Good News From Aetna

[VolAgent]

How many of you read the Pacesetter newsletter the Senior Supplement companies send out?

If you were ever in doubt as to how companies see you, their compliance officer made it abundantly clear. Uplines own their producers.

Slavery is not dead.

 

[rousemark]

Can you post link or what they had to say?

 

[medsuptage]

just read it too. Surprised that they published that, but it's true

 

[VolAgent]

Can you post link or what they had to say?

I'll see if I can find a way to attach it without linking to me. I'm sure they could figure it out, but no need to make it easy on them.

just read it too. Surprised that they published that, but it's true

And he is the compliance guy??? Someone clearly isn't reading it before publication.

I would like to believe he meant it differently that he wrote it, but he clearly says as upline owns a producer.

 

[jaygreen002]

Can you post the details in here or any information about it?

 

[VolAgent]

I had to remove all the other pages as it was too large otherwise. Compliance Corner.

 

[sman]

How many of you read the Pacesetter newsletter the Senior Supplement companies send out?

If you were ever in doubt as to how companies see you, their compliance officer made it abundantly clear. Uplines own their producers.

Slavery is not dead.

Yep, it's a pretty sh*tty way to do business. Most "uplines" don't do any real training. And many add little to no value other than a contract. Yet, they are somehow entitled to prevent me from working with someone else for at least 6 months. Carriers are complicit in this arrangement. That's why many agents have ZERO loyalty to a carrier and an upline.

 

[donamese]

I understand what he is getting at but the wording was pretty poor. I would be curious as to his views of a sub-agency under an IMO, who "owns" those agents?

 

[VolAgent]

I understand what he is getting at but the wording was pretty poor. I would be curious as to his views of a sub-agency under an IMO, who "owns" those agents?

I would like to believe that he means, "You own their problems." However, that isn't what he wrote and that really isn't the article he wrote. He wrote all about how IMOs tried to retain control and ownership of agents and how it went to court in the past.

At a certain level I understand and I agree and have said as much elsewhere. If you truly are bringing value to the table, beyond a commission level, then you deserve to be compensated. The problem is, too many aren't even bringing a high commission level to the table.

 

[rousemark]

I understand what he is getting at but the wording was pretty poor. I would be curious as to his views of a sub-agency under an IMO, who "owns" those agents?

If this logic is followed to its collusion, every up line owns his immediate down line.. So if an IMO terminates you, he should not be able to keep your agents but should also terminate them.