This actally makes sense to me and I've finally found something I can agree on which makes a legitimate case against FD. Maybe others tried but with me this resonated well. Did rick tell you to say this?
Unless the policy itself provided more value or additional benefits, this might not have been an appropriate sale/replacement or as Rick maybe told you, sleazy.
OB: Glad someone got the point across.. That is what I have been trying to say, albeit poorly..
You are right. The slime balls will always be around no matter how many rules are in place. I am definitely not voting for more regulations.
Well that's the main reason why I come here, to learn. You can never stop learning in this business. Who would of guessed S.A.I. would have made the most ethical and logical case in such a concise amount of words. Yep, rick must of told him.
Unless the new policy has some added value, riders or something, I don't actually agree with the sale as much as I used to. He does only sell LH so I'm not sure what he was supposed to do if she couldn't afford her premiums.
It's difficult to make a 100% decision when I for example have many companies to choose from if price is a concern and he only has one. There is no law that states he must have more than one and frankly I'm not for any more darn laws.
If he did what he did, I'd like to see where the new policy provided more value than her old one besides it being less money with less face amount with more costs per thousand and besides the value he provides because that has no bearing on the policy. At the minimum the new policy should be richer in benefits. Whatever he does is just an extra and I do admire what he does for the client.
