Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Report Abuse   |   Sign In   |   Sign Up
Young's Stuff
Blog Home All Blogs

Summer Storms, GIC Elections, Problems with the Level-3 Licence Exam

Posted By Thom Young, August 12, 2016

The Lazy Days of Summer Are upon Us

We continue to have an exceptionally weird summer here in Alberta. Someone told me that Calgary had more rain in July than Edmonton and that the total amount topped the usual annual precipitation for the city. All I know for certain is that every day in Alberta seems to end with severe weather warnings for many places. While we were in Ponoka at the beginning of July, a tornado formed almost directly over us. It touched down less than two kilometers away, took the roof off a home under construction, and threw a porta-potty into the trees, making quite a mess. Luckily, the amount of damage was negligible. Still, I’m left wondering what could have happened. On the ridge east of Aldersyde where I live, we have watched the severe storms moving from the north west to the south east through Calgary, Okotoks, and High River, soaking our place with large amounts of rain. We’ve seen many funnel clouds, and hail storms are almost routine. Cutting the grass is becoming a full-time job!

The summer storms have produced some catastrophic losses for our industry, and summer is far from over yet. The Fort McMurray fire has been declared the worst insurance disaster in Canadian history, a record previously held by the 1991 Calgary hail storm. This past weekend saw parts of Calgary dealing with wind, hail, and overland water—all in one afternoon. Will we start seeing claims settled under the new “flood” wordings? The response of those who were not offered the coverage and have now suffered an uninsured loss will be interesting. Can any of you enlighten me with examples of any such situations?

Elections for the General Insurance and Life Insurance Councils

If you hold a General or Life insurance license, you should have received an email link to the Election Buddy website for voting. This link is configured uniquely to the email in your AIC profile. If your email address has changed, contact the AIC and have this corrected so you can vote. Voter apathy is a concern, especially given the history of how the election was created. Before the 1990s, the superintendent of insurance would choose agents for the position on the councils. Industry pressure to make the process more representative initiated a change to the process, and we were given the ability to vote for candidates. Ballots were mailed out but yielded extremely poor returns. The electronic voting system has been in use for quite a few years, but the response rate is rarely much above 10%. Please stop what you’re doing, and invest 10 minutes of your busy day by clicking on that link and choosing a candidate to represent your interests in the regulatory process.

Six candidates are running for the two openings on the General Insurance Council. My term has expired and I am running again. If I am successful, I think this will be my last time on the General Insurance council. I am going into my second term, candidates are allowed to serve only on two consecutive 3-year terms, and I am getting close to retirement. Sherif Gemayel, who is an IBAA director, is also running. If you click on each candidate’s name, you can read a brief bio. The entire process of going to the website, reading each bio, and selecting two candidates will take you less than 10 minutes. Do it right now! If you have only 10 minutes, do it rather than read the rest of this essay! If you have a life-insurance licence, you will have received an email for this election between three candidates as well. Roy Jaques is running again and has served the life-insurance licence holders well. Again it takes less than 10 minutes to click the link, review the list, and make a choice. When a regulatory change or review arises that you do not like or have thoughts to share, you can open the conversation with “I voted for you….” You will likely have more influence in the outcome.

If you’ve read this far without voting, let me remind you once again. Go to the email from Election Buddy, make your choice, and then come back to read the rest of this entertaining epistle. It will wait for you!

Don’t you feel better that you did that?

Alberta Level-3 Licence—the Designated Representative for Your Brokerage

Let me apologize to those of you who have no interest in the Level 3 issue. While this discussion might be boring for you, I would appreciate you mentioning to your DR that she or he might be interested in this article.

When a brokerage started up, it used to have to register its name with the AIC. The name was then linked to the brokers working there, and that was pretty much it. The regulations on “holding out” are quite simple. The brokerage advertises itself. The broker employee licences are managed by the DR for the corporation (including the DR). All these staff are bound by the regulations governing all General Insurance agents. Other than the regulations specific to the role of a DR (supervising the activities of sponsored agents and notifying the AIC when an agent is terminated), the rules for market conduct of the brokerage are the same for the agents.

