Complaint Review: Primerica Financial Services - Indianapolis Indiana

I agree that this company is a rip-off. I took an interview with them back in August. They asked me to go to a second interview. It was a bunch of people telling me that I will make money but NEVER giving me a full description of how I would do that. I never accepted the offer to work with them. Now it is October, I have received 2 phone calls from the company (just different people that work there) asking me to go interview. I told them no. I didn't like the business. Don't interview unless you want to have no morals and be scammed!!!!

It's pretty clear that the majority of primerica's sales come strictly from their warm market leads. These consist of customers who are introduced to primerica by friends or family. When you see a friend in the company, you tend to let your guard down. That's what allows primerica to swoop in and make sales that they ordinarily would never get. Primerica's financial products have poor value in comparison to those from other companies. If you sat down and compared policy to policy, chances are you'd never buy from primerica. So, without the friend and relative angle, primerica would be lost. Unfortunately, once the company uses up all the warm market leads that you have given them, they really don't have much use for you anymore. Yes, you could stay and learn how to recruit too. But, then you'd have to deceive others just as you were deceived. Is that something you really would be comfortable doing? In addition, the only way to make any money with this company is by sitting across the table from families and looking them in the eyes and lying to them in whatever way you need in order to make a sale. For that, you will receive a small commission. Does that sound like integrity to you? Do you see yourself getting rich by doing that? More importantly, do you see yourself in any positive light when you do that day after day? Remember, you'd have to deceive every customer into buying something. Young. Old. Hopeful. Optimistic for their future and their family's future. You'd have to cheat everyone as much as possible. Is that something that you really want to do? That's exactly why only a handful of amoral individuals can actually succeed at primerica.

I am a formal employee of Primerica. I just wanted to say that the comment above stated by Primerica in Indianapolis is true. "Too often people are extremely hasty. They are in search for a get-rich-quick scheme. They get in over their heads. Then they start the process of deception. They find themselves deceiving new recruits to build a productive team. The problem is that if they are themselves unproductive, how can they teach their recruits to be productive?" "Primerica sees large numbers of unproductive people being recruited by unproductive people. It is for that reason that there is such a high turnover. Lots of people come in, but most leave without ever earning any money. But, again, that is a reflection on the recruiter." My fall out was due to my recruiter. He was very pushy and just wanted the list of people. I felt the company was a good place to learn and educate people on how to handle their finances. I myself am a student working on my finance degree. It just turned out not to be for me. And its not for everyone. I mean if it was then who would all the agents go to? I believe if I would have had someone else recruit me and allow me to go at my own speed I probably would of stayed there longer than 2 wks. For all those saying they wasted time and money. $199 who cares its just money. And I believe the time I invested was worth it. I learned a little about money and what to look for.

Primerica at a glance, through the smoke and mirrors. *More than 100,000 representatives across North America. Of course, each new month, half of them will quit. But, that's OK cause we already got what we wanted out of them. We will need to lie to new people in order to replace them. We call that recruiting. The ripoffreport calls that fraud, but that is such a harsh word, you know? We're just having a little fun here. *Now expanding internationally through CitiSolutions (UK) and Citisoluciones (Spain). Why stop at North America when we can cheat the world, one family at a time? Oh, yeah! *Stellar industry ratings. Of course, every one of those ratings was bought and paid for with bribes. Business as usual! *Dedicated leadership with a vision for the future. In the future, we will own everything you have now. Seems fair to us! *Subsidiary of Citigroup. Yes, that's the same citigroup that was in the enron and worldcom scams. We're back for more and we ain't going home empty-handed! Primerica is in the business of changing lives (our lives, not yours). We fulfill our deviant mission to keep families in debt to us for life and financially broke in a variety of ways. First, we change all your loans over to citi instead of other banks. And, then citi cheats you with way higher interest and fees. All in all, not a bad deal for those of us here at primerica and citi. Cha-ching! Through false education We pretend to teach people how money works so that we can force them to buy our overpriced trash. A combination of resources including our Fraudulent Needs Analysis (FNA), a variety of propaganda brochures, and a phony web site confuse the rules of money enough to let us sell you all kinds of worthless garbage. As part of the FNA, our scammer pressures families in their own homes and deceives them on how money works. Going in, our guy tells you it's completely free of charge, but he'll be pissed as hell if you don't buy anything. Don't think that he's just going to go away empty-handed. For educational information, check out just how many complaints there are here, just on this one site, the ripoffreport. You can plainly see that we've been cheating people left and right. Through financial solutions When a family of suckers doesn't understand how money works, it becomes easy as hell for us to sell them just about any of the crap we offer. Primerica offers a variety of customized products and services designed to make us far richer than we already are. For example, we have no problem with cheating families out of their income, reducing their savings, and ripping them off both short and long-term. As for things like college and retirement, well you can forget about them. Once we get out hooks in you, we'll own you, boy. Through our Business Opportunity scam Perhaps the most exciting way in which Primerica screws people is through our phony business opportunity. New victims have to bust their a*s night and day trying to find someone stupid enough to buy the insurance trash. But hell, we don't care. We like watching the idiots running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Best of all, we maintain control of their income and keep them right down at the bottom, where the suckers belong. Naturally, the new suckers will never reach leadership positions. That's just not possible. Hell, our con is so good that people from all types of work backgrounds fall for it day in and day out. You don't need to look in your local yellow pages, we'll be calling you any day now. So, you better have our $200 and the list of new suckers that we require ready and waiting. We can also charge you a large fee to stop by at a Primerica office near you. But, be warned, don't any of you fools dare to park in one of the good spots in the front with all the Ferraris and Mercedes. No way, jose! Losers like you get to park way over there, in the back, next to the dumpsters and picker bushes.

