Liberty National Now Has a Broker Side?

[TristanTLC]

United American is a Torchmark company and they offer a broker contract. From what I know United American was bought out by Liberty National and those offices are suppose to soon become Liberty National. Also, Liberty National is moving their headquarters to McKinney, Texas soon. So I would not be surprised if Libert National starts a broker contract.

The only product I would consider selling for Liberty National if I was independent is their modified life. Its issue ages are 0-80. Three year waiting period and paid up in 20 years. Most graded or modified policies seem to start at age 40 to 45 from what I have seen. Their group term is not bad either on payroll deduction because it stays level and it is portable. Their whole life is pretty expensive and their term is one of the higest out there that I have seen.

I don't even know where to start with this one.

everybody's group term is capable of doing payroll deduction and is portable. It's not like they have a choice in the matter when it comes to portability.

Their term is horrible, have you ran a quote? Their term side is the worst I've seen on rates! I ran them against my WCL, Assurity, JH, LSW, Fidelity, and AGLA and they were the most expensive term of all of them.

You think their Whole Life is expensive? Are you kidding me? Their whole life is extremely competitive. This is the only thing they have that's worth anything. I'm not advocating libnat by any means, but if you're comparing products - this is the only area where they do shine. I worked with an agent who went captive at libnat and we ran some quotes from his whole life vs my Settlers and Libnat was cheaper.

 

[dlj2626]

I don't even know where to start with this one.

everybody's group term is capable of doing payroll deduction and is portable. It's not like they have a choice in the matter when it comes to portability.

Their term is horrible, have you ran a quote? Their term side is the worst I've seen on rates! I ran them against my WCL, Assurity, JH, LSW, Fidelity, and AGLA and they were the most expensive term of all of them.

You think their Whole Life is expensive? Are you kidding me? Their whole life is extremely competitive. This is the only thing they have that's worth anything. I'm not advocating libnat by any means, but if you're comparing products - this is the only area where they do shine. I worked with an agent who went captive at libnat and we ran some quotes from his whole life vs my Settlers and Libnat was cheaper.

I never said their term is/was good. Back in the day when a Liberty National agent wrote term through United Investors it was competitive. Not the lowest price out there but not the most expensive either. Now Liberty National has their own term product that is expensive. Especially when you go over age 30. However, I have seen worse and more expensive term products out there. As for term, I would put Liberty National in the bottom 5%.

Their whole life is not that bad overall. But I have seen better. For amounts under 15,000 they are expensive. The modified whole life is great if you got people under the age of 40 that might not be able to get insurance anywhere else. There are a few exceptions (HIV, AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease, terminally ill, etc.) where they will not insure people. Overall there product line is now one of the worst in the industry mainly because of their new term product and there is no med sup to write and they do not push annuities whatsoever.

I worked for Liberty from 2001 to 2004. At the tail end of my stint was when they started making changes. When I first started working for them they cared about their customers and agents and did what they could to make new agents successful. You actually had classroom training back then and a manager rode with you for about the first 6 to 8 weeks.

Now, they could care less who they hire and it is putting a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of people that enter the insurance business brand new. Puts such a bad taste in people's mouth that they do not want to even try and work for another insurance company. I have also ran across some of my old clients over the years that have not been seen or contacted by a Liberty National agent since I worked for the company. So that has been 5 to 8 years. They also put this big focus on recruiting (which I have yet to understand) and there turnover rate is much higher than it was when I was there.

I do give the company credit. They are great and always was great at paying claims. It is really not the company that is bad. I would say the leadership is what is giving Liberty National a bad name in the industry.

 

[somarco]

Everybody's group term is capable of doing payroll deduction and is portable.

Not necessarily.

Define portable.

 

[TristanTLC]

Not necessarily.

Define portable.

Yes Necessarily, they don't have a choice. If it's group life, and they got it while they were part of the group; then they can take it with them after they leave the group.

There are policies out there that are written on a group basis, but are individually underwritten; those are not true group life and this would not apply.

 

[somarco]

If it's group life, and they got it while they were part of the group; then they can take it with them after they leave the group.

Conversion is not the same as portability. Some group life plans, particularly those designed for the voluntary market, are portable, some are not.

Policy's that are marketed to groups but underwritten are not really group plans. They are individual policies or franchise policies.

There is a major difference.

 

[TristanTLC]

Conversion is not the same as portability. Some group life plans, particularly those designed for the voluntary market, are portable, some are not.

