How Competitive Are Foresters & Equitable

[nfl72]

"I know a lot of agents as well as clients like the member benefit societies. I've asked my department of insurance about Royal Neighbors in particular because the whole concept made me uneasy. They said they are just as solid as any other company. No problems with them. Use the same AM Best info to judge their stablilty. Also said we agents shouldn't worry about the state reinsurance programs because we should never disclose that it exists or count on it.

I have not personally done any business with Royal Neighbors but I am appointed with them."

This was a post by Newby in 2009.



You didn't know then if Fraternals could be trusted and were clearly told by your superiors that they could, yet you still suggest it is a viable and proper form of replacebent by suggesting a certificate is not as good as a policy.

If you weren't going to listen to their answer, why bother asking the question?
------------------------------------

 

[FEX Quotes]

The poster asked if Foresters gets replaced on price. I explained that they get replaced on certificates vs policies.

The public doesn't like certificates as well as they do policies. It's a weak area for them.

I've never had Foresters not pay a claim. They were just so rude to the family that it was unacceptable to them and to me.

Everyone has to go by their own experience.

Most people (including many agents) would not know the difference between a certificate and a policy. I have not seen any other Fraternal's certificate, but I know Foresters physically presents theirs as a policy. If an agent were to induce a replacement based on certificate vs. policy, they would be treading in the danger zone. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the only significant difference is state guaranty protection. We all know (or at least should know) that depending on your state, using the state guaranty fund as a sales tool is at best ill advised and at worst illegal.

In light of this discussion, I would strongly recommend any agent selling insurance protect themselves with E&O coverage whether or not any specific company requires it.

 

[WinoBlues]

You insinuate its easy to replace Foresters and it is not, without making very misleading statements. Your attempt to discredit them because they offer certificates is nothing more than a scare tactice used by a salesman that doesn't have anything else to hang their hat on.

Suggesting agents should attempt to replace Foresters because they offer certificates is borderline fraud and is most certainly un-ethical.

Being a fear monger with no merit or basis to stand on is jsut plain weak and wrong.

You have implied many times that you are a salesman first an agent third.

If Foresters has the underwriting problems you state, the customers service issues many of us have experienced, are not covered by the guaranty fund why sell them as a primary.

Female age 65, $20,000.00 there are several policies both sides of that $81 by a little as $5-$6. Added benefits? Pah-leese!

I do not run into them or RNA often but doing a side by side they are not that hard to replace. I replace salesman easier than replacing policies.

That being said, I do not remember the last time I was replaced so all this talk about replacement seems to be over blown.

Edit: I am contracted with a couple fraternals and have written them if they were the best option, IMO.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.............

In light of this discussion, I would strongly recommend any agent selling insurance protect themselves with E&O coverage whether or not any specific company requires it.

I agree, why would an insurance agent not have insurance?

 

[rousemark]

Geez nfl72, it's like someone insulted your sister. State your opinion but don't be a dick about it, don't take it so personal.

It almost makes one think he "doest protest too much".. Sounds as if someone touched a nerve that goes much deeper than just a discussion on an open forum.

 

[Newby]

Newby, do you find it the same with RNA since they issue certificates as well?

When I first signed up with RNA and read the agent handbook, huge red flags went off for me. You had to sign off that you understood the difference with Fraternals and certificates and the lack f state guarantee funds. I couldn't believe it.

I asked several other agents that sold a lot of RNA what they thought of it and they were not concerned with it. Some had never read the manual. I shelved them for a couple years.

I write a few fully underwritten WL with RNA if they are way lower than anything else. I wrote a few Foresters. I have a couple other Fraternals that have way better benefits than either of those.

I have just never been comfortable with Fraternals. They are VERY easy to replace if the premium is close. A certificate is NOT as attractive to the public as a policy.

My experience with Foresters was WAY beyond acceptable for any company. But it happened to my client not to yours. So I won't give them any more chances. That doesn't mean you shouldn't if your experience with them is good.

Every agent just has to sell what he believes in. And that won't be the same for all of us.

