Leakage Analytics
2.5% of Your GWP Leaks
Every Quarter.
Here Is Where.
CedeOS identifies reinsurance premium leakage prospectively — by policy, by treaty clause, by cedant — before submission.
The condition
The error-to-discovery gap is 3 to 18 months. At 18 months, recovery is 40 cents on the dollar.
Three error categories account for 80% of reinsurance premium leakage. All three are detectable at the row level, on the day the bordereaux is submitted. None of them are caught by manual quarterly reconciliation until the reinsurer raises them.
Cession Rate Errors
The treaty specifies a 35% cession rate for Motor Third Party. Bordereaux rows are submitted at 32%. The 3-percentage-point gap has accumulated for 14 months. Recovery requires reconstructing every affected row — without the original underwriter available.
Detection: 14 months post-error · Recovery: contested at 40–60 cents
Treaty Application Errors
A London XL treaty applies different rates to liability and property within the same programme. The bordereaux system does not distinguish. All rows have been submitted under the property rate. Accumulated under-cession: USD 180,000 across 2.5 years of quarterly filings.
USD 180K identified · USD 90K recovered · Relationship permanently affected
Exclusion Misclassification
Your treaty excludes marine cargo. Fourteen policies with marine cargo riders have been included in ceded premium calculations for three years. The reinsurer raises the issue at renewal. Your team cannot isolate which rows are affected without re-reading 3,000 individual policy schedules.
KES 4.7M accumulated · Identified at renewal · No prospective detection
The cost
2.5% of GWP. Every year. Until the infrastructure changes.
The uncollected premium is only one line item. Staff time, dispute resolution, and IFRS 17 restatement risk compound the total cost well beyond the headline figure.
All figures carry source or methodology. The 2.5% figure is an industry benchmark; CedeOS pilot validation is ongoing. The $1.25M calculation uses the formula 2.5% × $50M GWP.
Pilot outcome
A composite insurer in Lagos (NGN 8B GWP) identified cession rate errors across 11 quarters of bordereaux data in the first pilot assessment. Three treaty application errors had accumulated NGN 420M in under-ceded premium. Prospective prevention deployed for the following quarter close.
Advisory
Former Chief Actuary · West African composite insurer · Advisory engagement, 2024
Validated metric
$1.25M
Average annual leakage recovered at $50M GWP
Methodology: 2.5% × $50M GWP = $1.25M recovered per year. 2.5% is an industry benchmark; CedeOS pilot validation ongoing.
The mechanism
A dashboard the CFO can read. ROI the actuary can verify.
Four analytics panels built around the decisions a Chief Actuary and a CFO actually need to make. Every figure is traceable to the source bordereaux row and treaty clause.
Portfolio Leakage Rate
Real-time leakage rate as a percentage of GWP. Quarterly trend line. Benchmark against the top-performer threshold (0.5%). CFO-readable — no actuary required to interpret the summary view.
Error Category Breakdown
Which error category is driving leakage: cession rate errors, treaty application errors, exclusion misclassification, minimum premium shortfalls, or reinstatement miscalculations. Sorted by recovery opportunity.
Cedant-Level Exposure
Leakage attributed by cedant. Which relationships carry the highest error rate. Priority list for operational intervention — before the relationship carries a disputed history into renewal.
Recovery Documentation
Quantified recovery opportunities with treaty clause citations. Dispute documentation formatted for reinsurer communication. Historical resolution rate tracked by cedant and error category.
Prospective and retrospective
Leakage identified before submission. Historical exposure quantified from day one.
Prospective prevention
Every bordereaux row checked against treaty rules before it enters the accounts. The error that would have accumulated for 14 months is caught on the day the bordereaux is uploaded — with the treaty clause that applies and the correction value.
Row-level validation before any figure enters the accounts
Five error categories checked on every row, every quarter
Deviation flagged with treaty clause citation and correction value
Retrospective analysis
For portfolios already running, full retrospective leakage analysis across all historical bordereaux. Carrier-by-carrier exposure. Category-by-category attribution. Quantified recovery opportunity with documentation for dispute resolution.
Historical bordereaux re-validated against current treaty rules
Carrier-by-carrier exposure quantified in local currency and USD
Recovery opportunity documented and prioritised by value for dispute resolution
How it works
Row-level validation. Treaty clause citation. Before submission.
CedeOS validates every bordereaux row against the applicable treaty clauses before any figure enters the accounts. Five error categories. Every row. Every quarter. The analytics surface shows where leakage is occurring, at what rate, and what the recovery opportunity is.
Bordereaux ingestion
Upload via email, SFTP, dashboard, or REST API. Any format. 40+ column naming conventions normalised automatically. No manual pre-processing.
Treaty rule extraction
Applicable treaty clauses extracted and linked to policy categories. Cession rates, exclusions, minimum premiums, and reinstatement clauses all applied at the row level.
Row-level validation
Every row checked against five error categories: cession rate errors, treaty application errors, exclusion misclassification, minimum premium shortfalls, reinstatement miscalculations.
Leakage quantification
Each deviation quantified in local currency and USD. Cedant-level attribution. Category-by-category breakdown. CFO summary and actuary drill-down available in the same view.
Recovery documentation
Dispute-ready documentation generated automatically: treaty clause citation, original row value, corrected value, and cumulative exposure. Formatted for reinsurer communication.
Methodology
Row-level validation applied across pilot bordereaux data. All analytics outputs carry full treaty clause citation and source row traceability. In-country processing enforced at infrastructure level.
Regulatory alignment
Leakage analytics built for the regulators who govern your market.
Prospective leakage detection is not useful if the recovery documentation cannot be submitted to your regulator. Every analytics output is formatted for the frameworks that govern African and Asian reinsurance markets.
IFRS 17
CSM/Loss Component traceability — native, not post-hoc
IRA Kenya
Bordereaux submission format aligned
NAICOM
Nigerian regulatory reporting native
FSCA
South African POPIA-compliant processing
SAMA
Saudi data residency enforced at infrastructure level
DIFC
UAE financial free zone compliance
The path
From first bordereaux to prospective leakage prevention in four weeks.
Technical Brief
Download the technical brief. Analytics architecture, treaty validation methodology, IFRS 17 traceability approach, and data residency details for your CTO and chief actuary.
Pilot Assessment
Submit one quarter of bordereaux data. We return a leakage estimate by error category and cedant, a treaty gap analysis, and the correction methodology. No commitment required.
Live Demo
A 20-minute session using your actual bordereaux data. We show you the leakage rate, the error category breakdown, and the recovery opportunity specific to your portfolio.
First Validated Close
Pilot go-live. First quarterly close with prospective leakage detection active. Target: under 3 hours. Full audit trail with treaty clause citations ready for external review.
Find out where your GWP is leaking before the next submission.
Start with the Technical Brief. Request a Pilot Assessment when ready. Book a Live Demo to see your own bordereaux data analysed.
Your next quarterly close should take 3 hours. Start your pilot assessment