One of the most successful builders of the UandIwin network recently left the organization. I have met him on several occasions and found him to be honest and passionate about his work. He was successful in other marketing ventures before getting involved in the insurance business, and was very successful within the UandIwin organization.
A few weeks ago his resignation was announced which caused me to wonder why he would leave. The carefully worded announcement made it clear there was more to the story than was being said.
In essence, he was asked to leave because of what was termed a violation of his non-compete. UandIwin offers life & health insurance products and nothing else (at least at this time). This individual had recently started marketing some investment products that did not compete in any way with the UandIwin product line. In correspondence to some of his downline, he mentioned this alternate product that might be a good companion to the UandIwin portfolio.
One person took the correspondence as a solicitation to direct attention away from the UandIwin cause and forwarded the memo to upper management. They viewed this as a solicitation and a direct violation of the terms of his agreement with UandIwin and strongly suggested they part ways.
A high percentage of the recruits in UandIwin, and as a byproduct, a high percentage of the revenue generated can be tied directly and indirectly to this individual. The action of UandIwin makes one pause and wonder just what kind of organization would react in such a harsh manner when (based on what I know) there was no attempt to compete directly with UandIwin, nor was there any attempt to lure producers away from the organization.
The individual who left will now have to move his carrier appointments to another MGA
or go direct. He will lose his overrides that were tied to the UandIwin downline organization (and they were significant).
So who was wrong?
You be the judge.