Now I heard everything...

[shonceman]

For the record, I was kidding mate. I don't condone churning although it's a pretty rampant problem in this industry.

It really is a big problem. Some of the company execs are noticing and considering getting tougher about it.

 

[springbokhouston]

It really is a big problem. Some of the company execs are noticing and considering getting tougher about it.

As they should. The only time I write a policy with the thought of rewriting would be in the case of something like cancer plus x months. If they are still clear past two years why not put them into a level benefit plan at a much better rate. Unfortunately there are many out there that write a higher premium policy with the thinking in mind to rewrite something cheaper at a later date...unacceptable.

That being said, agents that are now seeing the light (LH for example) should not feel bad for helping their customers save massively on premiums with first day coverage at a reputable company. Of course every situation should be looked at on it's own merits.

 

[FinalExpenseDojo.com]

As they should. The only time I write a policy with the thought of rewriting would be in the case of something like cancer plus x months. If they are still clear past two years why not put them into a level benefit plan at a much better rate. Unfortunately there are many out there that write a higher premium policy with the thinking in mind to rewrite something cheaper at a later date...unacceptable.

That being said, agents that are now seeing the light (LH for example) should not feel bad for helping their customers save massively on premiums with first day coverage at a reputable company. Of course every situation should be looked at on it's own merits.

It's still illegal even if it's an ex LH agent churning to a cheaper carrier. Agents could make the same exact argument about churning to KSKJ. What's the difference?

 

[goillini52]

It's still illegal even if it's an ex LH agent. Agents could make the argument about churning to KSKJ. What's the difference?

I don't consider it to be churning if you're putting the client in a better place like Peter said, and therefore not illegal. I've switched a couple of FE clients that I wrote after picking up a company that I didn't have at the time I wrote them because their UWing was more lenient or the rates were better. I did the client a favor..,what's wrong with that?

I have a feeling that the agents that ARE churning aren't filling out the replacement forms.

 

[FinalExpenseDojo.com]

I don't consider it to be churning if you're putting the client in a better place like Peter said. I switched a couple of FE clients that I wrote after picking up a company that I didn't have at the time I wrote them because their UWing was more lenient or the rates were better. I did the client a favor..,what's wrong with that?

I have a feeling that the agents that ARE churning aren't filling out the replacement forms.

I hear you... but again... I'm sure agents that churn to KSKJ use that same excuse since KSKJ is a very low priced carrier.

What's wrong with it is #1 it's illegal ... #2 it bites the hand that feeds you.

The carriers wouldn't be able to stay in business if every agent churned their clients to a new carrier at every chance. There's ALWAYS a carrier that's just a little bit cheaper. I would respectfully argue that you should have the proper carriers available in the first place if you want to serve your clients in the best way possible. If you find out later that there's a carrier that can do better.... the initial carrier shouldn't have to suffer because of it.

 

[FinalExpenseDojo.com]

I have a lot of clients from my mortgage protection days that I sold a non med policy when (unknowlingly at the time) they could have qualified for a fully underwritten more competitive policy.

I could easily pay them all a visit and churn them to a better policy. In some cases get them twice the coverage. (I was new & didn't know better options were available).

But I haven't churned a single one & I won't because this isn't car insurance. & it would be illegal for me to do so.

 

[goillini52]

I hear you... but again... I'm sure agents that churn to KSKJ use that same excuse since KSKJ is a very low priced carrier.

What's wrong with it is #1 it's illegal ... #2 it bites the hand that feeds you.

The carriers wouldn't be able to stay in business if every agent churned their clients to a new carrier at every chance. There's ALWAYS a carrier that's just a little bit cheaper. I would respectfully argue that you should have the proper carriers available in the first place if you want to serve your clients in the best way possible. If you find out later that there's a carrier that can do better.... the initial carrier shouldn't have to suffer because of it.

As far as biting the hand that feeds me, my loyalty is to my client that I brought to the company. It's my client that feeds me.

 

[goillini52]

I have a lot of clients from my mortgage protection days that I sold a non med policy when (unknowlingly at the time) they could have qualified for a fully underwritten more competitive policy.

I could easily pay them all a visit and churn them to a better policy. In some cases get them twice the coverage. (I was new & didn't know better options were available).

But I haven't churned a single one & I won't because this isn't car insurance. & it would be illegal for me to do so.

You have to take their health into consideration when switching. Also, the longer they've had the policy, the less chance you'll be able to save them money.

 

[springbokhouston]

There's a huge difference between a good faith action that benefits the client i.e. Changing from Carrier A to a new, previously unknown Carrier B if it's in the best interest of the client. As opposed writing carrier A with the intention of rewriting the client with Carrier B at a later stage in order to generate a double commission.

The former is certainly not an illegal action. Churning is a premeditated act in my humble opinion. Even if a client can save money it's not always a prudent move to make.

 

[springbokhouston]

I hear you... but again... I'm sure agents that churn to KSKJ use that same excuse since KSKJ is a very low priced carrier.

What's wrong with it is #1 it's illegal ... #2 it bites the hand that feeds you.

The carriers wouldn't be able to stay in business if every agent churned their clients to a new carrier at every chance. There's ALWAYS a carrier that's just a little bit cheaper. I would respectfully argue that you should have the proper carriers available in the first place if you want to serve your clients in the best way possible. If you find out later that there's a carrier that can do better.... the initial carrier shouldn't have to suffer because of it.

With all due respect mate, our job is to do what's best for the client and not the carrier.