Dealer Reinsurance Scorecard: Rate Your Program and Partner for Long-Term Success

How strong is your reinsurance program really? This dealer reinsurance scorecard helps you rate fees, control, reporting, product performance, partner support, and review discipline so you can spot gaps before they cost you long-term profit.

Why You Need a Scorecard

Many dealers enter a reinsurance program with good intentions but rarely revisit it once the contracts start flowing. Reinsurance gets treated like a long-term decision that should not be questioned, and that’s where quiet problems start. Complexity hides issues. Early performance can be misleading. Trust replaces verification.

Over time, fees quietly erode profit, assumptions go unchallenged, and administrators or partners control the information flow. By the time someone in the store feels like something is off, the dealership may have already lost years of opportunity.

The purpose of this scorecard is to translate vague feelings into objective insights. This is not a sales pitch. It’s a self-diagnostic built for dealer principals, controllers, and F&I leaders who want clarity on the structure they’re in and the partner they’re relying on.

If you can’t clearly explain how profit is calculated, why reserves move, what you’re paying, and what you can control, the program may still be “working,” but it might not be working for you.

How the Scorecard Works

This scorecard covers six categories that determine whether a reinsurance program actually builds long-term wealth and control. Rate each category from 1 (low) to 10 (high).

A low score does not automatically mean you need to switch. It means there’s a gap that must be addressed. A pattern of low scores across multiple categories usually signals a deeper structural issue.

Use the diagnostic questions under each category to guide your thinking. If you can’t answer a question confidently, that alone is a data point.

Important note

This tool does not replace professional analysis. Reserve methodology, tax planning, domicile rules, and agreement language still require expert review. But this exercise will help you ask better questions and request the data you need to protect the dealership.

Scorecard Categories

Transparency of Fees and Costs

One of the most common misconceptions is that reinsurance fees are limited to an “admin fee.” In reality, there may be multiple layers of cost: administrative fees, claims adjudication fees, ceding fees, premium taxes, and embedded program expenses. Many of these costs are deducted before underwriting profit is calculated. Even small percentage differences compound over time.

Questions to ask yourself

1. Can you see a line-by-line breakdown of every fee deducted before profit is calculated?

2. Do you understand what each fee covers and whether there are layered costs inside the program?

3. Are administrative fees bundled with claims handling, technology, marketing allowances, roadside, or other add-ons you didn’t choose?

4. Are ceding fees, premium taxes, and repair order fees clearly disclosed and consistently applied?

5. Have you compared your fee stack against other structures or providers to confirm you’re not overpaying?

Score (1–10): If you’re below 7, you likely have an “expense fog” problem.

Control and Flexibility

Reinsurance can offer dealers more control over reserves, investment decisions, and capital access, but not every structure delivers that. In some programs, reserve assumptions, investment strategy, and distribution timing are controlled outside the dealership. In others, restrictive agreements prevent the dealer from choosing key partners or adjusting strategy as the store evolves.

Questions to ask yourself

1. Who controls reserve assumptions and investment decisions in your program?

2. Can reserve methodology adjust as claims mature and data improves?

3. Do you have the ability to choose an investment advisor or borrow against reserves when appropriate?

4. Are there restrictions on which products you can reinsure or how premiums are handled?

5. If you changed providers, could you keep your reinsurance company and strategy intact?

Score (1–10): A low score here often means you’re participating without truly owning outcomes.

Reporting and Communication

Transparency isn’t a feeling. It’s a function of reporting quality and access to data. Annual summaries can hide trends. Consistent monthly reporting exposes them. If reporting isn’t clear, problems can sit inside the portfolio for years before anyone notices.

Questions to ask yourself

1. Do you receive monthly reporting that includes premiums, claims, reserves, expenses, and underwriting results?

2. Is reporting available by product category rather than blended totals?

3. Are claims lag and run-off assumptions explained in a way a dealer can understand?

4. Do you meet with your partner to interpret performance, or do you only receive reports with no guidance?

5. Could you quickly pull data if you wanted a second opinion or side-by-side review?

Score (1–10): Anything below 8 creates blind spots. Those blind spots get expensive.

Product Fit and Performance

Not all F&I products belong in reinsurance. Stable products like vehicle service contracts, limited warranties, and certain appearance/protection products typically fit well. High-volatility products need tighter underwriting discipline and may not belong in the structure at all.

