February 20, 2018 07:00
Photo : Freepik
Many people in the industry agree that the use of banners will be growing if bill 150 is passed in its current form. The leaders of the banners are aware of that, even if they are the extent detrimental to the brokerage.
“This is definitely a good business opportunity for us, but this does not prevent us from finding the idea as bad,” stresses Rémy-Pierre Boisvert, president ofAssurExperts. This is how he reacts to the potential obligation for the one who wants to appear as a dealer offer four business proposals from four different insurers.
Mr. Boisvert argues that brokerage firms do not necessarily have agency agreements with many insurers, thus preventing to comply to the potential rule. “This proposal demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the brokerage industry. In some segments personal insurance, a broker does not have access to as many insurers. This is all the more true in insurance companies. I am hopeful that the regulator will hear reason. “
A perspective that is shared by Louis Wood, president of Brokers Usa. “The objective of the government through the amendments to the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services is commendable. What we feel is that the reality of the market and the application of the measures are problematic. “
He cites the different issues between the sectors of insurance of individuals and companies to express the great difficulty of application of this measure. In particular, Mr. Wood argues that firms that do not have contracts with four insurers because of the volume requirements will be difficult to comply with the constraints of the law. “The conditions for obtaining agency contracts have significantly tightened, making it so that it is more difficult than before “, states he.
On the side of the insurance business, he also explains that for certain risks, such as the transportation and the syndicates of co-ownership, the number of insurers does not reach the compulsory threshold of four. “We don’t have a multitude of markets to respond to customers,” said Mr. Wood.
An additional burden
Mr. Wood states that this requirement adds an additional burden on the shoulders of the broker and promotes the insurers direct. “Having to explain everything to customers takes time. Direct insurers will only have to do it once rather than four. It will become tedious to be able to offer four proposals and all legitimate. For us, this creates an overload of work. This will be costly for everyone. No matter what happens, we will respond to the requirements of the act. We will help our members to do so also. “
Yannick Jetté, president of the Group Jettésays. “The problem will be to explain the difference between all the proposals. We may lose in effectiveness if one has to explain everything in long and in wide to clients. “
Insurance companies, the analysis of all the proposals will inevitably lead to delays and inefficiencies. Since they are more complex than personal insurance, keep in mind.
The solution for him would be to remove the requirement on the number of insurers, and to integrate it with the current rules. “The requirement is to switch from four to two for the two sectors. It is more than enough. We understand that the broker does not have a unique offering, but to offer at least two proposals is enough “, he proposes, mentioning, in passing, that the members of his banner automatically have access to a large number of insurers, but that the four proposals, it is very heavy.
Mr. Wood said in solidarity with the position of the Regroupement des cabinets de courtage du Québec (RCCAQ) presented on the occasion of the consultations with parliamentarians on the draft law 150 of the end of January. Moreover, it indicates that the banner regularly organizes training sessions for its members to keep them abreast of policy issues that affect them. The most recent session was given by the president of the RCCAQ, Christopher Johnson, 31, last January.
Mixed on the new names
If the question of the proposals is unanimous support from all the leaders of banners, it is not the same for the measurement, which introduces a new designation for firms that have a financial relationship with an insurer. If some believe that the current law should remain unchanged, others are in favour of the proposed changes.
“The current law is correct,” said Mr. Boisvert. We have always been frank : Intact Insurance holds a 20 % shareholding in AssurExperts. We are free, we have free rein, and we maintain a degree of independence. If a firm has contracts with three or four insurers, it is simple, there is no problem to see. We felt a lobby very strong direct writers who have advocated with a common voice to change this. “
“The brokerage has very well flourished with the current rule, which has helped to preserve the independence. I don’t see why we should change. The difficulty is that it has not always been respected “, adds Mr. Wood.
On the other hand, Bernard Laporte, chairman,Intergroup, exposes the French model, which adopted a similar measure in 2007. “When I go into a store The Bay, I don’t want to find myself in Ogilvy, shows-t-it. If a customer makes in a firm affiliated clearly with an insurer, as in the case of general agents insurance in France, it expects to offer products of that insurer. It is quite correct. I am in favour of transparency. If someone wants to be 100% owned by an insurer, he has the right. I don’t see why it couldn’t. “