I'd like to hear the experts weigh in on how insurance agents will be affected in this ambiguous economy. Is a mutual insurance company better off than a stock company (ie State Farm vs Allstate)?
Well I can't comment on carriers that are predominately P&C like the two you mentioned... but when it comes to the life-only carriers I like mutual insurance companies better than stock carriers. I think they are more conservative (not always a good thing when it comes to payouts.) However, I respect the argument of those who believe stock carriers are more responsive to changing conditions. When it comes to having state of the art products, the stock companies tend to lead... for example the Hancock LifeCare rider (LTC on top of whole or universal life... a killer plan IMO.)
I've not done an exhaustive study but for the whole life plans I write (and I'm the last agent on the planet who still believes in the efficacy of whole life!) I find that Ohio Nat., Mutual Trust, MassMu and other mutuals have "better" (although often more expensive) plans than your basic stock carriers. The only stock companies I think compete well with the mutual carriers are Met and Hancock.
There is no definitive answer to your inquiry. We could argue this until the moon turns blue. The only truth is that YMMV.
