Last time I checked, wasn’t the rebating of commissions as an incentive to purchase a violation of the CA Insurance Code?? So, who gets to “inform” the consumer of that law?
Since when has the disclosure of income in a legitimate business or occupation enhanced the Free Enterprise Capitalistic business model, the foundation of our Free Enterprise System? Agents/Brokers business will become like car dealer’s where customers will have a feeding freenzie trying to get a lower price. The difference is they will know what our GROSS profit or income is. This will, also, lead to more E&O claims where customers will feel empowered knowing our [small] commissions. They will expect more and when they find a lower premium elsewhere, the prior Agent/Broker will lose all creditability. Of course, the direct writers may have a free pass on this new requirement. And captive agents can make it sound so complicated a customer would not understand. That leaves Independent Agents and Brokers taking the heat!
GARAMENDI IS A MORON. HE ALMOST DESTROYED THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY LAST TIME HE WAS COMMISIONER RUNNING FOR GOVENERNOR.
THE INDUSTRY REALLY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE
Bill is correct Mr. Garamendi is a moron and some other names that can not be mentioned in polite company. Our commissioner is an oportunist, in his mind he will someday be governor and than run for president. I think as a jester of good government, Mr. Garamendi, should disclose his income, total business expenses, total list and amounts given by each donor to him.
Bill don’t expect to much help from insurance carriers, find out who have sponsed him in this last W/C fasco. This commissioner ruled 5% or no commission of State Fund business, I guess we agents should now be listed as charities. Hopefully the consumers and business owners of California will come to understand; the indepentant agent is the only one looking out for them.
It amazes me to find Mr. Garamendi thinks this is a “novel” idea. I have been performing these kinds of “disclosures” to my clients since I entered the insurance business over a decade ago….and will continue to treat my clients “fairly.” I am totally AMAZED at the Commissioner’s lack of a grasp on REALITY. Just WHO is going to “enforce” such a regulation? The current “enforcement staff” is overworked and stretched so THIN they can barely handle the high degree of fraud running somewhat RAMPANT within our industry NOW. I feel Mr. Garamendi’s efforts (such as THIS ONE) to “grab the spotlight” are getting a bit “old” and someone (PLEASE!!!???) needs to tell him we all know is is running for Governor of California……so COOL it.
Would someone please tell Dictator Garamdndi that his job is to reglate the insurance industry in Caifornia and not to try to put everyone in the business “out of business”. Left to his own devices, the Golden State will have one place to purchase insurance, and that is on the commissioner’s website, since he seems to be the only one in the state who will treat the “consumers” fairly.
A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND…..
Garamendi is piggybacking off of the damage inflicted by the Spitz. You can thank your friend at Marsh (assuming they’re still employed there) and to a lesser extent, Aon and Willis for this.
FWIW, financial planners/financial advisors (especially those holding the CFP designation) usually will disclose all their sources of income – be it from fees or commissions, or a combination of both. This is to be up front with any perceived or potential conflicts of interest.
As to an insured asking you to either cut or rebate your commission, you can graciously explain to the client that rebating or cutting your commission income would severely impact your ability to provide service to them. If they don’t accept that, then you might want to consider if the client is worth the trouble.
After 25years in the industry I am now semi-retired but…
Although I think Garamendi is a crook……going all the way back to Executive Life….
I also think that disclosure is a good business and industry practice. As professionals our clients do not think we work for free, so the question is “do they think we offer the services they paid for”. Hard question for some!
For too long we have been compensated by, free computers, trips, software and office expense credits as well as direct commission and over rides. Under Garamendi’s rules we will, still, not have to report all we get but it is a professional start.
I am waiting for the Commissioner to define “best”. Is best about cost, reputation, ACV? Will it be OK to offer a cheaper product that pays a higher commission but typically pays a lower cash value for the insured’s car? Will the Commissioner be arbitrary and contentious in judging?
