MM vs NWM

[scagnt83]

That's my opinion. And you are certainly entitled to it.
The difference is I am looking at it from the inside out, you are looking at it from the outside in.
Just because a HO makes a decision that negatively impacts its sales force, does not mean they did not try to lessen the impact.
HO decisions that effect the field are a balancing act
Agents will always feel they are not treated right and there will be some in the HO that think they are paid to much.
That rich retirement plan is still available today.(Guardian)
The only cuts to that plan have been on the HO side.
So I think they are treated quite well.
BTW that is my opinion.
I do understand your viewpoint.

I agree its a balancing act that HO management must keep. And the economic factors dont help the comp discussion much. Dont get me wrong, I respect your opinion, and do get where you are coming from. Im not saying the HO is bad to agents or directly mistreats them.

But your phrasing of "considered royalty" is far, far, far, from the actual real life impression most career agents receive. (in my experience, and that of many others ive known both in and out of it)

And what matters most in that situation??

If the HO considers agents as royalty, there is a reason for that, right? They feel that type of treatment is beneficial to their business model.

But if agents do not feel they are treated that way... is it going to have the desired effect?

The boss can THINK employees are treated like royalty all they want to. But what actually matters to the functionality of the business is how the employees FEEL they are treated.

And does the impression of disregard at the HO create loyalty among the field force??

How do you think that impression reflects in retention rates among career agents? And not just employment retention, but written business retention as well?? (remember my comment about far more biz going outside the career agency than into it with experienced agents?)


Ive always found HO management to be pretty out of touch with the modern struggles of their field force. (I do agree that Guardian has probably done the best job overall of keeping up with modern times. the term repricing is another major step that is HUGE for new agents)

Most HO management has been out of the field for at least a decade, if not much longer. Many people in the HO have never been a real agent.

As WMSG mentioned, its not just about the comp/benefits. Its about the overall vibe given out by management towards the field force. They are a "necessary" part of business functions to keep acquiring more of "their" clients.

And it shows most in the training and support given to new agents. Almost everything about the modern career agent sales training is to benefit the Carrier.

Pushing ART, pushing project 100s, pushing ratings over product substance, pushing 1st year agents to get securities licensed, I could go on and on and on. Most end up selling just a handful of policies to close friends and family. 1 year later, the agent is gone, but the carrier has "their" clients and "their" premiums being paid to them for the next 10-50 years.

Oh, and now that the agent has burned through their project 100 with products that were less than competitive. They now have to go back later to re-approach them and hope they can make traction in the new dynamic they have established... which is not easy to do at first and takes time. Oh, and the people on that project 100, they are now probably being called on by that career shop if you ever shared that info with management. And approaching "your circle" is usually not that great of an idea at first other than a few select friends or family who understand that you are learning, because you dont know what the hell you are doing. You will miss things on cases your first year and do things different than once you gain experience. You dont want that to be with "your circle" of acquaintances as an agent... but as the carrier.... it doesnt matter one bit if you dont care about the agents well being. So like I said, it shows in many different ways once you have the perspective of experience and knowledge of the full situation new agents are put through.

 

[Lloyds of Lubbock]

How you feel and facts are two different things.
I also understand perception = reality to some. (Me included)
I also was an agent and now I am a broker so I see the viewpoints from different perspectives.
Most policies written by agents that failed tend to lapse they do not benefit the carrier.
I appreciate you taking the time and effort to communicate your viewpoint.
So like I said, it shows in many different ways once you have the perspective of experience and knowledge of the full situation new agents are put through.
I do know this perspectrive as I was a new agent. I was hounded by my manager every week that I needed 2 apps per week.
I ended up in the HO in a very roundabout way.
I never intended to be there for more than a year or two.
20 years later I retired.
At the end of the day it is a business. the HO will do what it needs to do to maintain it's standing.
I think we have communicated our viewpoints.
The only thing I can say is good luck and wish you well!

 

[WMSG]

I agree its a balancing act that HO management must keep. And the economic factors dont help the comp discussion much. Dont get me wrong, I respect your opinion, and do get where you are coming from. Im not saying the HO is bad to agents or directly mistreats them.

But your phrasing of "considered royalty" is far, far, far, from the actual real life impression most career agents receive. (in my experience, and that of many others ive known both in and out of it)

And what matters most in that situation??

If the HO considers agents as royalty, there is a reason for that, right? They feel that type of treatment is beneficial to their business model.

But if agents do not feel they are treated that way... is it going to have the desired effect?

