Hot Sports Opinion on FMO's/IMO's

[DFW]

I have to agree with a business still coming in. At least in my case.

I like most of my uplines, changing some, or I would not have them. That said I do not get a lot from them, Could be because I do not ask for much. I would rather have the extra 10 - 20 percent. One exception is Pinney, but that is a unique system.

If I owe an override, it would be this forum.

Edit : Life Insurance, did know which forum this was in.

My thoughts exactly!

----------

Carriers tried that once before for a hundred years that is why the FMO system was born in the 1990's.... It worked well beyond their expectations. I am talking Annuity production not Life insurance.

FMO's are able to work with mediocre producers and bring in large volume off of them... One guy sending them 10 million with all their issues trying to squeeze comp is not what they are looking for..

They look to the $500k to $1m producer that the will need some guidance for that override. Because there are more agents in this category than $10m producers they make an overall impact on the carriers bottom line.

Look...your giving FMOs way too much credit for the flow of money and the boom in business since the 1990's. It has more to do with demographics, media (CNBC, Financial magazines, internet). and a focus on retirement savings and investing. Look at the stock market and how much money has flowed into it since the 1990s. FMO's are for the most part an unnecessary expense to the agent this day and age. All the carriers could provide online marketing and training efficiently through technology. And, as WinoBlues points out...this forum provides more value than most FMO's.

 

[SanDiego619]

My thoughts exactly!

----------



Look...your giving FMOs way too much credit for the flow of money and the boom in business since the 1990's. It has more to do with demographics, media (CNBC, Financial magazines, internet). and a focus on retirement savings and investing. Look at the stock market and how much money has flowed into it since the 1990s. FMO's are for the most part an unnecessary expense to the agent this day and age. All the carriers could provide online marketing and training efficiently through technology. And, as WinoBlues points out...this forum provides more value than most FMO's.

I have come out multiple times and say that I work for an FMO (own one actually) but have had a pretty hardened rule that I don't come on here stating who it is that I work for or really any of the traditional "FMO crap."
I have done my best to add value with my smaller number of posts on the forums and I think maybe there are a total of 2 people on here that know who I am with.

I would actually say that for the most part I agree with a lot of what you said and that's a damn shame. SO many FMOs popped up in the mid 2000's and now the market is too saturated with companies that are pretty much useless. I would just state that since the FMO relationship is a necessary one just keeping looking for a company that does add value to your business, or like others said at least share half their override with you

 

[just some f.e.llow]

My thoughts exactly!

----------

Look...your giving FMOs way too much credit for the flow of money and the boom in business since the 1990's. It has more to do with demographics, media (CNBC, Financial magazines, internet). and a focus on retirement savings and investing. Look at the stock market and how much money has flowed into it since the 1990s. FMO's are for the most part an unnecessary expense to the agent this day and age. All the carriers could provide online marketing and training efficiently through technology. And, as WinoBlues points out...this forum provides more value than most FMO's.

I'm admittedly lacking knowledge with annuities, so bear with me if the statement/question I'm about to pose is foolish.
Are annuity imos unlike life/health imos? With life (final expense specifically) I can go direct to a carrier and get, say, 115% fyc. If instead, however, I go through an IMO, I get 120% or 125%. Health insurance is similar in my experience.
Are you saying annuity imos do not do things this way? If so, that does stink.

At the same time, though, if you get 120% direct or you can get 120% through an IMO, who cares? It's the same number for you, and I hardly feel it's fair to say the IMO is "stealing" your commissions if it's money you never would have gotten on your own.

 

[Newby]

I am both an IMO (Final Expense) and an agent that uses IMOs (Annuities, Term Life, LTC, etc.)

I can understand the argument that you would rather cut out the IMO and deal direct with the company if it got you more money but not if you get the same or less money.

No agent is at the top of everything. If I'm selling an annuity I want some input and a knowledge ramp up from someone that stays focused on annuities every day. I don't want to call Allianz and hear the opinions of someone who is only going to want me to sell Allianz. I want someone who has all the annuities that can help me factually compare them.

If an agent has his FE companies through me any direct to the company agent is going to have all the resources (training, product knowledge, leads, and real world experience) that the agents through our agency have.

Either you have just dealt with some real worthless IMOs or you have a mindset on this subject that you can't get past. Your IMOs should be free to you or better than free. And they should be a useful resource.

But when you think about it some of your customers have that same mindset. They feel like if they could just cut you the agent out of the picture they would get a better deal. They can't imagine how you are not costing them money.

 

[scagnt83]

I'm admittedly lacking knowledge with annuities, so bear with me if the statement/question I'm about to pose is foolish.
Are annuity imos unlike life/health imos? With life (final expense specifically) I can go direct to a carrier and get, say, 115% fyc. If instead, however, I go through an IMO, I get 120% or 125%. Health insurance is similar in my experience.
Are you saying annuity imos do not do things this way? If so, that does stink.

At the same time, though, if you get 120% direct or you can get 120% through an IMO, who cares? It's the same number for you, and I hardly feel it's fair to say the IMO is "stealing" your commissions if it's money you never would have gotten on your own.

Many annuity companies will not contract direct, you must go through an IMO.

But from my experience with direct annuity contracts, they pay less comp than the ones that require an upline.

So if the IMO provides no other value, they at least provide a higher comp.

 

[just some f.e.llow]

Many annuity companies will not contract direct, you must go through an IMO.

But from my experience with direct annuity contracts, they pay less comp than the ones that require an upline.

So if the IMO provides no other value, they at least provide a higher comp.

That was my assumption. It seems that an agent can almost always get higher comp from an IMO relationship.
As Newby said, even at the SAME comp level, it's kinda dumb in my opinion to go direct. You get all the same resources, plus additional resources, from the IMO, or at least you should.
The only time I've heard of agents not getting a at least the same comp from an IMO was if the IMO provided leads, or the IMO was a garbage organization like NASB, etc.