Insurance Agent Forum

[insuranceexec]

[quote=Charpress;128242]One of the best moments of my life was watching my son's face when he got his first paycheck. He expected it to be something like $700 but it was $320. He wanted me to help him find the mistakes. Sorry son, there are no mistakes. Welcome to the world of withholding. You can also start to figure out from this point that liberals are liberal with your money and that maybe your grouchy old conservative dad had a damn good reason to be grouchy.[/quote]


Careful there Charpress I am starting to like you.........

[emptyeternity]

Conservatives want to nationalize, liberals want to socialize, whos behind the two, central bankers.....they were in charge of both mccain and obama's campaigns, as well as the primaries. The illusion of choice is crippling the effectiveness of representation.

[Charpress]

I don't think I will ever vote for a national candidate again unless they make two firm campaign promises:

Make English the national language.

Dismantle the absurd retirement system that Congress enjoys and require all members of Congress to go to Social Security as their retirement vehicle.

Congress living in a different world than the rest of us is a huge part of the problem.

[padthaiforlunch]

Originally Posted by emptyeternity

The illusion of choice is crippling the effectiveness of representation.

Sounds like something you might hear at an AA meeting (Libertines = Libertarians, no?)

[Paradigm]

But AA is a crock... alcoholism is not a disease its just weakness and can only be overcome by desire willpower and a reason to change. The alcoholic is not sick with a diease he or she is weak in personal will power.

[patch36]

Originally Posted by emptyeternity

conservatives want to nationalize, liberals want to socialize, whos behind the two, central bankers.....they were in charge of both mccain and obama's campaigns, as well as the primaries. The illusion of choice is crippling the effectiveness of representation.

Just because you spew it don't make it true.

Conservatives, where I come from, want to privatize, not nationalize.

Ron Paul is a poser. He drained votes from the party he represents. If he was serious about winning and about his views, which for the most part I agree with, he would have ran as an independent or as a libertarian. He KNEW that he had no chance as a Republican, yet he chose to dilute the vote by claiming to be a Republican.

IMO, the world is too complicated and too disorganized to be controlled by a mysterious group of Central Bankers, etc. To each their own, but conspiracies are just a way to delegate blame rather than admit failure and loss.

But as you point out, I am an old fux.

[sman]

Originally Posted by Paradigm

But AA is a crock... alcoholism is not a disease its just weakness and can only be overcome by desire willpower and a reason to change. The alcoholic is not sick with a diease he or she is weak in personal will power.

Paradigm,

Go do some research. Not saying will power doesn't have something to do with it nor if AA is a crock or not, but study what happens to the brain of a person who is an alcoholic when he/she drinks compared to what happens to the brain of the person that can have a couple with no problems. The difference in the chemical reaction with the brain of the person that is an alcoholic and the non-alcoholic is worlds apart.

There is a NEED for the person who is alcoholic to drink that is stronger than will power. This is due to the chemical reaction. I have no idea whether we should classify it as a disease or not, but maybe you should come down off of your righteous pedestal until you have some factual evidence to back up those blanket statements. You either have never had an addiction or have had a close relative or friend with an addiction. No rational person would ever want to end up an addict.

[Paradigm]

Originally Posted by sman

Paradigm,

Go do some research. Not saying will power doesn't have something to do with it nor if AA is a crock or not, but study what happens to the brain of a person who is an alcoholic when he/she drinks compared to what happens to the brain of the person that can have a couple with no problems. The difference in the chemical reaction with the brain of the person that is an alcoholic and the non-alcoholic is worlds apart.

There is a NEED for the person who is alcoholic to drink that is stronger than will power. This is due to the chemical reaction. I have no idea whether we should classify it as a disease or not, but maybe you should come down off of your righteous pedestal until you have some factual evidence to back up those blanket statements. You either have never had an addiction or have had a close relative or friend with an addiction. No rational person would ever want to end up an addict.

The ? is not whether there is an addiction... I fully admit there is an addiction but it is within the pesons will to act. The alcoholic may have a greater propensity to drink than others but he can choose to stop. I was a heavy binge drinker in college starting thursday and extending through monday weekly but i did not continue it after college. It is a question of will and the reason a person is alcoholic is tolerance level obtained by years of drinking. Three drinks just doesnt give them a buzz anymore so they drink a sixer and later a twelve pack.

Its not a question of rational. NEED is a copout. I may have a need to have a different blond every night but if I want to retain the services of my girlfriend I refrain from indulging that need. Most people drink to avoid the pain of their lives whether than pain is real or imagined. But they can choose to not drink if they desire it strongly enough.

AA is just about accountability and avoidance. The secret is not that it is moderation and self control. Otherwise why is the best addiction fighting method always avoidance or cold turkey.

[sman]

Originally Posted by Paradigm

The ? is not whether there is an addiction... I fully admit there is an addiction but it is within the pesons will to act. The alcoholic may have a greater propensity to drink than others but he can choose to stop. I was a heavy binge drinker in college starting thursday and extending through monday weekly but i did not continue it after college. It is a question of will and the reason a person is alcoholic is tolerance level obtained by years of drinking. Three drinks just doesnt give them a buzz anymore so they drink a sixer and later a twelve pack.

