Smart Trading, Smarter Markets: InsurX’s Gilbert Harrap on the Evolution of Lead-Follow Insurance
16 June, 2026
As the Lloyd’s and London market continues to rethink the future of lead-follow placement, the conversation around “smart follow” and digital trading infrastructure is evolving quickly. Following our recent report in collaboration with the LMA on the evolution of the lead-follow model, Partner Greg Brown was invited to catch up with Gilbert Harrap, CEO of InsurX, to discuss how insurers, brokers and technology providers are reshaping market dynamics, and what a truly “smart trading” environment could look like in the years ahead.
From algorithmic follow and portfolio facilities to AI-enabled underwriting, Gilbert shares his perspective on how the market is evolving, the bifurcation of traditional structures, and the need for clarity of culture and strategy in order to adapt thoughtfully rather than resist change.
GREG: Our recent collaboration with the LMA on Lead Follow, suggests the lead-follow model needs to evolve rather than be replaced. From your perspective, what does a ‘next-generation’ lead-follow model look like in practice?
GILBERT: I absolutely agree that the model evolves rather than disappears. The syndication of risk simply makes too much actuarial sense for the market to move wholesale towards everyone taking 100% lines. Risk benefits from being spread.
What changes is how that syndication happens. In practice, I think we move from the traditional open-market follow model towards a much more digitally enabled market, where smart-follow structures become the dominant mechanism for distributing capacity.
Today, most people are familiar with what I’d call ‘tracker’ smart follow, facilities that take a consistent share of a defined portfolio or book of business. That might be a class of business, a subset of a class, or even an entire broker portfolio. The appeal is straightforward: if you can share data effectively, insurers can deploy large blocks of capacity far more efficiently.
Alongside that, I think we’ll increasingly see algorithmic follow models emerge. There are really two variants of this. One is insurer-led, where carriers decide dynamically which risks they want to participate in as submissions arrive. The other is broker-led, where brokers and insurers agree in advance on rules around which leaders, portfolios or risk types capacity will automatically follow.
Over time, these structures will become more sophisticated and more dynamic, but fundamentally the future is a digitally enabled syndication model rather than the disappearance of syndication itself.
GREG: Smart follow has grown rapidly in recent years. What do you see as the key drivers behind that shift, and where does it outperform traditional placement?
GILBERT: A major driver has been the creation of new forms of capacity through broker facilities and portfolio solutions. Those structures introduced a fundamentally different operating model, one where insurers could deploy capital more efficiently if they were willing to share data and trade in a more systematic way.
That creates obvious cost advantages. You simply don’t need the same operational footprint as a traditional open-market follow model. And once that efficiency existed, it introduced competitive pressure across the market.
Brokers suddenly had options. They could source follow capacity through traditional means, or through more efficient facility-based structures. That inevitably forced insurers to reassess where they actually sit in the market.
Historically, many carriers would describe themselves as leaders. In reality, only a small number are true broad-market leaders. Most are niche leaders in specific segments or product areas. Smart follow has accelerated that self-awareness because it forces firms to think more honestly about where they add differentiated underwriting value, and where they are effectively providing commoditised capacity.
I’d also point to two broader structural shifts. First, digitisation across the market, what you might call the ‘insurtech dividend’, has pushed firms to modernise even if insurtech itself didn’t directly disrupt the market. Second, the growing influence of capital markets thinking has introduced a much stronger focus on return on capital and operational efficiency.
That combination has made structurally efficient trading models much more attractive.
GREG: One recurring concern in the market is balancing access to distribution with underwriting control. How can insurers scale participation in facilities without diluting underwriting discipline?
GILBERT: The starting point is recognising that insurers need different strategies for different types of participation.
You have lead underwriting. You have tracker smart-follow participation. And then you have algorithmic follow models. Each requires different capabilities and operating structures.
Tracker participation is actually relatively straightforward to operationalise. You can create dedicated teams with actuarial and portfolio management expertise and run those books efficiently with relatively lean operations.
Algorithmic follow is more complex because it requires both underwriting expertise and significant technical capability. If you’re trading algorithmically in marine, for example, you still need experienced marine underwriting judgment, but now paired with data scientists, actuaries and integration teams capable of connecting into digital trading platforms.
That introduces both investment requirements and cultural change. You can’t simply bolt this onto existing operating models. Existing underwriting teams need to adapt to entirely new ways of working.
The other major challenge is honesty around leadership positioning. Insurers need to ask themselves: are we genuinely differentiated leaders, or are we primarily providing commoditised follow capacity? And if it’s the latter, how should our expense base and operating model evolve accordingly?
That’s where many firms are struggling today. There’s still a lack of strategic maturity around how organisations position themselves in this evolving market.
GREG: Some argue that smart-follow and facility-based trading models risk amplifying soft-market behaviour and creating unsustainable underwriting outcomes. What’s your response to that concern?
GILBERT: I don’t think the technology itself creates poor underwriting outcomes. Market cycles still exist regardless of whether trading is digital or traditional.
Soft markets will still be soft markets. Hard markets will still be hard markets. The key difference is that digitally enabled trading gives firms better data and better visibility into portfolio performance.