I never used the word evil in any of my posts. And I don't see how putting forth the premise of an independent agent being able to do a better job for his clients than a captive agent is creating a false premise. I don't care what company a captive agent works for. The point is put forth in order to illustrate options available for those interested in financial services. Why would anyone go into business for himself if the fine print of the contract actually says he doesn't own his own book of business? It's one thing to be a salaried employee of a company like Met Life or AIG and it's another to work for yourself. Isn't one of the reasons for going into business for yourself that you are free from the restrictions and limitations placed on you by a company? Why would you accept and defend those limitations rather than concede that being an independent agent offers much more flexibility and opportunity than being a captive agent does? Your attitude on products is a bit cavalier. If there is no reason to buy PFS products over those of another company then why sell them? You certainly aren't defending PFS in your last post. Look, most PFS reps that post here say that PFS term is the best because it has all kinds of features; SMART loans are the best because they are simple interest loans, our business model is best because you own your own agency. Those statements are being made by people with very little knowledge because they have not been told the whole story. This is one of my major contentions with PFS. They actually defend the fact that their sales force is not well versed in the very products they sell. When I disagree and offer criticism, I get insults hurled at me. PFS reps are being fed the same line as they were in the 70's. Most PFS reps here are saying that enemy agents are still pushing whole life and not selling term insurance. These PFS rally cries just aren't true now. Maybe they were in the 70's and early 80's but they are not true today. And I must disagree with you when you say that a comparison of products and strategies are moot. PFS reps sell based on the FNA. Now you know as well as I do that the FNA looks like a financial plan. I know that it is a sales tool but your clients do not. They are shown a 30-year projection of insurance, savings and debt reduction. None of that is a bad thing, but I have heard PFS reps say that the FNA is the same thing you get from a financial planner and they charge you for it and we do it for free. You know and I know that PFS reps are nothing more than salesmen, but the clients you see think you are more because of statements made by PFS reps like those above. The whole point of the mortgage example is to show that interest rate does matter. A lower interest rate will always be more economical provided that other variables are constant. PFS reps continually say that a SMART loan with a 1 or 2 point higher interest rate is cheaper than another mortgage with a lower rate. The consumer can compare closing costs etc but the interest rate is the major factor in determining the total cost of a loan and not how the interest is calculated. PMI and property taxes are not the issue in my example. It was purely a principle and interest example meant to illustrate that a daily average balance is not what makes a mortgage better. So if it makes you feel better assume that there is no PMI and the client will pay real estate taxes and closing costs out of pocket. You say I obfuscate arguments by bringing in irrelevant points. Look at the stuff your bringing in so you can say debate is moot. The PFS business model is MLM. I don't have a problem with that. In fact the traditional agency structure is very similar to MLM. Again my contention is that even though PFS reps say they own their own business, they don't. And do you really think that giving up your best 2 agents, which could represent half of your sales team, is a good policy? Great for your up line but not so great for a new RVP. These are the points that are in contention on this site. I believe the business model is misrepresented as a business you own and that PFS reps misrepresent themselves to the client. Do you say to a prospect, I am an insurance salesman with PFS or do you say, I am a financial analyst with a subsidiary of Citigroup? The latter is misrepresentation. Are you told not to mention insurance when prospecting? You say that people should hire a financial planner to tell them what's right for them but then you tell them that the FNA is exactly what financial planners charge an arm and a leg for and that anyone who recommends permanent insurance is crooked. Are you telling your clients what you think is right and not what is actually right for them because you are just salesmen and all that matters is the sale? Product comparisons are very valid. Your contractor might build a house with substandard products and a person with no knowledge of construction may think it's fine until the roof caves in. The products and strategies one uses for putting a financial plan together are just as important as the materials a contractor uses. So the weaknesses of the PFS products are a point I will say is important to discuss. And what about when you replace a cash value policy; do you tell the clients that if they cancel a policy that the cash distribution will cause a taxable event or do you tell them about a 1035 transfer? All these points matter even if you think they don't. A PFS presentation does not ask the client what he wants so you can sell it to him. You sit with clients and go through your flip chart and you sell him a combination of the only 3 products you offer. If he didn't want any of them but wanted something else you would use your Tom Hopkins training to get him to take what you could sell. Why would you want to limit yourself to that? Why not find out what is really out there for both agents and consumers instead of defending PFS? The economy is changing and PFS has not kept up. Agents have virtually no on line presence and the concept of but term and invest is just a very small piece of the puzzle. People want a little more safety in their long term investing because they saw retirement accounts decimated after 9/11. There are ways to get market-indexed returns without the risk or to get guaranteed growth. Why wouldn't you want to do these things for a client? I think being able to do all this is better for me personally and it certainly is better for my clients. But I really wasn't expecting you to debate me on these topics anyway. You would rather say it's all irrelevant.

This is exactly what I thought would happen. Skull gives me a comprehensive plan (or, at least, as best he could in this environment), drawing from multiple sources to find the best options for ALL aspects of my financial health. Primerica gives me empty rhetoric, and LOTS of it. I didn't ask for an explanation as to WHY you CAN'T meet my needs, I asked you to explain how you COULD meet my needs. Your failure to do so is quite telling. I think the right choice is obvious. Go with an independent agent who CAN meet all your needs and, as importantly, draws from many sources to find the best products for EACH aspect of your plan. If you're feeling ignored by the other companies simply because they aren't knocking on your door to help you, then give them a call and make an appointment. Common sense says that, when you are trying to find the best way to handle your money, a salesman is the LAST person you want to talk to.