As far as (I forgot the poster's name) as to his accusations... Why would I pick on Foresters if I didn't have reason to? They definitely paid huge commissions on the cases I sold for them. Why would I just decide that I'm going to hate on Foresters just for the sport of it?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"I know a lot of agents as well as clients like the member benefit societies. I've asked my department of insurance about Royal Neighbors in particular because the whole concept made me uneasy. They said they are just as solid as any other company. No problems with them. Use the same AM Best info to judge their stablilty. Also said we agents shouldn't worry about the state reinsurance programs because we should never disclose that it exists or count on it.

I have not personally done any business with Royal Neighbors but I am appointed with them."

This was a post by Newby in 2009.

You didn't know then if Fraternals could be trusted and were clearly told by your superiors that they could, yet you still suggest it is a viable and proper form of replacebent by suggesting a certificate is not as good as a policy.

If you weren't going to listen to their answer, why bother asking the question?
------------------------------------

Yes I did call to DOI to ask their opinion. I was trying to make myself more comfortable with Fraternals. After that is when I sold a few Foresters and RNAs.

I still never became real comfortable with them. I don't consider an employee at the DOI to be my superior.

Do YOU think certificates are equal to a policy? Better make sure your E&O is paid up.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Most people (including many agents) would not know the difference between a certificate and a policy. I have not seen any other Fraternal's certificate, but I know Foresters physically presents theirs as a policy. If an agent were to induce a replacement based on certificate vs. policy, they would be treading in the danger zone. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the only significant difference is state guaranty protection. We all know (or at least should know) that depending on your state, using the state guaranty fund as a sales tool is at best ill advised and at worst illegal.

In light of this discussion, I would strongly recommend any agent selling insurance protect themselves with E&O coverage whether or not any specific company requires it.

You are wrong on this one. You are required to know the difference. In some states you are required to explain the difference to the applicant. A certificate is open ended. A policy is closed ended. The insurance company can't pull money from policies if they need to raise cash.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Many years ago with NAA I sold a bunch of Foresters. Was the go to company for a while because NAA made more $$ off them. Thought they were great. Then they treated a couple clients and myself like crap. I cut back with them. Now I don't use then at all. I'm not comfortable with the them being foreign, no state guaranty and the fact that they COULD, never have but could take from the cert holder to cover a shortfall they have. Those three combined along with treating clients like s*** and slow claim processing the big question is WHY look past that and use them. I don't see it so I don't. I do use RNA some. One point here is that things change. A company you like today you may despise later. I use to brag on Foresters and luckily no one is throwing that in my face today because that opinion has changed.

 

[Newby]

I don't think the sky is falling on Fraternals. I just think an educated consumer would never choose one if the premium is close.

If one were having bad financial statements they would do a lot of things before taking money out of certificates. They could reduce non-guaranteed benefits, raise premiums on new sales, tighten underwriting, etc.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I don't think the sky is falling on Fraternals. I just think an educated consumer would never choose one if the premium is close.

If one were having bad financial statements they would do a lot of things before taking money out of certificates. They could reduce non-guaranteed benefits, raise premiums on new sales, tighten underwriting, etc.

True but those are not quickly realized like taking cash would. It leaves the door open for taking money and the question is why take the risk. No one thought Arthur Anderson would ever go out of business. Been some surprises in companies filing bankruptcy. Been some surprising embezzlements. Poor investments. What is the advantage to the client to take that risk. Their fraternal benefits that aren't even guaranteed. ha. Don't see it.

Again, for me it's this and all the other reasons I stated. Combined they are not worth it.

 

[Cornelius]

Blast from the past:

http://www.insurance-forums.net/for...rance-policy-insurance-certificate-t9879.html

 

[WinoBlues]

Betbig's question in that thread is a good one. ""If any of you were considering purchasing Final Expense, would you be skeptical of getting a certificate as compared to a policy? .... ""

Personally, I would buy a policy for myself. I had a policy on my mother. and have a policy on my mooch of a brother.