What should an annual captive review examine?

A useful review grades the program on two dimensions. The quantitative levers:

• Retention. Is the captive keeping the right amount of risk given its surplus, or paying too much away?
• Structure. Has the program outgrown its original form, a cell ready to become a single-parent captive, for example?
• Capital. Is capital trapped beyond what solvency requires, and could it be deployed or returned?
• Tax. Is the position still prudent as elections, domiciles, and rules evolve?
• Fronting. Is each front still necessary, and are its fees and collateral still market?

And the qualitative side: Has the captive kept pace with changing insurance needs and business growth? Do workflows, data, and reporting support fast decisions? Are claims being handled and closed well, since open claims cost more the longer they stay open? Most captives have had some of these examined recently and others not for years. Running the full list once a year, as a standing agenda rather than a one-off, is what separates managed assets from set-it-and-forget-it policies.