Let's talk releases!

[The Rabbi]

I'm not finding why anyone would call him dishonest? I understand a certain amount of hesitancy and suspicion of an IMO posting here and inviting our 'feedback', but dishonest?

Point it out to me so I do.

How does an IMO protect themselves against chargebacks ?

Easy. It's called Vector. It's a clearing house to check on agents who leave debit balances. No one will contract you if you owe money.

To Joe: That's why the no release feature is STUPID. If an agent wants to leave, it's your fault. You failed to build loyalty. MOs are great at recruiting but lousy at training or even being honest about how difficult it is to get started.

 

[Frank Stastny]

I think a 3 legged stool works doesn't it?

Yep is works just fine.
Good job! One of your best observations.

 

[GreenSky]

2. Right to come back to our organization anytime within next 12 months, at the option of the agent. This would have to be signed by the agent and the new IMO.

4. No transfers directly to insurance companies, or a IMO owned, partially owned or controlled by a company. If allowed, this could have the effect of cutting out the IMO of the business that he has spent many dollars helping create.

Joe - I commend you for "seeing the light." In the long run, this type of mutual respect will serve you well.

As far as point #2, this is absolutely unnecessary. You are asking the new IMO to agree to release the agent back to you. This is still an "ownership" issue. You might warn your agent to make sure they also get a release from the new IMO. If this is in place, there is no need for any IMO-IMO Agreement.

Regarding point #4, if you don't own the agent, you should have no say in where he or she goes, including to the carrier. Is this even an issue? How many carriers that use the FMO system even appoint direct.

By the way, if I had a choice, I would always go direct.

Rick

 

[Joe Moore]

I think a 3 legged stool works doesn't it?

So an agent that is contracted under one of your agents would not be able to get released?

1. A 3 legged stool works, but when a IMO is brought into the mix, this issue become a 4-legged stool. We are doing the work an insurance company would have to do if we were not in the equation. It appears to me all parties should have protection, including the IMO.

2. My thought on this is that if an agency comes to us and brings agents; it would not be even close to fair for us to recruit or accept their downline agents with the same contract that he agency head had. I would view this as us having the opportunity to destoy the agency. Now, if the agency head decided he wanted to leave, and take all his agents with him that would be a different story.

 

[Joe Moore]

Easy. It's called Vector. It's a clearing house to check on agents who leave debit balances. No one will contract you if you owe money.

To Joe: That's why the no release feature is STUPID. If an agent wants to leave, it's your fault. You failed to build loyalty. MOs are great at recruiting but lousy at training or even being honest about how difficult it is to get started.

1. Not all companies subscribe to Vector. We got bit for $6800 by not having a Vector report one time. Of course IMO's can do the same thing as the companies and get a Vector report.
I have seen Vector have info that is questionable at best. I am aware of one situation where an agency head came in one day around 12-years ago and fired around 20 in-house agents that had debit balances. They were -0- level sub-agents and he had a clause in his contract that said their earnings stopped if no longer in his organization, and their debit balance was suddenly due. They all ended up being placed in Vector.
I tried to contract them with another company. It did not work. If they were in Vector, they were blackballed.
The last I heard he was still alive, but I questioned how 20 broke, mad and without-a-home agents could allow this guy to survive very long.

2. I agree IMOs are very bad teachers, unless it is in-house agents. The major problem is that for 10-15% an IMO cannot afford to do anything except what they do.
Of course in-house agents normally have much lower contracts than strictly contracted out-of-office agents. In-house agents are normally much higher maintenance and of course much less experienced than the old pros.
Because of our lack of being able to train well at a distance, I have many times recommended an agent to go to an in-house operation, or a captive debit company to get experience.

I admit we are not good at teaching. But, how many old pros really need it?

 

[Joe Moore]

Yep is works just fine.
Good job! One of your best observations.

I agree. It works fine if there are only 3 parties involved. But when the 4th party is in the mix, it becomes a 4-legged situation.

IMOs may be the "ugly woman" in this situation, but Frank haven't you heard that ugly women need loving too?

 

[Joe Moore]

Joe - I commend you for "seeing the light." In the long run, this type of mutual respect will serve you well.

As far as point #2, this is absolutely unnecessary. You are asking the new IMO to agree to release the agent back to you. This is still an "ownership" issue. You might warn your agent to make sure they also get a release from the new IMO. If this is in place, there is no need for any IMO-IMO Agreement.

