THE RECENT DECISION by five legal and regulatory authorities to amend agreements banning contingent compensation for major insurance brokers brings with it more questions than answers.

As we report on page 1, there are clear sides: Buyers see the return of contingent pay as troubling, while some of the big brokers that gave up the payments see it as leveling their playing field.

Fundamentally, lifting the ban reverses what former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer established in 2005. Despite various lawsuits and more than $1 billion in settlements, the industry is no closer to eliminating contingent compensation than it was before Mr. Spitzer showed up. What did his crusade accomplish? And what, if anything, did the industry learn?

During the past six years, we have held to the position that contingent pay, by itself, is not a problem. The problem is who receives it. Agents can accept contingent pay from insurers; they represent the insurer. Brokers, however, represent their clients, the buyer of insurance. We still believe brokers should not accept bonus payments from insurers for placing coverage on behalf of clients. Doing so opens the door to conflict of interest, which is good for no one.

Among the world's major brokers, only Willis Group Holdings P.L.C. appears to agree with that principle. Marsh Inc. and Aon Corp. have not stated whether they ultimately will resume taking contingent pay from insurers, though analysts expect the financial impact on shareholders will prompt Marsh and Aon to do so.

Transparency has been cited as the solution to broker compensation concerns. We agree transparency is critical, but for it to work, disclosures must be uniform and all brokers must commit to them. While a small window with a view is better than none at all, it's not necessarily satisfactory, either.