- 2,152
john_petrowski said:
I would think that also. Yet I trying to understand a way to make a living as an Insurance Advisor, and it would seem tough at best!
I would think that also. Yet I trying to understand a way to make a living as an Insurance Advisor, and it would seem tough at best!
Life vs. Health Commish.
John said -
Disclosing commissions would just confuse clients. Take MD where commission are all over the place from $17.50 per month from Carefirst to 15% Aetna to 25% Assurant/Golden Rule. A client might come to false conclusion that they are getting a better deal by choosing the plan that pays the agent the least amount. Wrong.
And yet you bash commissions on life ins. ?
How absurd can you really be ? To admit you've received no training on life ins. takes a big man, but it's rather moronic to bash something you really know little about.
Here's 1 good example of why your previous post on requiring life ins. disclosure is dead WRONG !
I use Compulife software to run all of my term quotes. Having run over 500 quotes in 2006, I can tell with 100% certainty that Ameritas has never had the LOWEST pricing on term life.
Often quoted in consumer insurance books as a no-load alternative to commissioned life insurance agents, they of course also offer UL & VUL.
After looking at one of their ULs and comparing the cash value to a loaded policy offered by Midland National, the Midland NationaL UL outperformed the Ameritas no-load policy after 5 yrs.
Ameritas does not pay commissions to anyone, but uses in-house reps to sell life insurance to the public.
The problem with your logic is you think higher commissions in life insurance MUST mean the consumer is getting screwed.
In fact, the only smart way to compare policies/annuities would be the same way you shop for investments -
1. What are ALL of the associated monthly/annual costs ?
2. What are the rates of return based on & how has performed against its peers ?
3. What does it cost to get my money out ? (to include tax implications)
Item #1 should be enough to steer consumers/agents away from Whole Life, yet most continue to sell this overpriced crap without understanding what their even selling.
Suitability based on risk tolerance & being able to answer all 3 abovelisted questions is all the consumer/agent should be concerned about. If more agents cared about this, WL and other poorly performing products would go away over time.
Way too many people listen to all the crap in the media and think Money, Kiplinger, and a hundred blogs, must make it gospel (financially speaking).
I read SEC/NASD bulletins with a quick glance, then discard entirely from memory. These are rubber stamp organizations that have done a piss poor job taking care of the consumer. Here's why -
1. When the SEC collects fines from brokerage houses and corrupt publicy-traded companies, they rarely require fines equal to shareholder losses to be paid in full. This is an organization already funded by taxpayers as part of the gov't annual budget.
2. It took almost 30 years for the SEC to require better disclosure in mutual funds, and more than 30 years to require 401k plan administrators to better disclose administration fees.
(No offense James; I realize WL is NYL's bread/butter)
John said -
Disclosing commissions would just confuse clients. Take MD where commission are all over the place from $17.50 per month from Carefirst to 15% Aetna to 25% Assurant/Golden Rule. A client might come to false conclusion that they are getting a better deal by choosing the plan that pays the agent the least amount. Wrong.
And yet you bash commissions on life ins. ?
How absurd can you really be ? To admit you've received no training on life ins. takes a big man, but it's rather moronic to bash something you really know little about.
Here's 1 good example of why your previous post on requiring life ins. disclosure is dead WRONG !
I use Compulife software to run all of my term quotes. Having run over 500 quotes in 2006, I can tell with 100% certainty that Ameritas has never had the LOWEST pricing on term life.
Often quoted in consumer insurance books as a no-load alternative to commissioned life insurance agents, they of course also offer UL & VUL.
After looking at one of their ULs and comparing the cash value to a loaded policy offered by Midland National, the Midland NationaL UL outperformed the Ameritas no-load policy after 5 yrs.
Ameritas does not pay commissions to anyone, but uses in-house reps to sell life insurance to the public.
The problem with your logic is you think higher commissions in life insurance MUST mean the consumer is getting screwed.
In fact, the only smart way to compare policies/annuities would be the same way you shop for investments -
1. What are ALL of the associated monthly/annual costs ?
2. What are the rates of return based on & how has performed against its peers ?
3. What does it cost to get my money out ? (to include tax implications)
Item #1 should be enough to steer consumers/agents away from Whole Life, yet most continue to sell this overpriced crap without understanding what their even selling.