A couple of years ago, a new regulation that required the DR to pass an examination came out of the blue. While it did not specify what had to be tested, the direction from the government to the AIC was clear: DRs are to be tested. No one recalls any industry consultations that implied a need for this testing. DRs in other provinces aren’t tested. I certainly would have had an opinion on this requirement if I’d been asked. I first became aware of the new testing requirements when people started calling me to complain about the difficulty in passing this exam. The pass-rate for the Level 3 exam continues to be ridiculously low. Strangely, most of the people having difficulty with this exam are long-term, experienced brokers. Many of the new people attempting and failing it have demonstrable academic skills, business degrees, and advanced management experience, all of which should have made a reasonable test of their aptitude and the understanding of a DR’s role a breeze. Either the test is not focusing on what these people were studying, they were studying the wrong stuff, or the educators in our business are teaching the wrong material. Regardless of how the change occurred and who is to blame, the problem is serious for our industry. In my role as one of your broker representatives on the General Insurance Council, I have been working very hard to fix it by sitting on the licensing course-curriculum review committee for all three levels of licensing as well as on the equivalency committee.

This spring, we made recommendations to the government to amend the regulations and approve particular equivalencies for Levels 1, 2, and 3 licensing exams. While the process of government approval on this is painfully slow, I have heard that progress is being made to get this implemented. I am not holding my breath for an immediate response, but I am hopeful. We have amended the curriculum of study for both Level 1s and 2 licensing. Level 1 was implemented several months ago, and we have seen some improvement in the pass rate. It is still under 40%, which in my view is unacceptable, but it is steadily improving from the low 20s when we began the process. The General Insurance Council is working with the education stakeholders to help them further understand the curriculum necessary to pass the exam. After each review, the results seem to improve, and we seem to be moving in the right direction: even before the exams changed as a result of the curriculum review three years ago, the pass rate for the Level 1 licence exam was never higher than 48% over all. Individual course providers have had better results than the average. The new Level 2 examinations, based on the revised curriculum, were introduced last month. The initial results from a very small sample show a mid-40% pass rate, and we are hopeful that for Level 2 we have found the balance we were looking for. Time will tell. The Level 3 examination remains the same convoluted and confusing thing it has been since the exams for this level were introduced.

The committee has so far done a lot of work to make the testing of the DR commensurate with the role. As all the technical insurance material is tested in Levels 1 and 2, we have removed it from the course curriculum for Level 3. The requirements for the information necessary to run a business, not relative to the regulations, have been reduced to an appropriate level. However, we have no unanimity on these requirements. Some believe the exam should test a level of proficiency that is beyond the reach of regulations governing our business. I am not in that group.

I believe we should not even need an examination to become a DR. What a DR really needs to know for regulatory obligations is covered in two pages of the regulations. A DR should have a Level 2 licence and have been in the business for two years. The management and organizational material, as well as the insurance technical knowledge, is already tested in the Levels 1 and 2 licences. The role of a DR is not hierarchical either in the gathering or the exercising of expertise. Often in larger brokerages, the DR is an HR function, while in the smaller ones the DR also empties the waste baskets and answers the phones. How do you test for proficiency at the level necessary for a 100-person brokerage or a 3-person brokerage and be fair? How do you permit the smaller brokerages to start up and become established in the usual manner without creating a very challenging barrier with a complicated exam designed for proficiency not needed in a small brokerage? Eliminating the need for an exam is an option, but complicated, because it would involve a change in regulations. The best solution is to make the exam relative to the role of all DRs at the lowest common denominator.
I have strong views about regulations limiting access to our business and will not bore you here with a thousand-word essay on it. I ask you to think about these issues because the AIC is going to send all DRs a survey. The direction of the Level 3 licensing study and testing will be guided by the responses received. I am told the survey will be out in the coming weeks, and I am looking forward to seeing good participation in this process. The relevance of the representative process that results from the voting for members of the councils is often challenged because voter response is so low. When I have dug my heels in on an issue, I have been told that I am not representative of brokers because so few actually participate in the voting process. I certainly hope that each DR will grasp the serious need for input and a positive result on this issue. At least a half dozen smaller brokerages are currently in a holding pattern on the sale and the succession of their businesses due to the difficulty of getting this Level 3 licence in place, particularly in the rural communities. This problem needs to be fixed now.

Those who is not Level 3 licence holders will not get this survey but may well have some ideas on this topic that are important. Do you think you might want to own a brokerage some day? If so, you will need to get a Level 3 licence. Send your opinions directly, and I will make sure they are reviewed by the General Insurance Council. (I will meet with members of the council in person if I am successful in getting elected to another term.)

