Welcome to Ohio National- New Advertiser

[BNTRS]

Surely there's an agent somewhere who really wants to know the answer.

Along that same line, I'd like to know who their paper supplier is... Hammermill, Staples, or Dunder-Mifflin.

Yeah nice try...

You and I both know it's misleading to juxtapose "issued" policies against a claim that a company has stricter underwriting with the allusion that it nullifies the strict underwriting complaint.

I've brought this up when you've quoted this before and noted that you've been silent in responding. Maybe you missed it?

And I would like to know who their paper supplier is. That company loves life judging from all the junk mail I get.

 

[scagnt83]

UW is a double edged sword. A company has to find a fine line between volume and financial stability.

Most of the big mutuals have a bit tighter UW vs. the rest of the market. Of course they also have better ratings...

----------

Also, when I was at NYL, I remember my trainer telling us that only around 10% of applicants are super preferred. Then only around 20% received preferred.
Assuming he was correct, ONs %s seem strong comparatively.

 

[sman]

I hear that from time to time. I was surprised to find out that in 2012 (I haven't seen 2013 numbers) that of all issued life policies, they issued 23% super-preferred and 24% preferred. That's almost half of issued cases at preferred or better. I didn't realize the percentages were that high. As far as the tele-sales, it's not important to me but I'm sure it is to some.

I wrote two women five years ago and they received super preferred with ON. They decided they wanted to add some additional term this past year. One was offered super preferred this go around and the other was offered standard. ON's reason, she had a basal cell carcinoma two years prior and she takes an anxiety pill occasionally for sleep (filled it one time in 2013). They wouldn't budge.

The clients were pissed so we went with another carrier who stated we could likely get preferred (faxed them the pathology report prior to submitting app). They ended up offering super preferred. I'd say ON is more strict than several other carriers on underwriting. But I still think they're a great company.

 

[Larry Tew]

Yeah nice try...

You and I both know it's misleading to juxtapose "issued" policies against a claim that a company has stricter underwriting with the allusion that it nullifies the strict underwriting complaint.

I've brought this up when you've quoted this before and noted that you've been silent in responding. Maybe you missed it?

And I would like to know who their paper supplier is. That company loves life judging from all the junk mail I get.

I appreciate your devotion to analysis. The industry needs your talents. But not every issue needs to be put under an atomic microscope - like this one. Even if I had quoted the actual decline percentage, you pose a question that is unanswerable relying on data alone to answer it (This doesn't tell us how many people applied and declined the offer because they got a less attractive offer). I'm sure if such data existed, you would already know about it.

I would appreciate a non-biased factual comparative analysis of underwriting results among top-level companies. Does such a study exist? A statement minus fact equals opinion. My final thought regarding ON's underwriting is that my experience simply doesn't line up with your facts.

Whether I commented on your similar posts before is irrelevant to this thread. This is a "Welcome a new advertiser" thread. As such, it is by nature a "commercial". In deference to Sam and this forum, I think keeping comments on the positive side is reasonable. I (and you?) have benefited from participating on this board -and at zero cost. Snarky posts like underwriting opinion and mail volume are out of place in this thread (my opinion).

No agent out there needs you or me to tell them that there is no perfect company. In 34 years, I think I would have found it by now. With 24 consecutive years of increased life production, they must be doing more right than wrong. I suppose even the 24 year thing could be spun to find a negative in it somewhere, but isn't this thread about what they're doing right?

 

[scagnt83]

I agree with Larry on this one. Decline or not-taken percentages do not tell you as much as you might think. There are way too many variables that go into it to even begin to get an accurate comparison.

Carriers base Ratings off of multiple factors. Each carrier gives their own level of significance to those factors. This is a good thing. Since no 2 people are alike, we have multiple companies on the market that are a good fit for all the various health histories out there.

If all carriers had the exact same UW requirements, then market diversity and innovation would suffer.

ON is a great fit for many people. As Brandon mentioned their 10 Pay is excellent. So are their other WL products.
Personally, I would take a Standard Policy from ON vs. a Preferred with most WL companies. They are very well positioned to pay consistent dividends, which in the long run can be more important than a health rating!

 

[CFP83]

If only ohio national had an IUL to convert term to.....

I wish this company would be more like Penn and realize that having an IUL is not a deterent to whole life sales. A mutual company that does not "demonize" IUL is one that will be far more aproachable to independent agents.

 

[agentjhc]

Wish they still had their 30 year Term as well.

 

[VolAgent]

Careful, people are going to start saying you are being negative towards an advertiser.

Of course, that assumes the people at ONFS weren't smart enough to read the forum before ponying up the fee. I've only met a few there, but I have to believe they were smart enough to have browsed the forum first and be ok with everything that goes on here.

 

[scagnt83]

Careful, people are going to start saying you are being negative towards an advertiser.

Of course, that assumes the people at ONFS weren't smart enough to read the forum before ponying up the fee. I've only met a few there, but I have to believe they were smart enough to have browsed the forum first and be ok with everything that goes on here.

Out of all of the issues agents encounter with carriers, the issues mentioned could hardly be classified as "issues" at all.

If only all insurance companies had "issues" that trivial.

I would say that ON has an excellent reputation around this forum. Of course ON read the forum before advertising on it. And Im sure that they saw a lot of very positive comments and recommendations about them. Which very likely contributed to their decision to advertise here.

(and I would say that Sam allows open and honest discussion about any company/subject, advertisers included)

 

[VolAgent]

Out of all of the issues agents encounter with carriers, the issues mentioned could hardly be classified as "issues" at all.

If only all insurance companies had "issues" that trivial.

I would say that ON has an excellent reputation around this forum. Of course ON read the forum before advertising on it. And Im sure that they saw a lot of very positive comments and recommendations about them. Which very likely contributed to their decision to advertise here.

I agree completely, but Larry was chastising others for not being super rosy (still love ya!).

If what has been said on this thread is the worst that can be said about ONFS, they have destroyed most of their competition.

I guess I should have stuck a smiley in my previous post.