Suitability based on risk tolerance & being able to answer all 3 abovelisted questions is all the consumer/agent should be concerned about. If more agents cared about this, WL and other poorly performing products would go away over time.
Way too many people listen to all the crap in the media and think Money, Kiplinger, and a hundred blogs, must make it gospel (financially speaking).
I read SEC/NASD bulletins with a quick glance, then discard entirely from memory. These are rubber stamp organizations that have done a piss poor job taking care of the consumer. Here's why -
1. When the SEC collects fines from brokerage houses and corrupt publicy-traded companies, they rarely require fines equal to shareholder losses to be paid in full. This is an organization already funded by taxpayers as part of the gov't annual budget.
2. It took almost 30 years for the SEC to require better disclosure in mutual funds, and more than 30 years to require 401k plan administrators to better disclose administration fees.
(No offense James; I realize WL is NYL's bread/butter)
GA has a counselors license. You are allowed to give advice for a fee but cannot take an order for a commissioned product.
May not even take that long.
Spitzer (and I believe Garamendi) have indicated they dont care for incentive contracts. Spitzer of course has sued almost everyone that has an incentive contract.
Some advisors do quite well. You get paid whether you give out good advice or not. You get paid if you client buys or does nothing.
Many fee only advisors are incompetent and just as biased as commission sales people. Of course you will never convince the public of that.
- 2,152
Re: Life vs. Health Commish.
I don't work for NYL so no offense taken. I been in these UL Vs WL before and I seriously doubt I'm gonna change my mind.
If DB is paramount nothing beats WL.
If one needs flexibility than UL. Either way you are looking at a Insurance Contract and the flexibility is gonna cost ya. Now enters the EIUL, well they seem okay but we all shall see in twenty or so years if they go down like other UL's. I've no doubt there is a lot of agents selling poorly funded UL's today that will have consequences down the road including the EIUL contract.
Airborne1 said:
I don't work for NYL so no offense taken. I been in these UL Vs WL before and I seriously doubt I'm gonna change my mind.
If DB is paramount nothing beats WL.
If one needs flexibility than UL. Either way you are looking at a Insurance Contract and the flexibility is gonna cost ya. Now enters the EIUL, well they seem okay but we all shall see in twenty or so years if they go down like other UL's. I've no doubt there is a lot of agents selling poorly funded UL's today that will have consequences down the road including the EIUL contract.
Re: Life vs. Health Commish.
BS !
If death benefit is paramount as you suggest, there is fundamentally ZERO difference in WL with the standard age to 100 guarantee & UL with an Age to 100 guarantee EXCEPT PRICE !
You absolutely cannot guarantee you will have more cash value in 20 yrs in WL vs UL vs EIUL vs. VUL
Neither can you guarantee that a mutual company offers greater protection from default than any other insurance company-----Executive Life & Mutual Benefit are the 2 of the biggest insurance company failures in history
In fact, if interest rates were to stay high for several years, WL has PROVED to be an inferior product..... Just go back to the 80s and you'll see what happened to WL
I can't imagine most people would prefer to pay considerably more money and no flexibility than less money and the ability to overfund when possible, and skip premiums when necessary.
If You can make a UL look more like a WL, but you CAN'T make a WL look like a UL, which would most people prefer ?
To sell otherwise just gives the financial news media more ammunition to avoid WL like the plague
Just like the equity in your home, if more folks treated life insurance like an investment, they would have an entirely different perspective.
James said:
BS !
If death benefit is paramount as you suggest, there is fundamentally ZERO difference in WL with the standard age to 100 guarantee & UL with an Age to 100 guarantee EXCEPT PRICE !
You absolutely cannot guarantee you will have more cash value in 20 yrs in WL vs UL vs EIUL vs. VUL
Neither can you guarantee that a mutual company offers greater protection from default than any other insurance company-----Executive Life & Mutual Benefit are the 2 of the biggest insurance company failures in history
In fact, if interest rates were to stay high for several years, WL has PROVED to be an inferior product..... Just go back to the 80s and you'll see what happened to WL
I can't imagine most people would prefer to pay considerably more money and no flexibility than less money and the ability to overfund when possible, and skip premiums when necessary.
