Happy New Year and may 2010 bring blessings to you, your professional colleagues and, of course, your families. ……Tucked away in a small corner in the New York Times on New Year’s Eve was an article detailing the departure from AIG of Anastasia Kelly. The reason for her departure had all to do, the article stated, with the government’s cap on compensation imposed upon AIG employees through the office of Mr. Kenneth Feinberg. The best and brightest do not have a chance when government steps in, as it has in the case of AIG and other enterprises, to limit incentives and, worse, to fail to live up to agreements on compensation or anticipated bonuses. This is a shame and may undermine the government’s ability to get back the funds it expended, expeditiously…Do not be afraid of producer compensation disclosure, even though what agents will be hit with is anything but beautiful, there are definitely ways to work within the framework of the regulation. For one thing, an independent agent can safely and favorably contrast his or her service against the fast food style insurance delivery schemes. Secondly, since this is an assumed mandate on behalf of the department i.e. there is positively no public demand for this set of disclosures or at least none that we know of that are documented, so we believe there will be sluggish consumer reception to the disclosure, except in larger cases. Again, we go back to our initial argument: by stating outright what you are paid, consumers will believe there is something that he or she should act upon as a consequence; that may very well be a temptation to rebate, especially on the life side where up front commissions are really sizeable. It is a shame that this reg. had to be put together in the first place and we are unsure as to why the combined associations were unable to undo it. We recognize, however, just as producer groups well know, that when a governmental entity operates under an “assumed” or self initiated mandate—creating law—there is not much you can do about it. The authors assume that they are acting in the client’s best interest and proceed with vigor and determination. And they’ve got the final say, so far….Notice of Peter Flanagan’s death—see Obituaries this issue—has saddened so many of his friends and past collaborators. We were privileged to work with Peter for many years and to have his friendship. My fondest memory together was our appearance at the New York Times Editorial Board with Ben Brewster and Bill Larsen arguing our case against what we termed “Radical bank deregulation” only to learn that our little band followed fast on the heels of Walter Wriston, Jacob Javits and a stellar line up of then top brand bank presidents. Peter said unflinchingly to the skeptical Board: “Our opponents advertise in your newspaper, but our 1,000’s of associates read it: who’s more important to you? We are here on behalf of our colleagues—your readers—they came on behalf of theirs, big banks based everywhere except New York.” The “York” came off a little more like “Yawk” than York and the point was made ever so clearly. He convinced a tough crowd about an unpopular business with grace and tact and will long be remembered as a gentleman of the first order. R.I.P.