In Closing

That’s it for this issue. We’re off to points west for a couple of weeks, hopefully to get away from the never-ending rain and thunder storms. I’ll have to get some heavy equipment in to cut the grass when I get back!

If you haven’t voted yet, please do it now!

The opinions expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of IBAA.
Comment on this post below or email Thom Young privately. Thom also encourages suggestions for topics.


Tags:  elections  flood  General Insurance Council  hail  Licensing Level 3  tornado 

PermalinkComments (0)

Federal Lobby and National Insurance Education Standards—Strength in Unity

Posted By Thom Young, June 10, 2016

A Report from the Capital

This past week I participated for the first time in the annual Insurance Brokers Association of Canada lobbying efforts in our nation’s capital. Once again, we focused on maintaining the status quo in the upcoming parliamentary review of the Bank Act. Currently, banks are able to compete with brokers so long as they separate their insurance operations from their banking operations. Under the current regulations, they are restricted from offering insurance products out of their branches and restricted from advertising their banking products with their insurance products. The Bank Act comes up for review every five years, and the influence peddlers called lobbyists work very hard to convince the lawmakers to produce regulations that favour their competing business plans and interests.

This year, the task is particularly onerous for both sides of the argument. Last year’s election results produced the largest turnover of MPs in several decades, so many of them are receiving these messages for the first time. This freshness can be an advantage as these people are just as diverse as our population. While you may think that their political stripes set the baseline for their opinions, I have found in my years of talking with political representatives that most are willing to hear you out and listen to your thoughts on the topics. Granted, they may have preconceived opinions. Nonetheless, most are doing their best to learn about the issues while finding out what being a representative of the people is actually all about. Getting to talk with newly elected members of parliament is a golden opportunity to present a good case for your cause that will not only influence their perspectives but will also stimulate discussions and debate within their caucus. The challenge to get an effective message on behalf the insurance industry to these people is coordinated by IBAC and delivered by volunteers from insurance broker associations from all across our country.

This year, we had nine people on task from Alberta and were very well received by everyone we met. Our message was brief and concise: our concern continues to be that, if banks and other credit-granting institutions are allowed to retail insurance from their branches, the public will be unfairly coerced into the purchase of insurance products. If the products are offered at the same time a loan is granted, the inference that the loan is conditional on acceptance of other services deters consumers from assessing the comparative value of the product for their circumstances and puts the insurer at an unfair advantage. If the bank doesn’t directly sell the products required to mitigate its loan risk, then consumers (or their brokers) are more motivated to shop for the best product. Since 1991, the banks have been restricted from selling insurance products from their branches, and the evidence shows the consumers well served by a competitive insurance marketplace. We’d like to see that competition continue.

My personal observations of the process were very positive. I’ve been to the Hill more than a dozen times in my life: as a child, a student, a soldier, and often just as a tourist. I recall a visit with my grandfather when I was very young. He was good friend of John Diefenbaker, and I was given what I thought of then as a very boring tour of the place by these two old fellows. I still recall some significant insights imparted to me then that remain in my mind today, especially the point that this is the people’s house and no part of it should ever be unavailable to the people. While some of our freedoms have been necessarily impeded as a result of the need for security (as evidenced by the bullet holes in parts of the building), parliament remains a very open place available to anyone willing to suffer the indignities of the countless security check points. I’m not really complaining about security though. The only downside of the lobbying was the amount of walking needed get to the appointments. It seemed we would just finish a meeting in the Justice building on the west side of the Hill and the next one would be at the East Block and then back to Justice. The timing and location was dictated by the people we were meeting with and not scheduled with our convenience in mind. Accordingly some 14 or more kilometers were recorded in the process by my group.

I found all of the MPs we met with to be interested and glad for the information we imparted. I was most impressed with the Senators we met. As to the issues and our concerns, they very much aware of the discussions and asked the most intelligent questions. Perhaps I’ll have to rethink my opinion of this institution as it does appear that good work is done by many of them regardless of the aberrations that we constantly hear about in the media. Recent changes to the manner in which the Senate works were also explained to me, and I was genuinely convinced that these people want to fulfill their constitutional obligations. Now they are freed from the yoke of political affiliation, they may well able to live up to their intent. Perhaps that’s a topic for a future issue.