If You can make a UL look more like a WL, but you CAN'T make a WL look like a UL, which would most people prefer ?
To sell otherwise just gives the financial news media more ammunition to avoid WL like the plague
Just like the equity in your home, if more folks treated life insurance like an investment, they would have an entirely different perspective.
- 2,152
Re: Life vs. Health Commish.
I'm not sure about your usage of BS? I totally disagree, plus you want to talk about what happen to WL in the 80's? How about those UL's! They gave birth to a completely new industry, ie selling them at auction for any amount they could be given away for! Or some refer to it as the Life Settlement or the "hey sucker you have a UL?". Reason alone will dictate that flexibility cost money, ie the UL will be more costly if you structure it the same as a WL contract, or to say you have to overfund it to keep it from lapsing in the outer years where WL enters its prime years. It's hard to debate history and the history of the UL short life is not one to write home to mama, mama probably just assume to wait to see how her new child the EI will perform first.
I do like UL's but they must be overfunded beyond the cost of most traditional WL policies would cost.
Airborne1 said:
I'm not sure about your usage of BS? I totally disagree, plus you want to talk about what happen to WL in the 80's? How about those UL's! They gave birth to a completely new industry, ie selling them at auction for any amount they could be given away for! Or some refer to it as the Life Settlement or the "hey sucker you have a UL?". Reason alone will dictate that flexibility cost money, ie the UL will be more costly if you structure it the same as a WL contract, or to say you have to overfund it to keep it from lapsing in the outer years where WL enters its prime years. It's hard to debate history and the history of the UL short life is not one to write home to mama, mama probably just assume to wait to see how her new child the EI will perform first.
I do like UL's but they must be overfunded beyond the cost of most traditional WL policies would cost.
WL sucks
You must know very little about UL to make a statement like that. You WL guys use the same weak argument from the 80s, which means you're not current on life ins. products
Many, many current ULs have an age to 100 gurantees & most of the ones I sell do not have a decreasing CV at all in the later years, without overfunding.
It makes absolutely no sense for most people to pay 30 - 50% more in monthly premium & yet get the same pathetic return
When you do actual internal rate of return comparisons & see how poorly WL performs, you'll gain some credibility here.
You must know very little about UL to make a statement like that. You WL guys use the same weak argument from the 80s, which means you're not current on life ins. products
Many, many current ULs have an age to 100 gurantees & most of the ones I sell do not have a decreasing CV at all in the later years, without overfunding.
It makes absolutely no sense for most people to pay 30 - 50% more in monthly premium & yet get the same pathetic return
When you do actual internal rate of return comparisons & see how poorly WL performs, you'll gain some credibility here.
- 2,152
Re: WL is Great
I'm not the one that dug up the 80's and I also know about the Secondary Guarantees that have emerged since the debacles and mis-selling of the UL's. Now I'm assuming the same errors are not being made today with the low balling premium UL's by some agents?
Once again if you want to run some numbers on your low premium UL with the SG feel free to do so, plus lets have the company so we can dig out a specimen contract and go over the wording shall we? Oh it be real nice to see just how much cash a UL can gather over a 40 year period with low premiums, SG's that is what I have trouble finding, maybe you have a company that projects high on the prospectus and if it doesn't happen they throw their money in just for "Crediability".
Ps remember the devil is in the words of the contract!
Airborne1 said:
I'm not the one that dug up the 80's and I also know about the Secondary Guarantees that have emerged since the debacles and mis-selling of the UL's. Now I'm assuming the same errors are not being made today with the low balling premium UL's by some agents?
Once again if you want to run some numbers on your low premium UL with the SG feel free to do so, plus lets have the company so we can dig out a specimen contract and go over the wording shall we? Oh it be real nice to see just how much cash a UL can gather over a 40 year period with low premiums, SG's that is what I have trouble finding, maybe you have a company that projects high on the prospectus and if it doesn't happen they throw their money in just for "Crediability".
Ps remember the devil is in the words of the contract!
- 105
A captive agent represents his/her company first. An independent agent represents the client.
Similar threads
