How would you interpret this contract provision?

[rousemark]

Looks like a W2 position to me. They would probably ask about terminating any other selling contracts based on that language.

You hit the nail on the head. I just received this email:
Hi Louis,

After digging deeper that clause was meant for a few, employee managers, not everyone. It's being addressed. I don't have a timeline right now, but rest assured we are not making our contract a captive contract and have no intention to do so.

Best regards,

I had told a friend this morning that it looked like a 1970s debit contract. I am going to assume they will correct is as promised. And, if they don't have it in writing that it was not intended for me should it go to court.

This is the reason I did not want to post the company name u til they had a chance to reply. However, many had figured it out that it was SNL. Love doing business with them. They have as good staff that is very responsive to the agent. I also have a lot of respect for Tommy O. He kept it together when he was going through soem very serious heath problems. Also, like dealing with Frank Long out of GA. He has always done exactly what he said he would do.

 

[Allen Trent]

The subsidiaries (American General/SunAmerica/etc.) were not at risk as far as I know and that is what always mattered to me.

I dont believe this was entirely true. I believe it was part of the narrative of some execs & insurance commissioners to paint a rosier picture. If the insurance subsidiaries were not at risk, why did $20B of the 1st $81B go to their insurance subsidiaries that got burned holding illiquid assets & from those insurance subsidiaries involvement in the AIG Securities lending program. NOTE-- the bailout quickly grew from $81B to close to $200B.

If I recall, AIG had taken over a Billion from its subsidiaries in the weeks before the government bailout & was trying to take another $5-10B from them. I would say those actions were putting those insurers at risk due to the actions of the parent company & decision of the board. Had the failed, the subsidiaries would have been liquidated to satisfy creditors, etc

 

[WinoBlues]

They have as good staff that is very responsive to the agent.

I also have a lot of respect for Tommy O.

Ditto.

They have that old-school company feel.

I will also say they have paid every claim to date. Including the contestable claims.

 

[WinoBlues]

@rousemark BTW, good catch.

 

[titeye]

I will also say they have paid every claim to date. Including the contestable claims.

If true, those 2 statements trump rates! Once upon a time ago, that information was published and very useful in comparing insurance companies. Are these stats still available to the public?

 

[WinoBlues]

If true, those 2 statements trump rates! Once upon a time ago, that information was published and very useful in comparing insurance companies. Are these stats still available to the public?

I can not speak for others. But absolutely true in my case.
Now, the under two year claims took a bit longer early on. I believe they had only one lady doing them. Seem that she may have retired or they have more people. I have never had a service issue with them.

 

[Tahoe Ray]

I dont believe this was entirely true. I believe it was part of the narrative of some execs & insurance commissioners to paint a rosier picture. If the insurance subsidiaries were not at risk, why did $20B of the 1st $81B go to their insurance subsidiaries that got burned holding illiquid assets & from those insurance subsidiaries involvement in the AIG Securities lending program. NOTE-- the bailout quickly grew from $81B to close to $200B.

If I recall, AIG had taken over a Billion from its subsidiaries in the weeks before the government bailout & was trying to take another $5-10B from them. I would say those actions were putting those insurers at risk due to the actions of the parent company & decision of the board. Had the failed, the subsidiaries would have been liquidated to satisfy creditors, etc

View attachment 7299

Parent companies can't just go raid the assets of a subsidiary.

Paterson gave AIG the right to swap cash (which they were in desperate need of) with less liquid assets to their subsidiaries.

So the subsidiary balance sheets were not in jeopardy but were less liquid (which wasn't a problem at the time b/c they didn't have liquidity issues).

After TARP they "reswapped" some of those assets.

 

[Allen Trent]

Parent companies can't just go raid the assets of a subsidiary.

Paterson gave AIG the right to swap cash (which they were in desperate need of) with less liquid assets to their subsidiaries.

So the subsidiary balance sheets were not in jeopardy but were less liquid (which wasn't a problem at the time b/c they didn't have liquidity issues).

After TARP they "reswapped" some of those assets.

Yeah, I thought that too in general, but Colorado Bankers was raided by the owner of the company. Also, AIG life insurance subsidiaries lent out their securities to parent company with the belief the Securities lending program had the collateralized money invested in liquid investments. The parent company controlling the Securities Lending program then began investing those funds (the assets of the Life insurance subsidiaries) in much more illiquid & riskier assets without even notifying the management of the life subsidiaries. This is why nearly 25% of the initial TARP money had to get to the Life subsidiaries ASAP. I will see if I can find the investigation/research I read about this 10 years ago or so. I think there is way, way more to the story than you or I were told. Because there is no pre-funded Guaranty association like FDIC, other good carriers would have had to bail out the policies of the AIG subsidiaries & those carriers didnt even play the stupid games AIG did & were already suffering their own losses due to the impact on the overall economy, stock market & commercial mortgage marketplace

EDIT-- here is actuarial study I was talking about, maybe I misunderstood it, but some good reading: FerrisAIGProducts.pdf (actuaries.asn.au)

PS-- reminds me of the great financial scam movies/documentaries (Big Short & the China Hustle)

 

[Tahoe Ray]

Yeah, I thought that too in general, but Colorado Bankers was raided by the owner of the company.

That's a little different. Straight fraud vs. incompetent management oversight.

I think there is way, way more to the story than you or I were told.

I was told a lot. A lot of kool-aid mixed with a bunch of vinegar. I worked for First SunAmerica (recently rebranded as AIG lol) in NYC in 2008 and we were all trying to figure out how much we were being told was actually the truth.

those carriers didnt even play the stupid games AIG

They all played those games, some just played the stupid games better...

EDIT-- here is actuarial study I was talking about, maybe I misunderstood it, but some good reading: FerrisAIGProducts.pdf (actuaries.asn.au)

That's an interesting paper. Thank you for posting that.

PS-- reminds me of the great financial scam movies/documentaries (Big Short & the China Hustle)

Of course they do!

 

[Life Hawk]

How would you interpret this provision?

During the term of Agent's authority, Agent shall NOT drink or attempt to drink, or cause or aid any associate, agent or other third party to drink or attempt to drink, any coffee or coffee product of any company or brand until that member of the Company Group has closed on a product.

Now Louis, I not sure that I am seeing this quite the same way you are. It sounds reasonable to me.