Posted On: May 30, 2007, 9:59 pm CDT

Posted By: Been Around Too Long

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.