Alaskan Pilot, Your latest post offers of a much more civil tone. Thank You. Company agents for AIG, Mutual of Omaha, the Travelers, etc. do have noncompete pacts as part of their employment agreement. Once, again, it is not a fair comparison to argue Primerica is an evil company because, unlike independent agents, Primerica has a noncompete pact. It is that comparison that was at issue. You portrayed yourself as a knowledgeable person; then you created a false issue to sway public opinion at this site. You offered unjust criticism intended to defame Primerica. As for the limited number of products that we offer; so what. Based on that reasoning, I should not run down the street to buy a loaf of bread at the convenience store because Wal-Mart has a much larger selection across town. [I know this illustration is a stretch; it is intended to analyze the underlying premise of the argument. So, do not read into it too deeply.] Primerica offers convenient access to basic financial products for people who are traditionally ignored in the financial marketplace. Is our term life more expensive than everyone else? If it is, again so what. Among all of the companies, there must be a highest and lowest price that everyone else falls between. We never say we are the least expensive term life. We say it is best to buy term and invest the balance that would be paid into a whole life policy. If the consumer wants to follow that practice with another company, that is the consumer's choice. Most often, however, whole life policies provide a larger commission, which implicates more profits for the company, which is why whole life policies are pushed upon the consumer. When the consumer does go to another company, the consumer is pushed into a product that offers the agent a higher commission. We do not coerce anyone to buy; we are not extortionists. We offer a basic product. You can always come along to try to sell your product too. But, I do not hear you saying that you are having to help numerous people repair the damage that Primerica caused to their financial situation. It sounds more like Primerica is infiltrating your market instead. As for financial planning questions: I said it before, and I will say it again; Go ask a certified financial planner. Primerica agents are not financial consultants, they are salesmen. If you want to know what product is right for you, hire an objective consultant whose advice will not result in a commission. Primerica always instructs its agents to stress that the customer should compare our products with others. If the consumers choose not to comparison shop, or if they choose to go with us; then that is their personal choice. Debates on business models are moot. We are an MLM that is focused on people the financial marketplace has neglected. Whether your model works better for you, we do not care. You have your way; we have ours. Primerica's business model is just one page over from your model in the management textbooks. Both styles are academically recognized as legitimate management and marketing models. Debates on financial strategies are moot. As I explained, there is a statistically normal life. To the degree that you or I might deviate from that life can be accurately predicted based on specific factors in our lives. The actuary tables are not exact. But, the larger the sample, the more accurate the prediction will be. There are always factors like this last hurricane the skew the results. And, there are too many unknown variables in hypothetical situations to provide any substantial insight to the observer at this site. Product comparisons are moot. It is like two home builders arguing whose homes are the better buy. It is the consumer that determines what builder provided the best model for the specific market. It is, also, the consumer that decides what financial product he will purchase. The issue, however, is popularity. Competitor opinion matters if Primerica is a more popular choice. This may result from our marketing methods that you criticize. It may result from the consumer's cost:benefit ratio of our price:product. Citigroup is offering a popular line of products. Primerica is an outlet store for Citigroup subsidiaries to market their excess products through. SMART Loan: I did answer your mortgage question. Apparently this site has restrictions on the number of responses a person can post on any specific day. The response to this post went through; two others did not. In that other attempt I explained that we cannot calculate SMART Loans. We take the application, which is submitted to CitiBank. We present their results to the customers. Again, we are salesmen. We are not underwriters. If you would like me to have a Primerica rep stop buy your home to take a mortgage ap for you, let me know. In the meantime, let us consider the figures as you presented them: The consumer wants a mortgage for $250K. The choice you presented was: Option 1; an annual pmt of: $19,956, with a total cost to the consumer of $348,774. The annual pmt split was monthly. for 30 yrs. Option 2; an annual pmt of: $21,632, with a total cost to the consumer of $258,958. The annual pmt split was bi-weekly for 23.5 yrs. Option 3; an annual pmt of: $23,556, with a total cost to the consumer of $305,515. The annual pmt split was bi-weekly for 23.5 yrs. First, we do not know if you are withholding information. The assumption for an accurate comparison must be that you did factor out PMI, property taxes, etc from your monthly mortgage. Second, we do not know the customer's financial situation. How much can he afford each month? It would appear that the best option for the consumer would be option 2. The next best option would be option 3. And, the worse option, which is the traditional option offered, would be option 1. Option 2 saves the consumer $90K, which is money he can then invest. Option 3 saves the consumer $43K, which is money he can invest in one of our fine Smith Barney mutual funds. Notice that I did not include your stated interest rates in my comparison. It was not necessary to consider the interest rate when determining the best option. As we say, the rate does not matter. What matters is how much the consumer wants to pay each month, and how much more he is willing to give the bank for a slightly lower monthly payment. The majority of mortgage lenders offer the 30 year mortgage with monthly payments. Whether you offer the option 2 is moot. We are not marketing our mortgages in competition against you. We market our mortgage in competition with the prevailing market practice. Finally, you asked where you suggested on set amount for a client's entire life for insurance. Specifically, you wrote: If I need $500,000 in insurance coverage and I save $250,000, it is your contention that I should reduce my insurance. That means that I can never spend the $250,000 as long as my total insurance need of $500,000 exists. If your insurance need was $500K, that need steadily declined as you saved the $250K. Your total insurance need would not continue to exist. Your assumption that the need would continue to exist at a specific level is the matter that I addressed. And, yes! I do concede that you can come up with reasons why the $500K should remain in effect; but those factors would indicate that the consumer was in a life phase of increasing responsibility, which the growing $250K was offsetting. The theory of decreasing responsibility recognizes increased responsibility while your career is building and your family is growing. The decreasing responsibility occurs as the mortgage is paid off, the children leave home, and your retirement savings matures. Originally, people did not have retirement savings options. They were given a pension by their employer. Old police movies show the officer dying a few months before his eligibility, only to leave his wife and children with nothing. Life insurance was to ensure that your family received the value of your pension in the case of your early death. After one reached the age making him eligible for the pension, life insurance was no longer needed. Today that reduction of need is much quicker because people have 401Ks and other personal retirement accounts. They do not have to worry about losing their pension. The economy is changing. Many of the old financial practices are just that they are old. They represent outdated views from the 1950s. Life insurance is one of those outdated practices, which is why insurance companies are rapidly expanding into new product lines. The financial products have to keep up with the times. Instead of wagering a bet against a large insurance company, today people invest that money into long-term securities. Is this for better or for worse? Again that is moot. It is simply the way things are today. It does not good foe us to argue. Argue with the consumer about what that consumer needs. I am a salesman; I will listen to what he tells me he wants, then I will sell it to him.

