RNA Vs Foresters

[WinoBlues]

the fact that Foresters is not state insured does not help someone to replace them, unless they are ignoring the insurance regulation that prohibits using the state guaranty fund to induce someone to buy a policy... we aren't supposed to even bring up the existence of such a fund, unless someone asks what happens if an insurance co. goes out of business.

Also I am the first one to replace a policy if it is right for the client, mainly if I am replacing UL that is increasing in cost, term coverage, etc. Tread lightly if replacing policies that are over 2 yrs old (out of contestable period), unless the client is super healthy and there is a very clear benefit.

While there may be a rule about using the Fund to intice someone to buy a policy. We certainly explain the difference between a Fraternal and an admitted life insurance company. I have Foresters, RNA and CSA I will use RNA or CSA if that is the best option. But if I can find a higher rated company with the State guarantees I offer it.

On replacement, which I am very good at. We agree. But there are a lot of agents that replace coverage over $3mo difference

 

[billyg]

I'm actually replacing a 3 year old Foresters policy with an Oxford policy this week... The client will be paying about $1 more a month for the same coverage but he gets to pocket over $500 bucks for the surrender... Nice!!!

While this may have been an easy sell ($500 is a persuasive enticement), you really did them a disservice. You replaced a three year old policy/certificate (out of contestability) with a new policy and a new 2-year contestability period. You also replaced a policy/certificate from an A rated company with one from a less than A rated company (I think Oxford is B++). And on top of that they are paying a little more for their coverage.

Are they and their beneficiaries better off for this replacement or worse off? I think the answer is obvious.

 

[Newby]

While this may have been an easy sell ($500 is a persuasive enticement), you really did them a disservice. You replaced a three year old policy/certificate (out of contestability) with a new policy and a new 2-year contestability period. You also replaced a policy/certificate from an A rated company with one from a less than A rated company (I think Oxford is B++). And on top of that they are paying a little more for their coverage.

Are they and their beneficiaries better off for this replacement or worse off? I think the answer is obvious.

It would appear on the surface that it's hard to justify but we don't have all the facts.

I can assure you I lost two Foresters clients of my own to lousy customer service when they called the company (I tell them to never do that but they don't all listen.)

The ones I lost both went to companies that had HIGHER rates just to get away from Foresters. They also won't do business with me for selling that company to them.

Also you are assuming that the state he is in allows contestibility to start over on replaced policies. Not all states allow this. Some require NO contestibility beyond what they had on the old policy.

People replace coverage for reasons other than a better deal.

 

[billyg]

It would appear on the surface that it's hard to justify but we don't have all the facts.

I can assure you I lost two Foresters clients of my own to lousy customer service when they called the company (I tell them to never do that but they don't all listen.)

The ones I lost both went to companies that had HIGHER rates just to get away from Foresters. They also won't do business with me for selling that company to them.

Also you are assuming that the state he is in allows contestibility to start over on replaced policies. Not all states allow this. Some require NO contestibility beyond what they had on the old policy.

People replace coverage for reasons other than a better deal.

Good points (especially the contestability, I forgot that some states do that). I stand corrected.

 

[lsalmans]

If you're not replacing, you're not selling a whole lot.... I've often thought that maybe about 25% or more of my sales come from replacing .

 

[SportsNut]

If you're not replacing, you're not selling a whole lot.... I've often thought that maybe about 25% or more of my sales come from replacing .

Wow, that seems like a pretty high % of replacements to me. I wonder what ratio others sell new to replacement biz? Mine is 10% or less, but frankly the mkt that I work most folks don't have coverage... the few that do seem not to be able to grasp the concept of replacing a 20-30 yr old policy. In that case I choose to leave theose alone and make the sale as if they had no covg in place... I take a bite at the existing policy but back off with the first sign of resistence. Just how I do it.

I know I just lost a $ 1,300 AP tyrying for a 2600AP. It was a clear upgrade for him to roll his existing life policy which would have saved him 10-15 mo on same face amount plus put 2K in c/v back into his pocket... his wife got so d@mned confused at anything beyond here is the prem and here is the covg, the only thing she could focus on is he wouldn't have any ins covg at all... duh. "The confused mind always says NO" The Husband got it all and was ready to go with it, but the two of them darned near came to blows right there in the kitchen. At one point she turned her back on him and I thought he was going to charge her from behind. Argh, a touchy situation. I have spoken to him since and we will still do the covg when his wife comes around... but I could have already had that comm long ago if I would have just sold them what they wanted and shut the heck up... aka NO replacement attempt.

I would also take your statement to task about not selling a whole lot Isalmans... I'm selling way more than the avg FE agent out there brother.

 

[WinoBlues]

my replacement ratio is every bit of 25%+. I am guessing because I do not tract that.

The smallest, least profitable portion of my business is people that do not already own insurance. I much prefer to work with people that already own insurance. It they reach 70 years old and have never owned insurance it is tougher to write a larger premium. IMO

Rewriting a UL or term policy is replacement. Converting an older Whole Life policy to reduced paid up is also replacement. The term and UL days of twenty years ago left us a lot of orphan inventory.

Wow, that seems like a pretty high % of replacements to me. I wonder what ratio others sell new to replacement biz? Mine is 10% or less, but frankly the mkt that I work most folks don't have coverage... the few that do seem not to be able to grasp the concept of replacing a 20-30 yr old policy. In that case I choose to leave theose alone and make the sale as if they had no covg in place... I take a bite at the existing policy but back off with the first sign of resistence. Just how I do it.

I know I just lost a $ 1,300 AP tyrying for a 2600AP. It was a clear upgrade for him to roll his existing life policy which would have saved him 10-15 mo on same face amount plus put 2K in c/v back into his pocket... his wife got so d@mned confused at anything beyond here is the prem and here is the covg, the only thing she could focus on is he wouldn't have any ins covg at all... duh. "The confused mind always says NO" The Husband got it all and was ready to go with it, but the two of them darned near came to blows right there in the kitchen. At one point she turned her back on him and I thought he was going to charge her from behind. Argh, a touchy situation. I have spoken to him since and we will still do the covg when his wife comes around... but I could have already had that comm long ago if I would have just sold them what they wanted and shut the heck up... aka NO replacement attempt.

I would also take your statement to task about not selling a whole lot Isalmans... I'm selling way more than the avg FE agent out there brother.

 

[digfesales105]

When I was selling in the field, I had no problem replacing if it was better for the client. I'm not sure why so many agents have issues with replacing but to me, it's part of the business. It's like trading in your car for a better one. If it's better for the customer, there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[WinoBlues]

When I was selling in the field, I had no problem replacing if it was better for the client. I'm not sure why so many agents have issues with replacing but to me, it's part of the business. It's like trading in your car for a better one. If it's better for the customer, there's nothing wrong with it.

That is a large gray area. Agents will have their own justifications for a particular replacement.

 

[Agentguy5]

While this may have been an easy sell ($500 is a persuasive enticement), you really did them a disservice. You replaced a three year old policy/certificate (out of contestability) with a new policy and a new 2-year contestability period. You also replaced a policy/certificate from an A rated company with one from a less than A rated company (I think Oxford is B++). And on top of that they are paying a little more for their coverage.

Are they and their beneficiaries better off for this replacement or worse off? I think the answer is obvious.

Glad to see that you now realize that the answer was not so obvious...