BGA VS Direct Contract?

[TXBenefits]

Ok so there have been a lot of questions and suggestions on previous posts. I wanted some input that is a little more clear.

If I plan to use a BGA that offers the the following companies, which companies should I have a direct contract with instead of going through the BGA?

Please input according to ease of use working directly with the Carrier instead of a BGA (which can slow down the process).

Allianz Life
American Equity
AGLA
AMerican General
American NAtional
Americo
Assurity
Aviva
Axa Equitable
Banner Life
Mutual of Omaha
Companion Life
Conseco
Fidelity & Guaranty Life
FidelityLife
Foresters
ForeThought
Genworth Financial
Great American
GTL
Guarantee Trust Life
Guardian
The Hartford
Integrity Life
John Hancock
Legal & General
LSW
Lincoln Financial Group
MetLife


I have heard ANICO is a great company to contract directly with, while other companies are just a pain to deal with- thus a BGA is a huge asset.

So... which witch is which?

 

[Tahoe Ray]

You cannot contract directly with a number of those carriers.

If you're working with a BGA that slows down your processing...find a new BGA.

You also need to look at your comp. Some BGAs can pay you more than a direct contract. Even at street, you'll get more credit towards your overall production.

Also, you have some NY companies on this list...if you're going to do business in NY, make sure that your BGA knows what they're doing.

 

[Stephen]

I view client relations and carrier relations as two separate components of the business.

For the same commission level, if I can have a team keep up with product changes, new products, certification requirements, contracting, new business processing, follow up, and assist with case design while I focus on the client relationship, that makes a lot of sense to me. In a nutshell: Less crap for me to deal with.

 

[Cash]

Other than ANICO and Fidelity i don't think you can contract direct with the rest and be independent. I wouldn't contract direct unless you plan on doing a lot of business with that carrier.

 

[peteybear]

I think the original poster is confused. There's some co's that require you to submit business thru a bga or imo and there's other co's you get licensed with that you're under somebody but you can deal directly with the company like lincoln or North American. I do agree being with co's like pru and met life and having to send all business threw the imo sucks crap.

 

[TXBenefits]

I think the original poster is confused. There's some co's that require you to submit business thru a bga or imo and there's other co's you get licensed with that you're under somebody but you can deal directly with the company like lincoln or North American. I do agree being with co's like pru and met life and having to send all business threw the imo sucks crap.

Petey gets what I'm asking...

 

[Tahoe Ray]

Petey gets what I'm asking...

A direct contract is different than dealing directly with the carrier...

 

[TXBenefits]

A direct contract is different than dealing directly with the carrier...

Thank you.
That being said...

 

[CFP83]

TXbenefits....you post brings up a great question that all independents face.

I would say a couple things:
-as has been said, not in your best interest to contract direct with any of the above carriers as they will put u on their basic street payout. The ONLY exception I have found in the industry to this rule is Midland National. Can't get to this company through a BGA, nor would you want to, as they have production bonus's that are retroactive.
-you outlined going direct and BGA...I have found there is really a third channel, which is utilizing an IMO to get a "higher level than street contract". All the comp comes directly to you from the carrier (what a mess BGA overrides are, and mistakes are commonplace) and communicating and submitting business direct to carrier is not a problem.

I have found every BGA I have sent life business to (and they all insist that having them monitor the case is more efficient) slows the process. Mostly all life companies allow for you and you staff to monitor case status online through their website, i don't need someone who was is trying to manage 125+ cases at the BGA read the website for me once a week and then email me.

Hook up with a great marketer, TahoeRay on this forum is one that I could endorse, and punt the traditional BGA channel.

 

[TXBenefits]

TXbenefits....you post brings up a great question that all independents face. I would say a couple things: -as has been said, not in your best interest to contract direct with any of the above carriers as they will put u on their basic street payout. The ONLY exception I have found in the industry to this rule is Midland National. Can't get to this company through a BGA, nor would you want to, as they have production bonus's that are retroactive. -you outlined going direct and BGA...I have found there is really a third channel, which is utilizing an IMO to get a "higher level than street contract". All the comp comes directly to you from the carrier (what a mess BGA overrides are, and mistakes are commonplace) and communicating and submitting business direct to carrier is not a problem. I have found every BGA I have sent life business to (and they all insist that having them monitor the case is more efficient) slows the process. Mostly all life companies allow for you and you staff to monitor case status online through their website, i don't need someone who was is trying to manage 125+ cases at the BGA read the website for me once a week and then email me. Hook up with a great marketer, TahoeRay on this forum is one that I could endorse, and punt the traditional BGA channel.

Thank you, that is very helpful! TahoeRay gives a lot of great advice so maybe I will look him up...