It’s about Mr. Garamendi’s PR. He does not care about California citizens, agents or right and wrong. What he cares about is running for Governor and than President. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in our industry who supports the Commissioner. Don’t expect the insurance industry to help, do your home work to see where his campaign funds come from. No it is up to us to inform our clients and support someone, perhaps an agent or broker, has his or her head screwed on right. Many agent’s are not speaking up because what Garamendi can do to them personally. Look at what he did to the State Fund lobbist during his W/C mess.
My question is what panicked consumers caused him to make these amendments for the people? My clients never question my fees. I’m not concerned about cutting the fees. I would hope that all Independent agents/Brokers stick to what we have been doing and dont lower there fees, but do a good job for our insured’s, instead of rebating (Illegal) Kick backs (Illegal),Steering (Illegal). It seems to me that is what Garadummi intentions are, so he can look like the hero weeding these individuals out when its his ridiculous rule thats will be advocating this. How about he discloses to us his contributors, salary, and gifts. What a Jerk off. Hope he’s not expecting my vote for Governor……………..
John, You are right clients don’t mind paying a fair amount for good service. But when you are selling $50,000.00 to $150,000.00 business policies, the amount of commission gets thier attention. What I fear more, as a small agency, is giving our clients a break down of the companies that quoted that risk. The only people with a large numbers of carriers are the multi line large agencies. Its been my experience that large agencies block markets and don’t always give the client the best product or price. Are we all going to be forced to work for these agencies or captive carriers? Can not see how the public will be better served by the Commissioners regulations. Leaving on a plus note, Thank God Garamedi is not leading any of our service people, he get them all killed and blane it on the someone else.
I actually, believe it or not, work monoline specializing in E&O/MalPractice Insurance. Our policies easily exceed $100K to $200K in some situations. As far as market blocking, which is unfortunately a practice by the larger agencies, is a hard one to stop but then thats why they made Broker of Record letters. I have come across markets we have been blocked and talked the insured into getting a BOR. Every case of course is a different situation but the truth of the matter is whose best interest do these large agencies have in mind? That is primarily the reason I specialize in one form of Insurance, one that most of your bigger companies don’t have such a knowledge base on. Regardless there is no reason for such a rule. Some of our carriers pay us7.5% some the standard 10% but I think as long as us independents keep to our guns and dont start negotiating fees nothing should change. However, change is inevitable. As far as numbers of carriers represented we are a 2 man outfit and access 95% of the carriers that write this line of coverage, over 20.
This rule, and any like it are absolute nonsense. Our industry already has rules in effect to protect the consumer from any misdeeds by their agent. The Marsh/AIG scandal is way beyond the average consumer or agent in scope and reach. Has there been a public outcry for new regulation? I think not. Most insureds trust their agent to do what is best for them. After all we are licensed professionals.
Should all professionals be held to this standard? “Doctor, How much are you making on my office visit?” And the most important point is simple. The lowest price does not always fit the insured. Underwriting and overall value factor into every placement. Try explaining that to a client…
As a taxpayer, I want to see leadership by EXAMPLE:
I propose that any person receiving a check from the California government clear all of their ac tivities with the population of the state first. This is so that we may have the opportunity to see if they have investigated every possible avenue that what they will do is the very best at the very least (or optimum). Or we will apply severe penalties
As an example, Garamendi may take a trip on behalf of the people of CA, I want him to show us the 5 or 6 airlines he proposes on using, at least 5 or 6 restaurants he proposes to dine at including which items on the menu he proposes on ordering, the tranportation arrangements, etc.
Then he must disclose to the public  in writing on his own time at his own expense  which he chooses, what items on the menu he will select to eat at which meal and on which day. And if his disclosure reveals that he could have done better, or for less, then we will penalize him first with a lawsuit to discover any other “secret” goings on and then we, the public, will make a unilateral determination if this is the best commissioner our state has to offer.
This is counter productive, his “lawsuit” is a subterfuge to detract from his other questionable activities and incompetence and it is quite obvious that Garamendi wants one flavor for all.
