Just how High Can Contracts Go??

[Willie B]

I'll tell you exactly how we handle that. 9 times out of 10 I would recommend that you not put your agency under us. We are an agent direct company. We are for producers. Not middle men.

9 out of 10 agencies that contact me have no production. They just have a guy that wants to put several other guys under him. And shave their commissions. I tell them that our agency is the worst place that you can put your agency. We are exposing your business plan as a cancer. I can like you fine personally but in business we are the guys you don't want your agents to find. And I've had that conversation with many of them.

You can imagine how shocked these guys are to hear this after they have been fed the recruiting Kool-Aid that the scabs of the industry fill them with.

The agencies that work well with us are producers that bring on agents AFTER they kill it themselves. They have earned higher contracts and they can put agents under them at the same commissions we do. If they are doing a more focused ramp up training with an agent they will sometimes put an agent on a temporarily lower commission with a schedule to get to our street level. And (gasp!) none of this is ever hidden from the agent. It's always the agent's choice.

Can an agency have a contract under us and run their agency completely separate from us? Sure. We have guys with one or two under us. We have no idea how they are running their agency. Doesn't matter. They aren't branding themself as a Fex agency. If one of their agents contacted us to come on with us it wouldn't be because he knew we were his upline. Most of those type agencies don't disclose it. I've had three of those happen ever and we just communicate with the other agency. In two cases the other agency wanted us to take over the agent because they were problem agents. We helped steer them elsewhere. In the other case the agent was a decent agent and I steered him back to where he was and helped those guys communicate and resolve their issues.

What you guys don't seem to understand is we don't want every agent and definitely don't want every agency. If we had an agency that constantly had their agents wanting to come to us we would resolve that by asking the agency to move on. if the agency was just recruiting agents out of ignorance rather than being competitive in the market place, that's not who we want to put our loyalties with.

The difference with us is we are agents. We think from the agent's perspective not the recruiters perspective.

But back to the main focus of this thread: can anyone really defend making commission levels an Easter Egg hunt? Other than to protect middle men?

Again my posts were not intended to start a flare up with Todd. I know Todd personally and he's one of the good guys. But that practice which is common is designed to HURT agents. And it hurts a lot of them. It needs to change.

----------



And I agree with you on that point. In fact that's the whole point I'm making. Any terms you make are fair as long as it's easy for the agent to do his homework before committing and make informed decisions.

It's the "keep the agent in the dark" stuff that is wrong.

Thanks for sharing that. Your structure is not intended for the successful agents who build a team the right way. even though I respect what your doing, your hurting the good guys to protect agents from the bad one. You're not wrong, it's just different.

 

[Newby]

Doesnt National Underwriting Services and FEXContracting (same company), have agencies under them, with agents that dont know they are contracted through FEX and who are under multiple layers of hierarchy and have lower commissions than posted on FEX's site?

Newby has already admitted to that. So, whats the difference?

Admitted? It's a statement. Not like something is wrong. What are you saying is wrong with it?

Primerica and Equias both publicly post their commissions. Does that make them a better option than any IMO who doesnt post commissions? Does that make them more honest?

Yes. It definitely makes them more transparent which equals more honest and better for the agent. Does a car lot that posts prices on the windshields seem more honest than one where the salesman reads you the prices one by one off his notepad that you can't look at? Duh!

In my opinion, publicly posting commissions is very good thing, and should be encouraged. But not publicly posting commissions doesn't make you dishonest. Thats "FOS marketer talk", as someone would put it here (but never to a FEX marketer).

There are many degrees of dishonesty. But yes making important detail hard for an agent to find out is less honest that publically posting them. This industry has a bad habit of screwing agents. Any practice that assists that is not completely good.

As Ive stated before. Posting commissions publicly or not, its all smoke and mirrors. By simply committing to a production level, and knowing the right contact, you can get above street with any carrier. The carriers just dont like IMOs competing against eachother over commissions because the IMO dont like it. Thats the only reason its regulated. Insurance carriers dont care, for the most part, what agents are paid.

You are very naive and mis-guided. Some companies are very strict about commission levels. Others do not care and the agencies decide what they will give. It's the free market. But an agency that publicly post for all to see what they will give is MUCH more favorable and honest to the agent than the hide and seek agency. There is no lipstick you can put on that pig.

 

[NSRH]

1.) Admitted? It's a statement. Not like something is wrong. What are you saying is wrong with it?

2.) Yes. It definitely makes them more transparent which equals more honest and better for the agent. Does a car lot that posts prices on the windshields seem more honest than one where the salesman reads you the prices one by one off his notepad that you can't look at? Duh!

3.) There are many degrees of dishonesty. But yes making important detail hard for an agent to find out is less honest that publically posting them. This industry has a bad habit of screwing agents. Any practice that assists that is not completely good.