Policy's that are marketed to groups but underwritten are not really group plans. They are individual policies or franchise policies.

There is a major difference.

I can't argue this since I don't know every plan out there. But I do remember the lesson during CLU that says ALL GROUP plans - regardless of type - MUST allow the insured to take the policy with them after they leave the group. If it is a plan that is not true group, then this would not apply. If you have a group life policy, and you wish to leave the group; you can take the policy with you without any further evidence of insurability.

Now, that being said - I have never actually put this lesson to the test; I just assumed the instructor was correct. I have written only one group life plan (AGLA) and this was the case on that plan. If there is such a group plan out there that is does not allow the client to take the policy with them after leaving the group, then I stand corrected.

 

[steveadlman]

I don't even know where to start with this one.

everybody's group term is capable of doing payroll deduction and is portable. It's not like they have a choice in the matter when it comes to portability.

Their term is horrible, have you ran a quote? Their term side is the worst I've seen on rates! I ran them against my WCL, Assurity, JH, LSW, Fidelity, and AGLA and they were the most expensive term of all of them.

You think their Whole Life is expensive? Are you kidding me? Their whole life is extremely competitive. This is the only thing they have that's worth anything. I'm not advocating libnat by any means, but if you're comparing products - this is the only area where they do shine. I worked with an agent who went captive at libnat and we ran some quotes from his whole life vs my Settlers and Libnat was cheaper.

I am surprised their whole life was cheaper than Settlers. Their underwriting is not simplified on small face amounts (25,000 or less). In fact their underwriting is very strict on policies from 5000-25,000.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I never said their term is/was good. Back in the day when a Liberty National agent wrote term through United Investors it was competitive. Not the lowest price out there but not the most expensive either. Now Liberty National has their own term product that is expensive. Especially when you go over age 30. However, I have seen worse and more expensive term products out there. As for term, I would put Liberty National in the bottom 5%.

Their whole life is not that bad overall. But I have seen better. For amounts under 15,000 they are expensive. The modified whole life is great if you got people under the age of 40 that might not be able to get insurance anywhere else. There are a few exceptions (HIV, AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease, terminally ill, etc.) where they will not insure people. Overall there product line is now one of the worst in the industry mainly because of their new term product and there is no med sup to write and they do not push annuities whatsoever.

I worked for Liberty from 2001 to 2004. At the tail end of my stint was when they started making changes. When I first started working for them they cared about their customers and agents and did what they could to make new agents successful. You actually had classroom training back then and a manager rode with you for about the first 6 to 8 weeks.

Now, they could care less who they hire and it is putting a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of people that enter the insurance business brand new. Puts such a bad taste in people's mouth that they do not want to even try and work for another insurance company. I have also ran across some of my old clients over the years that have not been seen or contacted by a Liberty National agent since I worked for the company. So that has been 5 to 8 years. They also put this big focus on recruiting (which I have yet to understand) and there turnover rate is much higher than it was when I was there.

I do give the company credit. They are great and always was great at paying claims. It is really not the company that is bad. I would say the leadership is what is giving Liberty National a bad name in the industry.

I used to work for them and could not agree with you more about what you have said about LNL. I have a friend who still works there and the turn over rate is still very high, their contract for new agents is poor, their term rates are not competitive and their underwriting is very strict in light of the market they serve.

 

[somarco]

Never assume anything, even if taught in a class, is correct.

I have sold hundreds of group term life plans (true group) with multiple carriers over the years and very few were portable, but all had conversion options.

 

[TristanTLC]

Never assume anything, even if taught in a class, is correct.

I have sold hundreds of group term life plans (true group) with multiple carriers over the years and very few were portable, but all had conversion options.

did the conversion require any further proof of insurability? Perhaps I misunderstood the instructor in CLU when he spoke of portability vs conversion, I only took the class because my old firm required their managers to have this certification.

As I remember it, all group life plans must give the insured the ability to take the plan with them after they leave the group, subject to the same requirements and time frame as the original plan (i.e if you have a 30 year term and you have been on it for 20 years and left the group, you can continue the term for an additional 10 years on an individual plan under the same original terms.)

Either way, I concede to your expertise since you have done more group life than I have.

 

[somarco]

conversion require any further proof of insurability?

No, that is why it is called conversion.

You are converting a group term life certificate to a whole life, or in some cases, a UL individual policy.

Portability is allowing you to continue the same coverage at the same terms and rates as the "group" plan.