Proponents of this regulation will try to promote the idea that this action by agents’ associations is an attempt to hide something, but nothing could be further from the truth. No agents that have been involved in this effort have any problem revealing their income to a customer who asks about it. But, by and large, customers have not asked. So to impose this onerous and costly regulation on the agent and brokerage community is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. Nor has there has been any public hue and cry over agent and broker commissions, etc. Additionally, the regulation is promulgated on the stated assumption that agents and brokers are inherently dishonest when dealing with their prospects and customers – i.e. that we place business with companies that pay us the most. Besides being offensive, this assumption completely ignores the fact that we operate in a highly competitive marketplace where if the consumer isn’t happy with the price offered, they are free to go elsewhere, so placing business in that assumed fashion would be self-defeating.
The real reason for bringing action against the Insurance Dept. is that the NY regulation includes requirements that will be time consuming and costly for agents and brokers to implement, thus raising the cost of doing business in one where those required to comply have no control over their income from policies since commissions and profit-sharing are totally controlled by the insurers and part of theri filings with the Insurance Dept. Therefore, implementation costs would come directly from the pocket of the agents and brokers themselves because we cannot increase our prices to cover those costs as other businesses can and do. So, we see it as an unfair governmental assault on our income – perhaps even bordering on taking of property without due process, or, at the very least, another tax targeted toward a certain business.
…that by not joining the legal challenge, PIANY has effectively split the agent community and allows the regulators to divide and conquer.
PIANY says they’re preserving the producers seat at the table to discuss implementation, but had all 3 groups stood together, it would be impractical and extraordinarily detrimental to long term industry relations for NYSID to deny the three leading producer groups in NY a seat at the table for implementation discussions, regardless of the legal challenge.
From a realistic perspective the legal challenge has probably little chance of success, but the PIANY approach offers 0 chance of success. While I understand the PIANY position, I think it’s shortsighted and will only hurt the producer community in the long run.
Proponents of this regulation will try to promote the idea that this action by agents’ associations is an attempt to hide something, but nothing could be further from the truth. No agents that have been involved in this effort have any problem revealing their income to a customer who asks about it. But, by and large, customers have not asked. So to impose this onerous and costly regulation on the agent and brokerage community is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. Nor has there has been any public hue and cry over agent and broker commissions, etc. Additionally, the regulation is promulgated on the stated assumption that agents and brokers are inherently dishonest when dealing with their prospects and customers – i.e. that we place business with companies that pay us the most. Besides being offensive, this assumption completely ignores the fact that we operate in a highly competitive marketplace where if the consumer isn’t happy with the price offered, they are free to go elsewhere, so placing business in that assumed fashion would be self-defeating.
The real reason for bringing action against the Insurance Dept. is that the NY regulation includes requirements that will be time consuming and costly for agents and brokers to implement, thus raising the cost of doing business in one where those required to comply have no control over their income from policies since commissions and profit-sharing are totally controlled by the insurers and part of theri filings with the Insurance Dept. Therefore, implementation costs would come directly from the pocket of the agents and brokers themselves because we cannot increase our prices to cover those costs as other businesses can and do. So, we see it as an unfair governmental assault on our income – perhaps even bordering on taking of property without due process, or, at the very least, another tax targeted toward a certain business.
…that by not joining the legal challenge, PIANY has effectively split the agent community and allows the regulators to divide and conquer.
PIANY says they’re preserving the producers seat at the table to discuss implementation, but had all 3 groups stood together, it would be impractical and extraordinarily detrimental to long term industry relations for NYSID to deny the three leading producer groups in NY a seat at the table for implementation discussions, regardless of the legal challenge.
From a realistic perspective the legal challenge has probably little chance of success, but the PIANY approach offers 0 chance of success. While I understand the PIANY position, I think it’s shortsighted and will only hurt the producer community in the long run.
Let’s hope for a miracle with CIBGNY and IIABNY.