Check this out! That was 2010. I recently read that the average agent writes less than $3,000 in annual premium. Don't ask me to site the source. I wasn't that interested.
Can some one aware me on Primerica
- Thread starter InsurancePimp_
- Start date
Buy term life insurance and invest the difference in mutual funds is the extent of their financial advice, literally.
- 2,216
There's only one thing you can say that's good about them. They did force the Life companies to come out with UL. Back around 82 or somewhere like that.
They are MLM and a joke. No life agent has ever taken them serious. Hell, they even recruit on Craigslist.
jcorr
Super Genius
- 121
Just looked it up. For 2022 it wasn't even close. They recruited 359,735 new members but only sold 291,918 policies.
PrivClientSG
Guru
- 325
It was not Primerica that "forced" life companies to come out with UL. Primerica may take credit for that, LOL, but that doesn't make it so, LOL. It was more the overall economic landscape, as well as the capital markets, over the course of the 70's and the early 80's which became the perfect catalyst for -- if not a new type of life insurance -- certainly an alternative or variation of traditional whole life insurance. Now, as an aside, UL (as a concept) had been talked about and studied in the 60's, and more seriously in the 70's (primarily by Canadian life insurance companies), and it ultimately became a major motivation as the US economy and capital markets were seeing extremely high inflation rates, very high investment returns, and very high interest rates. All of this, and more, was a convergence of variables which also resulted in reverse yield curve. Remember what happened to whole life policies during these times.
The original versions of UL were composed with a term life policy coupled with a deferred annuity. The DB was paid from the annuity contract, which created serious tax problems for the beneficiary. Then, in 1979 (E.F. Hutton Life, which was formerly known as the Life Insurance Company of California) the two components were combined in a single policy structure, thus eliminating the need for the deferred annuity. As time went on from 1980 to about 1984, there was a mass rush to the marketplace and almost every major life insurance company had come forth with their own UL product.
While I came into the business in the mid 80's, and was full-time in the business owner/pension/estate planning marketplace by 1988, and being that much of this took place just before me -- it wouldn't have made a difference as I was new in the business and didn't know a thing, LOL. However, my partner today, who was my mentor back then, is 15 years older than me, and was actually involved with a few companies on their product design field committees and their development of their respective UL products. A nationally known New Jersey T&E lawyer I know well helped develop the Met Life second-to-die UL product. All of this was situation and convergence -- the interest rates being "credited" on UL was substantially higher than whole life at the time, much of the early utilization of UL was replacement of whole life policies, and the very high interest rates made that look like a no-brainer, foolish if you didn't replace. I remember life insurance companies that PAY COMMISSIONS TO AGENTS IF THEY REPLACED THEIR OWN BUSINESS! By the mid-80's, UL had surpassed WL sales across the board, except in certain specific market segments. Over time, the major "straightline" spike in UL reverted to a more norm and the product popularity continued on a much more normal scale. The replacement spike disappeared as well, which added to the reversion to the norm.
Then, over time, whole life products started to catch up a bit as the "gap" in interest rates lessened, and eventually disappeared -- with the major difference being mutuals and their dividend. UL interest rates being credited declined due to overall market interest rates declining, and whole life dividends (interest rate basis) increased as the cycle of lower rate assets were being replaced by higher rate assets. We also saw dividends being categorized into non-loan policies and loaned policies (vis a vis par products and direct recognition and pegging). WL companies also developed "blended" products or "term riders" added "onto" WL products. Look at a properly (target) funded UL and a blended WL policy -- and the premium gap is not really substantial, relative to the guarantee you get on the WL portion.
All of this and more brought about UL, and ultimately it being perceived as the greatest life insurance product ever invented saw the perception change over the course of 20 to 30 years. Is that exclusively the fault of the product? No. This is not a total and exclusive indictment of life insurance companies. It's an indictment of life insurance companies, life insurance professionals who were not professional and mis-sold the product, and the industry which neglected the policyholders over the course of time. Thanks.
- 2,216
You're right. It was A. L. Williams to be exact.
PrivClientSG
Guru
- 325
I still say that's BS. Saying it was ALW, another company, this or that, is nothing more than typical scapegoat cop-outs. It was industry action and reaction to desire, economics, and so much more...But like I always say...Opinions vary.
Great. Now average it out over the last 10 years. And while you're at it, compare the count of policies dropping off the books against the number of people leaving.
A.L. Williams was ironically the biggest victim of his own BTID philosophy.
So only 81% bought one? Still a pretty good closing rate. Not many keep them though.
Similar threads
