialty market and illustrates how these structures can support certain political risk exposures.

These MGAs share a common feature in that they operate in clearly defined niches at the intersection of carrier appetite, specialist expertise, and market demand. This contrasts with the United States, where some MGAs (such as Amynta) write across the full spectrum of industries, corporates, and banks. Evidently, the MGA model can scale beyond narrow specialisation when the underlying carrier is comfortable with the business and has a track record of supporting MGA-led teams. 

A shaky hand

One broker who spoke to TTP on the condition of anonymity noted that MGAs can carry a lingering negative perception in parts of the market. In their experience, some MGAs attempt to present themselves as full-spectrum credit and political risk underwriters rather than specialists in a defined niche, blurring the line between who is actually making the underwriting decisions. This, the anonymous broker suggested, can create tension with existing carrier teams and may even dilute a carrier’s market position when banks aggregate exposures by the underlying insurer. While MGAs can offer sharp expertise, brokers still need to assess whether the supporting paper genuinely diversifies counterparty limits or simply repackages the same insurer’s capacity through a different route.

The structural limitations of MGAs become clearer when considering how capacity is built and maintained. Delegated entities are reliant on the stability of their supporting carriers and reinsurers. For short-term risks, this dependence is manageable, but for long-tenor credit or political risk transactions, it introduces uncertainty because annual or short-cycle binding authorities may not align with the duration of the underlying exposures. Some MGAs have secured longer-term frameworks which help resolve this mismatch, but they remain the exception rather than the rule.

Delegated underwriting has grown quickly, and this expansion has increased supervisory focus from regulators and the Lloyd’s market. Strong governance is essential in a class where risks are individually negotiated, documentation is bespoke, and claims can arise several years after inception. Without well-defined structures at both the MGA and carrier level, the quality and consistency of underwriting can vary. Of course, counterparty concentration adds another layer. Banks typically aggregate exposures to the underlying insurer rather than the MGA that fronts the policy. Additional capacity obtained through an MGA does not necessarily expand diversification if the supporting carrier is already a major participant in a bank’s portfolio. This can limit the usefulness of MGA routes for larger transactions.

What happens if an MGA loses its authority or withdraws from the market? Is the underlying carrier expected to continue servicing policies? The answer depends on the level of alignment that was established between the MGA and the carrier, particularly for long-dated risks where claims or restructuring may arise many years later. In the United States, where many MGAs operate under broad mandates and long-standing team structures, this alignment can be a strength, but it does not eliminate the fundamental reliance on carrier stability.

The pen is mighty, but only in steady hands

Taken together, these considerations show why MGAs in credit and political risk insurance remain tightly focused. They thrive where the niche is clear and the technical proposition is strong with capacity committed over the long term, but they introduce specific governance and operational requirements that must be carefully managed. At the same time, the rapid growth of the MGA market in the US (reflected in more than $109 billion of premium written in 2024) shows that delegated platforms can also scale when they support generalist underwriting teams and provide an environment where experienced teams stay together for many years.

The core of the market remains grounded in direct underwriting by established insurers. MGAs now complement this structure by addressing specialist segments such as green project finance, structured credit, and political risk where additional expertise or differentiation is valuable. In the United States, they are also broader distribution engines servicing multiple lines of business. Their future role will depend on the durability of the capacity behind them and the strength of the frameworks that support their underwriting over many years.