|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In Reply to: Re: Re: Primerica posted by Edgardo on September 06, 2003 at 10:46:45:
Hey anyone,
I've worked a support role in a GA's office where the sales guys focused on high net worth clients. They ran at least 20 different illustrations for each case looking to see which carrier would pay the highest "Target" premium. You know what that is? That's the commission they pay out to the agent the first year. The also sold the projected DB instead of the guaranteed DB which generally ended in 6 or 7 years. At that time the client would need to come up with a ton more premium to keep the policy alive. It's all about the money for them. However, from a purely product agnostic point of view there are valuable arguments for both term and permanent insurance. Middle america doesn't have the net worth or income generally to support large permanent insurance DBs until they've accumulated a reasonble some of wealth. Yet, there are definite wealth preservation and wealth transfer strategies where permanent insurance must come in play. But let's get real. Most people need to learn to walk before they can run and how many people even save 10% of their income consistently. Primerica teaches valuable fundamentals about accumulating wealth for the masses. Permanent insurance carriers are talking to people that already have it and doing the right thing is preserving it or passing on a bigger nest egg to their hiers. Niether one is perfectly suited for everybody. In actuality there probably is a baton passing between term to permanent in a client's wealth accumulation plan. They each have their own markets and I just don't understand the constant bashing between them. Can't 2 goods co-exist if used in the appropriate context??
Just do the right thing and remember someone's counting on you and so is their family before you think about target premiums or commissions or making any misleading representations about a sale.