Banks should stick to banking and stay out of insurance. We see the following example all too often: Our insured client calls because the bank who handles all of their financing insists on providing a quote for their property holdings. The bank holds the financing in one hand and an insurance policy in the other thereby pressuring the customer. This is not supposed to happen but does anyway. This usually annoys the banking customer (works to our advantage) but nevertheless is improper. Banks should not be in the business of selling property and casualty insurance.
I agree that agents should not be making money off premium financing. I do it as a courtesy and way of handling the premiums on excess/surplus lines business which does not offer direct bill. Agents getting a per cent from Premium Finance are in danger of sanctions and should not do it if they are smart. I have been offered incentives to do this by certain Premium Finance firms, and they say it is legit, but I would rather keep my nose out of it and the disclosures to customers are also hard to explain.
I agree that us Agents should not get kick backs from premium financing. Insureds who opted for this form of payment cannot afford the lumpsum payment. However, I believe that these insureds should pay the broker fees. Our office charges lower than the whole broker fee(a percentage of the premium), and that seems to be a problem for most premium financed insureds.
I agree 100% Rob. Banks find out they are not very good at the insurance business. I asked my banker one time if his bank had looked into acquiring an insurance agency and he said they had, but after evaluating everything, they decided to stay with what they knew best. Insurance was not profitable enough and there was a lot of risk from E&O etc. We also see some financial gurus gaining control of insurance companies. They have made a big mess as a rule since they don’t understand the business and only look at the bottom line.
Banks should stick to banking and stay out of insurance. We see the following example all too often: Our insured client calls because the bank who handles all of their financing insists on providing a quote for their property holdings. The bank holds the financing in one hand and an insurance policy in the other thereby pressuring the customer. This is not supposed to happen but does anyway. This usually annoys the banking customer (works to our advantage) but nevertheless is improper. Banks should not be in the business of selling property and casualty insurance.
I take it then that no insurance agents should be in the business of making money off premium financing?
I agree that agents should not be making money off premium financing. I do it as a courtesy and way of handling the premiums on excess/surplus lines business which does not offer direct bill. Agents getting a per cent from Premium Finance are in danger of sanctions and should not do it if they are smart. I have been offered incentives to do this by certain Premium Finance firms, and they say it is legit, but I would rather keep my nose out of it and the disclosures to customers are also hard to explain.
I agree that us Agents should not get kick backs from premium financing. Insureds who opted for this form of payment cannot afford the lumpsum payment. However, I believe that these insureds should pay the broker fees. Our office charges lower than the whole broker fee(a percentage of the premium), and that seems to be a problem for most premium financed insureds.
I agree 100% Rob. Banks find out they are not very good at the insurance business. I asked my banker one time if his bank had looked into acquiring an insurance agency and he said they had, but after evaluating everything, they decided to stay with what they knew best. Insurance was not profitable enough and there was a lot of risk from E&O etc. We also see some financial gurus gaining control of insurance companies. They have made a big mess as a rule since they don’t understand the business and only look at the bottom line.