We Do Not Know Which Products Make Money
in Insurance Brokers

The short answer

Every broker has a service line that everyone assumes is profitable, and it is usually the one being subsidised by carrier commissions. Insurance brokers carry a specific bind here — 71 percent of revenue flows through carrier commissions while shifting an incremental 8 percent to fees would require replacing 142 renewal accounts and cut near-term margin by 1.8 to 2.3 points. Until that is priced, 19.0 will keep moving for reasons nobody can attribute, and the debate about contribution by line will stay a matter of opinion.

Product-level profit is genuinely hard because most costs are shared across renewal retention and risk-control activities, and the usual allocation — by commission revenue — quietly guarantees the answer. Allocating overhead in proportion to the 71 percent of revenue that flows through carrier commissions makes high-commission lines look expensive and low-commission lines look efficient, which is precisely backwards when the low-commission line consumes disproportionate attention from captive feasibility work.

A workable approach allocates only what is genuinely traceable to standard commissions or contingent commissions and leaves the rest unallocated. You end up with contribution by line and one honest pool of shared cost, which is far more useful than a fully-absorbed number that nobody trusts.

The result is usually uncomfortable. In most portfolios a minority of lines carries the whole thing, and at least one long-standing line has been losing money for years with everyone assuming otherwise.

How to tell this is actually your problem

These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.

✓ Profitability is quoted using the 47.8 million dollars in total revenue from commissions and fees without line breakdown
✓ Nobody has discontinued any renewal accounts in years
✓ Two people give different answers about the same product line after contingent commissions

The move that usually makes it worse. Fully absorbing overhead into product lines using allocation by carrier commissions, which produces a precise number built on an arbitrary rule and gets defended because it looks rigorous.

Who this is for — and who it is not

It is for you if you run or finance an insurance broker and product profitability is quoted as a company-wide gross margin. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.

It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.

Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.

What this looks like when the analysis is actually run

Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on an insurance broker. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.

The subject is Kesterline Risk Partners, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — 47.8 million dollars in total revenue from commissions and fees.

This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.

What the engine does with this question

This question routes to Matrix Strategy, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For insurance brokers it works through 19.0, 91.2, 664 and 31, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.

You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.

Questions people ask about this

Do I need activity-based costing?

Almost never for the decision at hand. Traceable costs plus an unallocated pool gets you the ranking, and the ranking is what you act on. Full ABC is a project that frequently outlives the decision that prompted it.

What about products that support others?

Say so explicitly and price the support. A loss-making line that genuinely pulls profitable revenue is a marketing cost with a name, which is a fine thing to be — as long as somebody decided it.

How often should this be redone?

Annually, and after any significant mix change. The ranking is more stable than the numbers, so the exercise gets cheaper each time.

Is this different in insurance brokers than in other industries?

Materially, yes. 71 percent of revenue flows through carrier commissions while shifting an incremental 8 percent to fees would require replacing 142 renewal accounts and cut near-term margin by 1.8 to 2.3 points — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are 19.0, 91.2, 664, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.

What data do I need before this analysis is worth running for an insurance broker?

Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on 19.0 and 91.2. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.

When is Percision the wrong tool?

Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.

Does Percision replace a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, or AI implementation team?

Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.