Outside of our issues, many of the MPs we met with enlightened us with the concerns of their constituents. I was asked many questions about the impact of the assisted-dying legislation on the life-insurance business. Of topical concern, of course, were the recent fire losses in Fort McMurray. Most of the people we were talking with are following the media coverage. Expiry of the mass evacuation coverage was mentioned several times, as was the industry’s response to the proposed rezoning that would restrict rebuilding in certain areas in order to secure a proper fire break. We able to answer most of the questions, although they showed that much confusion still exists. Flood coverage was raised in almost every encounter we had. Many wanted to discuss the challenges in coverage variances and availability where it’s needed. These discussions left little doubt that our industry and what we do is very important to these people!

Hill Day was a great experience and, if you ever get a chance to go, don’t miss it. The strength and power of participating in a national association is an awesome thing to experience. Meeting with other brokers and discussing the common issues that concern us bonds us with a purpose. While we all compete with each other as we sell insurance, we also face the same disrupters to our business. As a group, our voice is loud and clear. Individually, we have only local influence that won’t protect us from the national challenges we share.

On the Topic of National Standards, What about Education?

Insurance is insurance is insurance, right? I think I could walk into an office in any country in Europe, build on the knowledge I have obtained in my years as an insurance professional, and find myself in very short order apprised of the small differences in the wordings or intent of the coverage offered to the public. I know I can read an insurance policy from England or the U.S. and interpret the coverages and limitations provided by it. In my career, I have completed the review of a number of different wordings originating in other countries that have become available in our Canadian market. I know I can determine in short order the differences in automobile coverage between all the Canadian jurisdictions and provide an overview to clients that would be sufficient for their understanding, albeit limited by the short notice. Where I don’t know the differences in coverage between Alberta and anywhere else, I can find them out quickly and report them accurately. I know I’m not special or different from many other insurance professionals who have not only acquired the body of knowledge needed to answer questions but also acquired the ability to learn and report on topics about our craft. We are always learning and, even without the regulatory requirement to demonstrate an effort each year, those of us who wish to remain competitive spend much more time learning to respond to our markets’ need for answers to questions than we are ever accredited with CE credits.

For a couple of years now, as a member of the General Insurance Council of Alberta (GIC), I’ve been working on educational issues and reviews of educational materials. It was determined a number of years ago that the licensing examinations had fallen behind and were not testing on changes in forms and coverages in use in our industry and that, with the regulatory changes in Alberta providing for three different levels of licenses, new examinations had to be prepared to address the expected Level 2 and Level 3 hierarchy of knowledge. The consequent changes proved to disrupt the process of getting people licensed as Level 1 agents and advancing them to Level 2. As a result, industry pressure on the regulator saw both the materials used to study for the exams and the questions used in the exams reviewed, reworked, and adjusted. The process is a long one involving competing educational interests and the mandate of the regulator to ensure the public is well served by intelligent and proficient general insurance brokers. The issue was not just that the exams were too hard. The study material has also been challenged as perhaps inadequate.

The process of reviewing the material used to study for the exams, preparing curriculum design documents, and preparing new exam questions that match the new curriculum has been underway for quite some time. The educators are still adjusting their course material so their students are well prepared for the exams. The process isn’t over yet but is well underway. My intent here is not to focus on this progress but to comment on the standards and, in particular, the criticism that the standards set by the Insurance Institute courses and the CAIB program are not relevant.

For quite some time now I’ve been trying to track down the origin of these challenges, and I’m distressed to learn that most of it seems to be coming from our sister association members of IBAC who have their own educational programs and who apparently see themselves as competing with the national program. They believe that the national program is lacking in content and in need of an update. Granted, our GIC committee’s very thorough content review of both the CAIB program and the CIP program did find a number of parts in need of updating, but we also found in both programs that the material referenced in the curriculum design documents (the content informing the examination questions for the license levels) was all adequately covered, with the exception of the specifics of automobile insurance in Alberta.

This discontent with the national education programs concerns me greatly. The influence it has with regulators in other provinces filters into our communication with our and other regulators through the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators and, in particular, into our communication with the Western Provinces Council of Insurance Regulators. The view that the national programs in place are lacking and insufficient both to learn from and measure equivalencies to the licensing standards has created havoc. As you may remember from a blog many months ago, our committee presented its work on equivalencies to the GIC, which recommended to our government that CIP and CAIB designation holders be granted equivalencies for each level of licensing in Alberta. The response from our regulator has been to tell us it may take a year or more before the government will address this issue. Reasons for the delay include the change in government, among other similar issues, but I have also been informed that the validity of the equivalencies is being questioned at the interprovincial meetings of the regulators.

