Joe, I want to thank you for initiating this post. I am not a seasoned veteran, just green as grass. I have had my share of hard lessons on this subject of release, though. I won't repeat my rant, as it is posted already.
1) One thing I learned just last year, is that one of my FMOs stated that he belongs to an association of FMOs that meet and work with the carriers to establish marketing rules. If this is the case, it could explain why one carrier I am contracted with has a prescribed protocol for releases in writing that parallels the protocol that some, but not all, FMOs follow. I can view that company policy anytime I wish, and it is referred to in my broker/agent contract. Unfortunately, the release protocol remains hidden in some other of my FMO contracts. So it appears that the release issue is not standardized among all carriers/FMOs.
2) Most new agents, such as myself, are not knowledgeable enough to know how to approach an FMO, and instead get recruited by GAs or MGAs. Many new agents do not know anything about their upline (some could care less), and don't realize the contractual responsibilities until a serious issue comes up. At that point they may have a book of business that is at stake. The claim of "dishonesty" is rightly laid at the door of the contract designer. Full disclosure would demand the agent be made aware of the hierachy, and the protocol for release. Just warning a new agent of "chargeback" policy is not full disclosure.
3) I think the "distribution partner" system is evolving to eliminate the FMO system. Could it be because of the lack of honorable FMO contracts? A couple of companies I am direct with appear to be discontinuing captive agents and issuing exclusive agent contracts. They are still protective of their existing IMO/FMOs (trying not to lose that revenue stream), but all the while, moving towards reducing that system.
4) One carrier I am contracted with pays me through the FMO, while all others have my commission paid direct from the carrier. Guess who is slack about sending me my checks? (One of your favorites, Rick! ) I like it when the carrier offers me the choice of how I want to be paid. Believe it or not, folks, I just re-newed with a carrier that does this! (And this carrier pays me within TWO weeks of ap submission!) I have no reason to sign with an FMO.
5) All new agents should be given a description of the "distribution partner" system. This forum attempts to do this, (but could be improved... a "sticky" with these details would go a long way).
My personal problem stemmed from a marketing organization that never used the term "GA" and disallowed that was his standing, claimed to NOT know what an "FMO" was when confronted, and signed me up under his FMO as a "licensed solicitor/LOA" (not telling me about this or describing what a "licensed only agent [LOA]" meant in the hierachy), thereby putting my commission level at the lowest. Ignorant of what all this meant, I signed up with him knowing only that I needed training, mentorship, and leads. This agreement did not provide for accountability to those terms he agreed to, only my hierachical position, which I did not understand. (Q for you legal beagles: Isn't this a one-sided contract?... Unenforceable in court?) This is what I think Rick is pointing out: a)Full disclosure of all terms and parties that are part of the agreement b) A resolution to dissolve the contract if either party is no longer satisfied with the agreed upon terms (fairness to both sides).
Further grounds to the claim that the existing system is "dishonest", is the fact that after severing the relationship with an upline in the hierachical distribution system, an agent abandons his book of business. This is to the upline's benefit, and one of the reasons that it is kept close to the breast.
Sunlight is a good antibacterial agent. I think it is high time we demand FULL DISCLOSURE. Full disclosure will thus reveal release protocol, and thereby allow the agent informed consent.
1) One thing I learned just last year, is that one of my FMOs stated that he belongs to an association of FMOs that meet and work with the carriers to establish marketing rules. If this is the case, it could explain why one carrier I am contracted with has a prescribed protocol for releases in writing that parallels the protocol that some, but not all, FMOs follow. I can view that company policy anytime I wish, and it is referred to in my broker/agent contract. Unfortunately, the release protocol remains hidden in some other of my FMO contracts. So it appears that the release issue is not standardized among all carriers/FMOs.
2) Most new agents, such as myself, are not knowledgeable enough to know how to approach an FMO, and instead get recruited by GAs or MGAs. Many new agents do not know anything about their upline (some could care less), and don't realize the contractual responsibilities until a serious issue comes up. At that point they may have a book of business that is at stake. The claim of "dishonesty" is rightly laid at the door of the contract designer. Full disclosure would demand the agent be made aware of the hierachy, and the protocol for release. Just warning a new agent of "chargeback" policy is not full disclosure.
3) I think the "distribution partner" system is evolving to eliminate the FMO system. Could it be because of the lack of honorable FMO contracts? A couple of companies I am direct with appear to be discontinuing captive agents and issuing exclusive agent contracts. They are still protective of their existing IMO/FMOs (trying not to lose that revenue stream), but all the while, moving towards reducing that system.
4) One carrier I am contracted with pays me through the FMO, while all others have my commission paid direct from the carrier. Guess who is slack about sending me my checks? (One of your favorites, Rick! ) I like it when the carrier offers me the choice of how I want to be paid. Believe it or not, folks, I just re-newed with a carrier that does this! (And this carrier pays me within TWO weeks of ap submission!) I have no reason to sign with an FMO.
5) All new agents should be given a description of the "distribution partner" system. This forum attempts to do this, (but could be improved... a "sticky" with these details would go a long way).
My personal problem stemmed from a marketing organization that never used the term "GA" and disallowed that was his standing, claimed to NOT know what an "FMO" was when confronted, and signed me up under his FMO as a "licensed solicitor/LOA" (not telling me about this or describing what a "licensed only agent [LOA]" meant in the hierachy), thereby putting my commission level at the lowest. Ignorant of what all this meant, I signed up with him knowing only that I needed training, mentorship, and leads. This agreement did not provide for accountability to those terms he agreed to, only my hierachical position, which I did not understand. (Q for you legal beagles: Isn't this a one-sided contract?... Unenforceable in court?) This is what I think Rick is pointing out: a)Full disclosure of all terms and parties that are part of the agreement b) A resolution to dissolve the contract if either party is no longer satisfied with the agreed upon terms (fairness to both sides).
Further grounds to the claim that the existing system is "dishonest", is the fact that after severing the relationship with an upline in the hierachical distribution system, an agent abandons his book of business. This is to the upline's benefit, and one of the reasons that it is kept close to the breast.
Sunlight is a good antibacterial agent. I think it is high time we demand FULL DISCLOSURE. Full disclosure will thus reveal release protocol, and thereby allow the agent informed consent.
Last edited: