RNA Vs Foresters

[digfesales105]

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

May-be but any agent with common sense knows that it takes knowledge of the insurance rules, especially for their state and what's in the best interest of the customer.

I replaced a lot but 99% of the time is was because it saved them money off their premium and/or gave them a better death benefit than what they had.

This is speaking of FE business only.

 

[nfl72]

Most states are spread so thin they no longer have adequate rescources to investigate anything but the obvious worse case senarios. I was told that by a state official whom was investigating an obvious case of abuse by an agent.

He also told me very few improper replacements everr result in anything happening to a FE agent. Most of the dollar amounts are relatively small and there is always a grey area on which policy might be better.

One might argue that Foresters is a better policy because of all the member benefits where a different agent might state there is a chance in the future that Foresters pulls all of it issued certificats and the insured might be left high and dry.

Who is write and who is wrong. What really matters is who did the best sales job on the consumer.

 

[SportsNut]

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.

I wasnt saying that there is anything wrong with replacing, nor do I have any issue with doing so when the oppty presents itself. What I run into in most replacement situations, where it is definitely warranted due to lower price or more covg, is that the client wants to cling to an old policy because they have had for x number of yrs... They can't see around the corner and focus on the fact that the new policy is cheaper for them, but do want additional covg while keeping the old [trash] policy. If that is their thought then it is ok with me, I write the new policy and go on... maybe come back and revisit these cases later when they are more comfortable with me or the new policy/company.

What I have encountered in some of these situations is if you push too hard to replace the old [crap] policy is you talk yourself out of a sale for what they really want... the new addition of covg to their existing policy. Again, no concern over replacing or the rules of replacement... and eager to do so when the situation warrants.

What I wrote about earlier was in response to billg's comment that 25% of ones biz should be replacement and in my situation is more like 10%. Again, maybe a factor of the mkt place that I work [Broke-dick Indiana] where the majority of leads that I run they have NO life ins at all, so hard to replace when they ain't got it to begin with. Again, I recently lost a 1300 AP sale because I pushed too hard to replace an existing policy that would have saved them 10-15 mo for equal covg plus put the existing c/v back into their pocket... ignorant that they can't understand this concept... but it was what it was... So I am still spending that comm check on that sale... 'Goose-egg'. That was a case where they simply didn't want to disturb that existing policy under any circumstances. Go figure.

 

[digfesales105]

I wasnt saying that there is anything wrong with replacing, nor do I have any issue with doing so when the oppty presents itself. What I run into in most replacement situations, where it is definitely warranted due to lower price or more covg, is that the client wants to cling to an old policy because they have had for x number of yrs... They can't see around the corner and focus on the fact that the new policy is cheaper for them, but do want additional covg while keeping the old [trash] policy. If that is their thought then it is ok with me, I write the new policy and go on... maybe come back and revisit these cases later when they are more comfortable with me or the new policy/company.

What I have encountered in some of these situations is if you push too hard to replace the old [crap] policy is you talk yourself out of a sale for what they really want... the new addition of covg to their existing policy. Again, no concern over replacing or the rules of replacement... and eager to do so when the situation warrants.

What I wrote about earlier was in response to billg's comment that 25% of ones biz should be replacement and in my situation is more like 10%. Again, maybe a factor of the mkt place that I work [Broke-dick Indiana] where the majority of leads that I run they have NO life ins at all, so hard to replace when they ain't got it to begin with. Again, I recently lost a 1300 AP sale because I pushed too hard to replace an existing policy that would have saved them 10-15 mo for equal covg plus put the existing c/v back into their pocket... ignorant that they can't understand this concept... but it was what it was... So I am still spending that comm check on that sale... 'Goose-egg'. That was a case where they simply didn't want to disturb that existing policy under any circumstances. Go figure.

One of the most frustrating things when it comes to FE clients. many, many times they just bought a higher priced plan and wouldn't even listen or look. They would simply say "no, no...I'm fine. I don't want to change" etc.... I'll even explain to them in different ways like..."what if you could save $5-$20 a month(which never works lol), or "hey if I came by everymonth and handed you $10...would you refuse it? Of course you wouldn't so why would you pay more for a plan that you can save that money on?" They would still say "well, I know but I'm good". OOOOOOOH man! Those are the one's I have to chill before I go to the next house! LOL

One thing, for any rooks out there; that I would do and teach my agents when we would get through a presentation is this. We would find out what they have , how long, type of plan, monthly payment etc... Then, we would "shelve it". Wouldn't bring it up again until the end. So let's say they had $5K for $50 with XYZ co. I show them and they pick...$3K for x amount of dollars with me. I would quickly look at what the total would be with the 2 different carriers THEN show them how much it would be with one carrier and how much they would be saving. But I would ONLY do this when I solidified MY sale. Done and Done right? I would simply explain to them the savings and benefits they would get going with one carrier.

That seemed to work a lot of the time and a lot easier.