IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/rmgtin/v19y2016i2p225-248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contingent Commissions and the Management of the Independent Agency

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Puelz

Abstract

Insurance agencies continue to exist as an important distribution mechanism because they give their contracting insurers advantages in risk selection and enable insurance applicants to transfer complex risks. While independent agencies are compensated by upfront commissions, a key component of their profitability is tied to contingent commissions. A contingency arrangement represents ex post compensation normally tied to underwriting profitability, volume, and annual growth. We report two actual contingency contracts in the context of a decision process for choosing among contingency offerings by insurers. We incorporate both uncertainty and correlation among key variables to arrive at values for competing contracts, then use a downside risk approach that helps agency owners select the better contract. The approach offered in this article is scalable to a selection problem for any number of contingency arrangements.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Puelz, 2016. "Contingent Commissions and the Management of the Independent Agency," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 19(2), pages 225-248, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:rmgtin:v:19:y:2016:i:2:p:225-248
    DOI: 10.1111/rmir.12060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.12060
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rmir.12060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uwe Focht & Andreas Richter & Jörg Schiller, 2013. "Intermediation and (Mis-)Matching in Insurance Markets—Who Should Pay the Insurance Broker?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 80(2), pages 329-350, June.
    2. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    3. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    4. J. David Cummins & Jack VanDerhei, 1979. "A Note on the Relative Efficiency of Property-Liability Insurance Distribution Systems," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(2), pages 709-719, Autumn.
    5. Regan, Laureen & Tennyson, Sharon, 1996. "Agent Discretion and the Choice of Insurance Marketing System," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 637-666, October.
    6. Paul L. Joskow, 1973. "Cartels, Competition and Regulation in the Property-Liability Insurance Industry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 4(2), pages 375-427, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lukas Stricker & Joël Wagner & Angela Zeier Röschmann, 2023. "The Future of Insurance Intermediation in the Age of the Digital Platform Economy," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-32, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martina Eckardt & Solvig Räthke‐Döppner, 2010. "The Quality of Insurance Intermediary Services—Empirical Evidence for Germany," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 77(3), pages 667-701, September.
    2. Laureen Regan, 1999. "Expense Ratios Across Insurance Distribution Systems: An Analysis By Line Of Business," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 2(2), pages 44-59, January.
    3. Posey, Lisa L. & Tennyson, Sharon, 1998. "The coexistence of distribution systems under price search: Theory and some evidence from insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 95-115, March.
    4. Dionne, Georges & Gagné, Robert & Nouira, Abdelhakim, 2007. "Determinants of insurers’ performance in risk pooling, risk management, and financial intermediation activities," Working Papers 07-4, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    5. Dionne, Georges & Harrington, Scott, 2017. "Insurance and Insurance Markets," Working Papers 17-2, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    6. Berger, Allen N & Cummins, J David & Weiss, Mary A, 1997. "The Coexistence of Multiple Distribution Systems for Financial Services: The Case of Property-Liability Insurance," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(4), pages 515-546, October.
    7. Trigo Gamarra, Lucinda, 2007. "Does the product quality hypothesis hold true? Service quality differences between independent and exclusive insurance agents," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 76, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    8. Trigo Gamarra, Lucinda, 2007. "Single- versus multi-channel distribution strategies in the German life insurance market: A cost and profit efficiency analysis," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 81, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    9. Thomas Köhne & Christoph Brömmelmeyer, 2018. "The New Insurance Distribution Regulation in the EU—A Critical Assessment from a Legal and Economic Perspective," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(4), pages 704-739, October.
    10. Venezia, Itzhak & Galai, Dan & Shapira, Zur, 1999. "Exclusive vs. independent agents: a separating equilibrium approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 443-456, December.
    11. Michael Powers & Martin Shubik & Shun Yao, 1998. "Insurance market games: Scale effects and public policy," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 109-134, June.
    12. Chang Vincent Y. & Wang Jennifer L. & Tzeng Larry Y., 2010. "A Reexamination of the Relationship between Organizational Forms and Distribution Channels in the U.S. Property Liability Insurance Industry," Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-26, July.
    13. Hecht, Jason, 1999. "Modeling market shares of the leading personal automobile insurance companies," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 279-296, May.
    14. J. David Cummins & Giuseppe Turchetti, 1996. "Productivity and Technical Efficiency in the Italian Insurance Industry," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 96-10, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    15. Fabian Herweg & Klaus Schmidt, 2012. "Loss Aversion and Ex Post Inefficient Renegotiation," CESifo Working Paper Series 4031, CESifo.
    16. Fabian Herweg & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Inefficient Renegotiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(1), pages 297-332.
    17. Weiss, Mary A. & Choi, Byeongyong Paul, 2008. "State regulation and the structure, conduct, efficiency and performance of US auto insurers," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 134-156, January.
    18. James Barrese & Jack M. Nelson, 1997. "Relative Efficiencies Of Non‐Life Reinsurance Marketing Methods," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 1(1), pages 51-64, July.
    19. Annette Hofmann & Julia K. Neumann & David Pooser, 2018. "Plea for Uniform Regulation and Challenges of Implementing the New Insurance Distribution Directive," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(4), pages 740-769, October.
    20. Herweg, Fabian & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2012. "A Theory of Ex Post Inefficient Renegotiation," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 390, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:rmgtin:v:19:y:2016:i:2:p:225-248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1098-1616 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.