Case Study: What $2.17 Million in Recovered Underwriting Profit Looks Like Across Two Portfolios

Two portfolios. Roughly 30 months of documented results. A combined $2,170,271 in recovered underwriting profit returned to ownership groups. In a traditional insurance model, that money would have gone to carriers. This captive insurance case study puts both of the programs we’ve built side by side and looks at what the combined data shows.

Portfolio 1: the greenfield launch

• Portfolio: 10,141 units with no prior resident insurance program

• Duration: 30 months

• Peak enrollment: 93%, or 9,455 enrolled residents

• Peak monthly net revenue to ownership: $104,005 at month 30

• Total net profit over 30 months: $1,686,603

• Loss ratio: 13%

Read the full 10,141-unit case.

Portfolio 2: the move off RealPage

• Portfolio: 3,364 units that migrated from RealPage resident insurance

• Duration: 31 months

• Peak enrollment: 75%, or 2,515 enrolled residents

• Peak monthly net revenue to ownership: $27,665 at month 31

• Total net profit over 31 months: $483,668

• Loss ratio: 0.9%, with one claim for $4,000

Read the full RealPage migration case.

The combined picture

• Combined net profit to ownership: $2,170,271 over about 30 months

• Combined portfolio size: 13,505 units

• Peak combined enrollment: 11,970 residents

• Blended loss ratio: 8.3%, weighted

The $2.17 million isn’t a ceiling. Both programs are still running, and the cumulative number grows every month.

What the recovered profit represents

In a traditional model, that $2.17 million would have gone to carriers that had no role in managing the properties, screening residents or maintaining buildings. In Insur3Tech’s captive, it went to the operators whose management produced the low loss ratios. The profit followed the risk management. Our post on underwriting profit explains where that margin comes from.

What the two portfolios show about size

• Profit scaled with size. The 10,141-unit portfolio produced about 3.5 times the net profit of the 3,364-unit portfolio, roughly in line with the size ratio.

• Low loss ratios don’t require scale. The smaller portfolio posted 0.9% versus 13%, though a smaller claims sample plays a part.

• Enrollment depends on process. The larger portfolio reached 93% versus 75%, likely reflecting more mature leasing integration and a greenfield start.

Our programs have consistently averaged 75% to 93% resident enrollment over time, and these two portfolios mark both ends of that range.

The most useful data for operators evaluating a program

• Time to meaningful revenue: $39,754 a month by month 6 in portfolio 1.

• Achievable loss ratios: both are professionally managed multifamily portfolios with no unusual risk controls.

• Predictable growth: enrollment compounded steadily until it reached 75% to 93%.

• Durable revenue: month 30 and month 31 figures reflect a mature program that keeps paying out.

How Insur3Tech fits

Insur3Tech’s captive has no minimum premium and no unit minimum; portfolios as small as 4 doors can join. There are no holdout periods. The entire program is reinsured, so you carry no downside risk. What isn’t spent on claims comes back to you. We insure 100,000+ doors.

Want your portfolio’s version of this number? Book a free discovery call. We’ll audit your portfolio for free and tell you how much you can expect to get back every year.