4.) You are very naive and mis-guided. Some companies are very strict about commission levels. Others do not care and the agencies decide what they will give. It's the free market. But an agency that publicly post for all to see what they will give is MUCH more favorable and honest to the agent than the hide and seek agency. There is no lipstick you can put on that pig.

So to clarify your points are:

1.) You should publicly post all commissions to be completely honest, yet you have agencies under you that are not transparent and publicly posting commissions, because you "have no idea how they run their agency." So you are making an override off of the same business model that you are calling dishonest. Do you see anything wrong with that?

2.) So because Primerica and Equias publically post their commissions that makes them more honest then the other 90% of IMOs who dont, and that makes them better for the agent. Do you really think Primerica and Equias are good business models for the agent?

3.) There are not "many degrees of dishonesty". Your making your agencys value added a morality thing. Its not. There are good and honest organizations that dont publicly post their commissions. Either way, its in the agents contract, so its never a secret. What difference does it make if its posted publicaly on the internet, or on a commission grid?

4.) Im misguided and naive? Youre talking in circles here Scott. I never said ALL companies dont care about what you pay your agents, but A LOT DONT CARE. I know you have to claim they do to keep your spread, so I understand your angle.

 

[Newby]

Thanks for sharing that. Your structure is not intended for the successful agents who build a team the right way. even though I respect what your doing, your hurting the good guys to protect agents from the bad one. You're not wrong, it's just different.

I don't guess I understand. Building an agency the right way is the only way we are good for. YOU produce and learn what you are doing first. THEN you recruit agents AFTER you have increased commissions. You either put the agents at high commissions OR you have value adds that are worth the reducton TO THE AGENT (NOT just to you.)

That way you have happy and successful agents who CHOOSE to do business with you WITH the knowledge of what is out there.

Any time you are recruiting agents by keeping info from them you are recruiting the wrong way.

----------

So to clarify your points are:

1.) You should publicly post all commissions to be completely honest, yet you have agencies under you that are not transparent and publicly posting commissions, because you "have no idea how they run their agency." So you are making an override off of the same business model that you are calling dishonest. Do you see anything wrong with that?

You are just playing dumb on this one. Any agency that has a contract through us is not an FEX agency. I have no right to control another man's business. But I don't set mine up to "protect" him if he is doing wrong. His agency is his agency and my agency is my agency. However if an agency is promoting themself as an FEX agency and participating in our training and leads, etc. I definitely do have some say if they choose to run in a way that is counter to what we promote.

2.) So because Primerica and Equias publically post their commissions that makes them more honest then the other 90% of IMOs who dont, and that makes them better for the agent. Do you really think Primerica and Equias are good business models for the agent?

[COLOR="Red"In what world would that even be a question? Of course it's more honest. Do you live on Earth?[/COLOR]

3.) There are[B] not [/B] "many degrees of dishonesty". Your making your agencys value added a morality thing. Its not. There are good and honest organizations that dont publicly post their commissions. Either way, its in the agents contract, so its never a secret. What difference does it make if its posted publicaly on the internet, or on a commission grid?

[COLOR="Red"]Yes, there are many degrees of honesty. An agency that hides things from agents is not being completely honest. But they aren't going to jail for it. Heck in your opinion they aren't even doing anything wrong. You accept it as the way to do business. [/COLOR]

4.) Im misguided and naive? Youre talking in circles here Scott. I never said ALL companies dont care about what you pay your agents, but A LOT DONT CARE. I know you have to claim they do to keep your spread, so I understand your angle.

Yes. You are completely naive if you think that the majority of agents see commission levels in writing (or many times even verbally) before they are signed up. What do you think this whole conversation is about? Agents get screwed by this system every day. There are thousands of horror stories on this forum. Read it and learn. Or maybe not. It wouldn't be good for your business model.

How can anyone argrue that when both parties enter into an agreement they both go in with full disclosure? How can that not be the way to do business in 2017? You are a pip. And you are just using your anger at JD (a real producer by the way) to have an argrument you can't win against me.

 

[Willie B]

I don't guess I understand. Building an agency the right way is the only way we are good for. YOU produce and learn what you are doing first. THEN you recruit agents AFTER you have increased commissions. You either put the agents at high commissions OR you have value adds that are worth the reducton TO THE AGENT (NOT just to you.)

That way you have happy and successful agents who CHOOSE to do business with you WITH the knowledge of what is out there.

Any time you are recruiting agents by keeping info from them you are recruiting the wrong way.

I'm paying for their leads. I spend thousands each month to keep them busy, so if they know you are the upline and look at your website to see street is 50pts higher than what I give them, do you see how that can look bad since they may not understand what I'm putting into there success?

And transparency is subjective, when you recruit agents do you share with them that taking a lower commission and getting free leads makes more sense? My guess is No, since you don't offer that model nor do you believe in like I don't offer high contracts nor do I believe that's the best model for my team.

