100 Insurers Message Board

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Primerica

Comments:
: See my caps below: : : : your comment.."Secondly, where I live, they study the same insurance manuals and take the same exams everyone else takes to get their license. So, at least at entry level, they have roughly the same knowledge about all forms of insurance as everyone else" : : : You have to be kidding??? You actually think the state insurance license qualifies one as an educated insurance advisor? : : Again, you make assumptions based on the absence of information: where I live may not be where you live. But I assume by "state license" you mean any government issued license. : STATES ISSUE INSURANCE LICENSES, NOT "ANY" GOVERNMENT OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ITS SCARY YOU DON'T KNOW THIS! : : My comment was, where I live, all those who want to sell insurance have to qualify by passing the same government exam; therefore, at entry level, all agents, regardless of what company they are sponsored by, are roughly on the same footing. : : INDEED, passing the exam and receiving a government issued license DOES legally qualify a person as educated to sell life insurance and to offer life insurance advice. : AGAIN, ITS ISSUED BY A STATE, LETS BE CLEAR ON THAT. ALSO, THE INSURANCE LICENSE DOESN'T MEAN ONE IS EDUCATED. IT MEANS ONE IS ALLOWED TO SOLICIT LIFE INSURANCE APPLICATIONS. : THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE HERE. : : : All it does it allow anyone who holds it to sell insurance...thats all. : : I would add to that that it allows a person to advise a client on the kinds of policies that exist, and to offer advice about what kind of policy best meets their needs. I'm not talking about a full-blown financial planner, but I'm talking about life insurance. There is no regulation where I come from prohibiting a licensed insurance agent from giving life insurance advise. If you believe otherwise, cite the regulation that prohibits a life insurance agent from giving advice on life insurance. It's ludicrous to suppose that a person would be prohibited from offering advice about the products he sells. : YOU CLEARLY MISS THE POINT. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING A LICENSE TO GIVE ADVICE AND BEING KNWOLEDGEABLE ABOUT THAT ADVICE. GETTING THE INSURANCE LICENSE IS ONLY STEP ONE. ONCE YOU GET THE LICENSE THERE IS SO MUCH STILL TO LEARN. I WOULD NEVER TAKE THE ADVICE FROM AN AGENT JUST BECAUSE HE OR SHE HAS JUST PASSED A STATE (YES, STATE) INSURANCE EXAM AND CAN NOW SELL INSURANCE. : YOU ARE FOOLISH TO THINK THAT AGENT CAN GIVE PROPER ADVICE WITHOUT ANY EXPEREINCE, HAVING A MENTOR, OR FURTHER EDUCATION. : : : : You don't have a clue about what you are talking about and I refuse to converse with you until you prove you are educated in these topics. : : Okay, sorry you feel that way. But I won't be posting any personal information as "proof" of my qualifications. There are a lot of kooks on the net who abuse that kind of information. : : : As for your other comments. YOU need to prove your case! : : If you're talking about my argument that it's unrealistic and biased to single out one insurance company for deceptive practices over another, I think I already have proven my point. : : I gave you the link to insure.com's list of over 400 insurers who have suits filed against them for deceptive practices. Prudential admitted to training its agents to use deceptive practices. Prudential recently paid one of the largest consumer settlements in history. It's agents, including one of PFS's most bitter opponants, admitted in sworn testimony to using those deceptive practices (search Searcy Law, Daily Transcripts, Prudential Litigation). : : Yet, this is ignored by traditional agents who claim to care about consumer needs, and instead, they focus on defaming the company that has the cleanest consumer litigation history. Did you know that in some jurisdictions, mine in particular, that the insurance agent code of ethics specifically prohibits false, malicious, and defamatory commentary about other companies, their agents or products? : : I find that telling, and I think it speaks to an "old boys club" mentality of keeping each other's dirty little secrets. : : Have a GREAT day. : : : : : : : You assume far too much and you bring in far too many side issues. For starters, I'm not with Primerica. : : : : Secondly, where I live, they study the same insurance manuals and take the same exams everyone else takes to get their license. So, at least at entry level, they have roughly the same knowledge about all forms of insurance as everyone else. : : : : According to your argument, if I don't agree with you, that makes me wrong: you said a person who earns $200,000 should have cash value insurance, and you then say "and if you don't think so, then you surely prove my point that you lack any knowledge of cash value insurance." : : : : So, your argument, without providing any proof, is that if I disagree, I've proved your point? I laugh out loud at that notion, since you present absolutely no evidence to support any of your arguments. : : : : I have yet to find a critic of term insurance, unless that person is looking for a fat CV commission, or unless that person is upset that someone has critisized the traditional industry for the obvious and now well-known abuses of the public confidence over the last two decades. : : : : Get back to me when you have a REAL argument. : : : : : : : : : : : : "I "bash" primerica simply because of the BS they spew. For example, saying they are not financial planners. What do they use?, Financial Analysts? : : : : : That they talk about cash value life insurance without knowing anything about how it works or when its appropriate. : : : : : If your clients earn $50,000/yr, then sell them term insurance. But if your clients earn $200,000/yr then you'd better consider cash value life insurance, because odds are that its appropriate. (and if you don't think so, then you surely prove my point that you lack any knowledge of cash value insurance) : : : : : This BS that pfsers state that by investing in mutual funds (expensive ones too)that everyone will be self-insured at retirement and or not need life insurance at retirmenet or older ages. : : : : : Their belief that what they learn from the primerica "text book" is more educational than taking CFP, CLU courses. (I guess if you can't become a CFP you'd down play its relevance) : : : : : The conflict of interest of selling only one (or a few) life companies only and selling mainly smith barney