I Just Started at Primerica. Looking for Advice.

I think one of the best ways to deal with the "permanent life insurance is too expensive"... is to agree with them.

I created the attached as a way to compare term with a base WL and a minimum DB/Max Cash IUL. I simply show them that the base WL in my example is what most everyone is talking about when they say that cash value life insurance is too expensive. After 2 years of paying $10,000 per year, it only shows $23 of cash value. Yet, compare that to the IUL I show, and you have over $10,000 in year 2. Which one looks better?

So, I can agree with them AND show them that I have a better way.
 

Attachments

  • term vs wl vs IUL.pdf
    20.7 KB · Views: 42
I think one of the best ways to deal with the "permanent life insurance is too expensive"... is to agree with them.

I created the attached as a way to compare term with a base WL and a minimum DB/Max Cash IUL. I simply show them that the base WL in my example is what most everyone is talking about when they say that cash value life insurance is too expensive. After 2 years of paying $10,000 per year, it only shows $23 of cash value. Yet, compare that to the IUL I show, and you have over $10,000 in year 2. Which one looks better?

So, I can agree with them AND show them that I have a better way.


Impressive! Another nice job DHK.:yes:
 
Thanks.

In this version, I did a tally of everything by age 65 - and with term having increasing costs per year (that no one would pay) just to show that that is the path that term leads to - especially if you have health issues.

Also, the numbers I put in bold outlines are the "break even" points when the cash surrender values exceed premiums paid.

And yes, my initial compensation is reduced... but my TRUST factor should be through the roof... which should also lead to more referrals.

Plus, if we are obtaining a term rider for their remaining human economic life value, we can continue to convert more and more of the term to max cash value life insurance and really accelerate their wealth building using cash value life insurance.
 

Attachments

  • term vs wl vs IUL.pdf
    25.2 KB · Views: 33
I agree with a lot of what you say here. I have sat across many kitchen tables from PSF agents and their managers. Yes, they travel in pairs when competing. However, I have reviewed a number of WFG IULs this last year. Many sold to lower income ESL people. Sold as a path to wealth. 90% of the ones I reviewed were maximum face amount and minimum premium. Not one person has remembered seeing the guaranteed column. Many did not have an illustration in the policy packet. Many were also pitched a recruiting pitch.

Just saying.

I agree and this is why I decided to do my own training. Unfortunately there is such a focus on recruiting that people forget we also sell. I'm not gonna say I'm the perfect agent, since we have all made mistakes, but I focus more on listening to what people want then shoving a product down their throat. I have a Real Estate agent that's a client of mine and he was with Primerica a long time ago, so all he wanted was term insurance. He now has three term policies with me, this is why I say anybody can sell a Policy, but how many of those you deliver your Policies do they keep?
 
All this back and forth bas been going on for YEARS and the companies are still in business selling products. It's not worth the time and effort to argue.
 
Interesting read with several well put opinions and comments. On review of the costs and charges, I notice that Primerica's APR to finance payment of their term insurance premiums monthly instead of annually works out to a whopping 29.747%. When compounding is taken into consideration, that becomes a "ding-whopper" effective annual financing rate of 34.157%. Ouch!!! - and that's with a zero financing risk to the insurer.

For example, for a case where the premium quoted for Primerica is $665.00 if paid annually or $63.18 if financed to be paid monthly. Another insurance company's quote (and not even the least expensive) for the same case is $515.00 if paid annually or $44.55 if financed to be paid monthly.

While Primerica's effective annual rate to finance monthly fractional premiums works out to 34.153%, the other company's (Ohio National) effective annual rate to finance monthly fractional premiums works out to 8.556%

Before someone who doesn't understand the simple math jumps out to suggest something along the lines of "...but $63.18 times 12 equals $758.16, therefor the difference in dollars is only $93.16 which is 14%, not 34.153%...", let's examine the logic and the figures:

Since insurance premiums are paid in advance, meaning at the beginning of each premium payment period, the amount being financed in the Primerica cas is not the full $665 annual premium but only $665-$63.18=$601.82 (the first monthly premium, therefore is analogous to a "down payment"). Now, that we've established the actual amount being financed to be $601.82 and not $665.00, and since that first monthly payment of $63.18 has been paid, there are 11 monthly installment payments remaining for the policy year, not 12. Therefor the length of the financing period is not a full year but only 11 months. The rest is elementary grade school arithmetic.

The math is simple, the logic is obvious; however, the nagging question that remains is why is that financing rate (whether as an APR or more accurately as the effective annualized financing rate) not routinely disclosed to consumers???

Is it because the companies rake in tens of millions (that's an under-statement) at no risk from unsuspecting consumers? Is this fair?
 
Last edited:
Interesting read with several well put opinions and comments. On review of the costs and charges, I notice that Primerica's APR to finance payment of their term insurance premiums monthly instead of annually works out to a whopping 29.747%. When compounding is taken into consideration, that becomes a "ding-whopper" effective annual financing rate of 34.157%. Ouch!!! - and that's with a zero financing risk to the insurer.

For example, for a case where the premium quoted for Primerica is $665.00 if paid annually or $63.18 if financed to be paid monthly. Another insurance company's quote (and not even the least expensive) for the same case is $515.00 if paid annually or $44.55 if financed to be paid monthly.