 

[rousemark]

Since transparency seems to be the issue, I think IMOs should take it to the next level and post what their commission rates are so agents will know what the IMO is making off them.

 

[Willie B]

Since transparency seems to be the issue, I think IMOs should take it to the next level and post what their commission rates are so agents will know what the IMO is making off them.

Haha! Way to find a solution!

 

[Newby]

I'm paying for their leads. I spend thousands each month to keep them busy, so if they know you are the upline and look at your website to see street is 50pts higher than what I give them, do you see how that can look bad since they may not understand what I'm putting into there success?

And transparency is subjective, when you recruit agents do you share with them that taking a lower commission and getting free leads makes more sense? My guess is No, since you don't offer that model nor do you believe in like I don't offer high contracts nor do I believe that's the best model for my team.

No I do not see your point whatsoever. You should be offering your agents a fair and competitive commission that goes along with free leads. If you're recruiting agents who are attracted to free leads and you were fair on the commission levels you give them you have no problem that they know what Agents who don't get free leads are getting. Why would that ever be an issue?

And if an agent under your agency doesn't want the free leads and would rather have the full commission and buy his own leads why would you not let him go that way? If that's not something your agency does why would you not just tell the agent he's not a good fit for your agency and release him once he has worked the leads you currently have gor him?

Why is this stuff not basic common sense?

How would keeping them in the dark ever be the right thing to do? And there's no need for it.

If you want agents who will work on 50% commission and get free leads I can send you dozens of them every month. I get tons of calls from those agents it would love to have that set up and they know full well what our street contracts are. So it's not like you would have any problem at all recruiting agents at 50% with free leads. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it I'm saying as long as everything is disclosed going in everybody's happy.

----------

Since transparency seems to be the issue, I think IMOs should take it to the next level and post what their commission rates are so agents will know what the IMO is making off them.

I have always disclosed that I make plenty. I would never work for free.

 

[Willie B]

No I do not see your point whatsoever. You should be offering your agents a fair and competitive commission that goes along with free leads. If you're recruiting agents who are attracted to free leads and you were fair on the commission levels you give them you have no problem that they know what Agents who don't get free leads are getting. Why would that ever be an issue?

And if an agent under your agency doesn't want the free leads and would rather have the full commission and buy his own leads why would you not let him go that way? If that's not something your agency does why would you not just tell the agent he's not a good fit for your agency and release him once he has worked the leads you currently have gor him?

Why is this stuff not basic common sense?

How would keeping them in the dark ever be the right thing to do? And there's no need for it.

If you want agents who will work on 50% commission and get free leads I can send you dozens of them every month. I get tons of calls from those agents it would love to have that set up and they know full well what our street contracts are. So it's not like you would have any problem at all recruiting agents at 50% with free leads. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it I'm saying as long as everything is disclosed going in everybody's happy.

----------



I have always disclosed that I make plenty. I would never work for free.

What's fair and competitive? If I give them 10 dm leads a week is 70% fair? Or how about if I give them 50 dm leads a week and have them at 50%? Or is it fair to be normal and give them 110% and make a 30% override with no investment except some time?

If they want to move to a higher contract, that is fine as long as I've made money on them. I've I'm in the whole 2 grand and you use my leads to practice, I'm not releasing you unless you pay me back and that is basic common business sense.

Regarding everything being disclosed should I also tell my agents how I generate my leads and at what cost and how they can do it without me? Also what my contracts are? This info is not their business. Do you also think wal mart should disclose how much every competitor pays? The only thing that matters is they are happy with what they are offered.

 

[Todd King]

Wow! I can't believe this debate is really still going on!

I'm going to say this in general. When we recruit an agent we send them their commission schedules. There is no doubt in their mind what levels they are on. We discuss these things even before they submit contracting and they get those schedules before they contract. That's not hiding anything. We contract individuals as well as agencies. To me, that's what an IMO does. Just because someone has IMO sized contracts does not make them an IMO. Heck, we have some NMO sized contracts, yet we are not an NMO. It's really about the model you run. Some IMO's are actually running their model more like a GA than that of an IMO.

If we post the minimum levels that we give out, many agencies would pass us by simply because they wouldn't bother to call and find out what levels they could actually qualify for. They would see the minimums and move on. That's yet another reason we won't post them.

I've said many times on here that we NEVER give out below street levels to our direct agents. That's a fact. If I 1, 10, or 100 agents call me on the same day, week, month, or year, they will be told the same thing when it comes to the levels. I even go so far as to find out if they have any real proof of production that would warrant the higher levels.

I think we're pretty successful at what we do. Nope, we don't demand that our agents have all their contracts with us. Some do and some don't. We treat all our agents the same whether they have one contract or 15 with us. We are a true independent organization. That's the way our IMO was built and that's the way it will remain.