The Self-Insurance Institute of America (SIIA) finds that 92 of 101 respondents to its 2026 captive survey have noticed no evolving regulatory trend either increasing or decreasing captive interest, a figure the association puts at 91 per cent against 65 per cent in 2025 and 63 per cent in 2024. SIIA describes regulatory impact as being at an all-time low. The association states that the findings suggest regulatory uncertainty is no longer a significant driver of growth and interest in the captive insurance market, and that its government relations team has tracked a related trend in which state policymakers are increasingly creating predictable, efficient and supportive environments that encourage captive formation, expansion and innovation. The finding appears in the 2026 Captive Industry Survey & Trend Report, the sixth annual edition, prepared by SIIA’s Captive Committee and released at the association’s National Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, which ran from 11 to 13 October. A panel of captive industry participants presented the findings to attendees. A total of 160 respondents completed the survey, each representing a single company or entity. Brokers accounted for 58, actuaries, third party administrators and others for 39, captive managers for 28, prospective captive owners for 18, captive owners or policy owners for 12, captive attorneys for three and certified public accountants for two. Response counts vary by question because respondents were routed to sections according to role and experience. Medical stop-loss is the clearest growth signal in the survey. In the general section, 73 of 105 respondents named gap or medical stop-loss as an area of increased captive interest, against 31 for cyber risk and 12 for professional liability. Among service providers answering on where they see the most growth, 21 of 30 named employee benefits or medical stop-loss, against five for property and casualty, two for enterprise risk and one each for workers compensation and other. General respondents rated the future of the captive industry at an average of 7.6 on a scale of one to 10, with a median of eight, across 114 responses. On outlook compared with the previous year, 49 of 103 were more optimistic, 29 the same and 25 less optimistic. Among medical stop-loss service providers reporting on the 1 January 2026 renewal cycle, nine of 22 said their renewal block was slightly better than the standard market and three said significantly better, while nine said it was about the same and one said slightly worse. On how predictable renewal pricing has been against the standard market, 11 of 23 answered moderately, 10 very and one extremely, with one answering not at all. The survey divided on whether known risks or lasers absorbed into the captive threaten its health, with nine of 23 medical stop-loss respondents saying no, eight saying yes and six selecting not applicable. The report states that the question is not simply whether a captive can absorb a known risk, but whether the risk is priced, capitalised, monitored and governed within the specific programme. On the economics of the medical stop-loss book, nine of 20 respondents reported a net loss ratio of 91 to 100 per cent, five reported less than 70 per cent, and three each reported 81 to 90 per cent and 71 to 80 per cent. On expense ratio, nine of 19 reported 10.1 to 20 per cent, five reported 20.1 to 25 per cent, four reported up to 10 per cent and one reported more than 30 per cent. Across 16 responses on the share of premium typically returned to members through dividends or surplus distributions, the average was 19.6 per cent and the median 10 per cent. Asked in an open question about the biggest barrier to entry into a medical stop-loss captive, five of 23 respondents gave answers grouped under underwriting, data and operational challenges, covering programme setup, claims data and catastrophic claims. Four cited a lack of understanding or education among brokers and clients, four pricing competition and resistance to change, three clients not being self-funded and therefore structurally ineligible, and three collateral requirements and state regulatory issues. Four identified no clear barrier. Brokers without captive clients identify knowledge rather than scepticism as the obstacle. Of 14 who answered why they had not introduced clients to a captive option, eight said they did not have sufficient knowledge or understanding of alternative risk to discuss the concept of a captive intelligently, five said the premium the client pays in the commercial market is not significant enough to warrant the cost and maintenance of owning a captive, and one selected all of the above. Fifteen of 16 said they would be interested in learning more about captive options if they had access to resources and support, and all 15 who answered the follow-up question said they would be highly likely to recommend a captive to a client with a better understanding of its benefits. All 16 said their clients complain to them about the cost of their insurance and all 16 said they had discussed alternative risk financing