Mutual of Omaha Joins The Party

[Mr_Ed]

I'm not defending Chuckles, but a point can certainly be made................

1) NWM has the highest financial ratings on the planet:

AMBest: A++, Highest rating available; Superior
Fitch: AAA, Highest rating available, Extremely strong
S & P: AAA, Highest rating available, Extremely strong
Moody's: Aaa, Highest rating available, Superior
Comdex: 100, Highest rating available,

They're batting 1000 on everyone of the above categories.

2) They have a high-end client base. Someone with a NWM portfolio of investments and/or other insurance products feels very comfortable with the company and previous products purchased and if the NWM agent recommends a LTC policy, they will buy it and will not shop around.

3) They have a history of not missing a dividend payment for Life insurance for well over 100 years. That's a pretty strong statement.

4) They have a good+ product

5) Scott, you admit that you were at one time a captive agent and therefore sold product from one company. You promoted that company, you promoted that product and when someone questioned your motives, you defended both your company and your product.

Is it fair to say that "Scott drank the Kool Aid"? I think not............

Although I have been independent since day 1, there certainly can be solid arguments made for reasons to be captive. (as there are reasons to be independent)


I may be wrong, but I would guess that the only reason Chuckles would not sell a client a NWM LTC policy is because of an underwriting issue, which is understandable. The same is true for every other captive agent in the business. That doesn't make him a bad guy.

And, if 90% of his business is NWM, I can understand why he doesn't know every single verse of a PRU policy or any other product. As long as he knows more than the prospect he's in front of, that's enough to get by.

But, we're not prospects. This is a pretty tough crowd and hopefully Chuckles will learn that in the future not to post statements that he's not 100% sure of......


This post was paid for by Chuckles

Arthur,

What is irksome is some of the language that is used by captive agents like, "our policy is priced to pay claims."

The implication is that a cheaper policy is NOT priced to pay claims. And that's just a lie.


nadm

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

You're right and I had commented on that.

I was under the impression that EVERY policy was priced to pay claims.

That includes LTC, Life, DI, Homeowners, Auto etc....

 

[Chuckles21]

Arthur,

What is irksome is some of the language that is used by captive agents like, "our policy is priced to pay claims."

The implication is that a cheaper policy is NOT priced to pay claims. And that's just a lie.


nadm

Fair enough, but nadm why are most other companies in the market raising rates? It is because they did not price them correctly. It does not take rocket science to understand why we have not had to raise rates and in fact have been giving a dividend for 5 years running. If you know anything about NML's structure you would know we are highly conservative, some would argue to much so.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

Chuckles,
As an industry, LTCi has been around for over 30 years and up until 3-4 years ago, the words "rate increases on existing policyholders" didn't exist.

I believe that NWM, like every other carrier has a bunch of actuaries that at one time, sat down and came up with a premium that they thought was enough to cover the risk.

Are you telling me that NWM's actuaries are any smarter than the actuaries that are employed by Hancock, MetLife, Genworth, Prudential, etc?

I doubt it. The reason that your premiums are higher than most is because NWM works on a higher mark-up than other carriers. You guys for the most part do not get into pissing contests with other agents (other than this board). You have a captive audience who is willing to spend whatever your quote is.

Don't stick your neck out and claim that NWM's product is priced correctly and therefore will not have to raise rates.

Every other carrier thought their product was priced correctly and look what happened to them.

 

[Chuckles21]

Chuckles,
As an industry, LTCi has been around for over 30 years and up until 3-4 years ago, the words "rate increases on existing policyholders" didn't exist.

I believe that NWM, like every other carrier has a bunch of actuaries that at one time, sat down and came up with a premium that they thought was enough to cover the risk.

Are you telling me that NWM's actuaries are any smarter than the actuaries that are employed by Hancock, MetLife, Genworth, Prudential, etc?

I doubt it. The reason that your premiums are higher than most is because NWM works on a higher mark-up than other carriers. You guys for the most part do not get into pissing contests with other agents (other than this board). You have a captive audience who is willing to spend whatever your quote is.

Don't stick your neck out and claim that NWM's product is priced correctly and therefore will not have to raise rates.

Every other carrier thought their product was priced correctly and look what happened to them.

The industry itself might be that old, but most of the carriers today haven't been in that long.

Pru: 1999
JH: 1987
NYL: 1988
Gen: 1974
Mass: 2000
NWM: 1998
Trans: 1991

Average time in market is roughly 19 years. I never said they were smarter, I said we are more conservative. The actuaries can skew numbers a lot of different ways depending on factoring in a lot of things such as mortality, lapses, increases in cost of care, etc. We took a more conservative approach is all. You cannot deny that there is also a balance each company makes in price vs. exposure. Most will offer a lower price to hopefully increase sales possibly taking on a bit more exposure risk. More conservative, like I said.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

ok Everyone.................
i'm Worn Out.

let's Move On To The Next Topic.​

 

[GreenSky]

I'd find it interesting to take a NML policy issued 15 years ago and a similar plan from Genworth or Trans. Total all the premiums in those years and see who had the best overall cost. You need to take in mind the growth on the premium differential between the higher and lower priced plans.

Of course, if someone is one claim with any of the carriers, I doublt they would complain about the now waived premiums.

Rick

 

[Mr_Ed]

I'd find it interesting to take a NML policy issued 15 years ago and a similar plan from Genworth or Trans. Total all the premiums in those years and see who had the best overall cost. You need to take in mind the growth on the premium differential between the higher and lower priced plans.

Of course, if someone is one claim with any of the carriers, I doublt they would complain about the now waived premiums.

Rick

Great point, Rick.

The fact is that spending 50% more for a policy right now, that might have a dividend, is essentially buying a policy with a premium increase already! You've bought a rate increase from day one.... which is totally dumb.

 

[Chuckles21]

Great point, Rick.

The fact is that spending 50% more for a policy right now, that might have a dividend, is essentially buying a policy with a premium increase already! You've bought a rate increase from day one.... which is totally dumb.

I love how you have the word fact in this sentence.... which is totally dumb.

 

[Mr_Ed]

I love how you have the word fact in this sentence.... which is totally dumb.

When you can't refute logic, just pretend it's not there, resort to ad hominem, and add a laughing face. Brilliant!