Good is Relative

A couple of things I’ve been thinking of the last couple of days. Firstly, what makes a good broker? Is it someone who’s fantastic at admin work? At billing? At documentation? Or someone who is able to structure solutions to difficult risks and get insurers to underwrite the risks? Someone who’s good at client management?

I suppose ideally, a good broker should be all of the above. Unfortunately, all of us have our limitations which means we each have to figure out our core competencies. More importantly, these core competencies must be in line with our choice of work. If you’re unable to bring something meaningful to the table, then your skill set is probably not relevant to the job at all.

Secondly, if you think you’re good at your job, on what basis did you arrive at that conclusion? You may have excellent academic qualifications but head knowledge is useless unless applied.

Thirdly, we cannot be scared of competition. Without competition, how would you know what’s good? If we fall short when benchmarked against our peers, then we should review and see how we can work on and strengthen our core competencies. Griping about others or trying to make them look bad isn’t of any use. The only way to come up tops is to improve yourself.



An underwriter from an insurer I work closely with resigned recently. He told his soon to be ex company that he was going to be a broker but refused to say which broking firm he was joining.

Too bad for him he told my client which competitor broker he was joining and it didn’t take much work for me to get my client to share the intel with me. Am a little cheesed off that this soon to be ex underwriter has approached my client while he’s still serving his notice. But I’m even more insulted that he thought my client would shield this “secret” for him. 也太低估我了吧!