Mutual if Omaha Just Left NYS

He's a CFP... so he's got a handicap when it comes to the subject of insurance. :)

Yeah, but it could be worse. I could have been brain-washed by the American College.

----------

I ran term prices across companies and NY was not higher. I took the template male on Term4sale and ran is in NY, Florida, Vermont, exactly the same. Looking internally with one carrier doesn't tell the story.

What he said.^^^

----------

NY Term is 20% higher. Go run an illustration with LFG.

$1mm 20 year term. Age 45. Standard ns

NY- $2,660 per year

SC- $2,144 per year


Same product, same carrier, same client, only difference is the state.


Its not just pricing either. Product options are extremely limited when it comes to Annuities too.


And if you dont think that politics are involved in DOI regs then you are crazy. I rarely agree with Bob about life insurance issues, but there is truth to that statement. Look at what has been going on in CA over the past 5 years. NY is no different.

Instead of asking why NY has higher reserve requirements and restricts products.... ask which carriers/products are at risk in other states that require 100% reserves... show me a state that has major carriers at risk of not being able to pay claims.

NY regs would make sense if there was a significant amount of insolvencies in other states... but that is not the case.

Show me the evidence that warrants higher reserves than what the NAIC already recommends and I will consider changing my stance on NY regs.... but you will not find that evidence because it does not exist.

Plenty of cause to be concerned right now. It all depends on what one is willing to see.
 
NY Term is 20% higher. Go run an illustration with LFG.

$1mm 20 year term. Age 45. Standard ns

NY- $2,660 per year

SC- $2,144 per year


Same product, same carrier, same client, only difference is the state.


Its not just pricing either. Product options are extremely limited when it comes to Annuities too.


And if you dont think that politics are involved in DOI regs then you are crazy. I rarely agree with Bob about life insurance issues, but there is truth to that statement. Look at what has been going on in CA over the past 5 years. NY is no different.

Instead of asking why NY has higher reserve requirements and restricts products.... ask which carriers/products are at risk in other states that require 100% reserves... show me a state that has major carriers at risk of not being able to pay claims.

NY regs would make sense if there was a significant amount of insolvencies in other states... but that is not the case.

Show me the evidence that warrants higher reserves than what the NAIC already recommends and I will consider changing my stance on NY regs.... but you will not find that evidence because it does not exist.

Term is not 20% higher in NY. Too general a statement because there are too many variables like what company, length of the term policy, amount of the policy, compared to what state, etc. There have been times I run illustrations for more than one company and forgot to change the state from Alabama to New York and when I did the premium was the same or there have been times I accidentally clicked Nevada instead of New York and the premium is the same.

NY has higher reserves but I also think they have a higher payout on their funds. I definitely don't think it is politically motivated but then again how many things in life dealing with money aren't? Let's be honest, a lot of money runs through New York City alone. The biggest mutual is based in New York and the same MetLife who was considered "too big to fail" is based in New York. Higher reserves to me are great for the client and no not all companies pass on the cost of raising their reserves to new policies. I have one company in mind that did not do that and decided to maintain there current premium levels and take on the cost themselves.
 
Last edited:
I ran term prices across companies and NY was not higher. I took the template male on Term4sale and ran is in NY, Florida, Vermont, exactly the same. Looking internally with one carrier doesn't tell the story.

Certain carriers might be close. Especially ones that are known for cheap term insurance. Still doesnt change the fact that a consumers choice is extremely limited in NY.. especially for non term products.

And there are plenty that are not close and are 20% higher... like JH, Principle, TransAmerica, Voya/ReliaStar, etc.

----------

Plenty of cause to be concerned right now. It all depends on what one is willing to see.

Then why not expose it for us if all the other states have insurers that are in financial trouble.... sorry... but that statement is total bull sh*t.

AGAIN, name one major carrier that is at risk of insolvency in other states but not in NY.

You have made multiple statements and insinuations in this and other threads that there are solvency issues with life insurers in states other than NY... but you have provided ZERO evidence to support your position. As I said in my last post, until I see actual evidence (and not fear mongering) there is no way to convince me (or any other intelligent person) otherwise.

And if you have the information to back up your position, then there is no reason not to post it.

----------

And I am being sincere about you posting facts to back up your assertions. If there is truth in what you are saying I honestly want to know. But a few vague statements does nothing positive and helps no one. To be honest, it hurts the industry for you to say stuff like that without providing a single bit of evidence to verify it.
 
Last edited:
Certain carriers might be close. Especially ones that are known for cheap term insurance. Still doesnt change the fact that a consumers choice is extremely limited in NY.. especially for non term products.

And there are plenty that are not close and are 20% higher... like JH, Principle, TransAmerica, Voya/ReliaStar, etc.

----------



Then why not expose it for us if all the other states have insurers that are in financial trouble.... sorry... but that statement is total bull sh*t.

AGAIN, name one major carrier that is at risk of insolvency in other states but not in NY.

You have made multiple statements and insinuations in this and other threads that there are solvency issues with life insurers in states other than NY... but you have provided ZERO evidence to support your position. As I said in my last post, until I see actual evidence (and not fear mongering) there is no way to convince me (or any other intelligent person) otherwise.

And if you have the information to back up your position, then there is no reason not to post it.

