F2F Direct Mail Close %

[DonP]

Persisistency really isn't about method.. it's about the agent.

People that have never done telesales swear that persistency has to fall off. If persistency was a major issue, Jeff's agency would lose contracts...

Just my opinion, don't crap all over a method you don't do because you don't know what you're talking about.

Granted, I'm in Medicare, but I work locally and do only telesales appointments. I have minimal issues with people wanting an in person agent and haven't lost a client since 2019.

If you F2F players had such an advantage over telesales, I'd have at least one loss.

Your also in the Medicare space were persistency is 95% or so . Your dealing with mostly middle to upper class clients who are not jumping ship to save $10 -$25 a month plus there’s underwriting to jump ship . Mapd is GI and has so many moving parts a sharp agent can exploit many advantages to move . There’s always a new plan with sexier benefits to move someone . I actually took a short video of a lady shouting for people to stop calling her 10 times a day for Medicare . Medigap is a much more stable way to build a book but also much tougher for a new agent to break into .

 

[Travis Price]

Your also in the Medicare space were persistency is 95% or so . Your dealing with mostly middle to upper class clients who are not jumping ship to save $10 -$25 a month plus there’s underwriting to jump ship . Mapd is GI and has so many moving parts a sharp agent can exploit many advantages to move . There’s always a new plan with sexier benefits to move someone . I actually took a short video of a lady shouting for people to stop calling her 10 times a day for Medicare . Medigap is a much more stable way to build a book but also much tougher for a new agent to break into .

You are definitely correct, which is why I preface my experience on Medicare. However, my premise is still the same...

I sell MAPD and have a few duals.. again, haven't lost anyone since 2019.

If Jeff's persistency was really in the dumpers then it would put his IMO MGA/IMO contracts at risk.

Just as you crap on the way I chose to run my business, which works for me, you have f2f fe agents swear telesales doesn't work.. there's a few telesales agencies that would disagree.

Ymmv, but as I said, don't knock it unless you've tried it.

 

[rousemark]

There is not new contestability clause. Replacements require credit for time already met under the policy being replaced. If policy being replaced already on the books for two years, there is no contestability clause under the new policy (for insured amounts up to the amount of the policy being replaced). The only restriction on the newly issued policy is that a new suicide exclusion period would be established.

Example 1: If replacing a 2+ year old $10,000 face policy with another $10,000 face policy, no new contestability clause.
Example 2: If replacing a 2+ year old $10,000 face policy with a $25,000 face policy, only the additional $15,000 is contestable.
Example 3: If replacing a 15-month old $10,000 face policy with a $10,000 face policy, then 9 months to go on contestability.

That may be true if you are in a state like Kentucky but it is not true in all states.. Before you start giving advice, you need to realize that every state has their own rules when it comes to insurance..

 

[me112233]

I replace very few policies especially those over 2 years old if the person's health could be questioned. Most carriers look for ways to deny contestable claims so they don't need any help.

me112233 you don't know what you are talking about. I hope that you are not telling the owners of the policies you replace this false info.

I just looked it up (as in read the actual law). I was half wrong. It's not just the incontestibility clause that has to be given credit for time covered by previous carrier, the rule applies to the suicide clause, too.

 

[rousemark]

I just looked it up (as in read the actual law). I was half wrong. It's not just the incontestibility clause that has to be given credit for time covered by previous carrier, the rule applies to the suicide clause, too.

Not in Tennessee or most other states.

 

[Newby]

There is not new contestability clause. Replacements require credit for time already met under the policy being replaced. If policy being replaced already on the books for two years, there is no contestability clause under the new policy (for insured amounts up to the amount of the policy being replaced). The only restriction on the newly issued policy is that a new suicide exclusion period would be established.

Example 1: If replacing a 2+ year old $10,000 face policy with another $10,000 face policy, no new contestability clause.
Example 2: If replacing a 2+ year old $10,000 face policy with a $25,000 face policy, only the additional $15,000 is contestable.
Example 3: If replacing a 15-month old $10,000 face policy with a $10,000 face policy, then 9 months to go on contestability.

That’s true in Kentucky, West Virginia and Kansas (going from memory) but not in the other 47 states.

 

[SoCalAdvisor]

I just looked it up (as in read the actual law). I was half wrong. It's not just the incontestibility clause that has to be given credit for time covered by previous carrier, the rule applies to the suicide clause, too.

I'm in California and have been writing life insurance since 1994. Where replacements are concerned, there is a new contestability clause for each new policy issued. No time credits are given for which you are referring.

 

[Tahoe Ray]

I just looked it up (as in read the actual law). I was half wrong. It's not just the incontestibility clause that has to be given credit for time covered by previous carrier, the rule applies to the suicide clause, too.

I already answered this for you...it is state-specific.

Maybe they live in KY, where that example would make some sense.

EDIT: It's been pointed out to me that KS and WV also have these laws. They still shouldn't be making blanket statements like that about replacements since states are different but we don't know what we don't know.

 

[shonceman]

I just looked it up (as in read the actual law). I was half wrong. It's not just the incontestibility clause that has to be given credit for time covered by previous carrier, the rule applies to the suicide clause, too.

Dude, you doubled down! Haha!
FYI, here’s a screenshot of page 2 of the NAIC replacement form used in nearly every state. Note the language under the heading “INSURABILITY”:
“Claims on most new policies for up to the first two years can be denied based on inaccurate statements.
Suicide limitations may begin anew on the new coverage.”

 

[me112233]

Dude, you doubled down! Haha!
FYI, here’s a screenshot of page 2 of the NAIC replacement form used in nearly every state. Note the language under the heading “INSURABILITY”:
“Claims on most new policies for up to the first two years can be denied based on inaccurate statements.
Suicide limitations may begin anew on the new coverage.”

View attachment 7255

A generalized form for 50 states . . . uses terms like "most" and "may" rather than "all" and "will" or "shall." I live/work in Kentucky. Here's the law, read it for yourself: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/806/012/080.pdf
Hint: Section 5(e)