Becoming An Agent Is A Pain In The A##

[GeminiGroup]

First, no, I didn't mean to be rude and props for not jumping to that conclusion.

Back to our English lesson: There is no question you have spent a significant amount of time evaluating the syntax and attempted quite dilligently to clear things up, but I guess I'm a little uneducated here. Typically when I'm confused about the definition of a word I consult a dictionary, for example:

prone |prōn|
adjective
1 [ predic. ] ( prone to/prone to do something) likely to or liable to suffer from, do, or experience something, typically something regrettable or unwelcome : years of logging had left the mountains prone to mudslides | he is prone to jump to conclusions.

So just to see where us uneducated folks come from:

Agents are more *prone to* do unethical things if they are financially distressed as evidenced by poor credit.

Now let's take that exact same sentence and substitute it with the definition of "likely to" provided by the dictionary.

Agents are more *likely to* do unethical things if they are financially distressed as evidenced by poor credit.

It seems to me that the increased likelihood, however small, is a perfectly legitimate point and that John made a correct statement when he said:



Again, substituting the definition provide by the dictionary and that being the only change, let's evaluate the exact statement John made:




Are you willing to concede your mistake or do you still maintain your opinion that John made a misstatement?

I've no problem conceding a misstatement and whenever that rare occurrence comes about I'll happily inform you (and my ex-wife).


Once, again with no malice, intended, in attempting to educate me you've missed the mark.
In trying to push your agenda you state "if they are financially distressed as evidenced by poor credit."

1) There must be an agreement as to what constitutes a)"financially distressed" and b) "poor credit" ( I did mention those thresholds are a bit different today than even in say 2004, of course in your rush to be right, damn the actual facts of my position…when you've got an agenda to push as evidenced in your quote,below.)
2) "the increased likelihood, however small," that's the entire point, my friend. It does matter however small….the size and scope of delinquency are indeed relevant, which is exactly the point I made in an earlier post.


I never said anything about what happens if a candidate is determined to have "poor credit". My comment(if you read it properly) was about WHAT, may or may not constitute a person being "financially distressed" in today's marketplace.



When I, and John were growing up (I won't guess, your age-group, as I'm not as presumptuous as others) 3 late mortgage payments would without a doubt signify a household in huge financial distress, in today's world that is no longer the case.
As I mentioned before, credit is graded on a curve and that curve has changed dramatically over the last few years……What once would have been considered "distressed" is now considered THE WAY IT IS.



Much like divorce or abortion, simply being 3 months behind on a mortgage isn't what it used it be.


Will some carriers still use an outdated model to disqualify a candidate, I suppose. Some people won't vote for Newt simply because of a divorce or two but that one condition doesn't equate to "distressed" today, unfortunately being a few months late on a mortgage doesn't meet that threshold anymore.

Today you are just the Joneses



In 1981
-Divorced candidate for President = Dead in the water
-Abortion = Shhh quietly, might even deny knowing it was legal
-Guy 3 months late on mortgage = No wife, No kids, No dog, May commit suicide, shame, lie to mom/dad & the neighbors
In 2011
-Divorced candidate for President = "The new one's hotter" no issue
-Abortion = RU486 on aisle 3 next to the Bob Dole Viagra ad
-Guy 3 months late on mortgage = "Let's expand the pool", "We'll wait the market out", "Join the club", "Screw the bank, I want my modify"



2011 guy isn't as prone or likely to be "financially" suicidal over that one issue (the only one we were talking about)and most carriers/people know that the landscape for defining what constitutes a desperate person driven to unethical activities isn't exactly what it used to be.


Point is times change and definitions (even in your handy dictionary) are fluid, so when staying on the actual *point* I rose, not the agenda you'd like to make it, I stand by my statement…YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO CONCEDE OR LIVE IN A 2001 WORLD IF YOU LIKE.


Btw for the record I didn't question your level of education or quality of, many people are "educated" doesn't make 'em bright or quick or adaptable to change. The University of Maryland provided a wonderful 1st chapter for me but life has been and continues to be my best teacher, dictionaries become outdated, so I try to use many sources to keep up to date….but that's who I am.