----------

And I am being sincere about you posting facts to back up your assertions. If there is truth in what you are saying I honestly want to know. But a few vague statements does nothing positive and helps no one. To be honest, it hurts the industry for you to say stuff like that without providing a single bit of evidence to verify it.

Fair enough. Here is a good place to start. Warning: it is not a pleasant read. And the deeper you dig into the substance behind it, the more appalled you will become.

Like any other agent out there, I've been loathe to consider much less accept that the industry may be really in jeopardy. I make the vast majority of my income on commissions just like everyone else.

I just have a hard time seeing how this trend can end well.

The only exception I can see would be if the a great percentage of the distribution force became very proactive in demanding disclosures and holding execs accountable. But that would come at great expense to our time and energy. And it may even result in cuts to our commissions. So, I don't see it happening. It goes against the fiber of any natural salesperson.

But I do think, sincerely, that it is what is needed to ensure the integrity of the products that we sell.

By the way, I'm purposefully circumventing the distinction between a company being at risk in a non-NY state vs one in-state. I think that's an arbitrary distinction that misses the point of what I've been trying to say, which is that risk is present across the board . . . and that the NYFS demand for higher reserves is one very small data point among the more substantive reasons I believe this to be the case.

If you want to explore further, all you need to do is follow the yellow-brick road of information that Belth lays out. It's all there, and all very substantive. Should be enough, in my opinion, to give any rational human being great pause about the state of our industry.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. Here is a good place to start. Warning: it is not a pleasant read. And the deeper you dig into the substance behind it, the more appalled you will become.

Like any other agent out there, I've been loathe to consider much less accept that the industry may be really in jeopardy. I make the vast majority of my income on commissions just like everyone else.

I just have a hard time seeing how this trend can end well.

The only exception I can see would be if the a great percentage of the distribution force became very proactive in demanding disclosures and holding execs accountable. But that would come at great expense to our time and energy. And it may even result in cuts to our commissions. So, I don't see it happening. It goes against the fiber of any natural salesperson.

But I do think, sincerely, that it is what is needed to ensure the integrity of the products that we sell.

By the way, I'm purposefully circumventing the distinction between a company being at risk in a non-NY state vs one in-state. I think that's an arbitrary distinction that misses the point of what I've been trying to say, which is that risk is present across the board . . . and that the NYFS demand for higher reserves is one very small data point among the more substantive reasons I believe this to be the case.

If you want to explore further, all you need to do is follow the yellow-brick road of information that Belth lays out. It's all there, and all very substantive. Should be enough, in my opinion, to give any rational human being great pause about the state of our industry.

Thanks. I will read over the article tonight.
 
You're welcome. I appreciate your sincere interest and the tone of your inquiry. And I look forward to hearing your thoughts, if you care to share them.

Since 2008 the fact that "nothing has happened" YET isn't going to good enough. AIG was AAA rated as we all know, that went well.

Conjecture can't prevent a crash looking at numbers can. Those being the reserves and not those held by a self controlled re-insurance company.

We have plenty of products in NY. The latest riders? No. It's fine.
 
And yet, many insurance companies are no longer AAA rated since 2008... but yet, that particular change, wasn't those INSURANCE company's fault.

For some strange reason, it's a rule of the ratings agencies... that you're not allowed to have a higher credit rating than the country you are domiciled in. Kinda dumb, but whatever.
 
For some strange reason, it's a rule of the ratings agencies... that you're not allowed to have a higher credit rating than the country you are domiciled in. Kinda dumb, but whatever.

Not really. The companies assets and interests are based on that currency... if the currency has gone to crap then the corporations in that country are going to struggle too.
 
Fair enough. Here is a good place to start. Warning: it is not a pleasant read. And the deeper you dig into the substance behind it, the more appalled you will become.

Like any other agent out there, I've been loathe to consider much less accept that the industry may be really in jeopardy. I make the vast majority of my income on commissions just like everyone else.

I just have a hard time seeing how this trend can end well.

The only exception I can see would be if the a great percentage of the distribution force became very proactive in demanding disclosures and holding execs accountable. But that would come at great expense to our time and energy. And it may even result in cuts to our commissions. So, I don't see it happening. It goes against the fiber of any natural salesperson.

But I do think, sincerely, that it is what is needed to ensure the integrity of the products that we sell.

By the way, I'm purposefully circumventing the distinction between a company being at risk in a non-NY state vs one in-state. I think that's an arbitrary distinction that misses the point of what I've been trying to say, which is that risk is present across the board . . . and that the NYFS demand for higher reserves is one very small data point among the more substantive reasons I believe this to be the case.

If you want to explore further, all you need to do is follow the yellow-brick road of information that Belth lays out. It's all there, and all very substantive. Should be enough, in my opinion, to give any rational human being great pause about the state of our industry.

Interesting link. Thanks for a more in depth explanation of your position. I was aware of a few things on the timeline, but the Iowa accounting practices is a new one and does jump out at me.

I will read more in depth about it.


So going back to the state vs. state issue.... perhaps it is better to frame it as "which state is it most safe for your carrier to be domiciled in?" That probably was a better question to ask before so many of the NY carriers spun off subsidiaries in other states.... lol.
 
Back
Top