MM vs NWM

[WMSG]

I'll say that their DI app process is cutting edge.

They let clients do both part A and B on their own and use HAPI (which I know most do).

I normally do A with the client and let them do eMed (part B/2) on their own but I love the option of having the client do the whole thing on their own.

Lots of apps get completed at 10pm on a Saturday.

They're a really good company to work with overall.

Yes, I've heard that. I know in the high-end, upper, white collar marketplace, doctors, attorneys, etc. -- their DI product is the best of the best. I don't focus on the product or DI at all, but my disability specialist does and we talk about this very often. I actually own the old Guardian -- not Berkshire, LOL -- disability myself, before the X series. I maxed out on it! And this was before the I&P limits, LTD limits, max monthly limits, etc. I've bought more since, but it's not the same, not anywhere near the same product. Still lifetime, still own occ, still true residual and partial, but certainly not as good as their original product.

As far as the e-process and the professional, client, doing what part -- there are very differing opinions on whether this is good or bad, but that's a separate and myopic discussion. With Guardian now, they allow the producer to do the e-app portion -- but from what I gather the e-med portion is client only, and it's designed to not have the agent involved, answer the medical questions, etc. This completely negates the "field underwriting" part of the process. But, so be it. LOL.

 

[WMSG]

@WMSG @Lloyds of Lubbock

When did Guardian re-price their Term? I just ran some quotes and you are correct, the re-price is very competitive vs. the old pricing. I would guess at least a 15% decrease on PP and even more with Standard rating.

Their convertible term was always the uber expensive product, but it looks to be a lot more in line with others now. Good to know! Penn has always been my go-to with Convertible Term because of price and product options (only policy I know of thats convertible to all 3 major permanent options (par wl, iul, gul) which are also competitive)

---

As to their operations and business model. It certainly has changed a good bit over the past 5-6 years or so. They seem to be a lot more laser focused on life/di now, and being competitive at it. The index rider was a decent start and an attempt to be innovative /competitive. Adding LBS for agents was good too. They sold off the 401k biz to Ameritas, mainly because I dont think they ever got any real cross-selling from the benefits side of their biz. So it was probably a smart decision. I could see them selling the benefits side at some point as well, it just doesnt fit all that much anymore... but the group DI would probably be kept Id imagine... or maybe still underwritten by Guardian... I cant see them totally giving that up. Their B/D (Park Avenue) is decent enough and the grid is fairly standard. They also allow Indexed Annuities to be sold through the BD if I remember right.

Ive seen servicing get quicker and quicker on the life side. DI has always been pretty good imo. Ray is correct, the e-app for DI is a very nice system that is easy to use.

Imo, they are coming around to be a lot more "current". Id say possibly surpassing NYL/NWM from an innovation standpoint. Re-pricing term was a key component they needed to fix, so that is good.

They re-priced their term about 6 weeks ago or so and rolled it out for the states they got approval on very quickly. The presentation I sat in on was just prior to the approval(s), but really contained a lot of info on the re-pricing, comparisons, head to head, grid-based, etc. They also subsequently initiated a program (where old term could be "replaced" with new term) which would allow professionals and clients to benefit from the new rates. I don't know the details. However, the new rates are excellent.

As far as their business, model, etc. -- like I said, there's been a distinct shift in the home office. Dennis Manning was an old Guardian GA, who became CEO. I know Dennis for 30 plus years. At that time, almost everyone in the high-ranking home office positions were "home grown" and those that weren't were brought in and became part of the Guardian culture. It was old school, kind of like the old New England used to be back in the 70's and 80's, like NWM was, etc. They had a lot of pride in their company and culture. Yes, things change over time, sometimes organically, sometimes intentionally. A lot of the old timers in the Guardian HO retired. Many of them were very good people. Others, eh, LOL. Some were just lifer's looking to retire. I get it. In general, I think most companies are changing as it relates to their field force, but, with Guardian, I like some of what I have seen. I like the support and investment in their LBS. Being that Guardian was a partner in e-money and owned a substantial interest in the company, they were supposed to invest in it! LOL. Regardless, I like what they've done with that. I think it's got a few weak spots -- estate planning, tax, intra-generational wealth transfers, etc. -- but that's expected. Plus, compliance has to have their hands on everything -- similar to back in the day with LEAP. I don't deal with or intimately know their B/D, but the top Guardian guys I know still feel Park Avenue Securities is lacking in the HNW, AUM, sophisticated marketplace. They don't have a private placement life insurance product, their offerings for real AUM, separate accounts, is limited, and their effort into the trust company arena was a disaster. However, I've always been a fan of Guardian. MML, due to their size and different focus, is different, and I too have been a fan of MML as well.

Personally, I think in today's day and age, every insurance company is less inclined to view their field force -- yes, captive agents, career agents -- as part of the family, and more like a very distant relative at best. LOL.

