Dealer Reinsuranceby Elite FI Partners
Comparison pro forma

Reinsurance Program Comparison Pro Forma

This tool compares the modeled economics and structural differences between a dealer’s current reinsurance program and an alternative program using the same dealership production assumptions. It surfaces both favorable and unfavorable differences — and it does not imply that the proposed program is automatically better.

Educational illustration

This is an educational comparison. Actual results depend on program agreements, claims development, fee schedules, reserve requirements, investment performance, tax treatment, provider practices, and distribution rules. Nothing is submitted or saved unless you choose to request a review.

Over 5 years, Current Program models a total program value of $425,360 and net new value of $275,360; Proposed Program models total $381,555 and net new $381,555.
Starting values are an editable illustration, not industry norms or expected results.
The current program starts with an existing reserve — it is shown in total value but excluded from net new value created.
Step 1: Enter dealership production
Entered once and applied identically to both programs.
Shared dealership assumptions
1–10
Optional
Optional penetration lift
Reference only — not applied
Products (shared)
Vehicle service contract
Historical — kept separate
GAP
Historical — kept separate
Tire and wheel
Historical — kept separate
Appearance protection
Key replacement
Maintenance
Other product
Step 2: Enter each program’s terms
Matched fields, same order, so the two programs are easy to compare.
Current Program
Fees
Capital & reserve
Not earnings
Excluded from net new
Investment
Defaults 0
Not invested
Distribution
Defaults 0
0 = none
Claims & reserve treatment
Held in reserve
Proposed Program
Fees
Capital & reserve
Not earnings
Excluded from net new
Investment
Defaults 0
Not invested
Distribution
Defaults 0
0 = none
Claims & reserve treatment
Held in reserve
Program transition (optional)

When off, the two programs are compared as independent alternatives on the same production. When on, conversion and runoff effects are included. Transferred reserves are never assumed fully portable.

Step 3: Review differences
The financial projection and the structural differences, side by side.
Shared production is identical for both programsCurrent total value = ending reserve + cumulative distributionsProposed total value = ending reserve + cumulative distributionsExisting reserve is excluded from current net new valueTransferred / existing reserve is excluded from proposed net new valueContributed capital is not counted as earningsDistributions never exceed the available balance
Current Program — total program value
$425,360
Ending reserve + distributions
Proposed Program — total program value
$381,555
Ending reserve + distributions
Current Program — net new value
$275,360
Excludes existing reserve + capital
Proposed Program — net new value
$381,555
Excludes transferred reserve + capital

Comparison metrics

MetricCurrent ProgramProposed ProgramDifference
Contracts$5,100$5,100Identical (shared production)
Gross remittance$4,539,000$4,539,000Identical (shared production)
Total program expenses$1,641,730$1,535,535-$106,195Lower modeled expense: Proposed Program
Expected claims$2,251,650$2,251,650$0Substantially similar
Claims & reserve buffers$0$0$0Substantially similar
Underwriting contribution$275,360$381,555$106,195Higher modeled value: Proposed Program
Investment earnings$0$0$0Substantially similar
Investment fees$0$0$0Substantially similar
Capital contributed$0$0$0Substantially similar
Distributions received$0$0$0Substantially similar
Ending reserve balance$425,360$381,555-$43,805Higher retained reserve: Current Program
Total program value$425,360$381,555-$43,805Higher modeled value: Current Program
Net new value created$275,360$381,555$106,195Higher modeled value: Proposed Program
First-year cash received$0$0$0Substantially similar
Five-year cash received$0$0$0Substantially similar
Average annual expense$328,346$307,107-$21,239Lower modeled expense: Proposed Program
Average expense per contract$322$301-$21Lower modeled expense: Proposed Program
Effective expense % of remittance36%34%-2%Lower: Proposed Program
Required reserve / collateral$0$0$0Substantially similar
Investable reserve (final year)$370,288$301,244-$69,044Higher retained reserve: Current Program
Value retained in program$425,360$381,555-$43,805Higher retained reserve: Current Program
Value distributed to dealer$0$0$0Substantially similar

Neutral comparison — neither column is a “winner.” A higher number is not, by itself, a reason to choose a program.

