That's a good question, Mr. Andrews said, but when no member of the panel offered an explanation, he shrugged and moved on to other subjects.

However, when Mr. Andrews received and read another audience question pressing the brokers on the same subject, the panelists reluctantly responded.

This makes for a great sound bite, but it's a complicated issue, said Brian Storms, chairman and CEO of Marsh. This is part of the overall value and compensation question, but it won't be solved here in this brief discussion.

J. Patrick Gallagher Jr., chairman, president and CEO of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company, said that “clients should be part of the discussion when it comes to setting the terms of the trade,” adding that he was open to discussing the practice with any risk manager who wanted more information.

Greg Case, president and CEO of Aon Corp., chimed in that “we'd love to have a dialogue about this, but the bottom line is that it doesn't affect the price clients pay.”

Evan Greenberg, president and CEO of ACE Ltd., said this was an issue for clients to take up with their brokers, but added that “we'd be more than happy to get the money quicker and put it to work, since we are already bound on the coverage.”

I brought the issue up again later in the day, during a press conference with the RIMS leadership.

When it comes to holding brokers accountable for “float,” RIMS President-Elect Janice Ochenkowski said that “when we talk about disclosure, we mean total disclosure. We're glad to hear the brokers inviting clients to discuss this, and I hope risk managers take them up on their offer.”

If brokers are earning income by holding onto client premiums, “that makes it part of the compensation discussion,” according to Ms. Ochenkowski, who is currently the vice president and chief risk officer at RIMS. “Risk managers who object could negotiate to pay their carriers directly, which many already do,” she noted.

“The amount of premium involved might not be substantial enough to make much of a difference,” said Ms. Ochenkowski, who is managing director at Jones Lang LaSalle, where she is in charge of global risk management for the Chicago-based real estate services and money management firm. “However, for the larger risk managers out there paying a much bigger premium, the money involved is far more material.”

Is this another brewing “scandal” when it comes to producer compensation? Probably not, but it certainly was an uncomfortable question to raise, as indicated by the fact that the brokers on the panel (Mr. Plumeri of Willis bowed out the week before) just ignored the issue when it was first brought up, then responded with about as much enthusiasm as someone about to get a tooth pulled the second time around.

It does beg the question, why should intermediaries get to hold onto policyholders' funds? If the carrier doesn't need the money, why not just give the insured more time to pay? It just goes to show you how difficult it is to nail down a fair and reasonable way to compensate agents and brokers.

What do you folks think?