Insurance Companies as LPs: GP Fundraising Guide 2026

By Dawid, Founder of Altss. Writing about allocator intelligence and fundraising strategy.

The global insurance industry manages approximately $30 trillion in investable assets, making insurers one of the largest institutional investor categories — yet one of the least understood by GPs raising capital. Insurance companies are structurally different from every other LP category: their investment behavior is shaped by regulatory capital frameworks (risk-based capital in the US, Solvency II in Europe) that directly penalize certain asset classes, by accounting regimes that treat mark-to-market volatility differently depending on how assets are classified, and by liability structures that vary enormously between life insurers, property-and-casualty carriers, and reinsurers. Despite these constraints, insurance allocations to alternatives have grown consistently — driven by yield compression in fixed income, structural demand for private credit, and regulatory evolution that is gradually reducing the capital cost of private market exposure. This article maps the insurance LP landscape, the regulatory and accounting mechanics that GPs must understand before approaching insurance capital, the decision chain, diligence expectations, and the practical targeting strategy for 2026.

Why are insurance companies a distinct LP category?

Insurance companies invest to match or exceed the cost of their liabilities — policyholder claims, annuity obligations, and reserve requirements. This is fundamentally different from pension funds, which invest to fund long-dated retirement obligations, or endowments, which invest to support perpetual institutional missions. An insurer's investment portfolio is not an asset allocation exercise — it is a balance sheet management exercise, and every allocation decision is filtered through its impact on regulatory capital, statutory accounting, and rating agency assessment.

This creates a set of constraints that GPs encounter nowhere else in fundraising. A pension fund evaluates a private equity commitment primarily on risk-adjusted returns. An insurance company evaluates that same commitment on risk-adjusted returns, the risk-based capital charge it triggers, how it appears on the statutory balance sheet, the volatility it introduces to book value, and whether the rating agency will view the allocation favorably. GPs who approach insurance companies with a pension-style pitch — emphasizing IRR, TVPI, and DPI — without addressing capital treatment and accounting will not advance past the first meeting.

The Altss family office and institutional investors database covers 9,000+ family offices alongside an expanding universe of institutional LPs — pension funds, endowments, foundations, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, OCIOs, and fund-of-funds — built on OSINT sourcing with human verification on every profile. This article provides the insurance-specific map.

How large is the insurance company investment universe?

The global insurance industry manages investable assets of approximately $30 trillion, with US insurers alone reporting total cash and invested assets of $8.98 trillion at year-end 2024, according to the NAIC Capital Markets Bureau — a 5.3% increase from the prior year. The US life and accident-and-health insurance industry reported total net admitted assets of $9.3 trillion, comprising $6.1 trillion in general account assets (up 6.2%) and $3.3 trillion in separate accounts (up 7.4%). These are the pools that matter for GP fundraising — general account assets are where alternatives allocations originate.

The largest insurance company investors globally include Allianz, AXA, Prudential Financial, MetLife, Berkshire Hathaway, Japan's Nippon Life and Dai-ichi Life, Zurich Insurance, Manulife, and Great-West Lifeco. Among European insurers, Allianz manages approximately €800 billion in proprietary investments and AXA manages approximately €600 billion. Goldman Sachs Asset Management manages $460 billion in general account assets on behalf of insurance clients as of December 2024 — a single data point that illustrates how concentrated insurance asset management relationships are.

For GP fundraising, the relevant number is not total assets but the portion available for alternatives. US insurers held approximately $578 billion in Schedule BA assets (the statutory accounting category that captures private equity, hedge funds, private credit, real estate, and other alternative investments) at year-end 2024, per NAIC data — up approximately 8% from $533.7 billion at year-end 2023. Schedule BA assets have grown from $266 billion in 2012, representing a roughly 117% increase over the decade. Life insurers account for 65% of industry Schedule BA holdings, reflecting their longer-duration liabilities and greater capacity to hold illiquid assets. P&C companies hold approximately 31%.

But Schedule BA understates total alternatives exposure. Insurance private credit increasingly flows through Schedule D (bonds) rather than Schedule BA when structured as rated notes, CLOs, or asset-backed securities. US insurers held $276.8 billion in CLO investments and $123.4 billion in bank loans at year-end 2024 — categories that function as private credit but are reported on bond schedules, not Schedule BA. The true alternatives footprint across all schedules is substantially larger than the $578 billion BA figure alone suggests.