Executive summary

Modeled observations — not a recommendation

  • Under the entered assumptions, Current Program produces a total program value of $425,360 and Proposed Program produces $381,555 (a $43,805 lower total for the proposed program).
  • $150,000 of Current Program's total is a pre-existing reserve, not value created during the projection. On net new value created, the model estimates $275,360 vs $381,555.
  • The largest driver is capital requirement: $150,000 vs $0 over 5 years. This difference is primarily driven by lower modeled expenses in the proposed program.
  • On total value, the proposed program does not overtake the current program within the 5-year projection.

Charts

Cumulative total program value
Y1Y2Y3Y4Y5$425,360
Current Program Proposed Program
Cumulative net new value
Excludes existing reserves, transferred assets, and contributed capital.
Y1Y2Y3Y4Y5$381,555
Current Program Proposed Program
Annual program expenses
Y1Y2Y3Y4Y5$328,346
Current Program Proposed Program
Annual cash received (distributions)
Y1Y2Y3Y4Y5$0
Current Program Proposed Program
Ending reserve by year
Y1Y2Y3Y4Y5$425,360
Current Program Proposed Program
Total modeled fees
Fixed annualPer-contractPercentageInvestment$1,275,000
Current Program Proposed Program

Value composition at year 5

Current Program
Existing reserve $150,000Capital contributed $0Underwriting value $275,360Investment earnings $0Cumulative distributions $0
Proposed Program
Transferred reserve $0Capital contributed $0Underwriting value $381,555Investment earnings $0Cumulative distributions $0

Year-by-year comparison

YearUnitsContractsGrossCur expPro expCur underwritePro underwriteCur investPro investCur distribPro distribCur endingPro endingCur valuePro valueCur net newPro net newCash ΔCum value Δ
Y11,2001,020$907,800$328,346$323,107$55,072$60,311$0$0$0$0$205,072$60,311$205,072$60,311$55,072$60,311$0-$144,761
Y21,2001,020$907,800$328,346$303,107$55,072$80,311$0$0$0$0$260,144$140,622$260,144$140,622$110,144$140,622$0-$119,522
Y31,2001,020$907,800$328,346$303,107$55,072$80,311$0$0$0$0$315,216$220,933$315,216$220,933$165,216$220,933$0-$94,283
Y41,2001,020$907,800$328,346$303,107$55,072$80,311$0$0$0$0$370,288$301,244$370,288$301,244$220,288$301,244$0-$69,044
Y51,2001,020$907,800$328,346$303,107$55,072$80,311$0$0$0$0$425,360$381,555$425,360$381,555$275,360$381,555$0-$43,805

“Cash Δ” and “Cum value Δ” are proposed minus current; negative favors the current program. Scroll horizontally for all columns.

Detailed program table

YearGrossAdminCedingMgmtTrustProfOtherClaimsClaims adjLAECancelUnderwriteReq reserveInvestableInvestInv feeCapitalDistribEndingTotal valueNet new
Y1$907,800$255,000$45,390$18,156$1,800$8,000$0$450,330$0$0$74,052$55,072$0$150,000$0$0$0$0$205,072$205,072$55,072
Y2$907,800$255,000$45,390$18,156$1,800$8,000$0$450,330$0$0$74,052$55,072$0$205,072$0$0$0$0$260,144$260,144$110,144
Y3$907,800$255,000$45,390$18,156$1,800$8,000$0$450,330$0$0$74,052$55,072$0$260,144$0$0$0$0$315,216$315,216$165,216
Y4$907,800$255,000$45,390$18,156$1,800$8,000$0$450,330$0$0$74,052$55,072$0$315,216$0$0$0$0$370,288$370,288$220,288
Y5$907,800$255,000$45,390$18,156$1,800$8,000$0$450,330$0$0$74,052$55,072$0$370,288$0$0$0$0$425,360$425,360$275,360

Where the difference comes from

The modeled difference broken out by driver, so it is never one unexplained number.