Alaskan Pilot, Your latest post offers of a much more civil tone. Thank You. Company agents for AIG, Mutual of Omaha, the Travelers, etc. do have noncompete pacts as part of their employment agreement. Once, again, it is not a fair comparison to argue Primerica is an evil company because, unlike independent agents, Primerica has a noncompete pact. It is that comparison that was at issue. You portrayed yourself as a knowledgeable person; then you created a false issue to sway public opinion at this site. You offered unjust criticism intended to defame Primerica. As for the limited number of products that we offer; so what. Based on that reasoning, I should not run down the street to buy a loaf of bread at the convenience store because Wal-Mart has a much larger selection across town. [I know this illustration is a stretch; it is intended to analyze the underlying premise of the argument. So, do not read into it too deeply.] Primerica offers convenient access to basic financial products for people who are traditionally ignored in the financial marketplace. Is our term life more expensive than everyone else? If it is, again so what. Among all of the companies, there must be a highest and lowest price that everyone else falls between. We never say we are the least expensive term life. We say it is best to buy term and invest the balance that would be paid into a whole life policy. If the consumer wants to follow that practice with another company, that is the consumer's choice. Most often, however, whole life policies provide a larger commission, which implicates more profits for the company, which is why whole life policies are pushed upon the consumer. When the consumer does go to another company, the consumer is pushed into a product that offers the agent a higher commission. We do not coerce anyone to buy; we are not extortionists. We offer a basic product. You can always come along to try to sell your product too. But, I do not hear you saying that you are having to help numerous people repair the damage that Primerica caused to their financial situation. It sounds more like Primerica is infiltrating your market instead. As for financial planning questions: I said it before, and I will say it again; Go ask a certified financial planner. Primerica agents are not financial consultants, they are salesmen. If you want to know what product is right for you, hire an objective consultant whose advice will not result in a commission. Primerica always instructs its agents to stress that the customer should compare our products with others. If the consumers choose not to comparison shop, or if they choose to go with us; then that is their personal choice. Debates on business models are moot. We are an MLM that is focused on people the financial marketplace has neglected. Whether your model works better for you, we do not care. You have your way; we have ours. Primerica's business model is just one page over from your model in the management textbooks. Both styles are academically recognized as legitimate management and marketing models. Debates on financial strategies are moot. As I explained, there is a statistically normal life. To the degree that you or I might deviate from that life can be accurately predicted based on specific factors in our lives. The actuary tables are not exact. But, the larger the sample, the more accurate the prediction will be. There are always factors like this last hurricane the skew the results. And, there are too many unknown variables in hypothetical situations to provide any substantial insight to the observer at this site. Product comparisons are moot. It is like two home builders arguing whose homes are the better buy. It is the consumer that determines what builder provided the best model for the specific market. It is, also, the consumer that decides what financial product he will purchase. The issue, however, is popularity. Competitor opinion matters if Primerica is a more popular choice. This may result from our marketing methods that you criticize. It may result from the consumer's cost:benefit ratio of our price:product. Citigroup is offering a popular line of products. Primerica is an outlet store for Citigroup subsidiaries to market their excess products through. SMART Loan: I did answer your mortgage question. Apparently this site has restrictions on the number of responses a person can post on any specific day. The response to this post went through; two others did not. In that other attempt I explained that we cannot calculate SMART Loans. We take the application, which is submitted to CitiBank. We present their results to the customers. Again, we are salesmen. We are not underwriters. If you would like me to have a Primerica rep stop buy your home to take a mortgage ap for you, let me know. In the meantime, let us consider the figures as you presented them: The consumer wants a mortgage for $250K. The choice you presented was: Option 1; an annual pmt of: $19,956, with a total cost to the consumer of $348,774. The annual pmt split was monthly. for 30 yrs. Option 2; an annual pmt of: $21,632, with a total cost to the consumer of $258,958. The annual pmt split was bi-weekly for 23.5 yrs. Option 3; an annual pmt of: $23,556, with a total cost to the consumer of $305,515. The annual pmt split was bi-weekly for 23.5 yrs. First, we do not know if you are withholding information. The assumption for an accurate comparison must be that you did factor out PMI, property taxes, etc from your monthly mortgage. Second, we do not know the customer's financial situation. How much can he afford each month? It would appear that the best option for the consumer would be option 2. The next best option would be option 3. And, the worse option, which is the traditional option offered, would be option 1. Option 2 saves the consumer $90K, which is money he can then invest. Option 3 saves the consumer $43K, which is money he can invest in one of our fine Smith Barney mutual funds. Notice that I did not include your stated interest rates in my comparison. It was not necessary to consider the interest rate when determining the best option. As we say, the rate does not matter. What matters is how much the consumer wants to pay each month, and how much more he is willing to give the bank for a slightly lower monthly payment. The majority of mortgage lenders offer the 30 year mortgage with monthly payments. Whether you offer the option 2 is moot. We are not marketing our mortgages in competition against you. We market our mortgage in competition with the prevailing market practice. Finally, you asked where you suggested on set amount for a client's entire life for insurance. Specifically, you wrote: If I need $500,000 in insurance coverage and I save $250,000, it is your contention that I should reduce my insurance. That means that I can never spend the $250,000 as long as my total insurance need of $500,000 exists. If your insurance need was $500K, that need steadily declined as you saved the $250K. Your total insurance need would not continue to exist. Your assumption that the need would continue to exist at a specific level is the matter that I addressed. And, yes! I do concede that you can come up with reasons why the $500K should remain in effect; but those factors would indicate that the consumer was in a life phase of increasing responsibility, which the growing $250K was offsetting. The theory of decreasing responsibility recognizes increased responsibility while your career is building and your family is growing. The decreasing responsibility occurs as the mortgage is paid off, the children leave home, and your retirement savings matures. Originally, people did not have retirement savings options. They were given a pension by their employer. Old police movies show the officer dying a few months before his eligibility, only to leave his wife and children with nothing. Life insurance was to ensure that your family received the value of your pension in the case of your early death. After one reached the age making him eligible for the pension, life insurance was no longer needed. Today that reduction of need is much quicker because people have 401Ks and other personal retirement accounts. They do not have to worry about losing their pension. The economy is changing. Many of the old financial practices are just that they are old. They represent outdated views from the 1950s. Life insurance is one of those outdated practices, which is why insurance companies are rapidly expanding into new product lines. The financial products have to keep up with the times. Instead of wagering a bet against a large insurance company, today people invest that money into long-term securities. Is this for better or for worse? Again that is moot. It is simply the way things are today. It does not good foe us to argue. Argue with the consumer about what that consumer needs. I am a salesman; I will listen to what he tells me he wants, then I will sell it to him.

