An interesting article in Bloomberg Business Week (October 21 to 27, 2013) revealed that the 27-year survival rate for community banks the United States were significantly higher than for large banks. In addition, smaller banks have significantly less bad loans by any measure relative to large banks.
Reply "why" leads to a curious explanation which is highly parallel what is happening in the insurance sector. According to experts, small banks seem to have the advantage because they have access to information "non quantitative" (a fancy way of saying that they know their customers.) Accordingly, these small banks include community local better and are meeting the needs of their customers (eg the unique things happening in the community: Alberta flooding or hail storms causing major damage, etc.) smaller banks are more rooted in the community local, they make decisions based on their intimate knowledge of the local community, not far from headquarters. Theoretically, the big banks are too distant from the client (despite the fact that they were likely the most sophisticated data mining, hire more expensive talent, or spend more money on promotion).
Some challenges biggest brokerages:
- headquarters are usually very far from the majority of the communities they serve (eg :. some companies have their headquarters in one country and operates worldwide)
- low retention rate. (For example, when a company has 50,000+ employees, you'll probably have several account executives will cross your path, which can be frustrating as a client.)
- difficulty in complying with regulations in countries / communities they operate within. (For example:.. If the Tier-1 HQ'd brokerage in New York, they will not necessarily be above the rules in Olds, Alberta)
- management fenders. (For example: .. It is no secret that insurance is highly competitive, with companies competing for talent management fenders can really affect the operation of a firm)
representatives of the Society of Tier-1 brokerage urge customers of a certain size that avail of their capabilities globally, as to be accessible through them. But here's why consider smaller may be a better option :.
- They are closer to the community in which they operate and therefore more sensitive to customer needs
- They historically enjoy a higher retention rate this means that fewer turnovers result in stronger relationships between customers and account representatives.
- They have the same access to specialized markets in places such as London or New York.
- They generally employed owners.
- They have an intimate knowledge of customer needs and understand the impact of their decisions. Whereas other deleted Tier 1 companies often make decisions that affect their clients without considering the repercussions.
- They often have the ability to make decisions quickly, while larger outfits usually have to delay until the head office can examine.
There are other factors at play when considering a smaller holding in a larger, but the general conclusion is that bigger is not always better consider the seven points listed above. it is no coincidence that smaller outfits like Rogers Insurance and Irridium continued stable growth path, while big international companies have been met with challenges in Alberta. Think and consider local brokerages who have employees who live and work in the community. In partnership with a smaller brokerage, you are not missing on the capabilities or achieve; but it does promise an improved partnership with people who have an acute understanding of your needs
Click here to learn more about choosing an insurance broker
* Photo :. . Rogers Insurance joined guests at a post-flood relief "Thank you" party - they even brought an ice cream truck! (Read about it here.)
0 Komentar