If you are comfortable with the position that a very "common" condition by today's standards is enough to push the 2011"average" American into desperate despair, that's your choice, I still disagree.

And I still don't need your help in defining my position, thanks for trying, but NO THANKS, I'm fine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Btw the Josh

It should be noted that on some other issue I'd have no problem hearing or reading your spin. As I've read many insightful post you've had in the past.
But in this case, it seems you were trying to jump the gun to an issue in your head as opposed to the one raised.

Cheers

 

[Josh]

if they are financially distressed[/B] as evidenced by poor credit."

I think you want to be having a different conversation than I was pointing to. You were disagreeing with what the word "prone" means. The fact of the matter is that folks who are behind on their mortgage are more prone to do unethical things. I don't disagree with it when you say "simply being 3 months behind on a mortgage isn't what it used it be", but people who need to make a mortgage payment to have a place for their family to live are more likely to do things they otherwise wouldn't. How much more prone they are to do them may be up for debate and perhaps it's less of an issue now than it was in 1981, but the fact remains that people who are "fighting for their family to have a place to live" do make decisions they otherwise wouldn't. Again, we're just talking about the word prone here.

To move on to your agenda, let's look at this statement:

Will some carriers still use an outdated model to disqualify a candidate, I suppose.

I presume you're referencing using someone's credit as a way of evaluating potential problems with agents as an "outdated model". Surely you realize how low the bar is set on this. Provided an agent isn't in an open bankruptcy, most carriers (especially life carriers) won't have an issue with it. The only issue they likely will have is whether or not to advance an agent (read: "loan the agent money").


Back to my "agenda":

Again, my only dispute with you was your erroneous assessment of what John said.

John said:

An agent, for example, who is 90 days past due on their mortgage is more prone to engage in unethical activities.

To which you replied:

Wow, that is a huge leap to state that as a fact.

No offense to John, but that brush was a bit too broad.

The only thing that John stated as a fact was that people in that group are more likely to do things they otherwise didn't, not that they would necessarily do them. Again, back to the word prone, it means more likely, not that they absolutely will. In fact, the increased likelihood could be nearly negligible, but it would still be likely.

 

[rousemark]

I've no problem conceding a misstatement and whenever that rare occurrence comes about I'll happily inform you (and my ex-wife).

In 1981
-Divorced candidate for President = Dead in the water

Will you concede this as a "misstatement?" Ronald Reagan was a divorced candidate and certainly wasn't dead in the water in 1981.. He was elected in 1980.

 

[GeminiGroup]

Will you concede this as a "misstatement?" Ronald Reagan was a divorced candidate and certainly wasn't dead in the water in 1981.. He was elected in 1980.

Congrats, Rouse
In my rush to be done, I edited out the most important point "being divorced due to infidelity" and that was a "misstatement" luckily I never claimed to be perfect, just near. (I should have used an example in my own wheel house, I was 11 in 1980)

However,when an error, is brought to my attention I've got no issue with owning it. At the last moment, when editing my post I made an error trying to save space. But you're right the tiny error of not mentioning "cheating on your wife" did muddy my point. I was going more for the forgiveness of the "affairs" vs the forgiveness of missing a few payments but, totally author's miscue....shoulda caught it.

Worse part is.....Now, I've got out inform my ex-wife that she should play the lottery.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think you want to be having a different conversation than I was pointing to. You were disagreeing with what the word "prone" means. The fact of the matter is that folks who are behind on their mortgage are more prone to do unethical things. I don't disagree with it when you say "simply being 3 months behind on a mortgage isn't what it used it be", but people who need to make a mortgage payment to have a place for their family to live are more likely to do things they otherwise wouldn't. How much more prone they are to do them may be up for debate and perhaps it's less of an issue now than it was in 1981, but the fact remains that people who are "fighting for their family to have a place to live" do make decisions they otherwise wouldn't. Again, we're just talking about the word prone here.

To move on to your agenda, let's look at this statement:



I presume you're referencing using someone's credit as a way of evaluating potential problems with agents as an "outdated model". Surely you realize how low the bar is set on this. Provided an agent isn't in an open bankruptcy, most carriers (especially life carriers) won't have an issue with it. The only issue they likely will have is whether or not to advance an agent (read: "loan the agent money").