The boss can THINK employees are treated like royalty all they want to. But what actually matters to the functionality of the business is how the employees FEEL they are treated.

And does the impression of disregard at the HO create loyalty among the field force??

How do you think that impression reflects in retention rates among career agents? And not just employment retention, but written business retention as well?? (remember my comment about far more biz going outside the career agency than into it with experienced agents?)


Ive always found HO management to be pretty out of touch with the modern struggles of their field force. (I do agree that Guardian has probably done the best job overall of keeping up with modern times. the term repricing is another major step that is HUGE for new agents)

Most HO management has been out of the field for at least a decade, if not much longer. Many people in the HO have never been a real agent.

As WMSG mentioned, its not just about the comp/benefits. Its about the overall vibe given out by management towards the field force. They are a "necessary" part of business functions to keep acquiring more of "their" clients.

And it shows most in the training and support given to new agents. Almost everything about the modern career agent sales training is to benefit the Carrier.

Pushing ART, pushing project 100s, pushing ratings over product substance, pushing 1st year agents to get securities licensed, I could go on and on and on. Most end up selling just a handful of policies to close friends and family. 1 year later, the agent is gone, but the carrier has "their" clients and "their" premiums being paid to them for the next 10-50 years.

Oh, and now that the agent has burned through their project 100 with products that were less than competitive. They now have to go back later to re-approach them and hope they can make traction in the new dynamic they have established... which is not easy to do at first and takes time. Oh, and the people on that project 100, they are now probably being called on by that career shop if you ever shared that info with management. And approaching "your circle" is usually not that great of an idea at first other than a few select friends or family who understand that you are learning, because you dont know what the hell you are doing. You will miss things on cases your first year and do things different than once you gain experience. You dont want that to be with "your circle" of acquaintances as an agent... but as the carrier.... it doesnt matter one bit if you dont care about the agents well being. So like I said, it shows in many different ways once you have the perspective of experience and knowledge of the full situation new agents are put through.

You bring up some excellent points. I would agree with most of them. From my perspective, it's more art over science. However, I think much of that, while valid, clouds the real issue here -- how does the producer feel about the home office and about how the home office treats them? I spoke to three of the guys in my study group today. Each one of them is a top 5 producer for one of the companies mentioned (or the highest production company). I also called two friends -- one of who is captive, been with the same carrier, same agency for 30 years; and another who is with the same carrier, two different agencies, for 35years. Five top producers, each one doing well over 7-digits in premium annually. I called several others, all top producers, but I didn't reach them, LOL. Those who I did reach, I asked them point blank.

I won't hypothesize what the home office think of us. I know what my cousin thinks of me, and the top producers at NWM. He's been NWM for 25 years and is an officer today. We've discussed this before. I have two very close friends at the MML home office, at least one at Guardian, and NYL. Very close friends. We've discussed this before.

I can tell you what I feel, and what my constituents (captive and non) feel, because we discuss it. We serve on field/representative/professional support, advisory, advocacy, etc., boards and committees. We do not feel -- not at all -- like we are treated like royalty.

Thanks for the insight and perspective everyone.

 

[Lloyds of Lubbock]

Sorry you feel that way.
Perception is reality but I have been part of the decision making process from the inside out.
I have been in many meetings when the decision making process and the needs of the field played a prominent part of the decision.
The fact that an agent doesnt get what he or she feels he deserves does not mean he or she was not treated with the utmost consideration.
Everyone is entitled to their own feelings.

 

[Allen Trent]

Sorry you feel that way.
Perception is reality but I have been part of the decision making process from the inside out.
I have been in many meetings when the decision making process and the needs of the field played a prominent part of the decision.
The fact that an agent doesnt get what he or she feels he deserves does not mean he or she was not treated with the utmost consideration.
Everyone is entitled to their own feelings.

i have a unique role that has me involved in corporate meetings, sales meetings, client appointments along with spending a lot of time professionally & personally with the field. I think what is missing a bit in the industry is the field leadership that connects both parties & understands & explains what each is facing currently & in the future. both have had expenses piled on them in recent years & having to adapt & spend more money to make less money per transaction, meaning needing to be bigger with more staffing costs to see the same results or grow. This pattern in itself will create feelings from both sides of being treated worse than before or less appreciated as before. So, better communication by both parties is needed with a channel to be honest & communicate. This way, while we may not like the outcome of what happens, we can possibly understand we would make the same or similar decision if we were in the others shoes. it will only get harder the longer interest rates stay low, forcing products to reprice to be worse performance wise, lower commission rates, etc.

