Gone to The Wild Kingdom

[Guest]

This morning I signed the contracts with Mutual of Omaha.

I know there is a HUGE bias in this group against anyone not "independent." (Ask me if I care! :-) )

The MoO deal is rather good. What they call their "Direct Writer" program (as opposed to their 'broker contract') has no non-compete language and gives me a lot of freedom to write what I want. I can write all the blue healthcare I want (and they encourage it as it is a good lead-in to their life an annuity products.) If a client has a situation where a MoO policy is not the best for them, they have a GA arrangement (I believe with Crump) where I can write almost any carrier I want

The bottom line is that MoO does NOT have the "old" captive salary program (like NYL, Met, etc.). Instead, they heavily bonus and advance the new agent in the first 3 years so that he or she does not starve to death. After that, it's a 50% deal with still more bonuses. (Why do agents stick around after the 3rd year? I'm not sure but a lot of them do.)

Obviously this deal is not for everyone. So why did I do this? Simple. I want to get away from health (which I truly believe is going bye-bye in the next two years... John hit me with your best shot!) and move more toward the "financial consultant" platform targeting my own age group... boomers (I'm 60). MoO has promised a ton of training as well as assistance in getting the 6 and 63 credentials.

Everyone in my generation has heard of Wild Kingdom. From all the research I've done, it seems that MoO an honorable company... both to its customers and agents.

Make no mistake about it... I don't mind writing healthcare... but after almost three years it has gotten somewhat old. I seek new challenges and new opportunities. There are zillions of people of my generation who (will) need strong, honest, and solid financial advice and I have the ability (with some added training) to help in that endeavor.

I'll still write health and MA, but I want to move up the food-chain and be able to do more for people. While I can easily afford to retire if I want, I simply enjoy working, and after looking a long time at "partnering" with Mutual of Omaha and knowing the district manager for many years (his now-married daughter used to baby-sit for us when she was a teen) I think this is a good move.

Yes, I know all of the "independents" will jump up and down saying "You can do the same thing as an 'independent'." Well, my answer to that is just plain "No you can't."

My generation wants to see on your business card a recognizable logo of some organization that they have heard about and whom they have trust in... NYL, MassMU, Pru, NorthW., St.Paul, Met, MoO, etc. It is hard as hell to approach high-net-worth prospects with "Joe Doakes Insurance" on your card. It's not impossible, but being aligned with a major household-name carrier helps a whole lot.

Will this work? I have no idea. But I'm willing to give it a try... to learn and follow the MoO methodology for prospecting and sales... and see where it leads. All I know is that boomers like me who have been through three or four equity-market "dislocations" are no longer concerned with the return ON their money as they are with the return OF their money. MoO seems to relate to that (although other carriers do as well.)

I remember about 25 years ago being a young writer/reporter and being invited to Apple Computer when Steve Jobs and his team were developing the first Macintosh computers. He had gathered us in a meeting with his lead developers and he told them "The journey is the reward." I never forgot that. It will be interesting to see where this "journey" leads.

Al

 

[Winter_123]

Gone to The Wild Kingdom
Al

Sooner or later you San Francisco guys always end out taking a walk on the wild side.


Good luck with your new venture.

Winter

 

[somarco]

Gee Al. You are only a few years older than me but you really SOUND old . . .

MOO is a solid company (as far as I know). They have morphed quite a few times over the years, but seem to have finally found their niche. Only time will tell.

Good luck

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

To put Mutual of Omaha in the same class as Pru, Met, NW Mutual, NYL etc. is a bit of a stretch imho.

Apples and oranges.

However, best of luck in your new endeavor.

 

[somarco]

put Mutual of Omaha in the same class as Pru, Met, NW Mutual, NYL etc. is a bit of a stretch

No argument here. But for what they do (did) they do have a good reputation.

Other than completely abandoning the individual major med market a few yrs back and leaving folks in a lurch, I can't think of anything really bad they have done.

All carriers have their skeletons.

