- 136
Yes...The reps are picky though for the most part but it Is a quick contracting process with both. What state are you in?
Beating Mass Mutual Whole Life
- Thread starter benwrigh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- whole life
- Thread starter
- #12
Indiana. Are there production requirements?
- 10,687
I wouldnt say that they "do" beat MM.
ON has no real advantage over MM. MM has a stronger and longer dividend history. They also have a stronger product selection (imo)
Penn has overloan protection. Which is the best (and almost only way) to currently compete against MM WL. (Assuming CV accumulation is the goal)
All 3 have conservative UW. But in my experience MM is more liberal than ON on UW. Penn's UW is similar to MM from my experiences with them.
Last edited:
- 136
ONL definitely can beat MM if designed correctly AND assuming same underwriting class. I write a ton with ONL and the only thing I have seen that they are extremely strict (like outside of "normal" guidelines) on is diabetes and family history of diabetes. ONL's 10 pay and they prestige max plan will out perform MM if we are talking the same underwriting class.
- 10,687
Which MM product are you speaking of? Last time I compared the Max to MMs WL65 MM won.
Not to mention MM has HECV WL, and a 20 Pay. (in addition to the standard WL100 & WL65 & WL10)
Last edited:
- 4,132
to those who dispute dividend projections? How do you talk away the century plus in many cases of dividends paid?
Are you putting this in writing or just saying it trying to pee in the well?
I don't know if I'd go down that road with a prospect. I've been in competition with other WL carriers in the past. In most cases the differences are tiny. The fact is, in just about every case that prospect will be fine with any of the WL mutual companies they choose. So the difference becomes the agent.
Believe it or not, I win a majority of the time this way because I am the agent. Spending your time putting down good companies just raises doubts about all companies, even yours.
Plus in some states, it is a violation of insurance practices.
Are you putting this in writing or just saying it trying to pee in the well?
I don't know if I'd go down that road with a prospect. I've been in competition with other WL carriers in the past. In most cases the differences are tiny. The fact is, in just about every case that prospect will be fine with any of the WL mutual companies they choose. So the difference becomes the agent.
Believe it or not, I win a majority of the time this way because I am the agent. Spending your time putting down good companies just raises doubts about all companies, even yours.
Plus in some states, it is a violation of insurance practices.
- 15,041
I would take it a step further Larry.
If you are going to dispute dividends, then how can you come in and talk about your company and its dividends? You've already said dividends are junk and not to be trusted. So suddenly they should trust yours?
If you are going to sell dividend paying whole life, then the other company's projections have to be just as much gospel as yours. There are plenty of other ways to distinguish yourself without undermining the biggest single selling point.
If you are going to dispute dividends, then how can you come in and talk about your company and its dividends? You've already said dividends are junk and not to be trusted. So suddenly they should trust yours?
If you are going to sell dividend paying whole life, then the other company's projections have to be just as much gospel as yours. There are plenty of other ways to distinguish yourself without undermining the biggest single selling point.
- 10,687
Not sure if that was in response to my post or not.... but I was not putting down ONs dividend history or doubting illustrated projections.
I was just stating facts. MM has a history of higher dividends, along with being in existence 50 years longer.
I was not trying to discount or doubt the illustrated performance.... but if you do an apples to apples comparison, MM wins on CV last time I checked.
Last edited:
- 11,451
There is no single product or company that is the best at everything.
My biggest competition is two-fold:
1) Other agents
2) The general public's ignorance of permanent life insurance benefits (which is why it pays so well).
For every product out there, there is another product that has certain features/benefit combination that are MORE suitable and appropriate than another. And that's because everyone's perceived needs, and the importance of those needs, are different.
For example: (Let's throw some ideas out there)
- Does your company offer more living benefits than Mass? Do you have a critical illness rider? Chronic Illness (LTC) rider? Terminal Illness rider (I think all of them have this one).
- Does your policy have more flexible premium schedule (UL/IUL) than a WL? Could that be more appropriate for someone with a variable income stream?
- Does your policy have more preferred loan options?
- Is your company a non-mutual company which means they are typically more lenient on underwriting than most mutuals? After all, what's printed on the page is worthless if they can't qualify for it in the first place.
- Does your company work with brokers, so if you (the agent) moves from one company to another, you can still serve your client with this policy?
The only companies I "disparage" are the MLM-companies... because they're turning this profession into a "get rich quick" scheme that can be done by anyone who can fog a mirror.
One thing that we didn't ask about... was the underwriting classification in the other agent's proposal. If it's being shown as Ultra-Preferred... without a medical exam... then that's an optimistic picture at best.
This thread is a great reason why we should all have some version of "The Wedge" in our library: Amazon.com: The Wedge
My biggest competition is two-fold:
1) Other agents
2) The general public's ignorance of permanent life insurance benefits (which is why it pays so well).
For every product out there, there is another product that has certain features/benefit combination that are MORE suitable and appropriate than another. And that's because everyone's perceived needs, and the importance of those needs, are different.
For example: (Let's throw some ideas out there)
- Does your company offer more living benefits than Mass? Do you have a critical illness rider? Chronic Illness (LTC) rider? Terminal Illness rider (I think all of them have this one).
- Does your policy have more flexible premium schedule (UL/IUL) than a WL? Could that be more appropriate for someone with a variable income stream?
- Does your policy have more preferred loan options?
- Is your company a non-mutual company which means they are typically more lenient on underwriting than most mutuals? After all, what's printed on the page is worthless if they can't qualify for it in the first place.
- Does your company work with brokers, so if you (the agent) moves from one company to another, you can still serve your client with this policy?
The only companies I "disparage" are the MLM-companies... because they're turning this profession into a "get rich quick" scheme that can be done by anyone who can fog a mirror.
One thing that we didn't ask about... was the underwriting classification in the other agent's proposal. If it's being shown as Ultra-Preferred... without a medical exam... then that's an optimistic picture at best.
This thread is a great reason why we should all have some version of "The Wedge" in our library: Amazon.com: The Wedge
Funny I just started to reread that yesterday...
Similar threads