mutual funds. All good for primerica, none good for the client. : : : : : ALL pfsers claim cash value life insurance is bad or a rip off. However, every explanation I ever got was wrong! : : : : : Don't tell me its a rip off, when you reasoning is inaccurate. Your conclusion is then WRONG! : : : : : Educate yourself outside of primerica, then come to your own conclusion....pfsers can't and won't...so I will "bash away"!!!! : : : : : : : : : : : First, you are wrong about primerica not being involved in any lawsuits. : : : : : : What I said is, of the over 450 hits returned on a search on insure.com, none named Primerica. I didn't say anything about Primerica not being involved in any lawsuits. : : : : : : :Lets clear that up right now. : : : : : : It doesn't need clearing up, since I didn't say that. : : : : : : : Most, if not all insurance companies have been involved in some sort of lawsuit over the past several decades...primerica included. : : : : : : That is my point exactly, yet there is a disproportionate amount of discussion about Primerica here. : : : : : : : I also agree that a number of agents outside of primerica have little knowledge of life insurance and whether intentionally or not, misled and misguided clients about life insurance, such as vanishing premium. : : : : : : Absolutely. : : : : : : : There are many agents that lack the knowledge and education on life insurance. : : : : : : : My point is that primerica reps are taught that anything but term life is essentially "evil" Thats a bunch of crap! : : : : : : I have never heard any company rep. describe any product as "evil," although I've heard them say cash value is a "rip-off." I tend to agree. : : : : : : : I have yet to meet a pfser who understands cash value life insurance, so its wrong for them to make recommendations on it in my opinion. : : : : : : I don't think a person has to become an expert. If we all had to be experts in every product we used, we'd all be geniuses. But between consumer reports, lawsuits, and books written by experts on the subject, it seems reasonable to come to the decision that there are serious problems with CV. : : : : : : : Just because the company they work for says "no" to cash value life doesn't mean its right. : : : : : : Doesn't mean its wrong either. It's a matter of opinion. I happen to agree that CV insurance is a high-cost, low-value product, even when the salesmen don't misrepresent it. : : : : : : : I'm not much for this captive agency stuff (which primerica is, I don't care what you say) : : : : : : The point I was making is that there sure are a lot of criticisms about Prime America on this site, but out of all the companies out there, they seem to have the cleanest public record. How do you explain that? : : : : : : : The best route is to be an independent planner and broker. This gives you and the client the most options and you can be as unbias as possible. : : : : : : : Finally, another serious problem with primerica is that they tell their reps that they are not financial planners. BS. I don't care what name you come up with, what you tell the world you do IS financial planning (or your attempt at it). : : : : : : : : : : : : : Saying you're NOT, is just a marketing scheme. Being in this business, you should becoem a CFP, CLU, ChFC, etc. This is REAL education. : : : : : : :These designations doesn't mean you have to sell cash value life insurance, but it does teach you how any life insurance works and thats what really matters. In the end, independence is whats best for the reps and the clients. Anything else, results in being bias. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Enrique may be off base, and I admit there's better ways to make a point, but this focus on bashing one company doesn't make sense, given the facts. Any amount of research reveals that traditional companies and agents have, for at least the last 25 years, severely abused consumers. : : : : : : : : Do a search using "lawsuits" as the search term on the insure.com website. You'll get over 450 hits, and none of them involve an action against Primerica. : : : : : : : : The most common deceptive ploy companies and their agents have used over the past 25 years is the "vanishing premium" deception -- Prudential, Knights of Columbus, General American, Provident Mutual, Lincoln National, the list is a long one. : : : : : : : : But that's not all traditional company agents have done: they've engaged or allegedly engaged in race-based premiums (Reliable Life), price gouging (Farmers), misrepresentation of rates (Conseco), you could go on for pages and pages. See it for yourself at : : : : : : : : http://info.insure.com/search/sitesearch.cfm?search=lawsuits : : : : : : : : I notice these "critics" aren't posting their own company names, but dump all over one company. Embarassed? I would be. The one thing these agents have gotten right every time is that the consumer has been given a good fleecing by traditional agents and companies. : : : : : : : : Vanishing premium? If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Millions of Americans got googly-eyed over the vanishing premium deception, and the only thing that vanished is their agent and their premium dollars. : : : : : : : : I think it's highy hypocritical to be bashing one company. Maybe you're looking for a scapegoat, some company to use to distract consumers from the real issue, which is that for 25 years now, probably longer, traditional life insurance companies have been sticking it to their clients. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Actually, Enrique, the AM Best ratings only mean the company has financial assets sufficient to meet potential claims liabilities. It has nothing to do with the quality of its products, only its ability to deliver what it promises to deliver. : : : : : : : : : Why is it everyone with a criticism of your company is a "loser"? Oh well... : : : : : : : : : : "PFSers always refer to CitiGroup when trying to add credibility to their company. Having CitiGroup as your parent company proves NOTHING!" : : : : : : : : : : Right, because GE Finance has NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to GE...... I mean, you can buy GE Finance Stocks, right? Its a totally separate company, right? : : : : : : : : : : And you can buy Primerica Stocks, too, right? CANT YOU ?! : : : : : : : : : : CitiGroup - Part of the Dow 30 (uber prestige) - #1 financial services company on the planet - PFS is AM Best Rated A++ (highest rating). : : : : : : : : : : Suck it, loser.

Please enter the characters in the image above.