Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:38 pm
I've started my own investigation into the Confederation of America, a 501 c(3) organization. At the beginning of my search I found that there are many, many nonprofit groups that seem to be structured to benefit a narrow benefactor. For a long time I've been aware of Mr. Hunter's name and he seems to be a self appointed gadfly to the insurance industry. What I find troubling is that I am not sure if the CFA is in business to benefit a wide range of USA consumers or are they in business to use their name as a bully pulpit?
In one of Mr. Hunter's papers I read about his problem with the commission structure that insurance producers make? Mr. Hunter now wants what the producer makes be known and shown to all clients. Ok that if he feels that is fair then it is also fair to request the form 990 and schedule A to see what type of money the lead folks in the "nonprofit" CFA are making each year. Is there anyone that has ever investigated the investigators? Is there anyone that has ever questioned the position of 501 C(3) groups.
I was reading Mr. Hunter's December 4, 2004 testimony to the NAIC Mr. Hunter states, Quote: " Insurers provide agents with a kick back at the end of the year if clients file a low level of claims" end quote.
The first thing Mr. Hunter does in his testimony is to confuse by substituting agents for agency. It bothers me to consider that this man also stands before subcommittees in Washington and does he offer his shading of the facts. Mr. Hunter knows that it is the agency that may get the bonus (he calls it a kick back). To many of us out here that broker through agencies we never, ever, never have seen a cent of that bonus. Mr. Hunter is an ex-commissioner and know very well that the agency receives the bonus.
Mr. Hunter goes on to say, quote: "The lower the agents loss ratio, the higher the bonus the agent receives. This is an obvious incentive for an agent to delay filing a legitimate claim or improperly advise a consumer not to file it." end quote. Who in their right mind would not file a claim for their client. For Mr. Hunter to say such a thing show to me that he doesn't hold insurance people very high on his list.
In other writings dealing with agent commissions Mr. Hunter states that commissions paid to brokers and agents ranged from 0 to 30 percent. He shows USAA having a 0 percent commission and Foremost having a 26 percent commission. I'm not sure where his 30 percent is hiding? Again he tries to make it sound like an agent or broker will get up to 30 percent. I've never, ever received 30 percent...I've never received a full 15 percent. There is always a split. Does Mr. Hunter try to show that a 0 percent commission is to be a socially acceptable goal?
It is from his testimony and writings that lead me to wonder if Mr. Hunter and or CFA doesn't have an appointed agenda before their investigations.
Here is a link that refutes some of CFA's stance on Prop 103....
<a href='http://www.namic.org/pdf/040921AppelFinalRpt.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.namic.org/pdf/040921AppelFinalRpt.pdf</a>
In one of Mr. Hunter's papers I read about his problem with the commission structure that insurance producers make? Mr. Hunter now wants what the producer makes be known and shown to all clients. Ok that if he feels that is fair then it is also fair to request the form 990 and schedule A to see what type of money the lead folks in the "nonprofit" CFA are making each year. Is there anyone that has ever investigated the investigators? Is there anyone that has ever questioned the position of 501 C(3) groups.
I was reading Mr. Hunter's December 4, 2004 testimony to the NAIC Mr. Hunter states, Quote: " Insurers provide agents with a kick back at the end of the year if clients file a low level of claims" end quote.
The first thing Mr. Hunter does in his testimony is to confuse by substituting agents for agency. It bothers me to consider that this man also stands before subcommittees in Washington and does he offer his shading of the facts. Mr. Hunter knows that it is the agency that may get the bonus (he calls it a kick back). To many of us out here that broker through agencies we never, ever, never have seen a cent of that bonus. Mr. Hunter is an ex-commissioner and know very well that the agency receives the bonus.
Mr. Hunter goes on to say, quote: "The lower the agents loss ratio, the higher the bonus the agent receives. This is an obvious incentive for an agent to delay filing a legitimate claim or improperly advise a consumer not to file it." end quote. Who in their right mind would not file a claim for their client. For Mr. Hunter to say such a thing show to me that he doesn't hold insurance people very high on his list.
In other writings dealing with agent commissions Mr. Hunter states that commissions paid to brokers and agents ranged from 0 to 30 percent. He shows USAA having a 0 percent commission and Foremost having a 26 percent commission. I'm not sure where his 30 percent is hiding? Again he tries to make it sound like an agent or broker will get up to 30 percent. I've never, ever received 30 percent...I've never received a full 15 percent. There is always a split. Does Mr. Hunter try to show that a 0 percent commission is to be a socially acceptable goal?
It is from his testimony and writings that lead me to wonder if Mr. Hunter and or CFA doesn't have an appointed agenda before their investigations.
Here is a link that refutes some of CFA's stance on Prop 103....
<a href='http://www.namic.org/pdf/040921AppelFinalRpt.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.namic.org/pdf/040921AppelFinalRpt.pdf</a>