What this market data does not capture

Total invested assets overstate the addressable market for GP fundraising. A significant portion of insurance portfolios is held in investment-grade fixed income to match liabilities and satisfy regulatory requirements — bonds alone represent 60.4% of total cash and invested assets. Separate account assets ($3.3 trillion for life insurers) are managed to match policyholder-directed allocations and are generally not deployed into LP commitments. The $578 billion Schedule BA figure is a better proxy for alternatives capacity, but even this includes internally managed portfolios, direct real estate, hedge fund allocations, and affiliated investments that are not accessible through standard commingled fund structures. Moreover, Schedule BA understates total private credit exposure because rated structured credit — CLOs, ABS, private placement bonds — flows through Schedule D. PE-owned insurers further complicate the picture: their $704 billion in assets is largely managed by affiliated alternative managers (Apollo, KKR, Blackstone) rather than allocated through open-market GP fundraising. GPs should focus on the subset of traditional (non-PE-owned) insurer Schedule BA that flows through external manager commitments — a fraction of the headline number, but still representing hundreds of billions in deployable capital.

How do insurance companies allocate to alternatives?

Insurance investment behavior is governed by a regulatory and accounting framework that does not exist for any other LP type. GPs must understand three layers: risk-based capital, statutory accounting, and rating agency treatment.

How does risk-based capital shape allocation?

In the US, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) enforces a risk-based capital (RBC) framework that assigns capital charges to every asset class. The capital charge represents the amount of surplus an insurer must hold against an investment — higher charges make an asset more expensive to own from a capital efficiency perspective.

The practical impact for GPs: investment-grade bonds carry RBC charges of approximately 0.4% for the highest quality (NAIC 1) to 4.6% for the lowest investment-grade category (NAIC 2). Common equities carry a base charge of approximately 30% (the C-1cs factor). Private equity fund commitments — classified as Schedule BA assets — carry the default equity charge of 30% for life insurers, though the exact treatment varies: P&C and health companies face a default Schedule BA charge of 20%. ABS residual tranches — relevant for CLO equity and structured credit first-loss positions — were increased to 45% in 2024 following NAIC deliberation, up from 30%. Private credit and directly originated loans structured as rated debt instruments can achieve significantly lower capital charges — often 2–5% depending on credit quality and NAIC designation — which is the primary reason insurance capital has flowed overwhelmingly into private credit rather than private equity.

This RBC framework is not static. The NAIC has been revising capital treatment for private fund investments, with ongoing discussions about differentiating between diversified fund-of-funds structures, single-manager PE funds, and private credit vehicles. The direction of reform matters: more favorable capital treatment for specific structures would expand the addressable market for GPs.

In Europe, Solvency II imposes a similar but differently structured framework. Under the standard formula, Type 1 equities (listed, EEA/OECD) carry a base capital charge of 39% plus a symmetric adjustment that can swing ±13%, while Type 2 equities (unlisted, non-OECD, hedge funds, commodities) carry a 49% base charge plus the same symmetric adjustment. The long-term equity investment (LTEI) bucket — introduced in 2019 and significantly reformed in 2024 — reduces the charge to 22% with no symmetric adjustment for qualifying investments matched against long-duration liabilities. The 2024 Solvency II review relaxed LTEI eligibility criteria: insurers no longer need to ring-fence LTEI assets to specific business lines, and the holding period demonstration was reduced from ten to five years. Neuberger Berman and other institutional analysts expect these reforms to encourage meaningful increases in European insurer allocations to private equity and infrastructure equity, though less than 1% of European insurer assets currently sit in PE funds according to EIOPA data.

The NAIC Principles-Based Bond Definition (PBBD) — effective for 2024 annual statement filings — is quietly reshaping the US landscape. The PBBD redefines what qualifies as a Schedule D bond based on substance rather than legal form. Securities that fail the new definition must be reclassified to Schedule BA, potentially increasing capital charges. For GPs, this creates both risk and opportunity: insurers may face a growing Schedule BA allocation that pushes against internal or regulatory limits, creating demand for structures that qualify for bond treatment under the new definition. GPs who understand the PBBD's criteria — particularly the distinction between issuer credit obligations and asset-backed securities — can structure vehicles that achieve favorable Schedule D-1 treatment rather than the default Schedule BA charge.

