Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Broken Compensation?

It's that season again: incessant debate about how commercial insurance brokers are compensated, and why brokers should be allowed to take contingent commissions from commercial insurance underwriters.

By Christopher E. Mandel

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Over the years, everyone with an opinion has weighed in on this including the Risk and Insurance Management Society Inc. (RIMS), which represents the majority of large insurance buyers.

The issue revolves around the direct relationships that exist between commercial markets and insurance brokers. Deals were struck between brokers and markets that by direct contract between them, terms were negotiated that tied placement volumes to commissions known as "contingent" commissions, since they were a function of the amount of business placed with those markets.

A typical example would tie a certain percentage of premium commission to different thresholds of premium generated by a particular broker for a particular market. While on its face this appeared to be a potential conflict of interest relative to the expectation that the broker represents the corporate buyer, this conflict was in the opinion of many a buyer, easily resolvable by full transparency in transactions.

If the contract between the corporate buyer and its broker/intermediary required full transparency in compensation, then short of sheer dishonesty, the broker would disclose how much of their compensation was generated from sources other than direct fees paid by the corporates and/or fully disclosed commissions paid by virtue of the same agreements.

It is not always simple to calculate an amount of contingent commission attributable to any one corporate buyer, but it is feasible to estimate approximately how much may be attributable to any one account might generate. This amount when added to other negotiated fees and commissions presents a more complete picture of compensation earned by a broker for each account. Pretty simple concept, yet the controversy rages on.

Many brokers have never stopped taking contingent commissions from markets despite the controversy. Consolidation in the large broker industry has affected the treatment of this issue with some brokers taking a high road position while others have boldly refused to capitulate.

From a corporate buyer's point of view, this issue has often been viewed as a red herring since the truly informed and savvy buyer understands that transparency in contracts and transactions is all that is needed to address this issue. Well maybe not all. The real lynchpin for a corporate buyer is to ensure that competition among markets is facilitated regularly, especially where there is any question of securing the most competitive terms, conditions and rate.

Where there is any doubt about these issues, it is incumbent upon the buyer to demand the evidence and insist on performance. The very best brokers ensure that this happens as a matter of routine. The best markets participate in the process with the same goal in mind: best value for the premium dollar and commissions paid. What's so hard about that?

The bottom line is that corporate buyers are generally well informed about the products and services they buy. Buyers, together with the markets and the intermediaries, ensure these transactions get done well where there is full transparency and honest and ethical dealings amongst the parties. That's the way all business should be done. How innovative!

CHRIS MANDEL is the enterprise risk manager for a leading financial institution and a former president of the Risk and Insurance Management Society.

September 1, 2010

Copyright 2010© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.