The majority of these RM\’s were padded for their \”decision\” to place the City of Los Angeles Liability with a certain carrier(s).
These guys sit around and \”think\” about what is wrong. THEY FEEL FULL TRANSPERENCY IS NECESSARY\”. I want that from car dealers, banks on annuities, brokerage houses on annuities, reverse mortgages, etc.
Full disclosure accomoplishes exactly what? IN CA., it would allow the customer to negotiate lower income for the broker due to Prop 103 and regating being stupidly legal. The lawyers are causing most of this and the RM\’s are thinking like them.
Sure, NOW that they got caught, they want to stop the practice to level the playing field with those of us that did not commit felonies.
Spitzer caught you guys throwing your weight around and now that weight will mean less than before. Ha ha your own fault.
I think the RM\’s are similar to HR Dept.s, necessary when you have extra cash but the first to cut when you do not.
Retail agents are \”field underwriters\” and should participate in profits. Frontline commissions are being reduced daily with the majority of the workload now pushed upon the producer. What carrier has a \”data input\” dept. anymore? Why? Because I am doing it. For less commissions than before. Carriers do not have collection problems anymore because they are using my bank accounts! I pay bank fees for them to easily and cost free collect their premiums. I earn every dime of any contingency I am paid.
Why can\’t the RIMS boys and girls be honest about contingent commissions. It\’s no secret the big three public brokers have realized between 1/3 and 1/2 of their revenues from contingent commissions. To give this up without an adjustment in their compensation means a real hit for their stockholders. The truth of the matter is the RIMS crowd wants to capture the savings at the expense of the brokers and not pay them additional compensation to make up a single cent of their reduction in income. This greed on their part is justified by claiming that contingencies are in conflict with agents and brokers in looking out for their client\’s best interest. Following the Spitzer witch hunt and the brokers and employees involved in bid rigging, any agent or broker would be lunatic to engage in bid rigging in the future. Rewarding businesses for performance is as American as \”Apple Pie\”. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with rewarding performance. Bid rigging is illegal without question. One would have to assume as a result of the Spitzer investigations and criminal charges that this activity is over. If RIMS is opposed to Contingencies, then they should agree to make up a substantial portion of the lost income with flat fees for service so that no broker has to suffer a 50% reduction in income for the same level of service. If rewarding business for performance is inherently a conflict of interest, then every AG in the US needs to go after every business in existance that pays bonuses or incentives to their sales staff. After all, the argument should apply to all businesses that receive incentive rewards. Any rewards paid make any product or service cost more to the comsumer.
I am a new producer presently in class for my ARM. RIMS statement makes me ask WHY? Will I become ignorant too? I know the contingent commissions enables the agency to hire and train new producers in the industry which has provided me an opportunity. I do not place business \”knowing\” where contingencies come from. With reduction in commissions, more law suits, and no contingency? Why would anyone begin in this industry.
Contigent commissions allow the agent to play a role in the underwriting process. With good underwriting, it helps to keep the rates low. It also keeps the agencies in business. If these risk managers don\’t want good risk management to be rewarded or agents to be properly compensated, then they will find fewer of us in this industry. I think we would like to be looked at as more than sales people, the clients think a lot more of us as well when we are concerned about their business risk.
I find it interesting that those who are now rejecting contingent payment programs are the ones that caught by Spitzer and were slammed. I support contingent compensations and believe it is a direct reflection of the quality of the business I submit to my insurers. I do not have broker fee income and this program allows me to offset fixed operating expenses. What were these guys saying about contingencies a couple of years ago? Yah, you know the answer. They can kiss off and I will continue to glady accept what I have earned……honestly and without bid rigging or any other underhanded tactics
I am heartened by the moral stance taken by Willis and Marsh as respects contingent commissions. Maybe that will stop the abuses perpetrated by those large international brokers who manipulated the market, forced the hands of their vendors, worked in the best interest of themselves and not their customers – who WAS that, anyway? Oh, never mind.
The response would be a fair one, as long as no RIMS member accepts discounts based on size of premium. Make it all undiscounted manual premium, then agents and risk managers can share in making ethical, quality risk decisions. (HA).
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The majority of these RM\’s were padded for their \”decision\” to place the City of Los Angeles Liability with a certain carrier(s).