How does statutory accounting affect investment decisions?

US insurers report financials under Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP), which differ materially from GAAP. Under SAP, many alternative investments are carried at cost or amortized cost rather than fair value. This creates a paradox: an insurer holding a private equity fund at cost basis does not record mark-to-market gains until realization — which reduces reported income volatility but also means paper gains do not improve the statutory surplus position.

For GPs, the practical implication is that insurers weight current income — yield, cash distributions, and contractual cash flows — more heavily than total return. A private credit fund generating 10% current yield with low mark-to-market volatility is more attractive to an insurance general account than a buyout fund generating 18% IRR through capital appreciation with minimal interim distributions. This is not a return preference — it is an accounting-driven structural bias.

Life insurers are particularly sensitive to this dynamic because their liabilities (annuity obligations, guaranteed minimum returns) require predictable cash flows. P&C carriers, whose liabilities are shorter-duration and more variable, have somewhat greater tolerance for total-return strategies.

How do rating agencies influence allocation?

Insurance companies are rated by AM Best, S&P, Moody's, and Fitch. Rating agencies evaluate investment portfolios as part of their capital adequacy and risk management assessment. A significant increase in alternatives allocation — particularly private equity — can trigger rating scrutiny, rating watch, or negative outlook. This creates a ceiling on alternatives exposure that is independent of the insurer's own investment views.

For GPs, this means the allocation decision is not just between the CIO and the investment committee — the rating agency's likely response is a factor in every commitment. GPs whose strategies can be positioned as low-volatility, income-generating, or capital-efficient have an advantage because they are less likely to trigger rating agency concern.

What the allocation framework does not capture

The regulatory and accounting constraints described above apply to general account assets — the insurer's own balance sheet capital. Many large insurers also manage third-party capital through affiliated asset management arms (Prudential's PGIM, MetLife Investment Management, Manulife Investment Management, Allianz's PIMCO and AllianzGI). These platforms allocate to GPs on behalf of external clients — pensions, endowments, sovereign wealth funds — under different constraints than the general account. A GP relationship with an insurer's asset management arm does not automatically translate to a general account commitment, and vice versa. GPs should clarify which pool of capital they are targeting.

How does the insurance company decision chain work?

The insurance investment decision chain is typically more centralized than pension governance but more layered than family office decision-making.

The CIO and investment team drive strategy, sourcing, and manager selection. At large insurers, the investment team may include 50–200+ professionals across asset classes, with dedicated alternatives teams. At mid-sized carriers, a generalist CIO may oversee all asset classes with limited staff. The OSINT methodology captures CIO appointments, team changes, and conference participation that signal shifting investment priorities.

The investment committee reviews and approves individual manager commitments, typically with authority thresholds. Commitments above $50–100M may require board approval at some carriers. The committee includes the CIO, CFO, Chief Risk Officer, and often the Chief Actuary — reflecting the integration of investment decisions with liability management.

The CFO and risk management function evaluate every commitment through the lens of capital impact, accounting treatment, and ALM (asset-liability management) fit. This is the layer that does not exist in pension or endowment fundraising. A commitment that passes investment diligence can still be rejected if the CFO determines the capital charge is too high relative to the expected return, or if the Chief Actuary determines the cash flow profile does not match the liability structure.

External investment consultants play a smaller role than in pension fundraising. Large insurers maintain sophisticated in-house teams. Mid-sized carriers may use consultants for alternatives allocation, but the consultant's influence is typically limited to manager search and screening rather than the gating role they play in pension governance.

What this decision chain does not capture

The formal chain describes institutional process. In practice, insurance investment decisions are heavily influenced by the relationship between the CIO and the CFO — and these two executives often have competing priorities. The CIO seeks return; the CFO manages capital efficiency and rating agency relationships. At some insurers, the CFO effectively has veto power over alternatives allocations. GPs who build relationships only with the investment team and ignore the CFO's perspective on capital treatment are frequently surprised when commitments stall.

What do insurance companies look for in GP commitments?