Alaskan Pilot, Your latest post offers of a much more civil tone. Thank You. Company agents for AIG, Mutual of Omaha, the Travelers, etc. do have noncompete pacts as part of their employment agreement. Once, again, it is not a fair comparison to argue Primerica is an evil company because, unlike independent agents, Primerica has a noncompete pact. It is that comparison that was at issue. You portrayed yourself as a knowledgeable person; then you created a false issue to sway public opinion at this site. You offered unjust criticism intended to defame Primerica. As for the limited number of products that we offer; so what. Based on that reasoning, I should not run down the street to buy a loaf of bread at the convenience store because Wal-Mart has a much larger selection across town. [I know this illustration is a stretch; it is intended to analyze the underlying premise of the argument. So, do not read into it too deeply.] Primerica offers convenient access to basic financial products for people who are traditionally ignored in the financial marketplace. Is our term life more expensive than everyone else? If it is, again so what. Among all of the companies, there must be a highest and lowest price that everyone else falls between. We never say we are the least expensive term life. We say it is best to buy term and invest the balance that would be paid into a whole life policy. If the consumer wants to follow that practice with another company, that is the consumer's choice. Most often, however, whole life policies provide a larger commission, which implicates more profits for the company, which is why whole life policies are pushed upon the consumer. When the consumer does go to another company, the consumer is pushed into a product that offers the agent a higher commission. We do not coerce anyone to buy; we are not extortionists. We offer a basic product. You can always come along to try to sell your product too. But, I do not hear you saying that you are having to help numerous people repair the damage that Primerica caused to their financial situation. It sounds more like Primerica is infiltrating your market instead. As for financial planning questions: I said it before, and I will say it again; Go ask a certified financial planner. Primerica agents are not financial consultants, they are salesmen. If you want to know what product is right for you, hire an objective consultant whose advice will not result in a commission. Primerica always instructs its agents to stress that the customer should compare our products with others. If the consumers choose not to comparison shop, or if they choose to go with us; then that is their personal choice. Debates on business models are moot. We are an MLM that is focused on people the financial marketplace has neglected. Whether your model works better for you, we do not care. You have your way; we have ours. Primerica's business model is just one page over from your model in the management textbooks. Both styles are academically recognized as legitimate management and marketing models. Debates on financial strategies are moot. As I explained, there is a statistically normal life. To the degree that you or I might deviate from that life can be accurately predicted based on specific factors in our lives. The actuary tables are not exact. But, the larger the sample, the more accurate the prediction will be. There are always factors like this last hurricane the skew the results. And, there are too many unknown variables in hypothetical situations to provide any substantial insight to the observer at this site. Product comparisons are moot. It is like two home builders arguing whose homes are the better buy. It is the consumer that determines what builder provided the best model for the specific market. It is, also, the consumer that decides what financial product he will purchase. The issue, however, is popularity. Competitor opinion matters if Primerica is a more popular choice. This may result from our marketing methods that you criticize. It may result from the consumer's cost:benefit ratio of our price:product. Citigroup is offering a popular line of products. Primerica is an outlet store for Citigroup subsidiaries to market their excess products through. SMART Loan: I did answer your mortgage question. Apparently this site has restrictions on the number of responses a person can post on any specific day. The response to this post went through; two others did not. In that other attempt I explained that we cannot calculate SMART Loans. We take the application, which is submitted to CitiBank. We present their results to the customers. Again, we are salesmen. We are not underwriters. If you would like me to have a Primerica rep stop buy your home to take a mortgage ap for you, let me know. In the meantime, let us consider the figures as you presented them: The consumer wants a mortgage for $250K. The choice you presented was: Option 1; an annual pmt of: $19,956, with a total cost to the consumer of $348,774. The annual pmt split was monthly. for 30 yrs. Option 2; an annual pmt of: $21,632, with a total cost to the consumer of $258,958. The annual pmt split was bi-weekly for 23.5 yrs. Option 3; an annual pmt of: $23,556, with a total cost to the consumer of $305,515. The annual pmt split was bi-weekly for 23.5 yrs. First, we do not know if you are withholding information. The assumption for an accurate comparison must be that you did factor out PMI, property taxes, etc from your monthly mortgage. Second, we do not know the customer's financial situation. How much can he afford each month? It would appear that the best option for the consumer would be option 2. The next best option would be option 3. And, the worse option, which is the traditional option offered, would be option 1. Option 2 saves the consumer $90K, which is money he can then invest. Option 3 saves the consumer $43K, which is money he can invest in one of our fine Smith Barney mutual funds. Notice that I did not include your stated interest rates in my comparison. It was not necessary to consider the interest rate when determining the best option. As we say, the rate does not matter. What matters is how much the consumer wants to pay each month, and how much more he is willing to give the bank for a slightly lower monthly payment. The majority of mortgage lenders offer the 30 year mortgage with monthly payments. Whether you offer the option 2 is moot. We are not marketing our mortgages in competition against you. We market our mortgage in competition with the prevailing market practice. Finally, you asked where you suggested on set amount for a client's entire life for insurance. Specifically, you wrote: If I need $500,000 in insurance coverage and I save $250,000, it is your contention that I should reduce my insurance. That means that I can never spend the $250,000 as long as my total insurance need of $500,000 exists. If your insurance need was $500K, that need steadily declined as you saved the $250K. Your total insurance need would not continue to exist. Your assumption that the need would continue to exist at a specific level is the matter that I addressed. And, yes! I do concede that you can come up with reasons why the $500K should remain in effect; but those factors would indicate that the consumer was in a life phase of increasing responsibility, which the growing $250K was offsetting. The theory of decreasing responsibility recognizes increased responsibility while your career is building and your family is growing. The decreasing responsibility occurs as the mortgage is paid off, the children leave home, and your retirement savings matures. Originally, people did not have retirement savings options. They were given a pension by their employer. Old police movies show the officer dying a few months before his eligibility, only to leave his wife and children with nothing. Life insurance was to ensure that your family received the value of your pension in the case of your early death. After one reached the age making him eligible for the pension, life insurance was no longer needed. Today that reduction of need is much quicker because people have 401Ks and other personal retirement accounts. They do not have to worry about losing their pension. The economy is changing. Many of the old financial practices are just that they are old. They represent outdated views from the 1950s. Life insurance is one of those outdated practices, which is why insurance companies are rapidly expanding into new product lines. The financial products have to keep up with the times. Instead of wagering a bet against a large insurance company, today people invest that money into long-term securities. Is this for better or for worse? Again that is moot. It is simply the way things are today. It does not good foe us to argue. Argue with the consumer about what that consumer needs. I am a salesman; I will listen to what he tells me he wants, then I will sell it to him.

