6 and 63 License

[DHK]

The licenses, in and of themselves, do not make you successful in the areas of securities.

The reason the 6/63 combination doesn't seem to do as well is because of the nature of the sponsoring B/D - an insurance company owned B/D. These B/Ds help you to just barely stick your toe in the water to learn about securities and asset management. Prospects that have significant assets will want someone more knowledgeable about asset management than an insurance B/D trained registered rep.

So, even if you were with another insurance company and upgraded to a Series 7... your training may not be that different. The conversations you have with prospects about what you can do for them... won't be that different with a 7 than if you just had a 6.

What you would need... is good training and mentoring from someone really knowledgeable about how to gather assets. To learn from this person (or firm), you would need the 7/63/65 or 7/66. It's just a characteristic of the training you would receive because you have the "more serious" licenses.

If you want this training, keep your 6/63 and find a place where you can learn it. You'll need to get your 7 & 65, but you'd be on your way to making securities a serious part of your practice.

If you aren't going to make it a significant part of your business... then just drop them.

 

[xrac]

I let mine go at year end of 2012. Do I miss it? Yea, a little bit.

Do I miss paying through the a ss for E&O because the BD decided they had their own E&O and had no problem charging me 4 times the money for less coverage than I had? NOPE.

Do I miss having to ask somebody else's permission for just about everything I do? NOPE

Do I miss the inspections that last 6 hours, wasting my time and their demanding that I submit all emails (especially non securities business) to them for approval? NOPE

Do I miss having to explain in writing to supposedly college educated people that if I give them medical emails, both they and I are violating HIPAA? NOPE.

Do I miss them taking a huge cut of my commissions for basically as little work as they can possibly do? NOPE.

When I sit back and look at it, the NOPE's outweigh the positives of having the licensing.

You forgot the wonderful firm element training that you are missing.

 

[VolAgent]

You forgot the wonderful firm element training that you are missing.

That was always a snoozefest. It ranks right up there with sexual harassment training.

 

[Norwayguy]

You forgot the wonderful firm element training that you are missing.

Did you forget regulatory element? When the only requirement is completing in time and wrong answers don't matter. Total waste of time.

 

[VolAgent]

Did you forget regulatory element? When the only requirement is completing in time and wrong answers don't matter. Total waste of time.

Oh, don't forget bank statements. I just love having to show some outside compliance guy my bank statements.

 

[xrac]

If you are securities licensed you had better be selling a substantial amount of registered products because it cost you plenty of time, money, and aggravation to have that registration.

 

[Sales71]

I think you guys are right. I had to have it for Allstate to sell VA and VL. But since I am on my own now and do not deal with Mutual funds or want to sell that stuff its better to let it go. I had the license since 2002 and my trails every month was just $100 in commission.

 

[LGilmore]

"But since I am on my own now and do not deal with Mutual funds or want to sell that stuff its better to let it go. I had the license since 2002 and my trails every month was just $100 in commission. "

Yea, I left trails behind myself, but in my case they were pushing the costs of doing business to where it just didn't pencil out for the time invested. It basically looked like I would be spending most of my time working for them cost wise, rather than myself.

Part of what we're supposed to be is financial advisors or at least offer financial wisdom. We have to think about some of the things we do that simply don't pencil out math wise. For me, this really was something where the math didn't make sense. They were taking too big a cut, for too little service to me or my clients and then they became the malpractice insurance arm as well and increased that cost 4x over what I could find in the market with much less coverage. AND they justified the 4x increase in cost on policy terms that didn't or wouldn't apply to my licensing anyway. Why would I pay for series 7 protection when I didn't have a 7 license? Asking me to pay 4x's more for coverage that doesn't apply to me doesn't make financial sense for me to do. Because the kicker was if I ever "did" any of those extra coverage things this plan provided, it would VOID the policy anyway, essentially giving me no coverage based on the last term of the plan.

 

[Indy007]

Some agents feel more "professional" having it. Some agents are afraid they'll miss a variable annuity opportunity even though they haven't sold one in 3 years. Some are afraid of the "source of funds" issue.

There are legitimate ways of dealing with each of those possibilities. Unless you are going to do a moderate to substantial amount of securities business, it's not worth the hassle.

And you can forget "parking it". No BD wants that unless you're with a captive that requires it.

What are the legitimate ways you handle the source of funds issue without holding securities licenses? Say your exchanging a variable annuity for an indexed annuity and are not licensed? Or moving mutual funds to a indexed annuity?

Source of funds is the reason I'm studying for my securities licenses right now. I have no intention of selling variable, would just like to be able to move them if the client wants.

 

[Larry Tew]

What are the legitimate ways you handle the source of funds issue without holding securities licenses? Say your exchanging a variable annuity for an indexed annuity and are not licensed? Or moving mutual funds to a indexed annuity?

Source of funds is the reason I'm studying for my securities licenses right now. I have no intention of selling variable, would just like to be able to move them if the client wants.

Many state insurance departments have NO source of funds language on the books. I read an article a couple of months ago about a state that had amended their laws to include source of funds language to specifically protect agents on the issue AS LONG AS the agent wasn't giving securities advice.

I approach the issue by asking questions. You can ask a prospect how his securities are doing, is he happy with it, what don't you like about them?, what would you change about them if you could?...

Then I would say "let me show you a product that sounds like a good fit based on what you've said"... or "have you considered looking into an indexed product which sounds like it might be a good fit for you"...

I haven't told the prospect to drop his securities nor have I given him one iota of securities advice. I might even ask him "what did your investment advisor / broker say when you shared these things with them? Oh... you haven't talked with them about it? Well, here's what my product does. I can't tell you to close your investment account, but I can show something that doesn't have some of the problems you feel that your investments have..." The prospect will have to make the decision.

You have to nibble around the edges a little, but hopefully the states will write definitive language so we can know the rules we have to work by.