So, while it is far from being the best period to be an insurance carrier or a producer or GA compared to previous decades, it is still a phenomenal industry for both parties relative to some other similar industries that wilder fluctuations

 

[Maxxh66]

IMO, one of the largest hurdles as a new agent at a big mutual is not having competitive term to sell. I probably lost 20 term cases my first year to more competitive products.

Hard to come up with a decent rebuttal for "Im not interested in converting, so why should I pay 50% more?".... LOL. Sure, I would say something like "well situations often change and this gives you flexibility". But the reality is that flexibility for what someone sees as a very small possibility is not worth a 50% premium increase. Of course the trainers and managers would say "we are a more stable and better company"... LMAO

Just think if those first year agents had a competitive term product to sell that could actually compete? Id bet the 1st year failure rate would decrease significantly. Closing just half of those 20 lost sales my 1st year would have been extremely significant to my income and to further my career.

“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” If you understand how to position this and create value on that 50% extra, your clients will buy from YOU. If everyone only cared about price and wanted the cheapest products, we’d all be driving a Kia to get from point A to point B. Kinda off topic, but would you want your recently licensed daughter driving a small Kia or a car from a well-manufactured maker?

 

[Lloyds of Lubbock]

“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.”
I have heard this a 1000 times.
In reality most people never convert their term insurance.
If someone bought Bankers Life instead of NML and died within the coverage period, the claim wold be paid.
For those that want to convert and have permanent insurance you are right,
For the masses the value is in the saving of premium.
The ability to convert to something you will never buy is not value.

 

[DHK]

If everyone only cared about price and wanted the cheapest products, we’d all be driving a Kia to get from point A to point B. Kinda off topic, but would you want your recently licensed daughter driving a small Kia or a car from a well-manufactured maker?

Um... Doug DeMuro sold his Mercedes Benz E63 wagon... for a Kia Stinger.

 

[scagnt83]

“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” If you understand how to position this and create value on that 50% extra, your clients will buy from YOU. If everyone only cared about price and wanted the cheapest products, we’d all be driving a Kia to get from point A to point B. Kinda off topic, but would you want your recently licensed daughter driving a small Kia or a car from a well-manufactured maker?

@Lloyds of Lubbock is correct, LIMRA stats show the vast majority of term clients who have the ability to convert do not. Their stats also show the majority of term clients are not interested in a convertible policy.

So conversion ability aside, what exactly makes a term policy from the major 4 mutuals a better "value" than the competition?

Can you articulate the reasons why a AAA rated carrier costing $200/m is a better value than a AA rated carrier costing $150/m?

We arent talking about B rated carriers here. These are A and AA rated carriers with billions in Reserves. Many have history dating back for 100+ years (to use a sales line from my former mutual career).


----

If a client wants to convert their policy, then the major mutuals should certainly be considered.

Which one, depends on the type of needs and wants the client has for their future life insurance.

But most conversions are looking to maximize DB per dollar of premium. That means GUL or a protection focused WL. Not exactly what the big 4 mutuals are well known for. However, MM has a very competitive GUL, & Guardian has a fairly competitive protection focused WL (WL121). NYL or NWM could have come out with something, but last I checked, neither had something I considered competitive that was protection focused.

Point being, even if you factor conversions into the picture. The big 4 mutuals are not all they try to claim to be. Especially considering the limited conversion period most have on the base policy.

----

Back to the main point. Can you articulate the logic behind your statement as it relates to the types of carriers we were comparing?

Oh, and thats a "great" line about the cars. One I learned first week of career sales school. Unfortunately it has no basis in reality when comparing A rated carriers. To imply an AA rated policy is less safe than a AAA rated policy is highly misleading and not accurate. Its also frowned upon by the NAIC and state regulators.

Use the car analogy all you want when comparing features. But doing so when comparing carriers is not a professional (or ethical) way to give insurance advice.

 

[BOBBY GOLDSMITH]

JMO - Not certain if you have made a decision as to which way to go, but either one is a far cry from PFS... as their concepts are completely-completely different. With respect to mutual WL carriers, most of them generally have limited access to alternative carrier products not their own (often with a reduction in comp), they generally offer higher comp, incentives to sell their own brand. The fact is, that while you can (kind of) meet the needs of a particular client with one carrier's product, and you may even receive better renewal comp (valuable if you go the distance), being independent is truly the one way that offers you the most flexibility to help your clients. I also encourage an independent mentor / coach to help kick start your business and generally from outside of the ranks of any company. Either way, wish ya the best.