Series 6

URDRWHO

Guru
100+ Post Club
347
I just read in an industry magazine that in the past two years nearly one-third of independent producers have dropped their series 6 licenses.

The number one reason: "overwhelming compliance complexity, yet all of the complexity is not giving the clients a better understanding of the product they are buying and a continuing loss of qualified producers.

In the report, many producers said the volume of investment business did not justify the additional requirements and expenses.

People do not meet the Broker Dealers minimum production requirements, they receive the letter cancelling their contract and then the producers just throw in the towel.

Studies have not been seen showing that low volume producers are the cause of litigation against broker-dealers."

I think for the past 20 years the main stream securities firms have tried to make it harder and harder for insurance producers to carry an S6 or S7.
 
Do you think that has anything to do with FINRA wanting to make FIA regulated products. It wouldn't have anything to do with making some of those producers come back into the fold would it?
 
I've read that some people want "ALL" insurance to be regulated through the securities pipeline.

Do you think that has anything to do with FINRA wanting to make FIA regulated products. It wouldn't have anything to do with making some of those producers come back into the fold would it?
 
Do you think that has anything to do with FINRA wanting to make FIA regulated products. It wouldn't have anything to do with making some of those producers come back into the fold would it?


Those are all factors for sure but I also think some of it is more straightforward. The market has either been down or uninspiring for the last couple years. This makes it harder for the newbies to make it or to see a return on the compliance hassles so they drop out. I also think that there are a lot of securities reps who came in during the go-go 90's and have held on but gotten more involved in basic insurance to pay the bills and incrementally they drop their securities license as they see less and less return and more compliance on the horizon.

Winter
 
Those are all factors for sure but I also think some of it is more straightforward. The market has either been down or uninspiring for the last couple years. This makes it harder for the newbies to make it or to see a return on the compliance hassles so they drop out. I also think that there are a lot of securities reps who came in during the go-go 90's and have held on but gotten more involved in basic insurance to pay the bills and incrementally they drop their securities license as they see less and less return and more compliance on the horizon.

Winter


Maybe so... and as you state, it could be more a basic reason.

The Internet... has afforded many consumers the ability to obtain info on all types of products. Mutual Funds being one of them. A consumer can research different mf's and go right on the website of Vanguard, Fidelity or a whole host of other no-load funds... In doing so they are eliminating the commissionable investment dollars.

Back in 1981 when I first obtained my securities license, I would go out and sit down with a client and educate them on "what a mf was". Today, almost everyone knows what they are. Things have changed... information is rampant in our society, and that is a good thing.

I agree with your other points you made.

(You are looking particularly HOT tonight, Ms. Condi. I would call it being "Very Votable")
 
I think one of the biggest negatives of the series 6 for an independent is simply you're treated like an "employee" without benefits.

I would think or like to believe that most of us became independent agents to get away from someone telling us what to sell, what to do and how to do it. We wanted our own control of products and services to offer and the ability to deal with the client the way we want. This also goes with the assumption that we all from the get go are trying to do the best for the client.

Production requirements bug me in the sense that they are simply not "customer oriented". They are not for the benefit of the consumer. What troubles me is if I am ever called to court, a smart attourney will simply ask if I am required to meet a "sales quota"... it taints the water.

just my two bits.
 
Back
Top