The real question is whether firms act appropriately on that information. If a portfolio starts deteriorating and the market is softening, do insurers reduce participation? Do they adjust pricing? Or do they continue writing because strategic relationships matter more in the short term?
Those are underwriting and capital management decisions, not technology failures.
In some ways, these structures may actually help insurers manage cycles more effectively because portfolio adjustments can be made more quickly and with lower operational friction than traditional open-market structures.
The firms I worry about most are actually the ones trying to maintain high-cost traditional follow models without genuinely differentiated underwriting performance. They risk being squeezed from both directions, higher expenses and less competitive trading models.
GREG: Generative AI is now dominating conversations across financial services. Some suggest it could fundamentally change underwriting and even eliminate the need for many current market structures. How do you see AI influencing the future of the London market?
GILBERT: AI is part of a much broader historical trend of technological innovation, but what feels genuinely different is the speed of change it enables.
The productivity gains are enormous. Our own engineering teams can build software dramatically faster than they could only a few years ago. That changes the economics of technology development across the entire market.
For brokers and insurers, the opportunity is understanding where AI can materially improve existing business models, whether that’s serving clients better, structuring data more effectively, or underwriting portfolios more intelligently.
But I don’t think AI removes the importance of the London market or wholesale expertise. If anything, I think it strengthens it.
The firms that build the best algorithms will likely be those already closest to the flow of complex global risk. London still benefits from concentration of expertise, distribution flow and specialist underwriting knowledge accumulated over decades.
In that sense, AI may actually reinforce existing centres of expertise rather than dismantle them. The market participants with the richest data and strongest specialist ecosystems are likely to build the most effective models.
GREG: What developments are you most excited about at InsurX right now?
GILBERT: A major focus for us is helping broker and insurer partners win new business rather than simply improve margins on existing business. That distinction matters because firms become much more motivated to adopt new trading infrastructure when it directly supports growth.
Today, we have around 40 brokers and 25 insurers using InsurX across different classes, and that number continues to grow. The really exciting opportunity now is helping the market serve more middle-market business efficiently.
Historically, the London market has excelled at placing large, complex syndicated risks, but many of those placements can still take weeks. We see a huge opportunity to create far more efficient structures for mid-market business, particularly by connecting wholesale markets with retail distribution networks globally.
That could mean a global retail broker connecting seamlessly into London capacity, or wholesale brokers working more effectively with regional retail partners. We’re seeing very strong engagement around that opportunity.
GREG: Looking ahead, how do you see the market evolving from today’s lead-follow and smart-follow models towards a more fully developed “smart trading” environment, and what are the key barriers to that transition?
GILBERT: I think the entire commercial insurance value chain becomes increasingly digitised over time. By digitised, I mean that data flows far more seamlessly between clients, brokers, wholesalers, insurers, reinsurers and capital providers. The market becomes significantly more connected.
That won’t happen uniformly across every class or geography, but London wholesale markets do appear to be ahead in this transition. As that efficiency increases, I think more business flows into wholesale markets while retail markets become increasingly focused on client servicing and advisory roles.
Ultimately, we could end up with a much more specialised ecosystem, where wholesale markets focus on efficient risk transfer and portfolio construction, while retail brokers concentrate on client relationships and risk advisory.
For insurers and brokers, the benefits should be meaningful: faster placement, lower frictional cost and potentially more innovative insurance products that address risks which historically weren’t economically viable to insure.
The biggest barriers are organisational rather than technological. Leadership teams need to look honestly at their business models and decide how they want to compete in this new environment. Culture will be critical because these changes require firms to evolve in meaningful ways – I think the real advantage will sit with those that are willing to take an honest look at how the market is changing – structurally as much as cyclically – and adapt accordingly.
That means being prepared to rethink operating models, embrace new trading dynamics, invest in different capabilities and, perhaps most importantly, foster a culture that is open to change rather than resistant to it. In a market evolving as quickly as this one, standing still may prove far riskier than evolving thoughtfully.
Greg Brown is a Partner at Oxbow Partners. He leads engagements on digital, operational, and technology strategy and transformation. He spends most of his time in the Lloyd’s and London Market and European retail insurance. Graduating with a degree in Engineering and Computer Science, Greg has a strong technical background which allows him to give his clients confidence in the feasibility of their strategic choices. CEOs often rely on Greg to look through the hype and advise them on the relevance of technical trends. Topics where Greg’s range of experience comes together include digitisation in the London Market and the impact of Lloyd’s Blueprint 2, strategic choices available to syndicates around the bifurcation of lead/follow, and using technology as a vehicle to drive underwriting transformation. Greg is a regular commentator on transformation and digital topics, and often speaks at industry events.
Gilbert Harrap is CEO of InsurX, where he leads the company’s mission to modernise and transform the insurance industry through technology, innovation, and high-performing teams. With a career spanning insurance, technology, and international leadership roles, he has extensive experience driving growth in fast-paced, commercially focused environments. Gilbert is passionate about solving complex challenges, building strong cultures, and creating businesses where talented people can thrive.