Its not a question of rational. NEED is a copout. I may have a need to have a different blond every night but if I want to retain the services of my girlfriend I refrain from indulging that need. Most people drink to avoid the pain of their lives whether than pain is real or imagined. But they can choose to not drink if they desire it strongly enough.

AA is just about accountability and avoidance. The secret is not that it is moderation and self control. Otherwise why is the best addiction fighting method always avoidance or cold turkey.

I didn't say will power had nothing to do with it. But will power alone is never enough. Eventually, in our weakness, we give in. There must be something that helps us get through that moment of weakness. For some it's their faith, for others the pain of the consequence may be greater than the pleasure of the moment. My point is that there is a chemical dependency. Until one can rid their system of the chemical and then find a way to live without it, they think they have a "NEED" for it. You say copout, I say reality. Many of us were weekend warriors in our younger years. That doesn't change the fact that an addict has a different chemical reaction than the non addict. This is a proven fact.

Originally Posted by Paradigm

The alcoholic may have a greater propensity to drink than others but he can choose to stop.

If only it were that simple.

Originally Posted by Paradigm

Most people drink to avoid the pain of their lives whether than pain is real or imagined.

Again, I never stated anything to the contrary. Although, I must admit that when I started drinking it wasn't to mask pain. At first it was a "try it out and see what happens". Then it was a, "man I like the way I feel when I drink". I never drank to avoid pain. It was for fun. And no, I was never an alcoholic (at least I didn't think so). I have a saying, "Drinking never got me in trouble, but every time I got in trouble I was drinking".

Originally Posted by Paradigm

Otherwise why is the best addiction fighting method always avoidance or cold turkey.

Going "cold turkey" or "detoxing" is necessary to rid the body of the chemical. It really has nothing to do with treating the addiction. Whether it's alcohol or some other drug. The addiction is a completely different issue. It's about changing our defaults. What we default to, who we default to, etc. It's also about recognizing the triggers that cause us to want to use and replacing that desire with something healthy.

Not trying to get "preachy" here, but Watchman Nee said it best when he said,

"The power of sin far exceeds the power of the will. Sin is a law; it is not destroyed by the resistance of man's will. Whenever the power of will slackens, the law of sin surfaces. The human will cannot persist forever, but the law of sin is always active. The will may prevail for a little while, but in the end it will always be overcome by the law of sin".

I'm not saying drinking is a sin. I have no problem with someone drinking. What I'm saying is that we can replace the word "sin" with the phrase "any life controlling issue". We can fight the urge to do whatever we know it is that we shouldn't do but eventually people may give in. Of course, it also depends on a what a person deems as good or bad as to whether they even see it as an issue. Obviously someone like Bill Clinton doesn't have an issue with cheating on his wife. So telling him he's doing something wrong and he should use his "will power" to overcome those urges is useless.

It's good to know that you can overcome everything with your "will power". I for one will rely on a power far greater than me to overcome my "life controlling issues". I find myself being less judgmental that way. Legalism is a tough town to live in.

[Paradigm]

God grants us free will and we can choose to exercise that free will at any time. Faith in God can strengthen that will.

I believe socialization, the choices presented to us and how we are nutured and by whom determines all this. If a parent is an alcoholic or any other learned behavior (homosexual, overweight, addicted to televison) the child will have a greater propensity for those behaviors. But make no mistake one doesnt suddenly morph into an alcoholic, a homosexual or an addict. It is a choice (whether conscous or unconcious).

To say in most cases that one has a chemical imbalance or a drinking problem is not accurate it is that the person is weak in will. For whatever reason this happened (a painful memory, peer pressure, etc) something has happened in that person's past that has caused them to act self destructively and hence irrationally. They have abdicated responsibility and whether they chose to admit it or not they have found it easier to escape than to face their core issues.

To blame it on anything else in most cases is a copout. The best advice to any such person is shut up stop whining and take responsibility and own the choices you make.

If you dont like your outcomes change them and if you do; dont change. The truth is people will destroy themselves out of their desire to feel good.

If this seems cold, I apologize. I have known addicts, alcoholics etc and the cold hard truth is they got where they are because it seemed the easiest path to them. In short: Chaos is natural...order takes effort.

[sman]

Like I said, legalism is a tough town to live in. So happy that I moved out. I still visit every once in a while. But I never enjoy the visit. Good luck to you paradigm.

[xrac]

Here is another example of our wonderful FINRA:

BrokeAndBroker.com at RRBDLAW.com by Bill Singer, 917-520-2836 ::

[bobson]

Originally Posted by Charpress

I don't think I will ever vote for a national candidate again unless they make two firm campaign promises:

Make English the national language.

Dismantle the absurd retirement system that Congress enjoys and require all members of Congress to go to Social Security as their retirement vehicle.

Congress living in a different world than the rest of us is a huge part of the problem.

Add in ending the Fed (endthefed.com) and putting the army on our southern border where it belongs and I'll march on DC with you and the leader of your new party.

I find it amazing we use the army to keep the border of Iraq secure but we won't do it to our own????

