Straight-through processing (STP) refers to the end-to-end handling of an insurance submission without manual intervention at any stage. A submission comes in, is assessed, processed, and recorded in the system entirely through automated steps, with no underwriter touching it along the way.
It is an ambitious standard, and not every submission is a candidate for it. But for MGAs handling high volumes of lower-complexity risks, STP is increasingly the benchmark against which operational efficiency is measured.
Why it matters for MGAs specifically
MGAs operate differently from carriers. They typically work with leaner teams, manage delegated authority on behalf of capacity providers, and handle high broker volumes across a defined appetite. Speed of response is a competitive differentiator, brokers will place business where they get fast, reliable answers.
In that environment, the manual processing of straightforward submissions is an obvious inefficiency. If a submission falls clearly within appetite, contains all the required information, and maps cleanly to a standard template, there is no underwriting judgement required. The system can handle it. The underwriter’s time is better spent on submissions that do require a decision.
According to Datos Insights, leading MGAs are targeting 60-70% straight-through processing rates for their submission volumes. For a team of any size, reaching that level of automation represents a significant reduction in the administrative load placed on underwriters.
What STP requires in practice
True straight-through processing depends on several capabilities working together. The system must be able to read submissions in any format and extract the relevant data reliably. It must map that data to the correct template automatically. It must validate completeness, and follow up with the broker if anything is missing, without manual prompting. And it must export the completed record directly to the policy administration system once the submission is ready.
Where a submission falls outside appetite, contains ambiguous information, or requires a judgement call on pricing or coverage, the system flags it and routes it to the underwriter. The underwriter’s attention is focused where it is actually needed.
The distinction between STP and full automation
STP does not mean removing the underwriter from every decision. It means removing the underwriter from every task that is not a decision.
The most effective implementations give the underwriter a choice. For routine submissions, the process runs end-to-end without intervention. For anything more complex, the underwriter steps in at the relevant point, with all the data already extracted, mapped, and ready for assessment. Either way, the administrative work has already been done.
Where most MGAs currently stand
The gap between aspiration and reality remains significant. Many MGA underwriting teams are still processing submissions largely by hand, with technology playing a supporting role at best. Legacy systems were not built for automation, and the process of extracting and routing submission data has historically required human judgment at every step.
Modern platforms have changed that. The combination of AI-driven document reading, automated template population, and direct PAS integration makes STP achievable without a large-scale technology overhaul.
Nora by Insly
Nora is built for exactly this workflow. It reads submissions in any format, extracts the data, maps it to the template, chases any missing information, and exports directly to the policy administration system, with the underwriter choosing whether to review each stage or let the process run end-to-end. For MGAs targeting higher STP rates, it is the practical mechanism for getting there without rebuilding the underlying platform.
