MGA GUIDELINES: REGULATOR’S MADNESS

After reading these guidelines, I anticipate significant hair loss for the managers of any MGA.

I have read the guidelines for the insurers in regards to the management of MGAs published by the British Columbia Financial Institution Commission. Don’t get me wrong! I love the guidelines the same way I love to read about space travel. Just at the word “WARP” I get a tingle in my feet.

As much as I like the guidelines, they are off this word and even this galaxy. What were the regulators thinking?

Just read these guidelines and imagine a dozen Insurers trying to apply these guidelines to a single MGA. Imagine each insurer trying to apply its management plan to the MGA.  What if they are conflicting guidelines between insurers? What is the MGA to do? In fact based on this proposal as stated in Principle 1; as part of its due diligence, an insurer would have to assess the other insurer’s contracts to define his risk if the MGA failed to perform. In fact the proposal states that the Insurer would have to review the MGA relationship with other insurers that may impact or influence the provision of services. So a MGA could literally be forced to choose between 2 insurers, if one insurer considers the other insurer a risk.

For advisors, it’s even worst. They will fall under the direct oversight of each individual insurer instead of being under the oversight of one MGA and clearly an insurer would have the right to question the business placed with another insurer to identify irregularities.

 I love it but it can’t work. There are too many chiefs and one MGA.  Yes I love all of these guidelines but I don’t see why these guidelines don’t fall under the responsibility of the MGA with the oversight with the regulator and not the insurer.

Attach are the guidelines:

ManagingGeneral AgentsDraft4Comment

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. I respectfully disagree with the comment:

    “For advisors, it’s even worst. They will fall under the direct oversight of each individual insurer instead of being under the oversight of one MGA and clearly an insurer would have the right to question the business placed with another insurer to identify irregularities.”

    In particular, I disagree with the notion and suggestion that independent advisors be forced by regulation to deal only with one MGA. Insurers should also be at liberty to decide which advisors they wish to contract with, regardless of who the MGA may be. Likewise for independent advisors who should retain their free choice to deal only with one MGA or several MGAs

    • My intent was to write “oversight of their MGA”. However you raise a great issue. Should advisor only be allowed to deal with one MGA? This question has already been raised in Quebec and submitted to the AMF by the MGAs themselves.

      I will speak as a member of the public. What’s in it for the public to have advisors dealing with multiple MGA which increases the chance of conflict of interest with multiple sales bonus and targets… Gross negligence is an issue with Error and Omission not covering gross negligence. With an advisor having to learn multiple ways of doing business, systems, rules… by dealing with multiple MGAs, how does this help with this issue?

      As an old Sales Director, how many times did I meet an advisor who does not know what his client has because his inforce blocks of business are all over the place across multiple MGAs. These advisors can’t even follow their commission. I’m sorry but if an advisor can’t track his commission he has no business tracking the insurance and investments of clients. This industry is not about what the advisor, insurer or MGA want. It is about what is good for the public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s