InsurTech & MGA Platform Infrastructure · Financial Services & Insurance
Should you build or buy Delegated Authority & Bordereaux Management?
Delegated authority and bordereaux management software handles the full lifecycle of MGA-coverholder relationships, from onboarding binding authority agreements through bordereaux ingestion, validation, aggregate exposure monitoring, and regulatory reporting to capacity providers including Lloyd's of London.
The build-vs-buy decision for Delegated Authority and Bordereaux Management turns on how much of your DA configuration is genuinely proprietary and how far an independent team could realistically get without the Lloyd's ecosystem integrations that specialist vendors have spent years building.
Build it, buy it, or bridge?
When building makes sense
The build case for delegated authority software essentially requires that you already hold the institutional pieces the vendors have assembled. Lloyd's ATLAS, DCOM, and Lineage ecosystem integrations aren't surface-level APIs — they're built on years of regulatory relationships and live market access. A team approaching this from outside that ecosystem is not going to replicate those connections on a reasonable timeline. Where building does make sense is narrower: if your DA configuration is genuinely complex enough that standard platforms can't encode your binding authority terms, aggregate caps by peril and geography, or validation thresholds, and you're already inside the Lloyd's infrastructure, you might have grounds for a custom solution. Similarly, large capacity providers with significant engineering capacity may find value in building the analytics layer that sits on top of their DA data, even when the core bordereaux platform is bought.
When buying makes sense
Buying is the sensible path for almost every MGA and coverholder. The platforms in this market, including Send Technology, Regure, and FacioMGA, serve a specialized and regulated niche where the compliance infrastructure genuinely isn't replicable by a general software team. The bordereaux validation against Lloyd's stamping and DCOM systems requires live integrations that vendor platforms have maintained for years. The operational core of DA software, including agreement onboarding, bordereaux ingestion and validation, and aggregate monitoring, is all actively used functionality with real operational value. For capacity providers and MGAs alike, the governance lever is DA oversight itself — having the right platform means exposure stays within binding authority limits and adverse selection risk gets caught early. Poor aggregate monitoring can trigger capacity withdrawal. Getting this right matters, and vendor platforms have the regulatory depth and ecosystem access to get it right.
The desk read
Delegated authority management encodes the specific terms of each MGA-coverholder relationship: binding authority limits, peril scope, geographic constraints, aggregate caps, and reporting cadences. None of those terms are generic. The bordereaux schema a Lloyd's coverholder produces reflects the specific agreement with each capacity provider, and validation against Lloyd's ATLAS and DCOM systems requires live integration with ecosystem infrastructure that took years to build. Platforms like VIPR and Send Technology serve a specialized market where the compliance and Lloyd's ecosystem requirements are genuinely not replicable by a software team approaching from the outside.
The AI shift in this category is real but narrow. LLMs can assist with bordereaux reconciliation, flagging anomalies in reported exposure against binding authority limits, and automating commentary in aggregate monitoring reports. That's augmentation within the existing platform ecosystem, not a replacement for it. The build case is essentially nonexistent for the platform itself; the more productive question for MGAs is whether they're using AI to get more analytical value out of the data their DA software already holds.
Frequently asked
What is Delegated Authority and Bordereaux Management software?
Delegated authority and bordereaux management software handles the full lifecycle of MGA-coverholder relationships, from onboarding binding authority agreements through bordereaux ingestion, validation, aggregate exposure monitoring, and regulatory reporting to capacity providers including Lloyd's of London.
When does building Delegated Authority and Bordereaux Management make sense?
Building is realistic only for organizations already embedded in the Lloyd's ecosystem infrastructure. For anyone else, the regulatory integrations and live market access that specialist vendors have assembled are not replicable on a reasonable timeline.
When does buying Delegated Authority and Bordereaux Management make sense?
Buying makes sense for virtually every MGA and coverholder. The compliance infrastructure, Lloyd's ecosystem integrations, and bordereaux validation tooling that platforms like Send Technology and Regure provide took years to build, and the operational value is high for organizations that need DA governance and aggregate exposure monitoring.
What are the main Delegated Authority and Bordereaux Management vendors?
Representative vendors include Send Technology (Binder Management), Regure (MGA bordereaux), FacioMGA, Novidea. B4 Pro scores the full set.
How is AI affecting delegated authority software?
AI is augmenting DA platforms in specific ways: LLMs can assist with bordereaux reconciliation, flag anomalies in reported exposure against binding authority limits, and automate commentary in aggregate monitoring reports. This is augmentation within the existing platform ecosystem, not a replacement for it.