Insurance LPs evaluate managers through a lens that blends institutional diligence with balance-sheet-specific criteria. The LP Due Diligence Checklist covers the standard IDD/ODD framework; below are the insurance-specific layers.

What strategies fit insurance general accounts?

Private credit is the dominant allocation for insurance general accounts. Direct lending, asset-backed finance, infrastructure debt, and real estate debt offer predictable cash flows, lower mark-to-market volatility, and favorable capital treatment relative to equity strategies. The shift is structural, not cyclical: Oliver Wyman data shows that at the top seven listed alternative managers, 43% of credit AUM is now funded by insurance capital (up from 32% in 2021), and more than half of 2024 credit inflows came from insurers. Asset-backed finance is growing fastest within this category — a 2024 Moody's study found that 44% of 30 major insurers plan to increase long-term allocations to ABF and private placements. Specific partnerships illustrate the scale: Sixth Street manages $13 billion for Northwestern Mutual, and Blackstone's BXCI manages over $220 billion for insurance company clients across four strategic relationships and approximately 20 other insurance clients.

Infrastructure equity — particularly contracted, cash-yielding assets like renewable energy projects, transportation concessions, and regulated utilities — fits the insurance liability profile because it generates stable, long-duration cash flows. Solvency II reforms in Europe explicitly reduced capital charges for qualifying infrastructure investments, accelerating allocation.

Private equity remains a meaningful allocation for larger insurers with surplus capital capacity, but it carries the highest RBC charge and introduces the most accounting complexity. Insurance PE commitments tend to favor co-investments (which can be structured to achieve lower capital charges), secondary fund purchases (where the J-curve is compressed and NAV is closer to fair value), and buyout strategies with strong distribution profiles over venture capital or growth equity.

Real estate — particularly core and core-plus strategies — serves as an inflation hedge and income generator. Many large insurers maintain separate real estate investment teams and allocate through both commingled funds and separate accounts.

Hedge funds and liquid alternatives have seen declining insurance allocations as yield has become available in private credit. The hedge fund allocation that made sense in a zero-rate environment is less compelling when direct lending yields 10–12%.

What structural terms do insurers require?

Insurance companies negotiate terms that reflect their balance sheet constraints. GPs should expect requests for quarterly or monthly NAV reporting (for statutory accounting), customized cash flow schedules aligned to liability payment patterns, co-investment rights with fee reductions, separate account or managed account structures for commitments above $100M, most-favored-nation side letter provisions, and detailed reporting on underlying credit quality for debt strategies. The ILPA DDQ covers standard operational diligence; insurance-specific diligence adds capital treatment analysis, SAP reporting requirements, and asset-liability matching documentation.

What insurance-specific diligence should GPs prepare?

Beyond the standard data room requirements, insurers ask for NAIC designation analysis showing the expected capital treatment of the fund's underlying assets, cash flow projection models demonstrating how distributions align with policyholder obligations, stress testing under adverse scenarios that mirror the insurer's own risk models, and documentation of how the fund structure qualifies for specific Schedule BA sub-categories. GPs who proactively prepare these materials — rather than waiting for the insurer's actuarial team to request them — signal institutional sophistication and compress the diligence timeline.

What types of insurance companies should GPs target?

How do life insurers differ from P&C carriers?

Life insurers are the primary source of insurance LP capital for alternatives. Their liabilities (annuities, life insurance policies, guaranteed investment contracts) are long-duration — often 10–30 years — which gives them structural tolerance for illiquid investments. Life company general accounts are the largest buyers of private credit in institutional markets. They allocate to PE, infrastructure, and real estate primarily for yield enhancement and diversification.

P&C carriers have shorter-duration liabilities (typically 1–5 years for most lines of business, longer for casualty and workers' compensation) and greater uncertainty about claim timing. This makes them more conservative allocators to illiquid alternatives. P&C alternatives allocations tend to be smaller as a percentage of assets and concentrated in more liquid strategies — hedge funds, short-duration private credit, and catastrophe bonds. Exceptions exist: large, well-capitalized P&C companies like Berkshire Hathaway and Fairfax Financial have significant PE and equity allocations, but these reflect idiosyncratic investment philosophies rather than industry norms.

