Hello, this might be a dumb question but with alot of advice saying that Mutual companies are better in alot of ways.
What would be some of the reason as a client would one buy say a Metlife over a Mass Mutual whole life.
Or any of the other smaller insurance companies like Monumental etc.
In terms of strength, being mutual, does that effect the product that the customer gets in the end as far as more cash value or anything like that.
Are there ever times when it is a better deal for a client to buy say a smaller company whole life rather than mutual?
If so would that be in cases only like if they don't qualify?
Do you think that the underwriting for companies that are not mutual are less strict?
I guess my main question is as an independent broker what are some situations you would offer a whole life that is not from a mutual company? Since it seems that more agents seem to think the mutual companies are better to go with? or is that just for training and not necessarily products? Thanks.
Hello, this might be a dumb question but with alot of advice saying that Mutual companies are better in alot of ways.
What would be some of the reason as a client would one buy say a Metlife over a Mass Mutual whole life.
Or any of the other smaller insurance companies like Monumental etc.
In terms of strength, being mutual, does that effect the product that the customer gets in the end as far as more cash value or anything like that.
Are there ever times when it is a better deal for a client to buy say a smaller company whole life rather than mutual?
If so would that be in cases only like if they don't qualify?
Do you think that the underwriting for companies that are not mutual are less strict?
I guess my main question is as an independent broker what are some situations you would offer a whole life that is not from a mutual company? Since it seems that more agents seem to think the mutual companies are better to go with? or is that just for training and not necessarily products? Thanks.
Policy size, rates, ease of underwriting all play into it. Not all policies from mutuals are participating and of the ones that do none have guarantees on the dividends or even that the company will be mutual next year ot the year after that.
Met Life is a good example. They used to be mutual and so did Prudential.
There is more than one factor in determining which company to use.
------------------------------------
J Scott Burke
Funeral Preplanning
Life Insurance
Medicare Supplements
Long-Term Care Insurance
Annuities
Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee www.newburyfinancial.com
Newby is absolutely correct. When I worked for New York Life, our sales managers always boasted on dividends and paid up insurance. The problem is if you look at the dividend rate crediting history for many participating policies, you will notice that the rate has dropped significantly since 1990. What will the future look like? This is a good question to ask when a client is paying more for a policy that really has no guarantee component to it like a GUL or IUL policy will have.
Thanks, but supposing that when it is surrendered that it is still mutual and paid the divident would it have been a better buy because it looks like on one of the post they were saying how Guardian, North Mutual and Mass Mutual paid out a dividend last year. So does it cost more to buy a policy that is participating, would that where it would have to be determine if it is worth buying if it indeed does pay a dividend?
Its not guaranteed renewable, great example is American Community Mutual Insurance leaving several markets they previously ruled and those clients lost their plans. Although this discussion seems to be revolving around life not health.
------------------------------------
"The difference between the almost- right word and the right word is.....
the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."
-Mark Twain
Last edited by insureman07 : 01-27-2010 at 05:42 PM.
Reason: more
This is a good question to ask when a client is paying more for a policy that really has no guarantee component to it like a GUL or IUL policy will have.
Dividiends or not, I can tell you with certainty that whole life still gives you guarantees, much stronger than GUL or IUL. That doesn't mean WL is better in every situation, just that it has stronger guarantees.
All good questions and you're gonna hate my answer....
Depends.
Each situation should be approached as a separate situation. Do not automatically assume one way is the only way. You've put great questions up and honestly you should apply them each time you work for a client. Each client may be a different result.
I use Guardian for my Whole life company, but I also still look at GUL and stock whole lifes when I am making a presentation. The reason? I want to be sure that what I am planning with this person stays inforce long enough to show what the policy can do.
I think your questions are great. Check the market and see what's out there. Compare and you'll be a better agent for it. While it is fine to take somebody's word here, it is better to look a little deeper yourself.
Using the phone to set appointments, I would say all of them do that (probably any insurance salesman no matter where they work). When I think of "telemarketing shops", that means dialing and selling over the phone. I'm personally not aware of any mutual insurance company that teaches people to sell that way.
Buying Mutual Products or Not Mutual
Linear Mode