Back to my "agenda":

Again, my only dispute with you was your erroneous assessment of what John said.

John said:


To which you replied:



The only thing that John stated as a fact was that people in that group are more likely to do things they otherwise didn't, not that they would necessarily do them. Again, back to the word prone, it means more likely, not that they absolutely will. In fact, the increased likelihood could be nearly negligible, but it would still be likely.

I'll give you this, you're not a punk Josh and I love folks that stick to their guns, and try to explain themselves with logic vs emotion (even, if wrong) for that I commend you…it's been fun going back and forth with a person who isn't an ***, for that I thank you.

I was going to call this thing a day but after reading the propaganda and smiling, I couldn't resist (another reason for my first divorce….second one hasn't happened yet, but I'm still young)

I never said, I was having a conversation about the definition of the word "prone" that was your point, I merely explained to you that I didn't need your help in my comprehension of the term.

My point about John P's post was simply a disagreement with his example of what would be enough financial duress to drive one do to "unethical things". Now, I certainly don't have the absolute answer to that and neither do you, cause, as I've pointed out a) it doesn't exist and b) it is fluid.

However, you & John(per his example only, I don't want to put words in his mouth) want to push your agenda/definition as the standard (the outdated model, I referenced) for when exactly financial duress kicks in……I don't think it's 3 payments, just my opinion of today's landscape. But you feel that your opinion is fact, as evidenced below.

"The fact of the matter is that folks who are behind on their mortgage are more prone to do unethical things
…..but the fact remains that people who are "fighting for their family to have a place to live" do make decisions they otherwise wouldn't. Again, we're just talking about the word prone here. (You were, not me)

That's your agenda not, an absolute facts

To sabotage and build your point you use popular, red herring technique like

a) "folks who are behind on their mortgage are more prone to do unethical things"
Well of course at some point in the delinquency this will be true but the issue was 3 payments not 20 or 30 just 3 but if you move the discussion it does help your agenda, so I understand why you'd want to distort what the discussion was, it's classic red herring just like the one below:
b) "fighting for their family to have a place to live" in today's environment people are NOT scrambling for a place to live over 3 payments and we both know it

I understand, you don't like it ("I don't disagree with it when you say "simply being 3 months behind on a mortgage isn't what it used it be") and that's fine…but in the real world the REALITY IS:

According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, at least 8 million Americans are at least one month behind on their mortgage payments….
"almost 5 million borrowers are at least two months behind on their mortgages, and more are expected to miss payments."
**Sorry, my friend that sounds like "it ain't what it used to be" to me but I COULD be reading it, wrong.

[FONT=&quot]**This one is great, you agree with my point that the bar for what would push someone over to "unethical things" is indeed low (conversation should be over) but then you go on to contradict your own point, priceless.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To move on to your agenda, let's look at this statement:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Will some carriers still use an outdated model to disqualify a candidate, I suppose.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I presume you're referencing using someone's credit as a way of evaluating potential problems with agents as an "outdated model". Surely you realize how low the bar is set on this. Provided an agent isn't in an open bankruptcy, most carriers (especially life carriers) won't have an issue with it. The only issue they likely will have is whether or not to advance an agent (read: "loan the agent money").
[/FONT](* Thanks for explaining an advance, wasn't the issue but I thank you for looking out for me)

[FONT=&quot]**That was exactly the point I made initially about John's brush being a "bit broad" regarding only 3 mortgage payments being enough of an absolute condition that would set one off on an "unethical activity" spree. Now YOU agree, that a person close to bankruptcy, most likely would be appointed, well my friend, 3 mortgage lates won't push most Americans to bankruptcy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Back to my "agenda":

Again, my only dispute with you was your erroneous assessment of what John said.

John said:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An agent, for example, who is 90 days past due on their mortgage is more prone to engage in unethical activities.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To which you replied:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Wow, that is a huge leap to state that as a fact.