Reinsurers — Munich Re, Swiss Re, Hannover Re, Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance, SCOR — combine characteristics of both. Their investment portfolios are large, their investment teams are sophisticated, and they often have more flexibility than primary carriers because reinsurance liabilities are more diversified. Reinsurers have been active allocators to alternatives, particularly infrastructure and private credit.

Mutual companies versus stock companies. Mutual insurers (owned by policyholders rather than shareholders) do not face quarterly earnings pressure and can take a longer-term view on illiquid investments. Stock insurers face analyst scrutiny on earnings volatility, which can constrain alternatives allocations. This distinction matters: a mutual life company like MassMutual, New York Life, or Northwestern Mutual may be a more receptive target for a long-lockup PE fund than a publicly traded insurer facing quarterly earnings calls.

What the insurer type framework does not capture

These categories describe structural tendencies, not absolute rules. A small life insurer with a conservative board may allocate less to alternatives than a large, sophisticated P&C carrier. Bermuda-domiciled reinsurers operate under different regulatory frameworks than European reinsurers under Solvency II. The mutual-versus-stock distinction matters less at companies where the investment team operates with significant autonomy from the CFO. GPs should classify targets by actual investment behavior and governance structure, not insurer type alone.

What is changing in insurance allocation in 2025–2026?

Several forces are reshaping how insurance companies allocate right now.

Private credit dominance is accelerating. The sustained high-rate environment has made private credit the most capital-efficient alternatives strategy for insurance general accounts. Direct lending, asset-backed finance, and structured credit offer yields that exceed the insurer's cost of capital with RBC charges that are a fraction of private equity. According to Oliver Wyman research (January 2025), private credit assets funded by insurers at the top seven listed alternative managers now account for 43% of those firms' total credit assets — up from 32% at the end of 2021 — and more than half of credit inflows in 2024 came from insurance capital. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates insurance assets could add $640 billion to private credit, growing at 10% annually. Goldman Sachs Asset Management's 2025 Global Insurance Survey — which captured responses from 405 CIOs and CFOs representing over $14 trillion in balance sheet assets — found that 58% of insurers plan to increase allocations to private credit in the next 12 months, and 62% plan to increase allocations to private markets overall. For GPs raising private credit vehicles, insurance capital is now the single most important LP category.

PE-owned insurers are reshaping the LP landscape. Private equity firms — Apollo (Athene), KKR (Global Atlantic), Blackstone (Everlake, Resolution Life), Brookfield (American National, American Equity), and Carlyle (Fortitude Re) — now own or control insurers with $704 billion in combined cash and invested assets at year-end 2024, per NAIC data. That represents 7.8% of the US insurance industry's nearly $9 trillion total — up from approximately 1% in 2012. These PE-owned insurers invest differently: they hold significantly more ABS and structured credit (up to 50% of portfolios versus 25-33% for the industry) and significantly less municipal bonds and public equity. For GPs, this creates a bifurcated landscape — PE-owned insurers allocate primarily through their parent firm's platforms, while traditional insurers remain accessible through standard GP fundraising. Understanding whether a target insurer is PE-affiliated is now a threshold question in insurance LP targeting.

Regulatory evolution is gradually expanding alternatives capacity. The NAIC's ongoing review of Schedule BA capital treatment, Solvency II reforms reducing charges for qualifying long-term investments, and Bermuda Monetary Authority's updated framework are all directionally favorable for GP fundraising. These changes are incremental — not transformative — but they are steadily widening the universe of strategies that insurance general accounts can economically allocate to.

Private equity secondaries and co-investments are growing. Insurance companies that face high capital charges on blind-pool PE fund commitments are increasingly allocating through secondaries (where NAV is visible and the J-curve is compressed) and co-investments (which can be structured as direct equity or debt holdings with potentially lower capital charges than fund interests). GPs offering secondary or co-investment access have a structural advantage with insurance LPs.

Insurance-affiliated asset managers are expanding alternatives platforms. PGIM, MetLife Investment Management, Manulife, Allianz, and others are building or acquiring private markets capabilities to serve both their parent company general accounts and external institutional clients. This creates partnership opportunities for smaller GPs — sub-advisory relationships, seeding arrangements, or strategic alliances where the insurance asset manager distributes the GP's strategy to its client base.

