Why are Insurance Salesmen allowed again?

[ajm184]

Shedding light (math and counterpoints) on these WL/VUL products is the best medicine IMO.   Therefore, I welcome these WL/VUL folks to this forum espousing their financial deity.  If a person is considering such a product, it is better to have the collective wisdom of the folks on this board to provide counterpoints versus sitting in front of a multi decade experienced WL/VUL salesperson.  This forum can help/save some folks from WL/VUL, not everyone.  Every little bit helps.

Note, the WL/VUL salespeople who come on are not in it for the long haul on this forum (4 to 8 posts at the most), because these folks IMO quickly realize three things:

a. They don't know as much about their own product as the collective wisdom here.

b. They cannot argue the math against the collective wisdom here

c.  Experience from dropped policies, and having to constantly sell effort provides the ultimate reminder to WL/VUL salespeople that better, less costly, and easily understandable alternatives exist.

I would still like to see individuals have to articulate a 'permanent insurance need' in order to obtain a WL/VUL policy beside checking a box.  Alternatively, a WL/VUL salesperson who has too many policies become non-enforceable over a period of time could not sell the policies through any insurance carrier.

 

[AlexxT]

jacoavlu wrote:

All of them? Do you think the “good guy” insurance agents don’t also sell whole life insurance products?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know everything they do at home or at work, but as long as they aren't promoting them here, it's not a problem.  How about a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?  

[AlexxT]

ENT Doc wrote:

Maybe it’s just my philosophy not to want to ban voices, however silly they may be.  Again, if your logic is to ban people promoting a bad product/idea then ban people who advocate for stock purchases as well

I might support such a ban, but it doesn't seem to be a problem.  We don't see stock brokers showing up promoting individual stocks, and there are posters here who do invest in them.  I think the advantages and disadvantages of individual stocks are more obvious.  But whole life salesmen are more insidious, in my opinion.   I would like to see anyone recommending whole life in a particular situation prove that it's better than term plus investing using real math, or be banned.  But that's just my opinion.

[jacoavlu]

AlexxT wrote:

jacoavlu wrote:

AlexxT wrote:

I think they should be banned 

Click to expand…

who?

Click to expand…

Whole life insurance salesmen.

Click to expand...

All of them? Do you think the "good guy" insurance agents don't also sell whole life insurance products?

[AlexxT]

jacoavlu wrote:

AlexxT wrote:

I think they should be banned 

Click to expand…

who?

Click to expand...

Whole life insurance salesmen.

[ENT Doc]

AlexxT wrote:

ENT Doc wrote:

If that is your definition of an open and honest debate I’m not sure that much of that actually occurs on ANY social media platform/forum 

Click to expand…

It doesn’t occur anywhere else, but there’s no reason why it can’t start here.  

I think they should be banned, because there’s an ongoing thread entitled: ” Inappropriate whole life policy of the week”.  There are new additions to that thread almost every week.  I’m sure WCI can add more examples to that thread than he already does.  So why should there be recruitment by whole life salesmen in one thread, only to have them show up as victims in another thread?   The education and the inoculation can happen by reading the other thread, along with all the other blog posts on whole life insurance.

That’s my opinion, but  it’s not my website.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's just my philosophy not to want to ban voices, however silly they may be.  Again, if your logic is to ban people promoting a bad product/idea then ban people who advocate for stock purchases as well.

[jacoavlu]

AlexxT wrote:

I think they should be banned

Click to expand...

who?

[AlexxT]

ENT Doc wrote:

If that is your definition of an open and honest debate I’m not sure that much of that actually occurs on ANY social media platform/forum

Click to expand...

It doesn't occur anywhere else, but there's no reason why it can't start here.  

I think they should be banned, because there's an ongoing thread entitled: " Inappropriate whole life policy of the week".  There are new additions to that thread almost every week.  I'm sure WCI can add more examples to that thread than he already does.  So why should there be recruitment by whole life salesmen in one thread, only to have them show up as victims in another thread?   The education and the inoculation can happen by reading the other thread, along with all the other blog posts on whole life insurance.

That's my opinion, but  it's not my website.

[Hank]

There are insurance salesmen and then there are insurance salesmen. The long time forum contributors who post genuinely useful content about shopping around for disability and med-mal insurance declare their status as insurance agents.

The guys trying to sell you a bad cash value product tend to list themselves as financial advisors, small business owners, or “other professionals”. They also don’t tend to make an accurate, apples-to-apples mathematical argument, in large part because the numbers don’t support the purchase of their high fee, low yield product.

[ENT Doc]

Lithium wrote:

The difference is that salesmen are not engaging in an “open and honest debate.”  Open and honest debates require speaking in good faith, acknowledging and responding to counterarguments rather than dancing around them, willingness to update priors, and willingness to admit when you’re wrong.  None of that describes cash value insurance salesmen who post here.  The appear to mainly be engaging in recruitment and product promotion.  I have no problem with individual posters who have a difference in opinion, but the salesmen with blatant conflicts of interest add zero value to the community.

Click to expand...

If that is your definition of an open and honest debate I'm not sure that much of that actually occurs on ANY social media platform/forum.

[Lithium]

The difference is that salesmen are not engaging in an "open and honest debate."  Open and honest debates require speaking in good faith, acknowledging and responding to counterarguments rather than dancing around them, willingness to update priors, and willingness to admit when you're wrong.  None of that describes cash value insurance salesmen who post here.  The appear to mainly be engaging in recruitment and product promotion.  I have no problem with individual posters who have a difference in opinion, but the salesmen with blatant conflicts of interest add zero value to the community.

[ENT Doc]

I'll preface my statement by saying that I loathe whole life insurance and it's evil cousins.  I was sold such a policy, regret it, and curse the person who sold me it.  However, there should be no such ban on agents promoting these products posting to the forum.  If they follow the guidelines and disclose their conflicts of interest they are well within their right to advocate for a certain product, however loathsome.  We all know that this product is not good for the vast majority of doctors, but do you honestly believe the response to their post wouldn't dissuade any prospective buyer or provide valid counterarguments?  Do you not think WCI has outlined these counterargument fairly clearly already?  We should have an open and honest discussion and debate - not shut down voices because we don't like them.  Too much of that going on already out there.

If you think whole life salespeople should be banned you could make a valid argument that anyone promoting stock purchasing should be banned, because the evidence shows that's a bad practice.  Similar to whole life, there is a benefit to the person buying that stock.  But the question is whether that is the best of the choices given the risks involved.  No good argument can be made for stock purchasing over index fund investing for the common doc/professional on this board.  But their opinion should be heard, and we should respond in kind.  Echo chambers are dangerous, and we need dissenting opinions to keep us honest.

[Hatton]

Maybe a non-recommended insurance agent post should be shown with a yellow background.....Caution.  Then a newbie forum reader would hopefully view the post with a grain of salt.

[MPMD]

Not an overwhelming problem at the moment, something to keep an eye on and if this forum starts to become a haven for WL salesman then might be worthwhile to think of options.

The CAPTCHA suggestion was absolutely hilarious, the problem is that the answer will always be "well every client is different we should meet and go over a personalized plan for you."

[jacoavlu]

Peds wrote:

jacoavlu wrote:

WCI has said it, and I respect it, that the goal is not to ban people, but rather certain behavior.

Click to expand…

another thought….why not make them actually answer the questions asked/prove their statements with actual data before they are allowed to progress and respond to anything else…..?

Click to expand...

what questions/statements? I don't get it.

Any new user's first post has to be mod approved before it posts to the forum. You may surprised how much straight up spam/solicitation is screened out by this.