The goal is not to reinsure “everything.” The goal is to reinsure the right things.

Questions to ask yourself

1. Which products consistently produce stable underwriting results?

2. Are any products creating volatility that drags down portfolio performance?

3. Do you review product mix regularly and remove products that don’t belong?

4. Are you reinsuring products because it’s convenient, or because it’s smart?

5. Can you carve out certain risks or run direct arrangements when needed?

Score (1–10): A low score here means your program may be carrying avoidable risk.

Partner Support and Training

Reinsurance success is not just financial. It’s operational. Performance improves when product mix is disciplined and the store is coached to execute consistently. Support should not end after onboarding. Strong partners help interpret data, refine product strategy, and improve production quality over time.

Questions to ask yourself

1. Does your partner provide ongoing training that improves penetration and presentation quality?

2. Are they proactively reviewing claims trends and recommending adjustments?

3. Do they help you interpret reports and identify opportunities, or just deliver data?

4. Do they support your team with product knowledge and process improvement?

5. Do you feel like they are invested in long-term success, not just administration?

Score (1–10): If you’re low here, you’re likely leaving performance gains on the table.

Review and Adaptation

Reinsurance is not static. Volume changes. Products evolve. Market conditions shift. Dealership goals change. A program that fit two years ago may be misaligned today. Quarterly reviews and an annual structural review are the bare minimum if you care about long-term outcomes.

Questions to ask yourself

1. How often do you review performance and discuss it with your partner?

2. Do you involve leadership, accounting, and key advisors in those reviews?

3. Are loss ratios, reserves, and expenses trending in the right direction year over year?

4. Do you have a plan if fees become excessive or control is misaligned?

5. Do you benchmark against peer stores or current market structures?

Score (1–10): Below 8 often means complacency, not confidence.

Interpreting Your Score

Add up your six category scores (maximum 60).

• 46–60: Strong foundation. Your program likely supports long-term value and your partner is doing real work.

• 31–45: Mixed performance. Improvement is possible, but you have gaps that must be addressed with data and accountability.

• 0–30: High concern. You may have structural or partner issues that require a comprehensive review.

This scorecard is a conversation starter, not a verdict. The goal is not panic. The goal is clarity.

Myths vs Realities

Myth: “If the program is compliant, it must be fine.”

Reality: Compliance doesn’t equal optimization. A compliant program can still be overpriced, opaque, or strategically misaligned.

Myth: “Admin fee is the only cost that matters.”

Reality: The fee stack is often layered. What you don’t see is usually what changes outcomes.

Myth: “We’re getting reports, so we’re informed.”

Reality: Reports without interpretation become noise. If your team can’t explain results, you don’t have transparency.

Myth: “More products in reinsurance means more profit.”

Reality: A disciplined product portfolio often outperforms a bloated one. Not everything belongs in reinsurance.

Myth: “Reinsurance is set it and forget it.”

Reality: The best programs behave like a fifth business unit: reviewed, managed, refined, and held accountable.

Next Step: Use the Scorecard to Request the Right Data

If you scored low in even one category, your next move is simple: request the data and clarification to raise that score. If you scored low across multiple categories, it may be time for a structured, side-by-side review focused on fees, control, reporting, and product strategy.

A quality reinsurance review should not create pressure. It should create answers.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should I review first in my reinsurance program?

Start with fee transparency and reporting. If you can’t clearly see the fee stack and how profit is calculated, you can’t evaluate anything else.

How often should a dealership review its reinsurance program?

Quarterly performance reviews are a baseline, with a deeper annual structural review to confirm fees, controls, and strategy still align.

What reports should I expect from a transparent reinsurance partner?

Monthly reporting that shows premium flow, claims, reserve changes, expense deductions, and underwriting results, ideally with product-level detail.

What are red-flag responses when I ask questions about my program?

Anything that blocks clarity: “We don’t have that report,” “Just trust the actuary,” or “That’s just how it works.”

Can an underperforming program be improved without switching?

Sometimes. If structure is sound but execution is weak, improving reporting, product mix, and oversight can materially change outcomes. If fees, control, or transparency are fundamentally misaligned, switching may be the right move.