While Primerica's effective annual rate to finance monthly fractional premiums works out to 34.153%, the other company's (Ohio National) effective annual rate to finance monthly fractional premiums works out to 8.556%

Before someone who doesn't understand the simple math jumps out to suggest something along the lines of "...but $63.18 times 12 equals $758.16, therefor the difference in dollars is only $93.16 which is 14%, not 34.153%...", let's examine the logic and the figures:

Since insurance premiums are paid in advance, meaning at the beginning of each premium payment period, the amount being financed in the Primerica cas is not the full $665 annual premium but only $665-$63.18=$601.82 (the first monthly premium, therefore is analogous to a "down payment"). Now, that we've established the actual amount being financed to be $601.82 and not $665.00, and since that first monthly payment of $63.18 has been paid, there are 11 monthly installment payments remaining for the policy year, not 12. Therefor the length of the financing period is not a full year but only 11 months. The rest is elementary grade school arithmetic.

The math is simple, the logic is obvious; however, the nagging question that remains is why is that financing rate (whether as an APR or more accurately as the effective annualized financing rate) not routinely disclosed to consumers???

Is it because the companies rake in tens of millions (that's an under-statement) at no risk from unsuspecting consumers? Is this fair?

While it does vary by the company and it sound like Primerica is high, the insurers do take on a fair amount of risk when a new client pays monthly. They lose money if they drop the first year, not make money. Don't quote me on the figure, but I seem to remember it takes 2 1/2 years of premiums paid before the company breaks even on the upfront costs (underwriting, admin, printing, agent commissions, ect).
 
Interesting read with several well put opinions and comments. On review of the costs and charges, I notice that Primerica's APR to finance payment of their term insurance premiums monthly instead of annually works out to a whopping 29.747%. When compounding is taken into consideration, that becomes a "ding-whopper" effective annual financing rate of 34.157%. Ouch!!! - and that's with a zero financing risk to the insurer.

For example, for a case where the premium quoted for Primerica is $665.00 if paid annually or $63.18 if financed to be paid monthly. Another insurance company's quote (and not even the least expensive) for the same case is $515.00 if paid annually or $44.55 if financed to be paid monthly.

While Primerica's effective annual rate to finance monthly fractional premiums works out to 34.153%, the other company's (Ohio National) effective annual rate to finance monthly fractional premiums works out to 8.556%

Before someone who doesn't understand the simple math jumps out to suggest something along the lines of "...but $63.18 times 12 equals $758.16, therefor the difference in dollars is only $93.16 which is 14%, not 34.153%...", let's examine the logic and the figures:

Since insurance premiums are paid in advance, meaning at the beginning of each premium payment period, the amount being financed in the Primerica cas is not the full $665 annual premium but only $665-$63.18=$601.82 (the first monthly premium, therefore is analogous to a "down payment"). Now, that we've established the actual amount being financed to be $601.82 and not $665.00, and since that first monthly payment of $63.18 has been paid, there are 11 monthly installment payments remaining for the policy year, not 12. Therefor the length of the financing period is not a full year but only 11 months. The rest is elementary grade school arithmetic.

The math is simple, the logic is obvious; however, the nagging question that remains is why is that financing rate (whether as an APR or more accurately as the effective annualized financing rate) not routinely disclosed to consumers???

Is it because the companies rake in tens of millions (that's an under-statement) at no risk from unsuspecting consumers? Is this fair?

Do you even math?

$665 annually or 758.16 on the monthly option. That's about 13%. I have no idea how you are getting these numbers. :swoon:

Edit: I still disagree with subtracting the first premium payment. It's not financing, it's just extra admin fees being tacked on. Those fees start from the first month the premium mode is selected.
 
Interesting read with several well put opinions and comments. On review of the costs and charges, I notice that Primerica's APR to finance payment of their term insurance premiums monthly instead of annually works out to a whopping 29.747%. When compounding is taken into consideration, that becomes a "ding-whopper" effective annual financing rate of 34.157%. Ouch!!! - and that's with a zero financing risk to the insurer.

For example, for a case where the premium quoted for Primerica is $665.00 if paid annually or $63.18 if financed to be paid monthly. Another insurance company's quote (and not even the least expensive) for the same case is $515.00 if paid annually or $44.55 if financed to be paid monthly.

While Primerica's effective annual rate to finance monthly fractional premiums works out to 34.153%, the other company's (Ohio National) effective annual rate to finance monthly fractional premiums works out to 8.556%

Before someone who doesn't understand the simple math jumps out to suggest something along the lines of "...but $63.18 times 12 equals $758.16, therefor the difference in dollars is only $93.16 which is 14%, not 34.153%...", let's examine the logic and the figures:

Since insurance premiums are paid in advance, meaning at the beginning of each premium payment period, the amount being financed in the Primerica cas is not the full $665 annual premium but only $665-$63.18=$601.82 (the first monthly premium, therefore is analogous to a "down payment"). Now, that we've established the actual amount being financed to be $601.82 and not $665.00, and since that first monthly payment of $63.18 has been paid, there are 11 monthly installment payments remaining for the policy year, not 12. Therefor the length of the financing period is not a full year but only 11 months. The rest is elementary grade school arithmetic.

The math is simple, the logic is obvious; however, the nagging question that remains is why is that financing rate (whether as an APR or more accurately as the effective annualized financing rate) not routinely disclosed to consumers???

Is it because the companies rake in tens of millions (that's an under-statement) at no risk from unsuspecting consumers? Is this fair?

Not a fan of Primerica but we are talking about what $8 more per month. It is not all financing the carrier has a cost for touching payments 11 times more per year factor in additional cost for a higher lapse rate and conservation efforts and the consumer is left with an option no one says they have to "finance" this through the carrier the could take a loan and pay it back annually and I bet most consumers would stick to the current modal payments for convenience.
 
All most people are concerned about is the face and payment. They don't go into modal factors. Look at Term4Sale - Term Life Insurance Quotes and Comparisons and take notice of the different premiums for annual and monthly. It all comes down to who is servicing the client.

I don't know how many term replacements Primerica does but just from a sales perspective they do put up numbers. Just get to the client first.
 
Back
Top