Tim, I'll go ahead and start. Now just realize that this discussion is going to be very general and will use estimates and some basic assumptions that I will clarify as we go along. The funny thing is that the early part of my plan will be very similar to what a PFS agent would recommend, but where our strategies will diverge is in the future. PFS has no plan on how to access the money that you worked a lifetime for and in that sense they are only doing half the job. What good is it to tell someone that they'll have a couple million in retirement savings if you can't show how to protect that money and access it efficiently? Now if you are making 90K annually, your monthly gross pay is 7500 after state and fed taxes, you'll take home about 5500 per month (it may be a little more because you'll get a deduction for the interest on your student loan and 401K money is pretax but we'll keep it simple). Now let's estimate your monthly living expenses (food, utilities, gas etc) at 2750 per month. That leaves you with 2750 to work your plan. If you want 1.5 million in life insurance your premium with AIG for a 30-year policy would be: Preferred Tobacco 332.50 per month Standard Tobacco 459.81 per month Standard Plus non Tobacco 182.88 Standard non Tobacco 227.50 If you quit smoking your premiums would be substantially less so please consider quitting for your and your family's sake. For your wife 750K (with a 10 K rider for the kids) in coverage for 30 years would be: Preferred Plus NT 46.16 per month Preferred NT 61.25 per month Standard Plus NT 76.34 per month Standard NT 89.47 per month There is no way to tell what rate you will qualify for until the underwriters get all the info. But you both could very well get better than standard rates. Unlike PFS, AIG will give you the best rate class you qualify for even if I quoted you standard rates the policy might come back at a lower premium. I never see PFS do this. In fact, I have replaced PFS policies that were placed standard when the people were easily accepted as preferred of preferred plus by AIG. Let's assume for this discussion that you are rated Preferred Tobacco and your wife is rated Preferred Non Tobacco. Your monthly insurance cost would be 393.75. The AIG policies have an excellent conversion feature so that you have flexibility in planning. Let's say the theory of decreasing responsibility didn't work for you because you had a heart attack and bypass surgery at age 50. You couldn't work and had to take a hardship disbursal of your 401K. Your retirement income will be severely diminished and if you predecease your wife, she'll possibly be in financial trouble. At least with your policy you have the option of converting all or part of your 1.5 million in coverage to a permanent plan and preserve the health rating you had when you first bought the policy. With PFS, since you probably won't qualify for a new policy at the end of the term because your health is poor, if you want to keep the insurance in force past the age of 59 you will have to pay annually increasing term premiums. The cost of annually increasing term increases exponentially as you age and it won't be too long before you can't afford it. Let's say that instead of a standard term policy you bought a return of premium policy at preferred tobacco rates for 424.83 per month for 30 years. At the end of the 30 years, you would get a refund of your entire premium $153000. Now let's say you have to convert to a permanent policy at age 59 because of the health problems mentioned above. You could use that $153000 to pay for a permanent policy of 300000. If you invested the money from the return of premium and got about a 6% return, the interest on the $153000 would pay the premiums of the permanent policy until you die. You basically got a life time of insurance coverage for free and when you die, your wife gets $453000 to make up for the fact that you had to tap into your retirement early. That insurance policy will also help you get a larger monthly income from what's left of your 401K.I won't go into how that works. I can't give away all of my secrets for free to people who may be my competition. Now we would start a Roth IRA for you and your wife so that she will have an additional income stream in retirement but explaining all that would take too long today. And if you and your wife remain perfectly healthy, you have all of your savings and still got insurance for a net cost of zero dollars and you still have flexibility for estate planning purposes. WIn win don't you think? It's all about options and flexibility and you don't get that with PFS and you certainly won't get a lifetime of insurance coverage for a net cost of zero. I think this post is long enough. Tune in next week, same Bat-time same Bat- channel

