Ohio National and Constellation

Even if they fix the software, I doubt it will fix the illustrations to show anything close to being acceptable. I'm sure the clients are gonna get crushed. I can't imagine the conversations some agents will have to have.
:frown:
 
There's some spin that can be had. Ohio National just sent out an email today talking about the needs and direction for the $1 billion buy-out: $500 million to buy out policyholder's ownership and $500 million for investment income purposes back to the general investment account.

It's going to be rocky for 2-3 years. We'll just have to see what happens. I want to be cautiously optimistic, but I do have other selling contracts.
 
I hope WL policy holders (members) vote against this change. It is not set in stone yet. It could be voted down by members, and members could propose a complete overhaul of the Board of Directors... which I would certainly do if I were a member with a large dollar policy.

Members should have cleaned house when they went to being a Mutual Holding Company... and again when they cut VA trails (worst pr move I have ever seen in this industry).

And agents should have been speaking with clients about the need to vote on these issues. Most people just throw the letter in the trash.
 
Just got off the phone with them and their illustration software is broken. No idea why they wouldn't send out a message to that effect.

They probably had next years reduction accidentally factored into this years :1baffled:

Or they had so many angry phone calls from agents they rethought their timeline.
 
This goes back to my original question when they became a Mutual Holding Company. WHY!!!???

What benefit does that provide policy holders?

We now see the danger it provides.

I have never seen one single benefit for policyholders listed in statements about forming a Mutual Holding Company. It's all feel good statements about "carrier flexibility".

Why do existing WL clients need the carrier to be flexible? Did they not buy for consistency?

The "flexibility" is to make M&A possible.

Mutual Holding Company: A Shell Game

Tracking Credit Risk at a Major U.S. Retailer

http://www.insuranceobserver.com/PDFpart/020198p08-20.pdf


Moral of the story, if your selling products from a Mutual that is owned by a Mutual Holding Company, you are not selling a true Mutual product.
 
I hope WL policy holders (members) vote against this change. It is not set in stone yet. It could be voted down by members, and members could propose a complete overhaul of the Board of Directors... which I would certainly do if I were a member with a large dollar policy.

Members should have cleaned house when they went to being a Mutual Holding Company... and again when they cut VA trails (worst pr move I have ever seen in this industry).

And agents should have been speaking with clients about the need to vote on these issues. Most people just throw the letter in the trash.

Just read in one of the articles I linked to. When becoming a MHC, the MHC often ends up owning 51% of voting shares in the underlying Mutual Carrier. Rendering clients votes useless.
 
It's going to be rocky for 2-3 years. We'll just have to see what happens. I want to be cautiously optimistic, but I do have other selling contracts.

I hope it stays competitive. I doubt it will though.

Liberty Life
Prudential
Principal
MetLife
PacLife

All of those went the MHC route and closed large blocks of WL biz. Which one of those closed blocks of WL are still paying strong Dividends?
 
Back
Top