DriverCurrent ProgramProposed ProgramDifference
Administration fees$1,275,000$1,173,000-$102,000
Ceding fees$226,950$204,255-$22,695
Management fees$90,780$90,780$0
Trust expenses$9,000$7,500-$1,500
Accounting expenses$15,000$15,000$0
Legal expenses$10,000$10,000$0
Tax preparation expenses$7,500$7,500$0
Actuarial / consulting expenses$7,500$7,500$0
Other professional expenses$0$0$0
Investment management fees$0$0$0
Other contract fees$0$0$0
Setup / conversion expenses$0$20,000$20,000
Claims assumptions (total claims)$2,251,650$2,251,650$0
Investment return (earnings)$0$0$0
Distribution policy (distributed)$0$0$0
Reserve requirement (final)$0$0$0
Capital requirement$150,000$0-$150,000

Structural comparison

Qualitative differences that dollars cannot capture. Items left “Unknown” become due-diligence gaps below.

FactorCurrent ProgramProposed Program
Ownership
Control
Board authority
Trustee or provider control
Investment control
Access to reserve statements
Fee transparency
Claims-data transparency
Distribution approval
Capital requirements
Collateral requirements
Audit rights
Ability to change administrators
Ability to change product providers
Portability
Runoff provisions
Termination provisions
Reserve transfer provisions
Open-claims handling
Dealer-sale treatment
Estate and succession considerations
Reporting frequency
Legal and accounting complexity

Due-diligence checklist

Generated from missing or uncertain inputs — request these before relying on any comparison.

  • Confirm the investment management expense
  • Obtain the complete fee schedule for both programs
  • Review historical claims experience
  • Obtain the current program’s reserve statement and verify reserve ownership
  • Confirm the distribution approval process for each program
  • Confirm capital-call provisions
  • Confirm termination and runoff fees
  • Confirm dealership-sale and succession provisions
  • Confirm administrator-change and reporting-frequency rights
  • Review the tax structure with qualified advisors
  • Review the legal agreements with qualified counsel
  • Clarify “Ownership” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Control” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Board authority” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Trustee or provider control” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Investment control” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Access to reserve statements” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Fee transparency” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Claims-data transparency” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Distribution approval” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Capital requirements” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Collateral requirements” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Audit rights” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Ability to change administrators” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Ability to change product providers” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Portability” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Runoff provisions” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Termination provisions” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Reserve transfer provisions” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Open-claims handling” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Dealer-sale treatment” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Estate and succession considerations” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Reporting frequency” for the program(s) marked unknown
  • Clarify “Legal and accounting complexity” for the program(s) marked unknown

Sensitivity & break-even

How the 5-year total program value shifts under different assumptions. Negative results are shown, not hidden.

ScenarioCurrent Program valueProposed Program valueValue diffNet-new diff
Claims 15% lower$763,108$719,303-$43,805$106,195
Base$425,360$381,555-$43,805$106,195
Claims 15% higher$87,613$43,808-$43,805$106,195
Volume 15% lower$376,706$314,197-$62,509$87,491
Volume 15% higher$474,014$448,913-$25,101$124,899
Current investment return lower$425,360$381,555-$43,805$106,195
Proposed investment return lower$425,360$381,555-$43,805$106,195
Equal investment returns$425,360$381,555-$43,805$106,195
Current fees reduced 20%$753,706$381,555-$372,151-$222,151
Proposed fees increased 20%$425,360$78,448-$346,912-$196,912
Distribution delayed 1 year$425,360$381,555-$43,805$106,195
Required reserve increased 50%$425,360$381,555-$43,805$106,195
Break-even estimates (modeled estimates)
  • Proposed Program does not overtake Current Program on total value within the 5-year projection.
  • Investment-return break-even: 5.7% on the proposed program.
  • Expense-per-contract break-even: $221 proposed admin per contract.
  • Claims-ratio break-even: 0.98× proposed claims.

Methodology

How the two programs are compared

Production is held constant and each program’s own terms are applied independently to the same projected book. The only time production differs between the programs is when transition timing intentionally delays or stops new business.

Total program value versus net new value

Total program value = ending reserve + cumulative distributions. Net new value created excludes existing reserves, transferred assets, and new dealer capital, so a program that merely starts with more accumulated money does not look better on that basis. Existing reserves and contributed capital are the dealer’s own money, never newly created earnings.

How fees affect reserve growth

Fixed fees (trust, accounting, legal, tax, actuarial) apply every year regardless of volume; per-contract fees (administration, other per-contract) scale with contracts; percentage fees (ceding, management, other) scale with remittance; investment management fees reduce investment earnings. Each reduces the underwriting contribution that builds the reserve.