As a taxpayer, I want to see leadership by EXAMPLE:
I propose that any person receiving a check from the California government clear all of their ac tivities with the population of the state first. This is so that we may have the opportunity to see if they have investigated every possible avenue that what they will do is the very best at the very least (or optimum). Or we will apply severe penalties
As an example, Garamendi may take a trip on behalf of the people of CA, I want him to show us the 5 or 6 airlines he proposes on using, at least 5 or 6 restaurants he proposes to dine at including which items on the menu he proposes on ordering, the tranportation arrangements, etc.
Then he must disclose to the public  in writing on his own time at his own expense  which he chooses, what items on the menu he will select to eat at which meal and on which day. And if his disclosure reveals that he could have done better, or for less, then we will penalize him first with a lawsuit to discover any other “secret” goings on and then we, the public, will make a unilateral determination if this is the best commissioner our state has to offer.
This is counter productive, his “lawsuit” is a subterfuge to detract from his other questionable activities and incompetence and it is quite obvious that Garamendi wants one flavor for all.
As a taxpayer, I want to see leadership by EXAMPLE:
I propose that any person receiving a check from the California government clear all of their ac tivities with the population of the state first. This is so that we may have the opportunity to see if they have investigated every possible avenue that what they will do is the very best at the very least (or optimum). Or we will apply severe penalties
As an example, Garamendi may take a trip on behalf of the people of CA, I want him to show us the 5 or 6 airlines he proposes on using, at least 5 or 6 restaurants he proposes to dine at including which items on the menu he proposes on ordering, the tranportation arrangements, etc.
Then he must disclose to the public  in writing on his own time at his own expense  which he chooses, what items on the menu he will select to eat at which meal and on which day. And if his disclosure reveals that he could have done better, or for less, then we will penalize him first with a lawsuit to discover any other “secret” goings on and then we, the public, will make a unilateral determination if this is the best commissioner our state has to offer.
This is counter productive, his “lawsuit” is a subterfuge to detract from his other questionable activities and incompetence and it is quite obvious that Garamendi wants one flavor for all.
Last time I checked, wasn’t the rebating of commissions as an incentive to purchase a violation of the CA Insurance Code?? So, who gets to “inform” the consumer of that law?
Since when has the disclosure of income in a legitimate business or occupation enhanced the Free Enterprise Capitalistic business model, the foundation of our Free Enterprise System? Agents/Brokers business will become like car dealer’s where customers will have a feeding freenzie trying to get a lower price. The difference is they will know what our GROSS profit or income is. This will, also, lead to more E&O claims where customers will feel empowered knowing our [small] commissions. They will expect more and when they find a lower premium elsewhere, the prior Agent/Broker will lose all creditability. Of course, the direct writers may have a free pass on this new requirement. And captive agents can make it sound so complicated a customer would not understand. That leaves Independent Agents and Brokers taking the heat!
GARAMENDI IS A MORON. HE ALMOST DESTROYED THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY LAST TIME HE WAS COMMISIONER RUNNING FOR GOVENERNOR.
THE INDUSTRY REALLY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE
Bill is correct Mr. Garamendi is a moron and some other names that can not be mentioned in polite company. Our commissioner is an oportunist, in his mind he will someday be governor and than run for president. I think as a jester of good government, Mr. Garamendi, should disclose his income, total business expenses, total list and amounts given by each donor to him.
Bill don’t expect to much help from insurance carriers, find out who have sponsed him in this last W/C fasco. This commissioner ruled 5% or no commission of State Fund business, I guess we agents should now be listed as charities. Hopefully the consumers and business owners of California will come to understand; the indepentant agent is the only one looking out for them.
It amazes me to find Mr. Garamendi thinks this is a “novel” idea. I have been performing these kinds of “disclosures” to my clients since I entered the insurance business over a decade ago….and will continue to treat my clients “fairly.” I am totally AMAZED at the Commissioner’s lack of a grasp on REALITY. Just WHO is going to “enforce” such a regulation? The current “enforcement staff” is overworked and stretched so THIN they can barely handle the high degree of fraud running somewhat RAMPANT within our industry NOW. I feel Mr. Garamendi’s efforts (such as THIS ONE) to “grab the spotlight” are getting a bit “old” and someone (PLEASE!!!???) needs to tell him we all know is is running for Governor of California……so COOL it.