Bermuda and offshore structures are attracting capital. The growth of Bermuda-domiciled reinsurance sidecars and insurance-linked securities has created a parallel channel for alternatives capital. Apollo's Athene Dedicated Investment Program (ADIP) alone held over $69 billion in invested assets by mid-2024, with $9.3 billion of inflows through the sidecar program in the first half of the year. Athene's ACRA and ADIP structures have been replicated across the industry — Global Atlantic (KKR), Security Benefit (Eldridge), MassMutual (Barings/Centerbridge), American Equity (Brookfield), and Kuvare (Blue Owl) have all launched competing sidecars. McKinsey estimates the UK bulk-purchase annuity market could yield approximately $200 billion in reinsured reserves, and Japan may offer up to $600 billion in reserves available for reinsurance as its new regulatory regime takes effect. For emerging GPs, these offshore structures are less directly accessible — but understanding that the largest alternatives firms are competing for insurance capital through structural innovation provides essential context for positioning.

What these trends may not predict

Private credit yields may compress if rates decline, reducing the strategy's attractiveness relative to public fixed income. Regulatory changes could reverse direction under political pressure or after an insurance company failure. The growth of insurance-affiliated asset managers may consolidate allocations among fewer, larger GPs rather than expanding opportunities for emerging managers. Bermuda regulatory arbitrage faces potential scrutiny from US and European regulators. GPs should build for the current environment while monitoring structural shifts.

How should GPs target insurance companies?

How do GPs identify the right insurance universe?

Start by segmenting on four dimensions. Insurer type: life companies are the primary target for long-duration alternatives; P&C carriers for shorter-duration strategies. Size: carriers with general account portfolios above $10 billion typically have dedicated alternatives teams; below that threshold, alternatives allocations are often managed by a generalist CIO with limited bandwidth. Current alternatives exposure: NAIC Annual Statement filings (publicly available for US insurers) disclose Schedule BA holdings, revealing both the size and composition of the existing alternatives portfolio. Insurers already allocating to the GP's asset class are the warmest targets. Regulatory domicile: US (RBC), European (Solvency II), Bermuda (BMA framework), and Asian (varying by country) regulatory regimes create different constraints and opportunities.

Altss tracks real-time allocator signals — including CIO and portfolio manager appointments, RFP publications, conference attendance, and mandate changes — through its OSINT regulatory intelligence layer. For insurance companies, NAIC Annual Statement filings and Form ADV registrations for insurance-affiliated investment advisers are particularly valuable public data sources that reveal allocation shifts before they are announced.

How should GPs approach the insurance decision chain?

The approach differs from pension targeting in several important ways. Consultants are less central — GPs should focus on direct relationships with the CIO, head of alternatives, and head of private credit. The CFO and Chief Risk Officer matter more — GPs should proactively address capital treatment, accounting impact, and ALM fit in their initial materials rather than waiting for these questions. Actuarial review is a formal gate — GPs should prepare cash flow models and capital charge analysis before the first meeting. The timeline is typically shorter than pensions (3–9 months for most commitments) because insurance investment teams have greater delegated authority and do not require board-level approval for standard-size commitments.

What materials should GPs prepare for insurance LPs?

Beyond the standard ILPA DDQ and data room documented in the LP Due Diligence Checklist, GPs targeting insurance capital should prepare an NAIC capital treatment memo analyzing the expected RBC charge for the fund's strategy and structure, cash flow projection models showing quarterly or monthly distribution forecasts aligned to typical insurance liability profiles, SAP reporting capability documentation demonstrating the GP can provide statutory-compliant NAV and income reporting, a co-investment framework if applicable, and credit quality analysis for the underlying portfolio if running a credit strategy. GPs who arrive at the first meeting with these materials already prepared — rather than scrambling to produce them during diligence — compress the timeline and differentiate from competitors who treat insurance as an afterthought.

Where do insurance companies sit in a diversified LP base?

