Allianz Annuity Question

[scagnt83]

I see that point. I wasn't arguing that people should be selling income riders. Just simply stating that no matter what, people still do. When they do, this is where 360 may still work

I know. Its your job to give agents what they want. But hopefully you guys are showing them some alternatives too. Throw it in a 3 year MYGA, then 3 years from now you are making money again on those assets, plus doing the best thing for the client. Its a win win imo.


I think that in 10 years the regulatory landscape for IAs will be much different. And I think that class action lawsuits against Income Riders will be 1 of the 2 major causes. We all know that many of the agents selling them are not explaining them correctly. They talk about guaranteed 7% or 8% growth and the client thinks thats on the AV. Ive seen it time and time again, and not just on IAs, VAs too...

The 2nd reason will be the source of funds debate. Go ahead and get your 65 now if you want to keep doing Transfers from securities.

 

[SanDiego619]

I know. Its your job to give agents what they want. But hopefully you guys are showing them some alternatives too. Throw it in a 3 year MYGA, then 3 years from now you are making money again on those assets, plus doing the best thing for the client. Its a win win imo.


I think that in 10 years the regulatory landscape for IAs will be much different. And I think that class action lawsuits against Income Riders will be 1 of the 2 major causes. We all know that many of the agents selling them are not explaining them correctly. They talk about guaranteed 7% or 8% growth and the client thinks thats on the AV. Ive seen it time and time again, and not just on IAs, VAs too...

The 2nd reason will be the source of funds debate. Go ahead and get your 65 now if you want to keep doing Transfers from securities.

Believe me, I don't have a problem challenging what an agent wants. It's not my job to give the agent what they want. It's my job to make the best recommendation based on what the client wants. Believe me, there is a difference. The problem is that not all of our agents call in for case work. Some choose to rock n roll on their own. That is where things are out of my hands.

As far as source of funds, probably 90 of my top 100 are series 7. So pretty good to go there. I've told you things are different with us. Owning the Broker Dealer puts us in a good position for whatever advisors are selling

 

[scagnt83]

Believe me, I don't have a problem challenging what an agent wants. It's not my job to give the agent what they want. It's my job to make the best recommendation based on what the client wants. Believe me, there is a difference. The problem is that not all of our agents call in for case work. Some choose to rock n roll on their own. That is where things are out of my hands.

That is the problem... not with you guys but with the industry in general. Agents are trusting IMOs to give them the best option. And most IMOs are pushing Riders.

----------

As far as source of funds, probably 90 of my top 100 are series 7. So pretty good to go there. I've told you things are different with us. Owning the Broker Dealer puts us in a good position for whatever advisors are selling

It was a general comment. The industry as a whole is the exact opposite of your firms stats. 9 out of 10 annuity producers (maybe 8 out of 10) are not securities licensed.

 

[SanDiego619]

That is the problem... not with you guys but with the industry in general. Agents are trusting IMOs to give them the best option. And most IMOs are pushing Riders.

----------



It was a general comment. The industry as a whole is the exact opposite of your firms stats. 9 out of 10 annuity producers (maybe 8 out of 10) are not securities licensed.

Goes to my story of being different doesn't it?! Allianz is not the common recommendation anymore. I feel like we make great adjustments when the industry changes.

 

[pfg1]

Thanks guys, appreciate the input. SanDiego, yes... that is what I do like about Allianz, the ability for 10% of contract value. In this particular case, that would be the main reason for going with them. Ablitity to w/d, and still have an opportunity for growth over the 10yrs, but no loss of principal.

And yes, I have my 65 - not that it really matters on this case.

 

[SanDiego619]

Thanks guys, appreciate the input. SanDiego, yes... that is what I do like about Allianz, the ability for 10% of contract value. In this particular case, that would be the main reason for going with them. Ablitity to w/d, and still have an opportunity for growth over the 10yrs, but no loss of principal.

And yes, I have my 65 - not that it really matters on this case.

I know you know but just to clarify. 10% of original premium available. Not 10% of contract value. Just being thorough

 

[pfg1]

I know you know but just to clarify. 10% of original premium available. Not 10% of contract value. Just being thorough

Yep, I typed it wrong, thanks for cleaning up my mess. Fingers and brain were disconnected I guess

Of the initial premium gives steady w/d amounts, vs potentially decreasing when going on contract value.