Independent agents only offer discounted products from companies too small to support a sales force. Are you serious? FYI, I represent companies like AIG, the world's largest insurance company and the world's third largest publicly traded company, ING, Allianz, Fidelity and Guarantee, Mutual of Omaha, Traveler's and the list goes on. Are these all small second rate companies??? I'll go so far as to say the products from all these companies are better than the few products that PFS offers. I can use them all, you can't. Tell me if a client would rather see you or me. I have no particular loyalty to any insurance company; my loyalty belongs solely to my clients. I have no courtesy? You put my ethics into the debate not me. The word ignorant is not an insult; it simply means you do not possess knowledge of a subject. My point is valid that you don't understand how independent agents operate because you think we represent second rate companies that no one has heard of and not major carriers. I have no hatred of PFS or any other company. You seem to want to ignore my posts on SMART loans, insurance costs, and my criticisms of the PFS business model and you would rather attack me personally. Do you think the 10 or 15 minutes a day I spend responding to you is seriously hurting my business? Please, I have agents in three states that I work with and an appointment calendar that has very few empty spaces. And if you count the number of postings I have made, you'll see that PFS Paul and others spend way more time than I do here. I consider this a minor diversion and nothing more. I don't need to troll the malls for recruits so I spend a few minutes here and there trying to get people who are interested in financial services as a career to see that there are better options than PFS. It's hard to provide constructive criticism when PFS reps side step points I bring up. You did not answer my mortgage example, nor did you address my points on the business model. You instead called me unethical and in not so many words a loser. I am more than happy to trade insults with you. But why don't you accept my offer to debate products and strategies. If you did, you would be the first PFS rep to do so. But I have a feeling you won't. I'll use a real case I am working on right now if you're game. So you tell me how a person can offset future gains from investments with a term policy, or how he can get 30% more out of a 401K or other qualified retirement plan with a term policy. Or how to guarantee a minimum 7% return. And then tell me why you aren't doing these things for your clients. Better yet tell me why you think PFS is better than what I do when you can't do any of these things for your clients. You also misstated my point on the reasons to have insurance later in life by saying that I suggested on set amount for a client's entire life. Please tell me where I said that in any of my posts. I will say that I probably suggest a larger amount of term insurance than you, but the products I sell cost much less than PFS insurance. (again these are products from industry giants not obscure companies) so my clients get more for their money. The point is to have flexibility in planning. PFS has none. The theory of decreasing responsibility is not a good premise to base a life time of financial decisions on. And if you won't address this premise, how am I to conclude that you understand financial planning? So go ahead and hide behind insults and innuendo. Be like every other PFS rep and run when someone wants to go head to head on business models or financial strategy and product comparison. A lack of response to me usually means that you can't respond. You have no problem insulting me so why would you have a problem responding to a challenge? Face it, you know that what you do and the products you offer are no comparison to what any independent agent can offer.

Alaskan Pilot: Yes, I do question your ethics. You purport to be an ethical independent agent. Unfortunately you do not show any professional courtesy to your industry colleagues. Instead, you use terms like ignorant. I notice many Primerica agents expressing anger on this site too. So, I am not saying the bitterness is one sided. There is plenty of blame to go around. The purpose of this site is for disgruntled customers to express their view. Its secondary purpose is for the company to offer a response. It also provides for third parties, such as yourself, to offer constructive solutions and productive criticism. Yet, you and so may others offer replies that do none of this. You use this site as a platform to express your personal anger. Now, I am busy enough to where I might not play on the internet for a few days. And, with my obligations, such as they are, I do not visit this site all of the time. For the past few days I have had extra time, so I have spent more time here than what I should. But, I noticed that you are here all of the time. Instead of using your time to develop your insurance business, you have dedicated your life to slamming Primerica. I pity you. We must be putting a rather serious dent in your business for you to be focused on us all of time rather than on your clients, or even your family. How empty your life must be to have nothing better than to mock every Primerica agent that you can. That expresses more about your personal insecurity than anything it might says about Primerica. You seemed convinced that you must prove other people wrong so you can feel confident that you might be right. As for your most recent condemnations: I never said independent agents have noncompete pacts; that would be absurd. That is intentional misrepresentation so that you can criticize your own fabricate error. As I said, you have an internal need to criticize; you are not here to offer honest resposes in a civil debate. Independent agents traditionally represent the numerous small insurance companies that do not have the resources to maintain their own network of agents. Captive agents working for large, well recognized insurance companies do have noncompete pacts. My comments were about companies with regard to their own agents. You did aknowledge that in your comments. So, your whole discussion on indendent agents was unwarranted. But, as I said - You are here to fulfill internal needs, not to debate Primerica. Nor did I say that an agent should not reevaluate his customers. I said the agent should have an annual review of the client's needs. What I said is that it is was highly improper for an agent to make contact with the insurance company's clients after the agent leaves his position to work for another company. Once you go to work for another company, it is best to develop a new list of clients. If I went to work for Met/Life, I do not think they would even want me to contact my old Primerica customers. If that was encouraged, then their client lists would be open game for me when I, again, moved to Northwest Mutual. To protect their client lists from departing agents, reputable companies insist that you respect your last company's lists. Client lists are consider trade secrets protected by law. Again, you did recognize that the discussion was based on company agent relationships; so it was unnecessary for any discussion on how independent agents conduct, let us say, semi-annual reevaluations on car insurance. Of course, certain types of insurance should be constantly reevaluated. You presented a series of what if scenarios that remains moot. And, again you bring in independent agents without basis in a discussion that pertains wholy to company agents of major companies. If a company agent moves to work for another company, and he discovers what appears to be a better product or a better plan; what is to say that there is not even still a better product or plan in another company that, thus far, remains undiscovered? He originally went to the customer to tell him how good the product or plan is; now the agent wants to tell the customer that the agent was wrong. Who is to say the agent is not wrong again? You lose credibility when you become the critic of what you were once the champion of. Of course I am speaking of a captive agent moving from one reputable firm to another. I am not speaking of independent agents that offer discount products from small firms that no one has heard of before. And, it is wrong for you to compare yourself to a captive agent. If you want to criticize Primerica, then provide an equitable example. Compare Primerica to UBS or some other financial services organization. You criticized industry's standard threefold formula for financial planning. You added Wealth Preservation and Wealth Transfer. Preserving the assets and transferring the assets at the appropriate time are both aspects of Asset Management. Again, you narrowly define issues to offer unnecessary criticism. You are here fulfilling an internal psychological need. You have a need to prove to yourself that you are a competent agent. And you do this by trying to outdebate an anonymous view on the internet. You have a personal need to comb this site daily for new statements to attack. You sit in an empty room, day after day, spewing your venomous anger. To what end? Get a life!! Then, when I and others carry on with our lives, you argue to yourself that our lack of a response proves you were right. But, it only proves that our lives have more in them than just this website. We are too busy to constantly respond to your angry tirades. Our lack of response does not prove you to be right; your constant posts prove that this site is the only fulfillment your life has. Now, for your insurance question: If you determine that all of your total debt obligation and family needs upon your death will be $500K, and then you save $250K, you no longer have a total insurance need of $500K. Your assets have reduced that need by $250K. I am poor. I cannot afford insurance. I simply take out a small death benefit for the purpose of covering my funeral. Then, I begin to say a little each week. I get to a point where I have enough in savings to pay for my funeral. If the purpose of the insurance was to pay for a funeral, and now I have enough for a funeral, I no longer need insurance for the funeral. I can stop that policy and put the money slotted for the premium towards more savings. If you need $500K to care for your growing children and to cover your wife in retirement, then the amount you need to care for your children is no longer necessary once your children have left home. Your responsibility has decreased. If a part of the $500K is to pay off the mortgage, you no longer need the mortgage coverage once your mortgage is paid off. If $250K is to care for your wife in her retirement, you no longer need $250K in coverage to cover your wife's care if you have that $250K. A problem with many agents in the insurance industry is that they create an amount of coverage, say - $500K, for a client at some point in the client's life; then the agent insists that that number is a necessary number that carries to the end of the client's life. It is not. The amount of necessary coverage is always changing with the life changes of the client. We can rationally predict a pattern that nearly every life will follow. If you think not, you do not understand insurance. You are Born, You Grow Up, You Live Your Adult Life, Then You Die. During each phase of your life there are more predictable patterns. And, we know certain conditions will cause specific deviations from the pattern. Actuary tables are for the purpose of predicting to what degree the client will deviate from the pattern due to his conditions. You questioned whether the retirement nest egg should be counted as his insurance. The accurate way of expressing that statement would be that insurance covers the shortfall in his nest egg until he has time to save it. His assets are not locked away as insurance; he needs no insurance because he has his assets. People do not need insurance!! Insurance is a risk instrument intended to cover the shortfall in the nest egg if the client dies before the nest egg can be secured. Basically, when purchasing life insurance, the client is betting he will die before he completes his nest egg. After analyzing the actuary tables, the insurance companies lays odds that he will not die before the nest egg is complete. But, once he has his nest egg he no longer needs to cover the risk of dying before he can builds it. Now, once that nest egg is secure, he may choose to use the coverage to offset other risks. But, those variables determine how much he can reduce his overall coverage, and how much of the overall coverage should remain in effect. But, these endless variations do nothing for the debate over general principles. Anyone can come up with additional variations to avoid concession. P.S.: Instead of fabricating scenarios, go help real clients.