Insurance capital serves a specific function in the LP base: it is yield-oriented, structurally committed, and long-duration for life company allocations. A well-constructed LP base typically combines insurance capital with other institutional sources: pension funds for large anchor commitments and multi-vintage relationships, endowments for sophisticated alternatives programs and perpetual time horizons, family offices for speed, flexibility, and co-investment capacity, fund-of-funds for emerging manager access and institutional validation. Insurance LPs are particularly valuable for private credit GPs because the volume of capital insurers can deploy into credit strategies — often $50–500M per commitment — dwarfs what most other LP types allocate to any single credit manager.

What common mistakes do GPs make with insurance companies?

Ignoring capital treatment. The most frequent mistake. GPs who cannot explain how their fund will be treated under NAIC RBC or Solvency II lose credibility immediately. The capital charge is not an afterthought — it is the first filter.

Pitching total return to a current-income buyer. Insurance general accounts are structurally biased toward current income. A PE fund generating 20% net IRR through unrealized appreciation is less attractive to a life insurer than a private credit fund generating 11% current yield. GPs should lead with yield and cash flow, not IRR and TVPI.

Treating the CIO as the sole decision-maker. The CFO, Chief Risk Officer, and Chief Actuary have formal or informal veto authority at most carriers. GPs who build relationships only with the investment team and are surprised when the commitment stalls at the CFO level have not understood the insurance decision chain.

Assuming insurance capital is interchangeable. A life company general account, a P&C surplus portfolio, a reinsurer's investment book, and an insurance-affiliated asset manager's third-party platform are four completely different pools of capital with different constraints, return expectations, and decision processes. GPs should know which pool they are targeting before the first meeting.

Neglecting separate account capability. Large insurance commitments ($100M+) often require separate account or managed account structures rather than standard commingled fund LP interests. GPs without the operational infrastructure to offer SMAs lose access to the largest insurance commitments.

What are the limitations of this analysis?

Data specificity. The core US data in this article comes from NAIC Capital Markets Bureau reports on year-end 2024 annual statement filings, Goldman Sachs Asset Management's 2025 Global Insurance Survey (405 respondents, $14 trillion combined assets), and Oliver Wyman's analysis of the top seven listed alternative managers. European data draws on EIOPA Solvency II disclosures and reform documentation. These are institutional-grade sources, but they describe aggregate industry behavior — individual insurer allocations, internal RBC models, and specific manager commitments are not publicly disclosed in the same detail. Schedule BA totals capture fund interests, direct real estate, hedge funds, and other non-traditional holdings — not all of this flows through external GP relationships. The true private credit footprint is larger than Schedule BA alone, because structured credit increasingly qualifies for Schedule D bond reporting under the PBBD.

Regulatory complexity. This article summarizes US RBC and European Solvency II frameworks at a level sufficient for GP fundraising strategy. The actual capital treatment of any specific fund commitment depends on the insurer's domicile, the fund's structure, the underlying assets, and the insurer's internal models. GPs should engage insurance regulatory counsel before structuring fund terms for insurance capital.

Generalization risk. The behavioral tendencies described by insurer type (life vs. P&C, mutual vs. stock) are directional, not absolute. Individual insurer behavior is shaped by investment philosophy, board composition, funded position, competitive dynamics, and the personality of the CIO. GPs should verify individual insurer characteristics rather than assuming category-level patterns apply.

Altss coverage scope. Altss institutional LP coverage — including insurance companies, pension funds, endowments, foundations, sovereign wealth funds, OCIOs, and fund-of-funds — went live in February 2026. Insurance company coverage depth is expanding continuously as OSINT collection expands to include NAIC filings, Solvency II disclosures, and insurance-specific regulatory signals.

FAQ

How large does my fund need to be to attract insurance capital? Most insurance general accounts will not commit less than $25–50M per manager. For a $50M commitment at a maximum 10% concentration, the fund should be at least $500M. Insurance-affiliated asset managers may allocate smaller amounts through fund-of-funds or multi-manager structures. Emerging managers are more likely to access insurance capital through these intermediary channels than through direct general account commitments.

Do insurance companies allocate to private equity? Yes, but PE is a smaller allocation than private credit for most insurers due to higher RBC charges and accounting complexity. Life insurers with significant surplus capacity — MassMutual, New York Life, Prudential, MetLife — maintain meaningful PE programs. Insurance PE allocations tend to favor buyout, secondaries, and co-investments over venture capital or growth equity.

