LTC with Mass Mutual

I don't know that there is a pat answer for the criteria. Certainly premium and financial strength are matters of consideration, but more importantly, I think, is the question of how a particular product fits into an overall portfolio.

It is a case by case basis. I don't know how you can expect a set criteria for that...

As Northwestern Mutual has encouraged, and pushes all reps to take on more of a financial planning role, and demand we do fiduciary level of service to our clients (whether individual rep operates under fiduciary or suitability standards, does not matter in company's eyes... best interest of client comes first). So, when we are looking at a client's investment portfolio, managing trusts, etc... we take all these things into consideration.

I would say probably 75% of the time, NML will get my business. But 1/4 of the time, other companies get my client's insurance business. And no, it's not just due to insurability factors. There are times NML is just not right, no matter how you slice it, for a particular client.

But if they are... I can offer it, and no one else can.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Can you give us an example of a recent case where the NML policy did not fit your client?

nadm
 
So, this guy comes into my office in a wheelchair and oxygen tank. I had doubts whether NWM would be a good fit for him....

:laugh:


I've actually found NWM's underwriting to be extremely liberal. They've insured people that I know would have either been declined by every LTC insurer OR would have been issued with a substandard rate.

Case in point: a diabetic with a quadruple bypass. He was approved standard by NWM. He'd have been an autodecline from most LTC insurers... possible chance of a substandard rating from 1 or 2 of the top companies.

I'm looking forward to a recent example of when 2insureyou concluded that NWM was not the right fit for one of his clients.

I can hardly wait....

:biggrin:


nadm
 
My contract with Northwestern, while captive, also allows me to broker business to other companies. I "sell away" all the time when it is truly in my clients best interest. It's unique, yes, but that's the way they do things around here.

I always thought "first right of refusal" or something like that was the standard for captive contracts. Captive agencies don't like you being contracted with other companies let alone "sell away".

What does your captive contract say you can do exactly?

You mentioned its how "the particular product fits into the overall portfolio". Is that what your contract says or what you say? Its pretty vague anyway.

I wonder if we will hear back from you.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
2insureyou,

How long does it take to make up a story about "selling away when it's in the best interest of your client"?

nadm
 
Actually, I've been busy "selling away" today.

Client is a candidate for traditional ltc OR a linked benefit plan. In his case, A linked annuity makes the most sense, though I could easily make the case for traditional ltc.

Some money is likely going into a Mutual of Omaha linked annuity/ltc combo, and the remainder of his money will, depending on what he chooses, go into Northwestern Mutual's variable annuity, or if he chooses a more rigid, but more guarantees type product, we will use Met Life's Series VA with the GMIB/EDB features.

I think he'll choose the NM for the VA, because I don't think he'll like the significantly higher fees from MetLife, but for the LTC, my recommendation was the Mutual/United of Omaha combo product.

Just finished that meeting not an hour ago.

It is indeed first right of refusal in technical language, but you will hear managing partners, directors, and even home office staff encourage the use of outside products if ours isn't best.

But again, 75% of the time, we're the best.

In this case, it's a little of both, in my opinion. I don't think the Met Life series is right for his VA, but I do think the Mutual of Omaha fits his LTC need better.

Hopefully, we'll be moving forward in the next week. I'm glad to let you guys know how it goes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please do explain to me how a good candidate for LTCi, is also a good candidate for a VA without guaranteed riders. I'm am very curious as to your answer.
 
Actually, I've been busy "selling away" today.

Client is a candidate for traditional ltc OR a linked benefit plan. In his case, A linked annuity makes the most sense, though I could easily make the case for traditional ltc.

Some money is likely going into a Mutual of Omaha linked annuity/ltc combo, and the remainder of his money will, depending on what he chooses, go into Northwestern Mutual's variable annuity, or if he chooses a more rigid, but more guarantees type product, we will use Met Life's Series VA with the GMIB/EDB features.

I think he'll choose the NM for the VA, because I don't think he'll like the significantly higher fees from MetLife, but for the LTC, my recommendation was the Mutual/United of Omaha combo product.

Just finished that meeting not an hour ago.

It is indeed first right of refusal in technical language, but you will hear managing partners, directors, and even home office staff encourage the use of outside products if ours isn't best.

But again, 75% of the time, we're the best.

In this case, it's a little of both, in my opinion. I don't think the Met Life series is right for his VA, but I do think the Mutual of Omaha fits his LTC need better.

Hopefully, we'll be moving forward in the next week. I'm glad to let you guys know how it goes.


You still haven't answered my question:
Can you give us an example of a recent case where the NML policy did not fit your client?

... e.g. WHY did the NML product not fit for this guy?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top