Steadfast Group’s international expansion is becoming a practical test of how far an Australasian broking model can expand. The early evidence was encouraging. New Zealand, by the group’s own account, was the most straightforward market to enter: geographically close, structurally familiar and requiring only modest local adjustment. But once Steadfast moved beyond New Zealand into Singapore, London and, especially, the US, the challenge shifted from replication to adaptation.
That is where the story takes on broader significance for brokers. This is not simply a story about offshore growth. It is also about whether a model built around scale, services, network support and agency capability can retain its value in markets where the rules, relationships and rhythms of insurance distribution differ materially from those in Australia.
Samantha Hollman (pictured, second from left), CEO International, said New Zealand was the clearest fit from the outset.
“We knew that the NZ insurance model was very similar to the Australian model,” she said.
Hollman said some changes were needed “for regulation and legislation”, but the broader conclusion was that “more or less, the model is the same as Australia”.
That relative ease suggested Steadfast’s model travels most naturally where the institutional and regulatory foundations already look familiar. The more difficult question is what happens when those similarities begin to fade. Beyond New Zealand, the model has had to adapt.
Singapore, Hollman said, was a different proposition. “Singapore is culturally very different and the model is really quite different there,” she said.
That observation points to a more complicated reality for any broker group expanding internationally: even where legislation or market architecture may appear manageable, the local culture of insurance can still shape how easily a model embeds. It also helps explain the more measured pace of expansion there. Singapore may have been a sensible starting point in Asia, but it has not been presented as a market where the Australian formula transferred as cleanly as it did in New Zealand.
The US, by contrast, is where Steadfast sees the greatest potential.
“If I talk about the opportunity, it is the USA,” said Hollman. That reflects both the scale of the market and Steadfast’s view that there is room for a broader proposition than many US agency networks currently offer.
Hollman said the research undertaken before entering the market led the group to conclude that the basic logic of its model could still apply. “They didn't have the whole plethora of products and services, which is what the value proposition is of Steadfast,” she said. “We've got so much more than just market access and carrier appointments.”
That distinction is central to Steadfast’s international approach. It is not presenting the US as a mirror of Australia. Rather, it is arguing that independent agencies there may still be receptive to a network proposition built around a wider set of services and support.
Chris Longo (pictured, first on right), CEO of Novum Underwriting Partners, which Steadfast acquired in August last year, said the attraction of the structure is speed and flexibility: “What Steadfast is building in the US, being integrated with the London markets, is a tremendous capability.” Just as importantly, he said: “It gives us the agility that we need to be able to bring things to market very quickly.”
That matters because the US opportunity is not simply about placing more volume. It is about designing products, filling gaps and moving quickly enough to match a fragmented and highly specialised market. Longo said Novum often works with Lloyd’s partners when it is “rounding out products”, drawing on London’s deeper specialty capacity and broader underwriting appetite.
The attraction of the US, however, sits alongside a much more intricate operating environment. Hollman pointed to one important difference in the way carriers remunerate distribution partners. “In the US, the carrier contracts – a lot of the remuneration back is through profit sharing,” she said. In Australia and New Zealand, she noted, “Profit sharing is no longer allowed.”
There are also differences in how business is written and administered. Holman referred to “the way the business is transacted – holding of client monies, for example” as part of the distinction between the two systems. Those differences may appear technical, but they shape how easily a model can be transferred from one jurisdiction to another.
Nick McKee (pictured second from right), chief property officer of international, added that the US market is structurally more complicated in ways that go beyond remuneration. “There's also a very different market structure there,” he said.
McKee pointed to the split between admitted and non-admitted business, the excess and surplus segment, and the overlay of “state-based legislation, state-based regulation of the insurance industry”.
That means the US is not a single market in any simple sense. It is a collection of localised regulatory and commercial environments, each with its own requirements and conventions.
“So obviously that makes it a lot more complex,” said McKee.
Set against that complexity, Steadfast’s pitch is that integration itself can become a competitive advantage. Longo said the value lies not only in access to Lloyd’s capacity, but in the closeness of the underwriting relationship behind it. “Steve is able to pick the phone up with me and have a very open conversation about what he needs from an underwriting standpoint to make the proper decisions,” he said.
That kind of immediacy matters in a market where speed to quote, clarity of information and the ability to tailor cover can determine whether an opportunity is won or lost. It also helps explain why Steadfast sees the US not just as a large market to enter, but as a market where its international structure could create a point of difference.
If the US is the largest opportunity, London is the market that gives the strategy much of its specialist depth.
Steve Rudduck (pictured first on left), CEO of HWS Specialty in London, which Steadfast acquired in December 2024, was blunt about current conditions: “The London market is hungry.” More specifically, he said, “its appetite is certainly very strong right now.”
That suggests Steadfast sees London as a growth partner looking for reliable distribution into markets such as Australia. Rudduck said that in territories like Australia, what the London market is looking for is “distribution”, making a network such as Steadfast valuable because of the reach it has across both underwriting agencies and brokers.
That gives the London arm a dual role. On one side, it can help Australasian brokers place harder or more specialised risks into Lloyd’s. On the other, it can work upstream with Steadfast businesses to build products, line slips and binders that can then be distributed through the group’s networks in Australia and the US.
Hollman outlined that model in practical terms. The role of London is not only to solve unusual open-market placements. It is also to create facilities in Lloyd’s that can be pushed into the network as usable products, while standing behind Novum and Australian MGAs with the binder support they need to operate in their own markets.
Rudduck’s comments also suggest that, for all the talk of international capability, bindability still rests on familiar disciplines. The critical information, he said, remains the client’s sector, whether that is recycling or manufacturing, together with COPE data, construction details and claims history. In other words, even with strong appetite, London still wants the fundamentals. Capacity may be available, but it is not indiscriminate.
That combination is important. A hungry market with a strong appetite is valuable only if distribution is matched by underwriting clarity. Steadfast’s advantage, if the structure works as intended, is that it can offer both: a broad flow of business into London and a closer relationship between the producing side and the underwriting side of the transaction.
Steadfast’s experience suggests that transferability is strongest where there is broad alignment with Australian settings and more challenging where regulation, market practice and culture diverge. New Zealand appears to have been the easiest fit. Singapore has presented a more distinct cultural and structural challenge. The US offers the largest commercial opportunity, but also the most demanding regulatory and transactional landscape. London, meanwhile, is emerging as a critical enabling market: not just another geography, but a source of appetite, product capability and delegated authority support.
Steadfast’s broader view, however, appears unchanged. Hollman said that despite the differences in legislation, regulation and transaction rules, “The ethos of how we operate is still very transparent into the US market.”
For brokers, that may be the most useful measure of Steadfast’s expansion: not whether the model can be copied exactly, but whether its core value can hold across very different insurance systems. So far, the answer appears to be yes — provided the model is supported by local adaptation, disciplined underwriting information and a structure that links distribution to specialty capacity rather than treating them as separate ambitions.