I find it very strange that any provincial entity would want to undermine the validity of a national program provided by its parent association. Certainly, provincial qualification and licensing courses that meet the burden of content for passing a provincial examination are valuable, but the value of a professional designation that has national recognition can’t be discounted. Do we want to see the letters showing our professional achievements suffixed in brackets with our provincial abbreviation? I don’t. Where a provincial association sees a part of the national program in need of review or update, the inclination should be to fix it and to see the nominal cost of that fix as a contribution to betterment of the profession, not an inconvenience caused by the national organization’s failure to get it done in as quick a fashion as desired. For the record, the CIP and CAIB programs are constantly under review, and volunteers like me are actively involved in rewriting the parts that need updating. Don’t let anyone tell you that process isn’t ongoing—it is!

In Closing

I may be stepping on a few toes with this issue. It’s been a while since I took on as controversial a topic as this, but I am saddened to see our lack of unity. It devalues the status of those of us who have put in the time and effort to get a professional designation that, through the national efforts of IBAC, is recognized from Vancouver to St. John’s as a standard of excellence in the delivery of General insurance! We also look like a bunch of kids arguing in a candy store when the regulators meet to deal with our issues.

The opinions expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of IBAA.
Comment on this post below or email Thom Young privately. Thom also encourages suggestions for topics.


Tags:  assisted-dying legislation  Bank Act  building codes  CAIB  Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators  credit-granting institutions  evacuation coverage  flood  Fort McMurray fire  General Insurance Council  Hill Day  IBAC designations  licensing courses and exams  Licensing Level 1  Licensing Level 2  Licensing Level 3  life insurance  property coverage  Senate reform  Western Provinces Council of Insurance Regulators  zoning bylaws 

PermalinkComments (0)

Licenses, Equivalencies, and Exams

Posted By Thom Young, December 16, 2015

Licenses, Equivalencies, and Exams

As a member of the General Insurance Council, I’ve spent a lot of time recently with issues surrounding this topic. I’ve been sitting on sub-committees for issues related to marking equivalencies for license levels 1, 2 and 3. Decisions have been made and sent to the Superintendent’s Office to prepare amendments to the regulations. Amendments to the regulatory standards are not easy to achieve. The many dynamics in the process include political review and oversight. Each step of the process is painfully slow.

You might wonder why this matter wasn’t addressed with the license regulation revisions that put into play new rules for each of these license levels. Well, I can only note that I wasn’t on the council when this occurred. It’s as much a mystery to me as it is to you. I’ve been arguing within the industry and with the regulator for about 15 years on the need for regulatory recognition of educational achievements in industry and academic courses. If people invest their time and effort to achieve professional recognition in a standard that far exceeds (my opinion here) the bar set by the regulator, they shouldn’t need to prove that knowledge to the regulator as long as the industry approves of the standard and, particularly, if the industry operates a recognized professional educational program designed to set the students above the norm. I’ve always lobbied for Alberta to be a leader in these areas but, ironically, the initiative did not arise in Alberta until these courses got the regulatory nod in other jurisdictions. Did I mention that this process is painfully slow and tempered by competing interests and different points of view? The General Insurance Council has agreed to equivalencies for Licensing Levels 1, 2, and 3 in CAIB and CIP courses. Now we await the regulation adjustments that will provide options for the AIC exams and the industry course exams. When you get your memo on this issue from the AIC, I would encourage you to talk to your association representatives on any matters that concern you and ask them to carry your concerns forward to the regulator. As with all group efforts, much of what has been achieved is a compromise of perspective, and that’s sure to annoy as many people as it pleases.

The AIC exam issue continues to confuse and evolve to new standards. A committee of academics and GIC members has reviewed the curriculum from which the exams are prepared and, in consultation with industry stakeholders and educators, agreement has been reached on the Level 1 curriculum. Educators will now be able to prepare a course of study to help students pass the exam. The curriculum design document for Level 1 License exams can now be viewed on the AIC website. This document contains the topics for study and the weight of the questions by category. The bugaboo about “soft-skill” questions has been addressed by removing all of these types of questions. (As the pass on these questions was better than that in most other sections, we hope that this change doesn’t cause a drop in pass rates.) The major emphasis in the exam is on insurance technical knowledge—where many believe it should be. If we devote the majority of teaching/studying time to this subject, pass rates should greatly improve. Technical knowledge was a struggle even before the changes to the exams and will continue to be for the Level 1 and 2 exams after the coming changes. Please look for the AIC information releases on its website and in the mailings being distributed. The details here are not an official update on these matters, but simply general terms from my own perspective.