How claims assumptions affect the comparison

Expected claims, any claims-development adjustment, loss-adjustment expense, and claims buffers all reduce or hold back the underwriting result. Even a small difference in expected claims compounds materially over a multi-year projection, so confirm claims assumptions against real statements.

How distributions affect the results

Distributions move value from the reserve to the dealer as cash. They change cash timing and where value sits, but do not by themselves create additional economic value — total program value counts both the ending reserve and cumulative distributions.

How a program transition is modeled

When enabled, the current program’s new production stops and its book runs off (open claims retained, runoff fees applied, remaining reserve released), while the proposed program starts after a delay, seeded by any transferred reserve and charged conversion costs. Transferred reserve is conserved — removed from the current program and added to the proposed one, never counted twice — and is never assumed fully portable.

What this comparison cannot determine

The tool cannot independently verify contract language, provider solvency, tax qualification, legal compliance, reserve ownership, claims accuracy, investment performance, or future distributions. It does not provide legal, actuarial, accounting, investment, or tax advice.

Assumptions used
Projection label
(none)
Monthly retail units
100
Eligible units
85%
Projection period
5 years
Annual unit growth
0%
Product-production growth
0%
Historical claims ratio (reference)
(not entered)
Vehicle service contract — pen / remit / loss / cancel
45% / $1,200 / 50% / 8%
GAP — pen / remit / loss / cancel
35% / $600 / 45% / 10%
Tire and wheel — pen / remit / loss / cancel
20% / $700 / 55% / 6%
— Current Program —
Structure / provider
Controlled Foreign Corporation / Current Provider
Admin / ceding / mgmt
$250 / 5% / 2%
Trust / invest mgmt
$1,800 / 0%
Professional (acct/legal/tax/actuarial)
$3,000 / $2,000 / $1,500 / $1,500
Setup / other per-contract / other %
$0 / $0 / 0%
Initial capital / existing reserve
$0 / $150,000
Required reserve / % / min cash
$0 / 0% / $0
Investment return / % invested / mgmt fee
0% / 100% / 0%
Distribution % / freq / delay
0% / annual / 0yr
Claims dev adj / buffer / LAE
0% / 0% / 0%
— Proposed Program —
Structure / provider
Controlled Foreign Corporation / Proposed Structure
Admin / ceding / mgmt
$230 / 5% / 2%
Trust / invest mgmt
$1,500 / 0%
Professional (acct/legal/tax/actuarial)
$3,000 / $2,000 / $1,500 / $1,500
Setup / other per-contract / other %
$20,000 / $0 / 0%
Initial capital / existing reserve
$0 / $0
Required reserve / % / min cash
$0 / 0% / $0
Investment return / % invested / mgmt fee
0% / 100% / 0%
Distribution % / freq / delay
0% / annual / 0yr
Claims dev adj / buffer / LAE
0% / 0% / 0%

Everything runs in your browser. Nothing is submitted or saved unless you choose to request a review.

Why these numbers matter

Fees — admin, ceding, trust, management, and professional costs
Fees come in several shapes: per-contract administration, percentage-based ceding and management fees, fixed trust and professional costs (accounting, legal, tax, actuarial), and investment management fees. Each reduces the underwriting contribution that builds the reserve. Breaking them out — rather than lumping them into one number — is the only way to see what actually drives a difference.
Claims — lower claims improve underwriting performance
Claims are paid out of the same money that would otherwise build the reserve. A lower loss ratio leaves more underwriting margin to retain, invest, and eventually distribute; a higher loss ratio erodes it. Because claims compound over a multi-year projection, even a few points of loss-ratio difference can dominate the result.
Reserves — money retained for future obligations
A reserve is money set aside to pay future claims. It is not free cash and not profit — it backs obligations and is subject to reserve and collateral requirements. Reserves can grow through underwriting contributions and investment earnings, but what can actually be accessed depends on the program’s rules.
Investment income — the impact of retained capital
Reserves that are invested can earn a return, and because that return compounds on a growing balance, small differences in the assumed rate add up over time. Investment income only applies to the investable portion of reserves, net of any investment management fee, and never to funds restricted as collateral or minimum cash.
Distributions — available cash versus long-term value
A distribution moves value from the reserve to the dealer as cash. It changes when and where value sits, but taking a distribution does not by itself create additional economic value. Total value counts both the ending reserve and cumulative distributions, so faster cash is a liquidity choice, not a bigger pie.
Net new value — why starting reserves shouldn’t skew the comparison
A program that has run for years may already hold a large reserve. That balance is the dealer’s pre-existing money, not value created going forward. Comparing total balances can make an established program look better simply because it started ahead. Net new value — excluding existing reserves, transferred assets, and new capital — is the apples-to-apples measure of how each structure performs from here.
FAQ

