Every business needs a vision as well as a strong strategy to succeed, and no-one knows that more than Ingo Trede who has been with the firm since its inception back in 2018.
Ingo has seen Alta Signa grow from strength to strength and overcome some complex challenges over the years, now in his current role as European Head of Underwriting - Finpro and Cyber and Branch Manager - Spain, he leads the firm’s cyber and FinPro initiative from a technical angle. He also looks after relationships with insurers ensuring that processes remain smooth.
With nearly a decade of experience at Alta Signa, as well as experience in other underwriting roles previously, Ingo has been instrumental to the creation of the business and its expansion to what it has become today. In the latest Spotlight On edition, we speak to Ingo about his role as one of the founding members of the firm, the evolution of cyber underwriting, the importance of underwriting discipline, and challenges of insuring Artificial Intelligence.
Looking back, how has the cyber insurance market evolved since Alta Signa began underwriting in 2019?
When we began underwriting in 2019, the market looked very different to today. Initially, we relied heavily on London capacity, which made pricing challenging at the time, while the broader European cyber market was still in a relatively early stage of development with low penetration rates even among larger entities.
What has changed most significantly is the market’s understanding of cyber exposure. Prior to Alta Signa and earlier in my career, cyber underwriting questionnaires were comparatively basic and focused on identifying where exposure existed. Today, underwriting has become far more sophisticated and technically detailed, with deeper scrutiny of privileged access management, domain administration, authentication controls and broader cyber hygiene.
The market itself has also been highly cyclical. Following the hard market conditions of 2021, pricing began softening again in 2022 as additional capacity entered the market, creating increased competition and pressure on both pricing and policy wordings.
One particularly interesting development has been the return of Non-IT Contingent Business Interruption cover. At one stage, this was largely removed from cyber policies because carriers felt the exposure was too difficult to control or model effectively. However, competitive pressure and increased market capacity have gradually pushed this cover back into policy wordings. Nowadays wordings are broader than before the soft market. Alta Signa adapted to this shift by diversifying its panel structure and onboarding additional capacity providers outside of the Lloyd’s market.
Is cyber insurance purchased based on exposure?
Cyber remains an immature insurance market in many respects, particularly in terms of penetration among SMEs. Uptake is still relatively low across Europe, although awareness is steadily improving as businesses become more conscious of their exposure.
At the same time, cyber risk itself continues to evolve at extraordinary speed. Unlike many traditional lines of insurance, the threat landscape changes continuously due to technological innovation, regulatory developments and geopolitical tensions.
One trend we increasingly observe is the influence of ownership structures on cyber purchasing decisions. Private equity-backed firms often encourage, or even require their portfolio companies, to purchase cyber insurance thanks to their more sophisticated use of insurance as a risk transfer. In contrast, some family-owned businesses still underestimate their exposure and assume they are unlikely targets for cyber criminals.
In reality, weaker organisations with less mature controls are often the most attractive targets. Cyber attackers are not exclusively focused on large corporations; they frequently exploit organisations with the weakest defences. They are run like very
From a market perspective, there are early signs that pricing conditions may stabilise. We are hearing similar sentiment from both London and US markets, where premium reductions are beginning to level out. By the end of 2026, the market is likely to be flatter overall, although certain programmes may still experience adjustment depending on their structure and prior long-term agreements.
Which cyber exposures do you believe the market is still underestimating?
Artificial Intelligence (AI)is undoubtedly one of the most significant emerging exposures, reminding the market of the underlying systemic risk.
There is currently enormous focus on how AI can improve efficiency and strengthen businesses, but far less attention is being paid to how rapidly it is enhancing the sophistication and scale of cyber attacks. The emergence of autonomous AI agents and AI-assisted phishing, social engineering and malware development will and have already materially altered the threat landscape. By the end of 2025 the first large-scale AI cyber attacks were executed. One high profile case by hijacking chatbots.
There is also ongoing debate around whether certain AI-related risks are fully insurable, particularly given concerns around hallucinations and unintended outcomes. Interestingly, this debate mirrors the earlier evolution of cyber insurance itself, when many questioned whether cyber risk could ever be underwritten sustainably.
Beyond AI, I believe the market is underestimating the exposure building within excess cyber layers. Rates in some areas have reduced dramatically due to the lack of insured CAT losses in the recent past and there is increasing evidence of underwriting discipline weakening as carriers compete aggressively for market share. AI has the potential to reverse the trend of recent years from CAT loss towards frequency exposure.
We are now seeing significant pressure on both pricing adequacy and risk selection. In a soft market with excess capacity, the danger is that carriers prioritise premium growth over technical underwriting discipline. The market itself is not expanding quickly enough to justify the volume of new capacity entering the sector, which creates long-term sustainability concerns.
How are regulation and cyber risk becoming increasingly interconnected for financial institutions?
Financial institutions sit at the intersection of cyber risk, systemic exposure and regulation.
On one side, the technical capabilities of threat actors are advancing rapidly, particularly with the use of AI-enabled attacks. On the other, financial institutions remain highly regulated entities across most jurisdictions, especially in Europe.
This creates a complex environment where cyber resilience is no longer simply an operational concern — it is increasingly a regulatory and economic issue. A successful cyber attack against a major financial institution can have broader implications for market confidence, operational continuity and economic stability.
As a result, regulatory expectations around governance, resilience and reporting will continue to intensify across the sector.
How is the MGA model evolving in Europe, particularly for complex risks like cyber?
Cyber insurance has played a major role in accelerating the growth of MGAs across Europe.
Many cyber-focused MGAs entered the market because they were able to bring specialist expertise, agility and technology-led underwriting models that traditional carriers sometimes struggled to replicate. Alta Signa itself was founded with a strongly European and technology-driven mindset.
What remains interesting, however, is the regulatory inconsistency across jurisdictions. In Belgium, for example, the distinction between brokers and MGAs is clearly lined out in local law, while most other European jurisdictions such as France or Germany still throw, legally speaking, everything into one basket of ‘intermediaries’ and at best make light distinctions within that category . This doesn’t adequately reflect the very different roles that brokers and MGAs perform.
The MGA market itself is also highly diverse. Some MGAs operate as true underwriting businesses aligned closely with insurer interests, while others are primarily technology-driven distribution platforms. That diversity is ultimately one of the strengths of the MGA model.
Looking ahead, specialty and complex risks such as cyber will continue to favour niche expertise and technical underwriting capability — areas where MGAs are particularly well positioned to differentiate themselves. The recent decision of a large European insurer to run its entire cyber book through a partner MGA only strengthens that view.
What is your message to the cyber insurance market in Europe today?
The market must remain disciplined.
Firstly, underwriting discipline on pricing cannot be abandoned, particularly on excess layers where competitive pressure is intense.
Secondly, technical underwriting standards must remain robust. There has been growing pressure within the market to reduce the level of information requested during underwriting, but cyber remains a highly systemic and technically complex exposure. Reducing underwriting scrutiny too far creates long-term risk for the market.
Finally, the industry must avoid becoming complacent simply because conditions are currently soft. The underlying exposure has not disappeared. Cyber risk continues to grow in complexity and severity, even if competition and excess capacity are temporarily suppressing pricing. A few years pointing at a more frequency driven exposure do not reflect a long term trend and dynamics could change rapidly.
The cyber market has always been cyclical. During hard markets, capacity becomes constrained while demand increases significantly. In softer conditions, capacity is easier to secure but competition intensifies. Managing those cycles effectively is critical to building a sustainable market over the long-term and not losing the clients’ faith in a functioning market — due to its immaturity the risk of more pronounced cycles exists.