No offense to John, but that brush was a bit too broad.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The only thing that John stated as a fact was that people in that group are more likely to do things they otherwise didn't, not that they would necessarily do them. Again, back to the word prone, it means more likely, not that they absolutely will. In fact, the increased likelihood could be nearly negligible, but it would still be likely.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]**This last portion is my favorite and best example you try to flim-flam your points you're all over the place because in trying to be right you can't find your sea-legs….but it's entertaining.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"stated as a fact was that people in that group are more likely to do things"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The disagreement has to do with who belong in the group, you must first get agreement on who belongs in said group before you move on to trying to prove your point. If, we can't agree on who qualifies for the "honor roll" you can't just accuse me of not supporting "honor roll" students….unless you're in Congress.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Speaking of politician doublespeak:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"In fact, the increased likelihood could be nearly negligible, but it would still be likely."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]**Again, exactly the point I was making which it is [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"the increased likelihood could be nearly negligible" [/FONT][FONT=&quot]or[/FONT][FONT=&quot] "but it would still be likely"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I know, I clearly need to brush up on my comprehension because having an "increased likelihood that could be nearly negligible but still likely" still sounds like someone pushing propaganda to me but again, I'm probably wrong.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The bottom line is I suggested John might be better served making the statement 'this or that might make a person more prone vs one is prone to act.
Slight differences in word choice can make world of difference but judging by your last sentence, maybe you're just a little more loose than I.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This was fun, we'll have do it again with a less subjective subject.[/FONT]

 

[Josh]

I'll give you this, you're not a punk Josh and I love folks that stick to their guns, and try to explain themselves with logic vs emotion (even, if wrong) for that I commend you…it's been fun going back and forth with a person who isn't an ***, for that I thank you.

I appreciate that. You should spend some time in the Religion and Politics section, it might help keep the place more honest (or at least make it more interesting).

To the rest of you're comments, really my only reason for commenting on it was your argument that John made a mistake in using the word prone, the rest was noise. Interesting noise and I think for the most part we actually agree, but the entire assessment of whether or not 90 days is significant enough financial distress to be taken seriously by carriers is a red herring argument itself.

Again, not to go back to the point and the only item on my "agenda":

An agent, for example, who is 90 days past due on their mortgage is more prone to engage in unethical activities.

John said prone. Not guaranteed to engage in unethical activities, he didn't even make an assessment as to how much more prone they were to engage in unethical activities, then you replied with:

Wow, that is a huge leap to state that as a fact.

No offense to John, but that brush was a bit too broad. Some folks need to hear more of the story before they go around half cocked with limited info.

John didn't pass final judgement or claim that the only information needed to determine whether or not an agent would engage in unethical activities, but he said that folks in that group are more prone to do so. Saying "more prone" was a very fair statement.

Cheers.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Why do auto carriers charge more for bad credit? Why are you charged more interest on credit cards? Why do almost all employers now pull credit? Because bad credit is an indicator that, in general, your a bad person.

I couldn't disagree more, personally. But I'm sure employers will tell you that a FACT is that their employees with poor credit are worse employees than the ones with good credit. I didn't create the rules.

Are insurance agents coming into the business "more likely" to engage in unethical and even illegal behavior? 100% fact. I bet carriers like UHC have made a direct and predictable link to bad business and poor credit.

 

[The Rabbi]

He didn't say that all do.. He said they are more prone to do so. A person who facing a sever credit crunch will face a stronger temptation to do something they would not even consider doing if everything was going smoothly.

Those were my thoughts, also. Prone is the operative word. I can understand an insurance company being very restrictive on who they hire since there is a lot of money involved as well as deception to earn that money just to live.

 

[b61mack]

Lets see what was the credit rating of, the Enron guys, bernie madoff, all the bankers from wall street, the mortgage company guys,, wait they had good credit...

 

[Praeter]

Why do auto carriers charge more for bad credit? Why are you charged more interest on credit cards? Why do almost all employers now pull credit? Because bad credit is an indicator that, in general, your a bad person.

.

I posed the question about credit to my agent at SF. I was told studies have shown that people with poor credit are more likely to commit fraud which is a higher risk to an insurance company. It would've been silly to engage in a debate about individuals and their credit. It was staggering to me to see this person believe in his heart the statement he spoke to me was the truth about individuals and their credit.

 

[Guillermoq]

joshuapaccione - are you finally settled in somewhere and making money??