The File That Must Survive the Deal: Consumer Duty Evidence as an Underwritable UK MGA Asset

Consumer Duty evidence is not a by-product of compliance. For a UK managing general agent, it is the record that proves the business can be supervised, renewed and, if necessary, transferred. That makes it an intangible asset with underwriting characteristics: it can be complete or patchy, owned or orphaned, portable or trapped. The distinction matters most when capacity, delegated authority or platform arrangements change.

From compliance artefact to balance-sheet item

Since the Consumer Duty regime took effect in 2023, UK firms have had to demonstrate that they are delivering good outcomes, not merely intending to. For an MGA, the obligation is complicated by delegation. Product design may sit with the capacity provider; distribution sits with brokers; administration may sit with a third-party platform. The MGA often sits in the middle, holding the narrative but not always the underlying records.

The evidence file typically includes fair value assessments, outcomes monitoring packs, complaints and remediation logs, vulnerable customer reviews, distribution agreements, training records and governance minutes. Individually they look administrative. Together they answer a commercial question: can this MGA show, on a timely basis, that its products and distribution are delivering good outcomes? If the answer is no, the risk is not merely regulatory. It is a risk to renewal rights, delegated authority and enterprise value.

That is why the file deserves underwriting attention. It has attributes that can be tested, priced and, where necessary, remedied. It also has failure modes that tend to appear at the worst moment: during a capacity review, a delegated authority audit, a platform migration or a sale process.

Four tests for underwriting the evidence file

A practical framework can be built around four questions. They are deliberately simple, because the failure is rarely a lack of policy language. It is usually a lack of operational proof.

Completeness. Does the evidence cover every product, cohort and distribution channel that the MGA actually uses? A fair value assessment that covers the flagship product but not the ancillary add-on is not complete. Outcomes monitoring that tracks complaints but not claims outcomes is partial. Governance minutes that record discussion but not decisions, owners and deadlines are weak evidence. Underwriters should ask for a record inventory and a gap analysis, not a sample pack. Contemporaneous records carry more weight than reconstructed narratives.

Ownership. Who owns each record, and who can access it? The answer is often less clear than the contract suggests. The MGA may own the customer relationship while the platform vendor owns the data. The broker may hold distribution records. The capacity provider may hold product governance minutes. Shared folders are not ownership. Contracts should specify custody, access, retention and deletion. A named accountable executive and a maintained record inventory are stronger indicators than a generic statement that records are retained in accordance with regulatory requirements.

Transferability. If capacity changes, delegated authority is withdrawn or the MGA is sold, can the evidence move with the business? Platform licences, data export rights, broker-held records and third-party administration agreements can all trap the file. Underwriters should test for machine-readable export, cooperation clauses and retention periods that survive termination. A file that cannot be transferred is a contingent liability, even if it is complete today.

Resilience. Can the evidence survive staff turnover, supplier failure and platform migration? Backups, access controls, version control and disaster recovery are not glamorous questions, but they determine whether the file remains producible under pressure. A scenario test is more useful than a policy statement: ask the MGA to demonstrate how it would produce a complete outcomes pack for a specified product within a short deadline.

Where the liability really sits

The first instinct is to look at indemnities. They help with cost allocation, but they do not cure regulatory obligation. The authorised firm remains accountable to the FCA for the outcomes it distributes; outsourcing does not outsource the Duty. Contractual warranties may give the MGA a claim against a platform vendor, but they do not produce the missing evidence during a supervisory visit or a capacity review.

Underwriters should therefore distinguish between liability, accountability and recoverability. A file that is contractually warranted but operationally unavailable is still a stranded asset. The real question is not who would pay for the failure, but who can evidence the position when asked. That distinction should be reflected in representations and warranties, conditions precedent and renewal information requests.

Practical questions for the 2026 renewal cycle

For an MGA assessment, the following questions are a useful starting point:

• Which products and distribution channels are covered by current fair value assessments, and when were they last reviewed?
• What outcomes metrics are monitored, at what frequency, and who reviews the results?
• Where are distribution records held, and can the MGA obtain them without broker or vendor consent?
• Which governance minutes evidence decisions on customer outcomes, remediation and vulnerable customers?
• What export and retention rights apply if the platform, capacity provider or delegated authority arrangement ends?
• Who is accountable for the evidence file, and how is that accountability tested?

The paper trail is not the product in a literal sense. But in a delegated market, it is the proof that the product can be sold, supervised and transferred. Underwriting it as an intangible asset is no longer optional.