In his campaign to have public employees pay more for their health insurance Senate President Stephen Sweeney decries the ridiculously high cost of coverage for teachers:
.
S2475 ScaSa (2R) Prohibits application of fiduciary standard to insurance producers; specifies qualifications of persons providing affidavit of merit in lawsuits against insurance producers. * Passed Senate
Committee Voting:
SCM 1/17/2019 – r/Sca – Yes {5} No {0} Not Voting {0} Abstains {0} – Roll Call
Session Voting:
Sen. 1/31/2019 – 2ND READING – Yes {0} No {0} Not Voting {40} – Voice Vote Passed
Sen. 1/31/2019 – AMEND – Yes {32} No {0} Not Voting {8} – Roll Call
Sen. 2/21/2019 – 3RDG FINAL PASSAGE – Yes {32} No {0} Not Voting {8} – Roll Call
Sure brings up questions…….. no wonder NJ cannot cut spending, but must raise taxes instead. Do you recall a recent post of Corzine allowing a ‘grandmother’ to sit on an inactive committee while getting more time for free medical benefits from NJ, yet sitting on Port Authority Board?
Few really WANT to be “fiduciaries” as it carries great rick and can easily be abused by those who, for reasons NOT having to do with the services provided …. are not happy with some “outcome”…………….. similar to the Doctor who follows recognized medical procedures/standards but is sued none-the-less simply due to a poor (often unavoidable) outcome.
Insurance “producers” are often compensated on a commission basis not that much different than stock brokers. The standard rule by which stock brokers are governed is that an investment must be SUITABLE based in their client’s wealth, desires, age, instructions, risk tolerance, etc. But ………. given 2 equally “Suitable” investments, they do NOT have to choose the one which would generate the lowest commissions … as would an “Investment Advisor” agreeing to operate under a fiduciary arrangement.
Most brokers feel that they are providing a valuable service, and why should they have to seek out the lowest compensation for that service. Certainly business owners don’t operate for the financial benefit of their customers. They’re in business to make a profit, and (in general) the bigger, the better.
That said, it is surprising why the NJ Legislature is seeking to pass a law that actively PROHIBITS the application of fiduciary standard to insurance producers. The only thing I can think of is that such “producers” are being pressured by the buyers of the insurance products to agree to a fiduciary relationship …………. and since outwardly responding that they don’t want to wouldn’t be well-received, they might be looking for another way of saying NO … we “can’t” because of this (proposed) law.
Something I’ve often felt about living in New Jersey – Union County – and lately, Kenilworth. It may not be much longer. However the quote in the title is from Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Walsh at a hearing yesterday on the construction of a Union County government complex. Other excerpts from the TAPintoWestfield article. […]
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by skip3house on February 23, 2019 at 7:52 pm
Sure brings up questions…….. no wonder NJ cannot cut spending, but must raise taxes instead. Do you recall a recent post of Corzine allowing a ‘grandmother’ to sit on an inactive committee while getting more time for free medical benefits from NJ, yet sitting on Port Authority Board?
Posted by Tough Love on February 24, 2019 at 12:05 am
Few really WANT to be “fiduciaries” as it carries great rick and can easily be abused by those who, for reasons NOT having to do with the services provided …. are not happy with some “outcome”…………….. similar to the Doctor who follows recognized medical procedures/standards but is sued none-the-less simply due to a poor (often unavoidable) outcome.
Insurance “producers” are often compensated on a commission basis not that much different than stock brokers. The standard rule by which stock brokers are governed is that an investment must be SUITABLE based in their client’s wealth, desires, age, instructions, risk tolerance, etc. But ………. given 2 equally “Suitable” investments, they do NOT have to choose the one which would generate the lowest commissions … as would an “Investment Advisor” agreeing to operate under a fiduciary arrangement.
Most brokers feel that they are providing a valuable service, and why should they have to seek out the lowest compensation for that service. Certainly business owners don’t operate for the financial benefit of their customers. They’re in business to make a profit, and (in general) the bigger, the better.
That said, it is surprising why the NJ Legislature is seeking to pass a law that actively PROHIBITS the application of fiduciary standard to insurance producers. The only thing I can think of is that such “producers” are being pressured by the buyers of the insurance products to agree to a fiduciary relationship …………. and since outwardly responding that they don’t want to wouldn’t be well-received, they might be looking for another way of saying NO … we “can’t” because of this (proposed) law.