arrangements with clients. None had lost an account in the previous 18 months for not showing a captive option. Among brokers who do have captive clients, 16 of 35 named lack of understanding as the biggest barrier to clients joining captives, ahead of complexity at six, capital requirements at five, long-term commitment at four, risk tolerance at three and advisor familiarity at one. Asked about the primary benefits of participation, 16 of 35 named pricing stability, 11 improved risk management, six ownership of underwriting profits and two access to data and benchmarking. On performance, 28 of 35 brokers said clients in captives typically do better than in fully insured programmes and seven said about the same. On value against the traditional market, 17 of 35 said captives provide somewhat more value, 16 significantly more and two similar value. Asked whether demand for captive insurance will grow over the next five years, 32 of 35 said yes and three were unsure. The report states that these responses are perception and experience measures rather than a controlled comparison of claim outcomes. Asked which captive resource has been most valuable, 11 of 24 medical stop-loss respondents chose claims management, seven loss control, five data analytics and one peer benchmarking. The report reads that result as respondents placing greater weight on actions that can change claim outcomes than on information alone. Artificial intelligence is already in use in underwriting across the service provider base, with 27 of 38 respondents saying they had implemented it in underwriting their policies. Broken out, 15 of 17 broader service providers reported using artificial intelligence in underwriting against 12 of 21 medical stop-loss service providers. The report suggests the difference may reflect the earlier stage of adoption in medical stop-loss, where data quality, clinical interpretation and explainability remain important considerations. The question appendix carries operating data that does not appear in the report’s narrative sections. Across 44 service providers answering, respondents were involved in 697 new captive formations in 2025, a median of four each and a maximum of 251 for a single respondent. Across 43 respondents, captive closures totalled 290, with a median of none and a maximum of 119. Across 41 respondents, 188 captives were redomiciled during 2025, again with a median of none and a maximum of 100. Asked which captive structures they had seen formed most in 2025, 27 of 43 respondents named cells, 13 group captives, 12 single parent captives and one a risk retention group. Twenty-eight respondents reported serving 14,474 captive clients between them, a median of 45 each, and 24 reported total captive premium of US$43.99 billion, at a median of US$180 million. Average premium per captive, across 22 responses, was US$7.9 million at a median of US$4.1 million. Onboarding a new captive client from initial engagement to full operational status takes three to six months for 25 of 44 respondents, less than three months for 12, seven to 12 months for five and more than 12 months for two. Separately, among respondents to the general section, 33 of 54 added staff during 2025 and 21 did not, with 172 staff added in total at a median of five per respondent. Demand for emerging risk cover is uneven. Of 25 service providers, 11 said none of their captive clients had requested support for emerging risks such as cyber, climate or supply chain in the past 12 months, while six put it at 11 to 25 per cent, five at 1 to 10 per cent, two at more than 50 per cent and one at 26 to 50 per cent. In an open question on the biggest trend or emerging risk in the captive insurance space, 13 of 61 responses were grouped under rising pharmacy and high-cost specialty claims, including GLP-1 drugs, gene and cell therapy, oncology and transplants. Nine were grouped under medical stop-loss and employee benefits captive growth, and six each under underwriting and pricing discipline and under emerging technology and catastrophic risk. The report sets four priorities for the industry. Make the model easier to explain, on the basis that the largest barrier brokers identify is a lack of understanding rather than a lack of interest. Treat claims execution as a central capability. Use technology with governance, so that adoption of artificial intelligence improves underwriting and service quality while preserving accountability. And build disciplined expansion paths, developing emerging risks through measured pilots, credible data and clear capital requirements. SIIA states that it has expanded its educational offering with new Captive 101 and Captive 201 courses, a series of programmes for members and the public featuring webinars, one-pagers and other materials. The association states that the survey is intended to identify market direction and informed perceptions, that it is not a census of all captive activity and should not be read as an audited industry benchmark, and that percentages are calculated from the respondents who answered the relevant question. The full report is available from SIIA.
