Hi. I'm not sure if anyone still reads this but I am currently in the same situation: I have interviewed with both companies and just trying to see if anyone has any advice about which may be the best route, Mutual of Omaha or AIG. I am starting out as a new financial adviser and have my L&H license. If anyone has any thoughts, I would really appreciate it!
Mutual of Omaha Vs American General
- Thread starter bassplayer
- Start date
- 205
Most of the people here will tell you to go indie and do everything yourself. That works for some but some of us like the benefits of being at a big agency. What works best for someone else may not be best for you, it depends what you want/need. Going with a big agency like this will mean lower commissions but more support and training which can be crucial, especially when you're first starting out.
With big carriers like this a lot of it comes down to your local agency and your local office so see who you get a better feel from. Most people here will also tell you to think about what you want to sell and go with whatever fits that the best. I'd disagree and say what you want to focus on now and what you wind up focusing on in 3 years once you realize what you're doing will be so different don't even worry about it.
I'm with Mutual of Omaha (aka MOO). They're pretty open as far as captive agencies go, and I can write a lot of different products with a lot of different carriers which I really like. Yes commissions are lower than street level but after bonuses it's not a huge difference and with the added support and name recognition it was the best choice for me. In-house they have very competitive term, GUL, DI, children's whole life, and med-sup rates (of course med sups vary from location to location). They have a guaranteed issue WL that is very nice, TONS of mutual fund and annuity options through other firms which will be nice once you get into the financial side of things. If you really like writing Whole Life or other cash-value life insurance type policies for things like Bank on Yourself or Circle of Wealth they're terrible, but once you're securities licensed you can tackle that with variable products from several other carriers so it wasn't a deal-breaker for me. Could be for some. They also have some great group products which is a side of my business that I've been working on expanding (401k plans, group DI, group health through several other carriers, group life, etc).
Another thing that I liked is that they're a bit more lax than many of the big-name carriers out there. I've met some people who lost their contracts with big-name carriers after having some medical emergencies or other family issues where they didn't produce to a certain level. Knowing that if you have a bad year you probably won't loose your job was nice after coming from a place that constantly threatened to fire me even though I was performing well above average. My local office also isn't overly bogged-down with meetings which is a surprising contrast to many of the other big-name carriers out there.
Hope this helps.
- 10,323
I would go with MoO. And you are not a "Financial Adviser" unless you have a Series 7 or 65/66. Right now you are an "Insurance Agent"... embrace it.
- 11,274
The term "Financial Advisor" is not regulated as "investment advisor" is. Same thing as "Financial Planner"... although some will confuse "planning" with "investment advice".
If you are educated, have a disciplined process, and evaluate more than just "insurance needs"... you can probably call yourself a financial advisor.
But to hold yourself out as an investment advisor, you need a Series 7 &/or 65.
If you are educated, have a disciplined process, and evaluate more than just "insurance needs"... you can probably call yourself a financial advisor.
But to hold yourself out as an investment advisor, you need a Series 7 &/or 65.
- 10,323
Not true. Many state consider "financial advisor/adviser" the same thing as "investment advisor/adviser".
SC along with many others regulate the terms in the same way. In SC if you call yourself a Financial Advisor you better have a securities license or you face a fine and suspension of your insurance license.
Of course if you call yourself an IAR you are required to have a 65 in SC. Some states allow a 7 to be an IAR.
Last edited:
- 11,274
That is true. Better to double-check state laws.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
- 10,323
Yep. Everything in this industry is state specific. I am surprised CA is that lax with the terminology.
In SC, often you hear the term "Financial Representative" at career shops.
I was told that you can call yourself an Adviser/or, but the minute you put "financial" in front of it then you must have a securities license. Of course just the term "advisor" could mean a lot of things... tax/real estate/business plan/M&A/management/hr/travel/etc....
- 11,274
In California, we have issues with the word "Senior", such as the CSA designation. However, even the term "Senior Financial Advisor" meaning a "senior/junior" partnership... also isn't allowed.
The only "Senior" designation allowed for use is CASL - Chartered Advisor for Senior Living by The American College. Everything else is more 'retirement' oriented.
Senior Designations
The impression that the CA DOI think, is that by having a "senior" designation, you have a specialty credential similar to a CFP, ChFC or other more 'rigorous' designation.
Of course, California is very aggressive in their monitoring annuity sales practices - whether justified or not.
But from what I can tell, I haven't heard anything regarding California in the "source of funds" issues or other hot regulation topics.
The only "Senior" designation allowed for use is CASL - Chartered Advisor for Senior Living by The American College. Everything else is more 'retirement' oriented.
Senior Designations
The impression that the CA DOI think, is that by having a "senior" designation, you have a specialty credential similar to a CFP, ChFC or other more 'rigorous' designation.
Of course, California is very aggressive in their monitoring annuity sales practices - whether justified or not.
But from what I can tell, I haven't heard anything regarding California in the "source of funds" issues or other hot regulation topics.
Similar threads