Comparing programs, answered.

How do I compare two dealer reinsurance programs?

Hold your dealership production constant and apply each program’s own terms — fees, claims assumptions, reserve and capital requirements, investment and distribution rules — to the same projected book. Then compare not just the headline total value but the net new value each program creates during the period, how quickly cash reaches you, and the structural and contractual differences. This tool does exactly that, and it deliberately never declares a winner.

What fees should be included in a reinsurance comparison?

Administration (per contract), ceding and management fees (percent of remittance), trust fees, investment management fees, and the fixed professional costs — accounting, legal, tax preparation, and actuarial or consulting — plus any setup or conversion expense and any other per-contract or percentage-based fee. Combining everything into one number hides where a difference actually comes from, so this tool breaks the fee difference out category by category.

Why should existing reserves be separated from new value?

A program that has been running for years may already hold a large reserve. That balance is the dealer’s pre-existing money, not value the program creates going forward. If you compare total balances, an established program can look better simply because it started with more. Separating net new value created during the projection — excluding existing reserves, transferred assets, and new capital — is the only apples-to-apples way to compare how the two programs perform from here.

Does a larger reserve balance mean a program performs better?

No. A larger reserve can reflect history, contributed capital, or a slower distribution policy rather than superior performance. What matters going forward is the net new value each structure creates on the same production, how much capital it ties up, and how and when you can access it. This tool shows total value and net new value side by side for exactly this reason.

How do investment returns affect reinsurance?

Reserves that are invested can earn a return, which compounds retained value over time — but only on the investable portion, net of any investment management fee, and only when funds are not restricted as collateral or minimum cash. Small differences in the assumed return compound, so the tool lets you test different return assumptions and shows the break-even return at which the two programs converge.

What happens to reserves when changing programs?

It depends entirely on the agreements. Some reserves are portable and can transfer to a new structure; others must run off with the current provider while open claims are paid. Transfers may carry fees, and new production may not enter the proposed program immediately. The transition model in this tool illustrates a simplified runoff and startup and never assumes all reserves are instantly portable.

Can reinsurance reserves be transferred?

Sometimes, in part, and subject to the contract — not automatically. The transition feature lets you model an amount transferred (seeding the proposed program) while the remainder runs off with the current provider, with transfer, termination, and conversion costs applied. The transferred amount is conserved: removed from the current program and added to the proposed one, never counted twice.

What is a runoff period?

When a dealer stops sending new business to a program, the existing book “runs off” — open claims continue to be paid and reserves are released over time until the obligations are settled. During runoff the program may still charge administration or runoff fees and may still make distributions. Modeling runoff matters because value can remain tied up for a period after the switch.

How should capital contributions be treated?

As the dealer’s own money, not as earnings. Initial capital, capital calls, existing reserves, and transferred assets all seed or support the structure but are not value the program created. This tool tracks them separately and excludes them from net new value so a program never looks more productive simply because the dealer put in more money.

What documents are needed for a complete comparison?

A complete fee schedule, the participation or reinsurance agreement, recent reserve statements, historical claims data, the distribution and approval rules, capital and collateral requirements, termination and runoff provisions, and the tax and legal structure. The tool generates a due-diligence checklist of exactly these items so you know what to request before relying on any comparison.

When you are ready

Compare these programs on your real agreements.

A detailed review can compare your actual agreements, reserve statements, claims performance, fee schedules, distribution history, investment results, and exit provisions — the details a preliminary illustration cannot capture. None of the numbers you entered here are transmitted automatically.