ATTENTION: The glassBYTEs.com forum is being retooled and will return with a new look and functionality that will hopefully help our readers even more. Watch for an announcement when it will be ready, it will be a few months.
You can still stay up on daily news and comment on stories by signing up for the glassBYTEs daily e-newsletter at glass.com/subcenter. There is no charge. Hope to see you there!
There was an article in one of the publications several months ago of "where we are we now with the rebalance." It seems to me we are all hurting more than ever. Before rebalance it was proposed by NAGS that this change was going to be "revenue" neutral and that the majority of the carriers would utilize the conversion table provided with the calculator. It was also conveyed that a discount of the list price was a thing of past. Insurance companies have used this to their advantage and many are now reimbursing below NAGS (ex: Progressive 48% off). Wholesalers continue to price off the old NAGS list price and have more net priced items than ever. To me and I would suspect everyone else this is a major issue, although we are not fighting it, why? The only benefit of the rebalance was to the insurance companies. I would like to see Jesse Herrara explain this brilliant move now. Where is the Chicago Group, it would be nice to get an update every once in a while.
It's particularly interesting that Lynx was one of the first major networks to announce changes to the rebalanced NAGS on our customer side, but PPG ARG was the first to say they wouldn't go to rebalanced NAGS on our vendor side... and still hasn't. THEY'RE THE SAME COMPANY!!!!! It's like Quebec wanted to secede from Canada, but keep Canadian currency! I say Mygrant and Pilkington only stay with old NAGS lists because of PPG. Let's put some pressure on PPG.
CAGG is still around. We recently finished testing on the formula. Look for "next steps" early 2006. I apologize for the lack of updates.
When it comes down to it, the members of CAGG are just like everyone else on the board, trying to run their businesses.
I can say, with certainty, that the formula accomplishes everything we anticipated from a predictability standpoint. There is quite a bit of operational issues to overcome, but the "product" is accurate and, we feel, a much better example of what a true "benchmark" should be.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for the support in the past, and again, sorry about the lack of updates.