I don't care how dangerous Iraq may become if it falls, the danger is far greater with a wide open southern border.

Yes, I'm a racist because I believe we should have secure borders. I know. Fire away you pinko commies.

[padthaiforlunch]

I agree that we need a standing army on the southern border. The southern borders of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado and Utah!

[insuranceexec]

Originally Posted by padthaiforlunch

I agree that we need a standing army on the southern border. The southern borders of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado and Utah!

What do you have against Arkansas?..............LOL

[xrac]

Read what Markopolos says about the SEC and FINRA:

[COLOR=#800080]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_ ... ZmdGlwc3Rl[/COLOR]

"The SEC is ... captive to the industry it regulates and is afraid" to bring big cases against prominent individuals, Markopolos asserted. The agency "roars like a lion and bites like a flea" and "is busy protecting the big financial predators from investors," he said.

While the SEC is incompetent, the securities industry's self-policing organization, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is "very corrupt," Markopolos charged. That organization was headed until December by Mary Schapiro, President Barack Obama's new SEC chief. (HELLO?)

"The SEC was never capable of catching Mr. Madoff. He could have gone to $100 billion" without being discovered, Markopolos testified. "It took me about five minutes to figure out he was a fraud."

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Franz Kafka

You will realize how ridiculous that sounds once you get your securities license.

Amen to that.

[xrac]

Superstar broker snatched from ruins of Wall Street. Richard Saperstein said to be taking his $10B book from JPMorgan to fledgling RIA.

Superstar broker snatched from ruins of Wall Street - Investment News

No wonder FINRA and the B/D's want FIA regulated as securities and no wonder the SEC is stepping up RIA regulation. Between the drop in the market and the flight of RR to RIA there is a huge lose of revenues.

[0b1kanobee]

Wwwdotsec151a.com

Registration to voice your concerns on FIA

It wouldn't let me post the url but you can figure it out.

[SalemInsuranceGuy]

Originally Posted by jaugusta

Well we should all get our security license anyways. It will help us better serve our clients. Will we all use it? Probably not, BUT it does mean we will have more tools in our bag to serve them. So, I don't see it as any big deal myself. Two years to study for a test, not a problem.

Here are some examples that may make you rethink that statement:

FINRA FEE $350
FINRA Registered Branch Office (RBO) Fee* plus SIPC sign/brochures $120.00

State Registered Branch Office Fee* (See State Registration Fees Sheet)
Here is TN for your state:

Individual Fees
Initial Reg Fee $50
Transfer/Relicense Fee* $50
Renewal Fee $50

FINRA Special Registration Review Fee** Varies
Single Session Exams (Series 6) $85
Single Session Exam (Series 63) $96.00
Registered Principal Exam (Series 26) $85.00
Uniform Investment Advisor Exam (Series 65) $135.00
Errors and Omissions Enrollment Fee (Non-Refundable) $1100
Affiliation Fee $900

The RR shall not be employed by, or accept any compensation from, any other person or entity as a result of any business activity, other than a passive investment, outside the scope of the RR’s relationship with BD without the prior written notification to BD and approval by BD. The RR acknowledges that BD may prohibit any outside business activity by the RR, or place restrictions on any such activity. The RR agrees to make the books and records with respect to
Any outside business activity immediately available to BD upon request, including, but not limited to, the RR’s bank statements, income tax records and other financial information. (This means you have to get permission from your Broker Dealer BD to sell insurance, sell a comic book on ebay, or open a lemonade stand, etc. It also gives them permission to look through your bank account, any financial assets and your underwear drawer).

All RRs are expected to produce a minimum of $10,000 in Gross Dealer Concession (GDC). If a RR’s production falls
Below the minimum GDC, a low production fee in the amount of $1,000 will be incurred. (That's right if you don't produce 10k in business they will make you pay them $1000. Most BDs require 50k, 100k or more in Gross Dealer Concession Commission to keep your license).

If a RR is fined a low production fee for two consecutive years, he or she must attain ½ their annual GDC production by no
Later than June 30 of the current production year. That is a minimum production level of $5,000 GDC. If this amount is not
Reached, the RR will be subject to termination for cause (not meeting minimum company production.)

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 1031, a RR may not “park” his or her license with a broker dealer. The relevant portions of the rule
Read as follows. A RR shall not be maintained if he or she: “(1) . . . is no longer active in the member’s . . . securities
Business, (2) . . .is no longer functioning as a representative, or (3) where the sole purpose is to avoid the examination
Requirement . . .” (This means you need to be selling or you will lose your license you just paid all of the money above for. Oh and don't forget the extra $1000 you had to pay them for not producing enough).

Someone else already mentioned running everything through compliance. That means your advertising, emails, anything writen going to a client. If not here are the fines for that: The fine for the first offense will be 0-$250.00; for the second offense, $250.00-$500.00, for the third offense, $500.00-$1,000.00; the fourth offense will be grounds for termination.

Ok that was some of the negatives. Now on a positive note. Let's say you run into a client with $100 a month for mutual funds. That's 5.75% GDC commission which is $5.75 and lets say you get 70% of that. That's a total as earned commission of $4.02 a month.

I could go on and on but do you get the point?