The Licensing Level 3 examination is currently under review. Along with the many schools of thought on the form and content of the examination, some even question the need to pass an exam to qualify for a Level 3 License. At the present time, to become a Level 3 broker you are required to hold a Level 2 License for a two- year period. At Level 2, the highest technical components of knowledge are tested, and the technical duties and authorities of the Level 2 License holder, as well as the representations of insurance matters to the public, have no limit other than the regulatory requirement to work under the supervision of a Level 3 License holder. The Level 2 agent is required to understand the regulatory and licensing issues completely. The required knowledge is not exceeded by a Level 3 agent. The single difference is the Level 3’s duty to endorse the applications personally within an agency or brokerage for License 1 and 2 employees. Understanding insurance-based ethical and professional responsibilities of a broker are fully required of a Level 1 License holder and tested. The test of this component is no different for any license level, so why are we retesting it? That leaves a Level 3 agent with administrative issues that may well be necessary to manage any business properly, but should the regulator be testing business knowledge or acumen before granting a permit to start a business? Is that the role of the insurance regulator? Does doing so provide any additional protection to the buying public?

No bar is set for any other business or profession that limits entry to the competitive practice of the profession. I cannot reconcile with the history of business the requirement that those with the capital needed to start a business, the confidence of their suppliers to endorse and sponsor their application for a Level 3 License, and the technical knowledge of the craft needs to be tested to obtain the right to compete. So far as I can recall, not a single example of disservice to the public under any provision of the Insurance Act has been linked to a person’s inability to run a business properly. Nor can anything be properly tested that will provide further assurances to the public that people starting any kind of business will be successful in this regard.

The problem with setting a bar to entry in any business is it limits the free flow of capital that drives new initiatives and adds an additional bureaucratic step that complicates the process of succession. There’s much more to discuss and debate on this topic, but I'm going to stop here. Let me know if you’ve any thoughts. I’d be happy to represent them for you in my role on the General Insurance Council.

Wrapping up this topic, I should note that the new Level 1 exams will be coming into play early in the new year. With the clearer and more concise curriculum design outline, success in training new entrants into our business should improve substantially. The implementation timing for Levels 2 and 3 is being driven by a sense of urgency, but the wheels of progress turn slowly when trying to appease so many perspectives. Deadlines were pushed back once because, at the 11th hour in the Level 1 review, a letter from an industry association was received that resulted in the entire process being revisited. I can’t deny that the review produced a better outcome, but I can observe that it could have been delivered in a more timely fashion. The process continues!

Here Comes Santa … and All That Stuff

Another year is just about over, and all the little ones are anxiously awaiting the arrival of Christmas morning hoping they get the gifts they have asked for. For some, this is the most wonderful time of the year. For others in need, not so much. Imagine that the premise of the whole celebration is to share with each other the treasures we have. These treasures are not distributed equally though. We have the power to make a difference in the world. A dollar to the food bank, a hamper in the food-bank box at the grocery store, $20 dropped for the Sally Ann. Wish someone a Merry Christmas. Sing a Christmas carol with a little one. Never underestimate the power of caring—the single most important act you can do to both improve your life and someone else’s. It’s contagious, so pass it on.

I hope these holidays find you surrounded by friends and family within ear of young children playing and laughing and that you have to suffer through a meal’s blessing given by an old person glad to have the floor for the occasion of it. May these things give you joy and make you happy for the good things in your life. In my life, I count each of these moments as special and hope to encourage others to find the enjoyment as I do.

For those who don’t share the Christmas tradition, all the fuss we make of it must be interesting to you. I hope you find the joy in our message that is also to you: Peace on earth and good will to all!

See you all next year!

The opinions expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of IBAA.
Comment on this post below or email Thom Young privately. Thom also encourages suggestions for topics.

Tags:  Alberta Insurance Council  CAIB  CIP  General Insurance Council  licensing courses and exams  Licensing Level 1  Licensing Level 2  Licensing Level 3 

PermalinkComments (0)
more IBAA Courses and Events

2020-09-14 » 2020-09-25
Licensing Level 1 Immersion - Instructed Online

Mastering Data and Security Breaches – Brokerage Security Protections & Responses

Featured Vendors

Online Surveys
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal