Will that shift in focus pass the Spitzer smell test? As in, if it smells potentially crooked, you can't do it?

Mr. Storms sounded pretty sure of his position. Im fairly confident we will have a very public statement on this, he said, noting that final details of the revised compensation agreement were still being worked out.

I'm not surprised Marsh is looking for some relief. After all, with commercial insurance prices dropping like a stone in most lines, brokers are peddling doubly fast to make up for lost revenue–both straight commissions (which are being dragged down along with premiums), as well as lost contingency fees. It ain't pretty.

At the same time, insurers have shamelessly been piling more and more work and responsibility in the laps of brokers and independent agents, for little or no compensation.

Some of this can be made up by charging clients for certain services, such as loss control and risk management. But many hesitate to go the consulting route for fear of nickel-and-diming a customer to death, leaving themselves vulnerable to competitors offering “free, value-added” services. It makes more sense to charge insurers for services they want provided to policyholders, if carriers are willing to pay.

As long as such service fees are fully disclosed to clients, caveat emptor, right?

Of course, potential conflicts are inevitable. What happens if one carrier agrees to pay Marsh a fat service fee to secure a prized prospect? Would the broker be tempted to shift the account to secure those extra dollars, regardless of the client's best interest? You would like to think not, but who knows what can happen when bottom line pressures rise?

What do you folks think about this?