- 11,280
If it were me, I'd go try to replace it.
How Would You Handle This?
- Thread starter scmb
- Start date
If it were me, I'd go try to replace it.
- 15,041
Yes.. I'm sure the client is just dying to know their personal information was sent to someone else.
Why don't you follow Josh's advice and contact the other agent. Recommend a better product. Then you are still improving the client's situation without causing them undue stress.
- 10,711
Was the product unsuitable for the clients situation? If so then you might actually have a case to contact the carrier and discuss it with them (not the consumer who is not your client).
But the reality is that you have no clue if that product is or is not suitable for the situation.
How do you know that SGA limits were not already disclosed to the client? I have had clients not want to split up assets because they didnt want multiple accounts/statements. When I brought up SGA limits they did not care.... they wanted one account.... and that is a perfectly ok thing to do.
You have no clue what % of assets this represents for the client. Nor do you know their risk tolerance. So a B company might be perfectly fine from a risk standpoint... after all, risk is only relative when compared to the situation at hand... which you know ZERO about... (however I will admit that Phoenix has lousy ratings)
Also, by trying to solicit your product on the basis of SGA protection would have most likely violated your state's insurance laws. So it is a good thing you are not planning on doing that...
But at the end of the day when it is a moral decision, if you have to ask it probably is not a good idea.
I do understand where you are coming from with a company with such lousy ratings. I would be all over it if it were a prospect who disclosed that to me. But using Personal Financial Info that you did not have consent to see puts your career at risk big time.
The truth is that you know nothing about the suitability of the situation. So everything is just assumptions on your part.
It is an approved product that passed suitability with a state approved carrier..... it is far from a crime or anything that warrants breaking ethical guidelines....
It might not be the MOST suitable, but it is not UNsuitable according to law.
And in the eyes of the law (and the DOI) (and the carriers you have contracts with) an ethical breach dealing with Personal Financial Information is much more serious than a potentially unsuitable sale.
By contacting the woman you would be risking her not trusting an insurance agent ever again because of "that man who was sent my personal info by mistake and tried to get me to redo my annuity with him!" ..... so it is good to hear you decided not to contact her...
At the end of the day what we think about the appropriateness of the sale does not matter. The initial wrong trumps any rights that could be done. It is all fruit from a poison tree.
If the product/sale was unsuitable then that would be a different story. But you have no way of knowing if it is or isnt. Your high horse is grossly unwarranted.
Last edited:
Yes the whole thing is disturbing. I wish I hadn't read it. It's not that I'm naïve about stuff like this, however, it's kind of odd for someone to announce it over a loud speaker. The only silver lining is the humorous remark he made about putting the client's interest first.
- 8,707
It is not clearly wrong. You have no idea what was discussed with the client during the appointment. What you have are a couple of points that may well have been discussed with the client during the appointment I don't know and you don't know.
leave it alone. This is wrong. It's what we all learned in grade school. Go find a prospect.
- Thread starter
- #37
On the sheet is also listed the client assets and that transaction represented 80% of their net worth.
I admitted to only making assumptions, I'm aware that it's possible the client was fully disclosed which in that case would have meant there's no problem to solve from the first place.
Agents can say and write many things to make things look good, both for the client and the company.
The risk is not needed since the payout is lower the several A rated companies I compared it too.
When the payout is lower but an agent still choose a B company it most likely means he didn't show an A company that would also pay more. I never had a client who wanted to take a higher risk and also get less money as well.
Non of us know what would happen in 10+ years, that's why financial strength matters. Since I have no legal way to handle this I choose not to.
I highly doubt an agent who just got payed will turn back and tell a client he made a mistake and go through the entire process of moving it, he could lose the actual deal so I don't blame him for that.
Landlord said he couldn't pay rent for 6 months which led him to get evicted eventually. (Perhaps he isn't that successful after all) I'm sure he could pay rent now at least.
I learned
I admitted to only making assumptions, I'm aware that it's possible the client was fully disclosed which in that case would have meant there's no problem to solve from the first place.
Agents can say and write many things to make things look good, both for the client and the company.
The risk is not needed since the payout is lower the several A rated companies I compared it too.
When the payout is lower but an agent still choose a B company it most likely means he didn't show an A company that would also pay more. I never had a client who wanted to take a higher risk and also get less money as well.
Non of us know what would happen in 10+ years, that's why financial strength matters. Since I have no legal way to handle this I choose not to.
I highly doubt an agent who just got payed will turn back and tell a client he made a mistake and go through the entire process of moving it, he could lose the actual deal so I don't blame him for that.
Landlord said he couldn't pay rent for 6 months which led him to get evicted eventually. (Perhaps he isn't that successful after all) I'm sure he could pay rent now at least.
I learned
- 11,471
scmb,
We have enough regulatory problems in selling annuities that we don't need any more agents compounding the problem with less than professional courtesies.
You got information that you should not have received. Be a man, send it to the agent, forget that you ever saw it, and find your own prospect.
Otherwise, behavior like this makes you and other annuity agents all look like the used car salesman sharks at every car lot... waiting as vultures looking for their next prey... and just waiting for a regulator to come by and shoot you down.
We have enough problems with regulators. Please don't make things worse, or become the next annuity trial headline.
----------
We are on the side of professional ethical conduct. The consumer, is a big part, and yet NOT a part of this discussion. It's about professional courtesy, something you were willing to violate in order to make a sale "in the name of protecting the consumer".
Guess what? If the product and company were really that risky, it would not be approved for sale in your state. We have state insurance departments to help look after the consumer. Let them do their job... and you go do yours - find another prospect.
----------
Unless scmb stands for scumbag.
We have enough regulatory problems in selling annuities that we don't need any more agents compounding the problem with less than professional courtesies.
You got information that you should not have received. Be a man, send it to the agent, forget that you ever saw it, and find your own prospect.
Otherwise, behavior like this makes you and other annuity agents all look like the used car salesman sharks at every car lot... waiting as vultures looking for their next prey... and just waiting for a regulator to come by and shoot you down.
We have enough problems with regulators. Please don't make things worse, or become the next annuity trial headline.
----------
We are on the side of professional ethical conduct. The consumer, is a big part, and yet NOT a part of this discussion. It's about professional courtesy, something you were willing to violate in order to make a sale "in the name of protecting the consumer".
Guess what? If the product and company were really that risky, it would not be approved for sale in your state. We have state insurance departments to help look after the consumer. Let them do their job... and you go do yours - find another prospect.
----------
Unless scmb stands for scumbag.
- 30,328
Similar threads