Would someone please tell Dictator Garamdndi that his job is to reglate the insurance industry in Caifornia and not to try to put everyone in the business “out of business”. Left to his own devices, the Golden State will have one place to purchase insurance, and that is on the commissioner’s website, since he seems to be the only one in the state who will treat the “consumers” fairly.
A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND…..
Only 4 words I can say:
Quakamendi is an ***!
The promblem once we disclose what we are making the insured wants us to rebate or cut or commission. I can not afford a paycut.
Mr. Garamendi is not helping the consumer,
he is hurting the agents and brokers for no appearent reason, and hurting him self too.
Garamendi is piggybacking off of the damage inflicted by the Spitz. You can thank your friend at Marsh (assuming they’re still employed there) and to a lesser extent, Aon and Willis for this.
FWIW, financial planners/financial advisors (especially those holding the CFP designation) usually will disclose all their sources of income – be it from fees or commissions, or a combination of both. This is to be up front with any perceived or potential conflicts of interest.
As to an insured asking you to either cut or rebate your commission, you can graciously explain to the client that rebating or cutting your commission income would severely impact your ability to provide service to them. If they don’t accept that, then you might want to consider if the client is worth the trouble.
Note to Jeff: Two words – spell check
After 25years in the industry I am now semi-retired but…
Although I think Garamendi is a crook……going all the way back to Executive Life….
I also think that disclosure is a good business and industry practice. As professionals our clients do not think we work for free, so the question is “do they think we offer the services they paid for”. Hard question for some!
For too long we have been compensated by, free computers, trips, software and office expense credits as well as direct commission and over rides. Under Garamendi’s rules we will, still, not have to report all we get but it is a professional start.
I am waiting for the Commissioner to define “best”. Is best about cost, reputation, ACV? Will it be OK to offer a cheaper product that pays a higher commission but typically pays a lower cash value for the insured’s car? Will the Commissioner be arbitrary and contentious in judging?
It’s about Mr. Garamendi’s PR. He does not care about California citizens, agents or right and wrong. What he cares about is running for Governor and than President. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in our industry who supports the Commissioner. Don’t expect the insurance industry to help, do your home work to see where his campaign funds come from. No it is up to us to inform our clients and support someone, perhaps an agent or broker, has his or her head screwed on right. Many agent’s are not speaking up because what Garamendi can do to them personally. Look at what he did to the State Fund lobbist during his W/C mess.
My question is what panicked consumers caused him to make these amendments for the people? My clients never question my fees. I’m not concerned about cutting the fees. I would hope that all Independent agents/Brokers stick to what we have been doing and dont lower there fees, but do a good job for our insured’s, instead of rebating (Illegal) Kick backs (Illegal),Steering (Illegal). It seems to me that is what Garadummi intentions are, so he can look like the hero weeding these individuals out when its his ridiculous rule thats will be advocating this. How about he discloses to us his contributors, salary, and gifts. What a Jerk off. Hope he’s not expecting my vote for Governor……………..
John, You are right clients don’t mind paying a fair amount for good service. But when you are selling $50,000.00 to $150,000.00 business policies, the amount of commission gets thier attention. What I fear more, as a small agency, is giving our clients a break down of the companies that quoted that risk. The only people with a large numbers of carriers are the multi line large agencies. Its been my experience that large agencies block markets and don’t always give the client the best product or price. Are we all going to be forced to work for these agencies or captive carriers? Can not see how the public will be better served by the Commissioners regulations. Leaving on a plus note, Thank God Garamedi is not leading any of our service people, he get them all killed and blane it on the someone else.
I actually, believe it or not, work monoline specializing in E&O/MalPractice Insurance. Our policies easily exceed $100K to $200K in some situations. As far as market blocking, which is unfortunately a practice by the larger agencies, is a hard one to stop but then thats why they made Broker of Record letters. I have come across markets we have been blocked and talked the insured into getting a BOR. Every case of course is a different situation but the truth of the matter is whose best interest do these large agencies have in mind? That is primarily the reason I specialize in one form of Insurance, one that most of your bigger companies don’t have such a knowledge base on. Regardless there is no reason for such a rule. Some of our carriers pay us7.5% some the standard 10% but I think as long as us independents keep to our guns and dont start negotiating fees nothing should change. However, change is inevitable. As far as numbers of carriers represented we are a 2 man outfit and access 95% of the carriers that write this line of coverage, over 20.
