I just finished reading National Underwriter editor-in-chief Sam Friedmans blog (Brokers Sour When Talk Turns To Fees, November 9, http://www.property-casualty.com/2007/11/brokers_sour_when_talk_turns_t.html#more) that highlighted the supposed woes of Willis, Aon, and Marsh " who cant accept contingency payments due to their settlements related to bid-rigging. I have no sympathy for these mega-brokers.

Because of these firms and the carriers that were implicated with them, all agents and brokers lost the ability to earn contingency commissions with the carriers involved. The rest of the broker and agent community has every right to complain about what happened as they were innocent victims; the mega-brokers do not.

Even though they had significant volume and the clout it provides, a large professional staff with expertise, and a positive, professional image with clients, some of their employees still felt the need to resort to the improper and illegal arrangements that caused all their problems. In addition to hurting their own public image, they perpetuated the negative image many consumers already have of our industry.

It would appear these brokers have no shame. Now that the carriers involved have approval for a supplemental commission that allows agents and brokers to earn additional revenue based on their prior volume and profitability, the mega-brokers are talking about how unfair it is. They are also complaining about the negative effect they endure because they are not allowed to enter into contingency commission agreements anymore. Its annoying to read statements like New supplemental commissions may just be contingency fees in drag uttered by the very people responsible for causing the loss of contingency commission. I cant believe these mega-brokers could actually think that there would be sympathy for their plight. They brought it on themselves.

They also complain that they are at a disadvantage because not all agents and brokers are obligated to disclose their compensation plans. I believe most, if not all, agents and brokers have no problem disclosing how they are compensated to any client that asks.

They say mandatory disclosure would create a level playing field. These brokers have no intention of creating a level playing field. At the same time they are calling for the elimination of all contingency and supplemental commission, they are looking to offset their loss of it by using their size to negotiate additional regular commission from carriers. I believe because they are prohibited from receiving contingent and supplemental commissions, their plan is to paint these forms of compensation as evil and then force agents and brokers to disclose it to their clients. These brokers, because of their size and the power it affords them, have always enjoyed a competitive advantage which denied everyone else a level playing field. I believe they have every intention of doing whatever it takes to give them back that competitive advantage again.

As IIABNY member advocate and assistant vice president of member programs, Jamie Deapo acts as communicator between agent, company, and trade association. His 15 years of experience as an independent agent coupled with a background in underwriting and marketing for insurance companies has given him a well-rounded perspective. A daily dose of conversation with independent agents from every corner of New York helps him understand the issues and concerns of the day. Deapo is also the outspoken voice on IIABNYs Word on the Street Podcast. Listen to these candid conversations at www.iiabny.org, by clicking on the News link on the left-hand side of the homepage, then Newsletters and Publications and Word on the Street Podcast.