Pru, Met, Mutual Benefit have had issues that put them on the front page in an unfavorable light. So has AIG. Can't say any of them are spotless.

 

[HomeService]

I spent some of my better years in the insurance business at Mutual. I liked it. We had individual major med back then, but hey, if they were losing their arses at it I don't blame them for jumping out. I always figured that if Mutual could not make money at individual major med, most other co.s cannot as well- so far I may be mostly right. I think it's a tough market to make money in. However, selling life insurance, the co. makes money. Profit margins: what it's all about.

 

[Guest]

To put Mutual of Omaha in the same class as Pru, Met, NW Mutual, NYL etc. is a bit of a stretch imho.

I'm curious to know what facts, feelings, or rationale you have for this statement. No debate here. I'm not making the case that MoO is "better" than the others.

One reason I'm going with them is that they are the ONLY ones who ever had an interest in me joining them (of course THAT may be to their negative! :-))

I spoke with both Met and NYL and both (local managers) wanted younger guys (and yes, they said so.... because I asked... I probably could have sued for age discrimination! Older people don't have as many 'job' options as younger people... it's a fact... and I accept it... I don't fight it... because I won't win.)

The local MoO manager said he wants seasoned business people, not new college grads for his agency office. Anyway why do you believe that MoO is not in the "same class" as Pru, Met, et.al ? Is it subjective or is there more to it?

Thanks Moonlight for your time on this. It is important to me (obviously.)

Al

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

I always figured that if Mutual could not make money at individual major med, most other co.s cannot as well- so far I may be mostly right.

Huh?

I think that folks like Humana, United Healthcare, and most of the Blues may beg to differ...

Did you ever meet Marlin Perkins?

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

I'm curious to know what facts, feelings, or rationale you have for this statement. No debate here. I'm not making the case that MoO is "better" than the others.

One reason I'm going with them is that they are the ONLY ones who ever had an interest in me joining them (of course THAT may be to their negative! :-))

I spoke with both Met and NYL and both (local managers) wanted younger guys (and yes, they said so.... because I asked... I probably could have sued for age discrimination! Older people don't have as many 'job' options as younger people... it's a fact... and I accept it... I don't fight it... because I won't win.)

The local MoO manager said he wants seasoned business people, not new college grads for his agency office. Anyway why do you believe that MoO is not in the "same class" as Pru, Met, et.al ? Is it subjective or is there more to it?

Thanks Moonlight for your time on this. It is important to me (obviously.)

Al

My impressions are based on seventeen years in the business, with experience in life, health, p&c, and securities products as both a producer and management.

There is what I would consider a "top-tier" of life insurance companies; Northwestern Mutual, Guardian, NYL, MassMutual, Pru, MetLife, (forgive me if I've missed any). These folks have been around a long time in both the life insurance (and securities) businesses. Many have had problems, yes, but I still believe their brand is perceived as superior, top-shelf stuff both in, and out, of the industry.

There is a "second-tier" (where I would place MoO). Many fine, albeit smaller companies. Nothing "wrong" with them - they're just not in the same strata.

The last tier is "all the others".

There is no reason you cannot be successful with MoO (or any company for that matter), I believe the "magic" if you will - is in your leadership. In the end, like most things, it's all about PEOPLE.

Two other random thoughts. I think you'll find the bias for independence comes from better quality prospects, not producers. None of the top producers in life insurance and securities are NOT independent. If someone hands me a business card with an insurance company's name on it - I have to question their objectivity. The top-tier companies I mentioned above...just about all are available to an independent.

Lastly, I think it's a shame to be getting away from IFP at the start of the biggest boom ever. I feel a strong current against the employer-sponsored health insurance model (those of us who are smart are getting in position for the "defined-contribution" boom on the horizon).

Don't think you'll see "single-payor". With a 73 trillion unfunded Medicare liability the country simply cannot afford it.

 

[bluemarlin08]

Folks do business with the agent, if the agent brings value and is trusted they will trust your recommendation of the company. Many of my clients never even ask the name of the company until they are writing the check. Good luck, quality people will survive if they put the clients first.