This rule, and any like it are absolute nonsense. Our industry already has rules in effect to protect the consumer from any misdeeds by their agent. The Marsh/AIG scandal is way beyond the average consumer or agent in scope and reach. Has there been a public outcry for new regulation? I think not. Most insureds trust their agent to do what is best for them. After all we are licensed professionals.
Should all professionals be held to this standard? “Doctor, How much are you making on my office visit?” And the most important point is simple. The lowest price does not always fit the insured. Underwriting and overall value factor into every placement. Try explaining that to a client…
As a taxpayer, I want to see leadership by EXAMPLE:
I propose that any person receiving a check from the California government clear all of their ac tivities with the population of the state first. This is so that we may have the opportunity to see if they have investigated every possible avenue that what they will do is the very best at the very least (or optimum). Or we will apply severe penalties
As an example, Garamendi may take a trip on behalf of the people of CA, I want him to show us the 5 or 6 airlines he proposes on using, at least 5 or 6 restaurants he proposes to dine at including which items on the menu he proposes on ordering, the tranportation arrangements, etc.
Then he must disclose to the public  in writing on his own time at his own expense  which he chooses, what items on the menu he will select to eat at which meal and on which day. And if his disclosure reveals that he could have done better, or for less, then we will penalize him first with a lawsuit to discover any other “secret” goings on and then we, the public, will make a unilateral determination if this is the best commissioner our state has to offer.
This is counter productive, his “lawsuit” is a subterfuge to detract from his other questionable activities and incompetence and it is quite obvious that Garamendi wants one flavor for all.
I am Furious!
As a taxpayer, I want to see leadership by EXAMPLE:
I propose that any person receiving a check from the California government clear all of their ac tivities with the population of the state first. This is so that we may have the opportunity to see if they have investigated every possible avenue that what they will do is the very best at the very least (or optimum). Or we will apply severe penalties
As an example, Garamendi may take a trip on behalf of the people of CA, I want him to show us the 5 or 6 airlines he proposes on using, at least 5 or 6 restaurants he proposes to dine at including which items on the menu he proposes on ordering, the tranportation arrangements, etc.
Then he must disclose to the public  in writing on his own time at his own expense  which he chooses, what items on the menu he will select to eat at which meal and on which day. And if his disclosure reveals that he could have done better, or for less, then we will penalize him first with a lawsuit to discover any other “secret” goings on and then we, the public, will make a unilateral determination if this is the best commissioner our state has to offer.
This is counter productive, his “lawsuit” is a subterfuge to detract from his other questionable activities and incompetence and it is quite obvious that Garamendi wants one flavor for all.
I am Furious!
As a taxpayer, I want to see leadership by EXAMPLE:
I propose that any person receiving a check from the California government clear all of their ac tivities with the population of the state first. This is so that we may have the opportunity to see if they have investigated every possible avenue that what they will do is the very best at the very least (or optimum). Or we will apply severe penalties
As an example, Garamendi may take a trip on behalf of the people of CA, I want him to show us the 5 or 6 airlines he proposes on using, at least 5 or 6 restaurants he proposes to dine at including which items on the menu he proposes on ordering, the tranportation arrangements, etc.
Then he must disclose to the public  in writing on his own time at his own expense  which he chooses, what items on the menu he will select to eat at which meal and on which day. And if his disclosure reveals that he could have done better, or for less, then we will penalize him first with a lawsuit to discover any other “secret” goings on and then we, the public, will make a unilateral determination if this is the best commissioner our state has to offer.
This is counter productive, his “lawsuit” is a subterfuge to detract from his other questionable activities and incompetence and it is quite obvious that Garamendi wants one flavor for all.
I am Furious!