Insurance Brokers SAC
Many laps have given the idea of writing is that at this point in my long career in the field of insurance intermediary think I can afford to attempt to clarify some discrepancies arising after the adoption of our new Mediation Law Private Insurance and relating to the remuneration of the Insurance Agents and Brokers.
Article 29.2 of Law 26/2006 of July 17 is clear and strong and also a result of negotiations conducted in part by the union of the most representative institutions of mediation Adecose , General Council and FECOR, joining some lobby have called for mediation, which came long been needed. These institutions, unlike what unfortunately was becoming fashionable in some sectors of Spanish brokerage, have always defended the legality of the fees, understood as a product pay a service to our customers, invoices billed directly to independent and separately from the premium receipt issued by the insurer, writing almost one letter corresponds to the text approved by a plenary FECOR few years ago to make clear the position of the Federation created off the discussion about fees and commissions. If additional fees, the broker receives commissions from insurance companies seem fair that the client is informed of the total amount of remuneration.
Why then the discrepancy of some brokers associations not incorporated into the most representative listed above?
Because these other associations advocating a fee structure, called SAC (Customer Service) absolutely indefensible under an ethical business philosophy of customer service transparent. And not only defend it if it does not disclose and recommend it.
And here is where we must speak out, engage and fight to eradicate this type of abusive practices that seriously jeopardize the image of Spanish brokerage.
Those who are not happy with the wording of Article 29.2 of our new law, which fortunately are less than you would have us believe, do not defend the legitimate user fees, according to law (now I) and any ethical point, defend recovery of the SAC as they have been doing that practice. Interpret the SAC as a tool allowing them to improve their bottom to charge a fee basis, which they seem well on its merits and cases, masked in the actual receipt of premium and without the necessary customer information for that thus increase the volume of commissions received, especially in mass risks, depriving most of the time the insured person the enjoyment of premium reductions that has every right in the world to perceive. That we are charge a fee, that is not an effective corporate work to improve their bottom line, that is quite simply a consumer fraud.
The income of any company worth its salt should not be achieved by increasing abusing the product cost is achieved by improving the work day to day business, increasing sales and providing customers with increasingly better and more complete service and charging fees when they are justified by the service. On the other hand we should stop to consider whether to charge the SAC and increase their income is not as easy as they have accommodated to a less professional business management which has led them to a stagnation in their sales figures, but that’s another question. As it would be another issue of fiscal transparency genuine recovery of these fees.
With the wording of Article 29 of the new law, referred to relations with insurers and customers, the SAC Runners are obviously not happy and not happy because from now on will have to transform the SAC in fees pursuant to right and allow the insurer in such cases to exercise its duty to inform the insured by indicating on the receipt of the amount of the commission. The recovery of the SAC and is not now an easy task because it becomes a real agreement with a fee for providing customer service and above all requires the broker to justify a case by case.
Posted in 
Tags: