Bastivo risk-financing assessment: a preliminary look at your options

Answer structured questions about your organization, the commercial risks you want to explore and how you would prefer to finance them. The Assessment compares six approaches against your answers — a single-parent captive, a group captive, a protected cell, a rent-a-captive, an increased retention program and a conventional insurance approach — and explains where each one stands. You can see your Preliminary Report without an account or an email address.

Before you start

How we handle what you tell us.

What you get

The Preliminary Report shows the approach with the highest Fit Score, a plain-language explanation of what drove it and a separate Evidence Confidence level. It also tells you if scores are tied or if any approach could not be scored. Adding an email address unlocks the Full Report: results for all six approaches, what supports and limits each one, questions worth investigating, and providers whose Bastivo profiles list services for the captive and retention approaches. The conventional insurance approach has no provider listings. No provider is contacted unless you later request an introduction yourself.

AI Assessment Methodology

How we handle your answers

Your answers are used to calculate and explain your results. Scores come from fixed rules in code. Explanations are written from fixed Bastivo templates; if an AI-written explanation is used, your report labels it, and AI never sets or changes a score. Your answers are not shared with any provider unless you request an introduction and agree to what will be shared.

By starting, you confirm you have read how we handle your answers.

Bastivo stores your assessment information and results as described in our Privacy Policy.

See our Privacy Policy and the AI Assessment Methodology & Disclaimer.

About this assessment

The Assessment is educational decision support for commercial, non-life risk financing. It is meant for the stage before you engage advisers, when you are deciding which structures deserve closer research. A full captive feasibility study goes much further.

How closely each approach aligns with your stated preferences and with how prepared your organization is to take it on, given the information you provide about the organization, the risks involved and your financing priorities. That alignment is the Fit Score. It is not a probability of success, an estimate of savings or a finding that you are eligible. Evidence Confidence is shown separately and indicates how well your answers support the result; a high score with low confidence is a reason to gather more information.

The Preliminary Report shows the approach with the highest Fit Score, a plain-language explanation of what drove it and a separate Evidence Confidence level. It also tells you if scores are tied or if any approach could not be scored. Adding an email address unlocks the Full Report: results for all six approaches, what supports and limits each one, questions worth investigating, and providers whose Bastivo profiles list services for the captive and retention approaches. The conventional insurance approach has no provider listings. No provider is contacted unless you later request an introduction yourself.

It is not a feasibility study, an actuarial analysis, an insurance quote or a recommendation of a specific policy or program, and it is not legal, tax or actuarial advice. It cannot establish capital adequacy, regulatory or tax eligibility, or whether a structure will succeed for you. Health and employee-benefit arrangements are outside its scoring model, so it does not produce Fit Scores for them; the self-funded health plan and medical stop-loss pages cover those topics.

Finance, risk and treasury teams at companies weighing whether to retain more of their commercial risk, and owners who want a structured first view before talking to captive managers, consultants or brokers. If you already know the kind of firm you need, you can go straight to the providers.