What is Schedule BA? Schedule BA ("Other Invested Assets") is the statutory accounting category where US insurers report alternative investments — private equity fund interests, hedge funds, certain private credit funds, infrastructure, real estate, and other non-traditional holdings. US insurers held approximately $578 billion in Schedule BA assets at year-end 2024. Within that total, private equity investments represented 37% of Schedule BA exposure, real estate 16%, and hedge funds 20% as of year-end 2023 (the most recent compositional breakdown from NAIC). The NAIC's new Principles-Based Bond Definition (PBBD), effective for 2024 filings, is reshaping what qualifies for bond treatment on Schedule D versus Schedule BA — some securities previously reported as bonds may now fall into Schedule BA, potentially increasing totals. Schedule BA disclosures in NAIC Annual Statements are publicly available and provide the best public data on individual insurer alternatives allocations.

How does private credit fit into insurance portfolios? Private credit is the fastest-growing alternatives allocation for insurance general accounts. Direct lending, asset-backed finance, and structured credit offer current income that exceeds public fixed income yields, with RBC charges significantly lower than private equity. Goldman Sachs's 2025 survey found 58% of insurance CIOs plan to increase private credit allocations in the next 12 months. Chicago Fed research (2025) documented that life insurers' private credit through private placements reached $407 billion by Q3 2024. The true total is substantially higher when including rated ABS, CLOs ($277 billion held by US insurers), and bank loans ($123 billion) that function as private credit but report on bond schedules. For many insurers, private credit has replaced hedge funds as the primary alternatives allocation.

Should I approach PE-owned insurers the same way as traditional carriers? No. PE-owned insurers — Apollo/Athene, KKR/Global Atlantic, Blackstone/Everlake, Brookfield/American Equity, Carlyle/Fortitude Re — manage their investment portfolios primarily through their parent firm's asset management platforms. These insurers held $704 billion in combined assets at year-end 2024 and represent 7.8% of the industry. Their investment allocations flow through affiliated channels, not open-market GP fundraising. Traditional carriers — MassMutual, New York Life, Northwestern Mutual, MetLife, Prudential — are the primary targets for independent GPs. Before pursuing any insurance LP, verify whether the insurer is PE-affiliated, because that determines the access path.

How long does the insurance commitment process take? Typically 3–9 months from first meeting to signed commitment — faster than pension funds because insurance investment teams generally have greater delegated authority. However, the actuarial and capital treatment review can extend timelines if the GP has not prepared the required analysis in advance.

Do European insurers allocate differently than US insurers? Yes. Solvency II imposes different capital charges than US RBC — Type 1 equities face a 39% base charge (±13% symmetric adjustment), Type 2 equities 49%, and qualifying long-term equity investments 22% with no symmetric adjustment. The 2024 Solvency II review relaxed LTEI eligibility: insurers no longer need to ring-fence assets, and the forced-sale avoidance demonstration was reduced from ten to five years. Despite these reforms, EIOPA data shows less than 1% of European insurer assets are in private equity funds — roughly three times less than pension funds, despite insurers' investment portfolios representing 58% of EU GDP. European insurers — particularly Allianz, AXA, Zurich, and the large Nordic and Dutch carriers — tend to have more developed infrastructure and real asset allocations. ESG integration is a formal requirement for most European insurance allocators, and the Solvency II framework is being expanded to include potential additional capital requirements for fossil fuel assets.

What can this article not tell me about a specific insurance company? This article describes the insurance LP landscape, common regulatory frameworks, and general allocation behavior. Each insurer has its own investment policy, capital position, actuarial assumptions, and organizational dynamics. The capital treatment of a specific fund commitment depends on factors — fund structure, underlying assets, insurer's internal models, domicile — that cannot be generalized. GPs should use this framework for targeting and preparation, then engage directly with each insurer's investment and risk management teams.

The Altss family office and institutional investors database provides OSINT-derived intelligence on 9,000+ family offices and institutional LPs — including insurance companies, pension funds, endowments, foundations, sovereign wealth funds, OCIOs, and fund-of-funds — with verified decision-maker contacts, mandate signals, and timing intelligence. Every profile originates from public sources, passes through human verification, and is re-verified on a ≤30-day cadence. To see how the platform maps the allocators most likely to be receptive to your strategy, see the platform.