Regarding point #4, if you don't own the agent, you should have no say in where he or she goes, including to the carrier. Is this even an issue? How many carriers that use the FMO system even appoint direct.

By the way, if I had a choice, I would always go direct.

Rick

Point #2 - No Rick, this is not asking the new IMO to release the agent back to us, it is demanding and requiring it, if the agent so desires. It is more protection for the agent not getting hung-up with a no release new IMO, and have no-where to go. If the agent came back to us, they could of course leave again and go anywhere they wanted.

Point #4 - The carrier could use our expertise and dollars to build their agency force (which they probably did not have and could not do at a reasonable cost). All of a sudden they had their plate full, or reserving issues, or any number of excuses. If agents were contracted by us at a 105%, and the company offered 110%, agents would leave us as soon as they could. If we originally had a 120%, the company could save 10% on their sales costs by cutting us out. We initiated the contracting, but were left with nothing. I don't agree with what you are saying here. The IMO would need protection from this happening.

 

[Frank Stastny]

I agree. It works fine if there are only 3 parties involved. But when the 4th party is in the mix, it becomes a 4-legged situation.

IMOs may be the "ugly woman" in this situation, but Frank haven't you heard that ugly women need loving too?

With that unintelligent response you have just lost any credibility you may have had with me.

By your own admission you have stated that "it works fine if there are only 3 parties involved". It's nice to know that even you admit that you and others like you are not needed.

We don't need you, we don't want you we just want you and all those like you to go away. You do not provide us with anything of value that we can't get on our own.

At this point anything further you have to say is just smoke and pure bullshit to foster your own agenda. Why don't you quit before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[patch36]

It seems to me that most of the compliance issues I have seen are with agents who are recruited and managed by certain IMO's. Because these IMO's write a lot of business fast the insurance companies seem to ignore them and let them operate without scrutiny or recourse. Parker comes to mind, but there are many others that blanket the markets come AEP time and push legions of new and inexperienced agents out to prey on the public.

The insurance companies seem happy keeping these agents at arms length with an additional layer between them and the non compliant and unscrupulous agents amongst us. Why do we have FMO's if not for that reason? Why would the insurance companies give up a point or 2 of commissions to the FMO's if not to create legal distance from the agents.

Some FMO's operate professionally and are great places for inexperienced agents to get started, but in most cases, that is not the case. I will assume that most FMO's are scrupulous, but when you think about it, are they necessary? I am appointed to many companies through several FMO's. Only one offers any measurable level of support that I take advantage of, and their focus is annuities and life insurance.

As Rick points out, given the opportunity I always go direct.

 

[Joe Moore]

With that unintelligent response you have just lost any credibility you may have had with me.

By your own admission you have stated that "it works fine if there are only 3 parties involved". It's nice to know that even you admit that you and others like you are not needed.

We don't need you, we don't want you we just want you and all those like you to go away. You do not provide us with anything of value that we can't get on our own.

At this point anything further you have to say is just smoke and pure bullshit to foster your own agenda. Why don't you quit before you embarrass yourself any further.

It depends from what perspective you are looking at, if we are needed or not. From some agents perspective, we are "making our living off the agents back".

From the company's perspective, we are a valuable "no cost until something is sold" function for the distribution of their products.

I have said this before but one company we represent was paying approximately $1 million yearly in sales expense with 5 sales vice-presidents to produce $2 million worth of new premium, and recruiting only 48 new agents. After converting to the IMO structure, they grew to $250 million in sales in 10 years. They have been able to keep competitive products, and much increase commissions.

From your perspective, we are scumbags.
From their perspective, we are heroes.

To a lot of other agents we are heroes. Without us they (and you) would not have the high commissions available today. We reduce the costs of operation for an insurance company.

I don't think you will see people like us going away. If you don't want to deal with people like me, it is simple-don't. But, you will watch a lot of opportunities pass you by. As you know, some companies will not contract agents directly.

When you are saying that I have admitted "we are not needed", I did not say that. I will say the industry can work without us, just not as well and efficiently and watch your commissions go south.

I did not try to start this discussion to start calling anyone names, blowing smoke or bullshit. I am not going to call you unintelligent, as you did me. You are probably plenty smart. But, you are looking at this subject from one side only, and possibly do not understand or care about anyone except yourself.

I have found many things in this world that I did not like or feel needed (IRS, snakes, so many lawyers, liars, crooks, really dishonest people, etc.). I have also resigned myself to the fact if I do not have the ability or power to change what I think is wrong, I will either learn to deal with it the way it is or try my best to leave it alone.