These guys sit around and \”think\” about what is wrong. THEY FEEL FULL TRANSPERENCY IS NECESSARY\”. I want that from car dealers, banks on annuities, brokerage houses on annuities, reverse mortgages, etc.
Full disclosure accomoplishes exactly what? IN CA., it would allow the customer to negotiate lower income for the broker due to Prop 103 and regating being stupidly legal. The lawyers are causing most of this and the RM\’s are thinking like them.
Shut up and go back to your cubicle.
Sure, NOW that they got caught, they want to stop the practice to level the playing field with those of us that did not commit felonies.
Spitzer caught you guys throwing your weight around and now that weight will mean less than before. Ha ha your own fault.
I think the RM\’s are similar to HR Dept.s, necessary when you have extra cash but the first to cut when you do not.
Retail agents are \”field underwriters\” and should participate in profits. Frontline commissions are being reduced daily with the majority of the workload now pushed upon the producer. What carrier has a \”data input\” dept. anymore? Why? Because I am doing it. For less commissions than before. Carriers do not have collection problems anymore because they are using my bank accounts! I pay bank fees for them to easily and cost free collect their premiums. I earn every dime of any contingency I am paid.
Spitzer is gone anyway.
Buyer, you are truly naiive. I am not going to the Rims convention. These arogant a—oles really p_ss me off
Look what you are doing to the small agency, who by doing strick underwritting and looking after the company get compensated .
Why can\’t the RIMS boys and girls be honest about contingent commissions. It\’s no secret the big three public brokers have realized between 1/3 and 1/2 of their revenues from contingent commissions. To give this up without an adjustment in their compensation means a real hit for their stockholders. The truth of the matter is the RIMS crowd wants to capture the savings at the expense of the brokers and not pay them additional compensation to make up a single cent of their reduction in income. This greed on their part is justified by claiming that contingencies are in conflict with agents and brokers in looking out for their client\’s best interest. Following the Spitzer witch hunt and the brokers and employees involved in bid rigging, any agent or broker would be lunatic to engage in bid rigging in the future. Rewarding businesses for performance is as American as \”Apple Pie\”. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with rewarding performance. Bid rigging is illegal without question. One would have to assume as a result of the Spitzer investigations and criminal charges that this activity is over. If RIMS is opposed to Contingencies, then they should agree to make up a substantial portion of the lost income with flat fees for service so that no broker has to suffer a 50% reduction in income for the same level of service. If rewarding business for performance is inherently a conflict of interest, then every AG in the US needs to go after every business in existance that pays bonuses or incentives to their sales staff. After all, the argument should apply to all businesses that receive incentive rewards. Any rewards paid make any product or service cost more to the comsumer.
I am a new producer presently in class for my ARM. RIMS statement makes me ask WHY? Will I become ignorant too? I know the contingent commissions enables the agency to hire and train new producers in the industry which has provided me an opportunity. I do not place business \”knowing\” where contingencies come from. With reduction in commissions, more law suits, and no contingency? Why would anyone begin in this industry.
Contigent commissions allow the agent to play a role in the underwriting process. With good underwriting, it helps to keep the rates low. It also keeps the agencies in business. If these risk managers don\’t want good risk management to be rewarded or agents to be properly compensated, then they will find fewer of us in this industry. I think we would like to be looked at as more than sales people, the clients think a lot more of us as well when we are concerned about their business risk.
I find it interesting that those who are now rejecting contingent payment programs are the ones that caught by Spitzer and were slammed. I support contingent compensations and believe it is a direct reflection of the quality of the business I submit to my insurers. I do not have broker fee income and this program allows me to offset fixed operating expenses. What were these guys saying about contingencies a couple of years ago? Yah, you know the answer. They can kiss off and I will continue to glady accept what I have earned……honestly and without bid rigging or any other underhanded tactics
I am heartened by the moral stance taken by Willis and Marsh as respects contingent commissions. Maybe that will stop the abuses perpetrated by those large international brokers who manipulated the market, forced the hands of their vendors, worked in the best interest of themselves and not their customers – who WAS that, anyway? Oh, never mind.
The response would be a fair one, as long as no RIMS member accepts discounts based on size of premium. Make it all undiscounted manual premium, then agents and risk managers can share in making ethical, quality risk decisions. (HA).