New York Times Article about dinner seminars

[nonie]

Did anyone read the New York Times Article about the annuity dinner seminars? I think the writer was extremely hard on the agent and has probably killed his business. What are your thoughts?

We Went to a Steak Dinner Annuity Pitch. The Salesman Wasn’t Pleased.

 

[DHK]

The writer was obviously slanted... but tried to get real answers about the indexed annuities that he was presenting. I will say this - the author still has no clue about how indexed annuities work. Of course, "Financial planners that charge by the hour" also don't have a clue either, but he omitted that part of the article.

Most agents don't know how to "dismantle" and recreate these products. They're just "magic boxes" that do what they say the agent does. I prefer to know a little bit of the mechanics, even on a general level, on how they work. By knowing this kind of information, it helps to showcase that you know exactly what you're doing.

https://davidkinderfinancial.wixsit...t-work-with-Fixed-Indexed-Insurance-Contracts

 

[rousemark]

Did anyone read the New York Times Article about the annuity dinner seminars? I think the writer was extremely hard on the agent and has probably killed his business. What are your thoughts?

We Went to a Steak Dinner Annuity Pitch. The Salesman Wasn’t Pleased.

Can't see as he was overly hard at all. If the presentation had no problems, then the agent should not have minded answering questions about it. It is also the agent''s responsibility to assure he is using up to date materials.. He certainly should have been willing to explain his side of the cease and desist.

 

[nonie]

I didn't feel he needed to state the agents name, past history and website. American Equity still has similar charts on their website so even if the one he used isn't up to date, it's similar to a chart that AE is currently using.

 

[DHK]

He's a reporter for the Times. He should've conducted himself as any client doing their due-diligence. Instead, he did this:

I made an appointment to meet him at his office the next morning, and he did not seem happy to see me once I told him who I was. He disparaged my employer and profession and accused me of attending under false pretenses.

[...]

I tried to ask him a long list of questions, starting with a few about that chart. At first, he said he would talk to me if I gave him five references of other people I had written about. (I sent him several names later that day.) Then, he gave me the name of a person he identified as his lawyer and told me to contact her about the chart. (She eventually declined to answer any of my questions.)

[...]

When I turned my line of inquiry to the cease-and-refrain order, he got up from his chair and said, “We’re done.” Then he showed me the door.

He didn't want to contribute to be the subject of a "hit" piece... but, per the article description, he contributed all he needed. He didn't understand how or didn't want to try to turn this around to be a great piece about him and what he's doing. Instead, per the article, he acted as someone who didn't want to be interviewed or shown the spotlight on what he's doing. I can only guess that he couldn't explain the chart, so he declined to even try.

If you have something that is publicly recorded and reported, you need to have a way to talk about it without getting "huffy" about it. If you can't do that, you've got a problem - just like this agent does.

All he's doing... is selling what the companies are putting out there. That's fine, but there are some people who still don't understand these contracts. That's why I wrote my own articles and put them in my blog. First, so I can reference it, and second, so CLIENTS and PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS can reference it as well.

Look at HIS article on "Indexed Interest Potential". All he did was essentially quote what most brochures quote. He didn't explain HOW the insurance company can do it (as I did).
http://tfswealth.com/featured-articles/indexed-interest-potential/

I hate to say it, but he brought about all of this... on himself.

 

[rousemark]

I didn't feel he needed to state the agents name, past history and website. American Equity still has similar charts on their website so even if the one he used isn't up to date, it's similar to a chart that AE is currently using.

Regulators do not accept "similar" as being good enough.. Reporters a]often pose as something else when they are investigating a story. As for naming names, the guy put himself out front by holding the seminar and inviting the general public to RSVP,, It was his seminar, not some unknown entity so he should be named. The agent missed a great chance to set a different tone and to present himself in a positive light if only he had not taken a hard nose stance which made him look guilty of something. .. The reporter even went out his way to say the agent did not over promise at the seminar. That tells me he might have actually wanted to do a fair article.

 

[Allen Trent]

l saw the article & immediately noticed the reporter zeroed in on the same issue I have with most EIA & IUL carriers & reps I work with. They make a direct comparison to S&P 500 without addressing the issue of index products not earning dividends of the Stocks of the Index. I am fine that there is no dividends because I understand it & understand the trade off to protect no negative returns.

But I have also seen carriers pieces with direct comparisons to S&P 500 that show hypothetical S&P sequences that have never occurred. I get the reasoning, but most pieces have no clear disclosure to the fact it is not a historical piece of specific years. But most reps in a training room go forward and use the piece as if it actually occurred.

The agent in the article should have been better able to answer the reporters questions as if they were client objections & addressing the product is specific to a more risk averse client wanting to protect a portion of their nest egg against losses in exchange for slightly lower upside potential & less liquidity.

 

[fed up]

I received not 1 but 5 phone calls from a former employer agent to attend his retirement seminar. I left his agency under very poor terms and had successfully won my case for unemployment after he fired me for no reason. So here we are 2 years later and his retirement expert calls and invites my wife and I to dinner and I accept the invitation. The day of the dinner his financial guy calls and asks me if I am going to cause trouble at the dinner. I asked him if he had contacted all of his potential attendees with a similar question. I only wanted to ask the agent if he would lie to his potential clients in the same manner that he lied to his employees or the unemployment commission. I told the adviser I had some financial questions which I hoped could be answered for the benefit of each person in the room. After some additional questions I was dis-invited by the ***.

 

[VolAgent]

If the agent didn't want to be interviewed, then he should have immediately shut down when the columnist presented himself afterwards. Instead he disparaged him and his profession, and ran the guy in circles. Half the piece simply wouldn't have existed if the agent had said. "I have no comment. Please refer to the company that produced the piece with any questions about it." The better response would have been to turn it around. Apologize for the out of date chart, and then focus back on his presentation. "I want to help seniors have safe money in retirement. As I mentioned I'm not promising to make anyone rich, merely to give them a safe harbor for a portion of their retirement savings, something that can often earn 3 to 6% without the volatility of the market, bond and stock."

I also believe the columnist wanted to be fair in his column. As others pointed out, he really had no issue with the actual seminar. His issues were the misleading and out of date chart, and the fact the guy disappeared as soon as it was over. Both of which are valid criticisms.

Yes, I would say the columnist doesn't really care for indexed annuities, but since it is a column and opinion piece, he is entitled to his opinion. Also, he doesn't really say they are bad, simply that he feels you can do it on your own better. Finally, I do believe the columnist glosses over the volatility of the bond market. Sure, it isn't the stock market, but there is still risk.

 

[Kenneth Busch]

I get that a newsie would want to protect the public from an unscrupulous agent. The reporter apparently wanted to give a one sided view of index annuities. Whatever.

As an aside, the dinner seminar thing seems a little outdated to me. The FMO I am dealing with does workshops at colleges and libraries. Does anyone else here have experience they could share doing those types of workshops?