 

[Lloyds of Lubbock]

Personally, I think in today's day and age, every insurance company is less inclined to view their field force -- yes, captive agents, career agents -- as part of the family, and more like a very distant relative at best. LOL.
100% disagree. I spent 20 years in Guardians HO.
The field is treated like royalty.
The field may not like every decision that is made but that is just a fact of running a business.
The GA's on the other hand have had more expenses every year pushed on them.

 

[WMSG]

Personally, I think in today's day and age, every insurance company is less inclined to view their field force -- yes, captive agents, career agents -- as part of the family, and more like a very distant relative at best. LOL.
100% disagree. I spent 20 years in Guardians HO.
The field is treated like royalty.
The field may not like every decision that is made but that is just a fact of running a business.
The GA's on the other hand have had more expenses every year pushed on them.

And I've spent 35 years in the field dealing intimately with a half-dozen home offices. What does either mean? Nothing. It's perception and perspective, and based upon mine, and my experience of a global landscape, I 100% disagree with you. That's what makes the world go 'round ladies and gentlemen. Labor and management? Owners and players? What else? I wouldn't waste a minute of time arguing the topic, but I've had very interesting discussions with both sides, and numerous field advisory boards, peer advisory boards, etc., have long discussed this -- all in an effort to improve, not argue and be right. That said, perspective and perception is often not painted with a brush of objectivity either. That's why it's perspective and perception. LOL. I do think that in certain respects, the field is treated very well. I think there are plenty of positives inside this discussion. But I've also seen drastic shift as well.

My opinion is not an indictment of home office personnel. Some of my closest friends are home office personnel -- at Guardian and NY Life. Very close friends. My cousin is an executive officer at NWM. And so on. Love 'em all personally. LOL. For me, it's the entire landscape of the industry, and the entire relationship between home office and field. I have seen tone, temperature, culture and view not just change, but shift. There's a distinct difference between the two. It is not about decision making, but in my experience it is more about the mindset and attitude. And, the byproduct and results are not all negative, I think a lot of it is positive as well.

However, I do feel and see it overall. For example, I have seen this with customer complaints and the support -- or lack of -- given to agents. I've seen it with a less supportive home office mentality overall -- with the field being able to support their clients, and "clients" vs. "policy holders," so to speak. MetLife/Brighthouse? Sure, I get the reasons why, but was that going to happen in the 80's? 90's? One home office -- not any of the premier, big mutuals -- used to completely refer to the producer with their phone number in all client-driven correspondence. Today it's home office referred. Is that important? Maybe, maybe not. But to me, it's reflective of mindset and culture. Whether either is true or false, is it 100% true all the time? No, but in my experience a lot more true today than ever before. Generics are an exercise in futility, but mindset and culture are not. I don't view this as an "individual" issue -- not at all -- but I do as "totality" issue.

 

[scagnt83]

Personally, I think in today's day and age, every insurance company is less inclined to view their field force -- yes, captive agents, career agents -- as part of the family, and more like a very distant relative at best. LOL.
100% disagree. I spent 20 years in Guardians HO.
The field is treated like royalty.
The field may not like every decision that is made but that is just a fact of running a business.
The GA's on the other hand have had more expenses every year pushed on them.

In who's eyes?? Certainly not the eyes of the field force....

I know career agents (20+ years) at all of the big 4 mutuals. Most do not deceive themselves for one second thinking they are considered "royalty" by the HO.

Yes, the GAs have had a lot more expenses pushed on them. You dont think that trickles down to agents who work in that GA and pay expenses to the GA for their office? And if the HO makes it harder on GAs, that makes it harder on the career agents working under those GAs in more ways than just rent, especially for the newer agents dependent on them for training/support.

Agents comp has been reduced vs. old contracts. (same effect as increased expenses on GAs). It used to make a lot of financial sense to be a career agent for life. The renewals + retirement benefits combined to make a powerful retirement plan for agents. But the new contracts are nothing like the old ones. When I started at NYL I had an N9 contract, agents with N7 contracts told me time and time again they would "hate to be under that new comp plan" and that it "makes no sense for a new agent to stay beyond 3 years to get experience". Heck, I had the head of a NYL office tell me a very similar thing (after a few too many beers at a company event) about what he would do if starting out as a new agent.

The old timers are there because they are locked into a rich contract, the HO can fool itself all it wants, but this is a business on both sides. Many of those old timers are doing much more business outside of the company than with it... because they care about bringing the best product to the client... and no product/company is the end all be all "best" ever, no matter how much you chant it in Monday morning power hour meetings or at annual conventions. HO guys who branch out into IMOs are always amazed at how much some of their long time "career agents" are producing with other carriers. After a while they understand, in the long run its about doing right by the client, not by the company.

Im not saying the HO does not care about the field force at all. They need them, and do value them as much as necessary. But that is it, as much as necessary to keep them positioned as needed. Just look at what Ohio National did with their VA trail comp decision. Screw the field force they did not absolutely need... keep the one they do need complacent.

 

[WMSG]

In who's eyes?? Certainly not the eyes of the field force....

Excellent point. My point as well. No, certainly not in the eyes of the field force. At least not the majority, LOL. That's my opinion.

We all look through the lenses we look through... and it is not easy, perhaps impossible, for some to remove those lenses and look through the lenses the other side is looking through.

 

[Lloyds of Lubbock]

That's my opinion. And you are certainly entitled to it.
The difference is I am looking at it from the inside out, you are looking at it from the outside in.
Just because a HO makes a decision that negatively impacts its sales force, does not mean they did not try to lessen the impact.
HO decisions that effect the field are a balancing act
Agents will always feel they are not treated right and there will be some in the HO that think they are paid to much.
That rich retirement plan is still available today.(Guardian)
The only cuts to that plan have been on the HO side.
So I think they are treated quite well.
BTW that is my opinion.
I do understand your viewpoint.

 

[Allen Trent]

That's my opinion. And you are certainly entitled to it.
The difference is I am looking at it from the inside out, you are looking at it from the outside in.
Just because a HO makes a decision that negatively impacts its sales force, does not mean they did not try to lessen the impact.
HO decisions that effect the field are a balancing act
Agents will always feel they are not treated right and there will be some in the HO that think they are paid to much.
That rich retirement plan is still available today.(Guardian)
The only cuts to that plan have been on the HO side.
So I think they are treated quite well.
BTW that is my opinion.
I do understand your viewpoint.

And the carriers likely had much, much higher profit margins back when they were paying agents substantially more because expenses have skyrocketed with technology needs, regulatory compliance & investment returns have plummetted on fixed type investments they can hold along with having all the legacy products they have to continue to credit 3-5%. definitely a balancing act for sure

 

[WMSG]

And the carriers likely had much, much higher profit margins back when they were paying agents substantially more because expenses have skyrocketed with technology needs, regulatory compliance & investment returns have plummetted on fixed type investments they can hold along with having all the legacy products they have to continue to credit 3-5%. definitely a balancing act for sure

All valid points. Without question. And, I agree. I however think this isn't a "financial" problem. I couldn't care less that a home office executive thinks I am paid too much. I've had this debate with home office executives. On one hand, they say, you don't get paid 50% because it's easy. On the other hand, you get paid 50%, even 100% or more, for a lifetime of training, education, service and commitment. What I do for my clients and for a living, and how I get paid, are not exactly the same 24/7. When I get paid -- charging a fee, earning a commission, getting an AUM fee, whatever the case may be -- I am getting paid for everything. My commitment to my craft, training, education, expertise, service, value added, advice, guidance, comprehensive services, and more. Does a doctor lower his pricing when his student loans are paid off? LOL. Does an attorney lower his prices when a software purchase is paid off? Do I? To me, the debate with the home office executive is not about winning or losing, but when we are done, every single one of them has seen an entirely new perspective. Do they change their mind? LOL, of course not, but some have a better and more empathetic understanding.

What I have a problem with is when that belief creates a divide and the home office starts to view me as a necessary party rather than as a partner. I've long felt that home offices have looked -- consciously and intentionally -- to protect themselves and shift more liability to the professional. I've long felt that the home office looks to further their own business, whether it includes the professional or not, for "their client" as opposed to working collaboratively and furthering our business together and viewing it as "our client" together.

Can I give specific examples. Sure, but that's meaningless. I am talking more about culture and attitude. I can personally contact top ten producers for Guardian, Mass Mutual, NWM, NY Life, Pac Life, and several others. I can assure everyone, that every single of them would agree with me. My study group consists of top five, maybe 10, producers from each one of those companies. They agree with me. Again, it's not about blame. Look at the M Group's biggest producers, and the biggest producer groups in the country. They deal with multiple carriers -- and I know several of them too. They too all agree with me. And here's the most important point -- agree or not -- that doesn't make me/us right. It's perspective and opinion.

 

[WMSG]

And the carriers likely had much, much higher profit margins back when they were paying agents substantially more because expenses have skyrocketed with technology needs, regulatory compliance & investment returns have plummetted on fixed type investments they can hold along with having all the legacy products they have to continue to credit 3-5%. definitely a balancing act for sure

Do you think the home office/carriers would agree with this? Just curious. I am more concerned about what many companies have done with "calculating" their dividend, shadow reserves, and other similar measures. I don't think the premier companies are "aggressive" in their approach and planning, and I don't think they play games with shadow reserves and accounting for reserves, liabilities, etc. -- but many "big" companies do.