I like your idea, Skull. Let's do this. I'm going to give you guys some personal info and concerns, and let's see who can come up with a better comprehensive plan. I am 29 years old. I am a law student in my final year and work as a clerk for a large law firm. Between loan disbursements, work income, etc., I currently bring in about $900 per week. of course, I expect my income to increase dramatically in the coming years, but I will be burdened with $65k in student debt at an average 4% APR. I have three children and an epileptic wife who does not work. I have about $19,000 in home equity and no mortgage (I'll give you one guess as to what type of home I live in). I have approximately $6000 in cash assets. I am a smoker and I have moderately high blood pressure for which I take medication. Aside from that, I am in good health. Given my cardio issues, and my wife's disability, I am concerned about my family's well-being should I make an "early departure." In such an unfortunate event, I would like my family to live as well as they would have were I still alive. I estimate that this would require a roughly $1.5 million immediate payout. I expect a starting income of about 90k/yr (before taxes) after graduation next May, with an annual industry average salary increase of 6%. I would like to be able to retire by 55 with a substantial investment portfolio, and continue to work part time, earning roughly 100k/yr. Have at it boys.

It would be interesting to see if "Primerica" will actually take you up on your challenge. No PFS rep has responded to any challenge with any great detail. If the viewers of this site could see an actual comparison then they could decide for themselves. "Primerica" has matter-of-factly tried to shift the blame for all these complaints to the individual agents (nice try), however the truth is PFS corporate benefits from these so called "parasites" and does nothing agressively to change things. When they do something its always passive or reactionary, and try to play dumb. Most of the massive amount of complaints heard here are scripts, methods of operations that ARE encoraged by SNSDs, NSDS all the way down from the RVPs to the field force, this fact is ignored (typically)by "Primerica" and most PFS agents. Lets see if he/she is up to the challenge. Regards,

You are again incorrect when you say that every insurance company has no compete clauses. You are ignorant as to how an independent agent operates. As an independent agent, I represent my clients and work on their behalf. If my clients' needs change in the course of their life, I am obligated to reassess their financial products and make any changes necessary and if that means I have to use another company's product, then that is exactly what I do. Your assertion that it is never a good idea to recontact clients is ludicrous. People's situations and therefore their needs change over time and something sold to someone years ago may no longer be the best choice. In your explanation of the agent, client, insurance company relationship, you are implying that the needs of the company come before the needs of the client. What if an agent realized that the products and plan he sold when a PFS rep were not as good as he first thought? What if as independent agent he could provide insurance for a substantial savings? He should not tell them that there is something better? What if his new plan put them in a better situation? Your contention is that it is never a good idea to tell your clients this shows that your loyalty is to the insurance company and not your clients. I put my clients needs first and if I discover something that will improve their situation, I tell them and let them decide. I don't let the insurance companies that I represent decide. The reason PFS and other captive companies have no compete clauses is that they know that no one company can possibly fill every need of every client and that when faced with the competition from an agent who can search hundreds of companies for the best mix of products and services at the best value, they will always lose. And you question my ethics? When did I say that an agent should bounce clients between companies solely to generate commission? You are using personal attacks rather that stating your points. That is the typical PFS line that all other insurance agents are out to screw their customers and that only you PFS agents are doing the right thing. BULL. It is my contention that a PFS strategy actually will cost the client in the long run because PFS reps don't understand financial planning. Your financial formula that every company follows is again incomplete. It is more like: Debt, Risk, Assets, Wealth Preservation and Wealth Transfer. The theory of decreasing responsibility is a poor premise to base one's financial plan on because it is a perfect case scenario. Well, life is never perfect and we all know people aren't either. What if the theory of decreasing responsibility didn't work for one of your clients? And here's a tip; it never works. What would you suggest? The whole idea of saying that your insurance needs decrease as your assets increase is only true if you don't spend the assets. If I need $500,000 in insurance coverage and I save $250,000, it is your contention that I should reduce my insurance. That means that I can never spend the $250,000 as long as my total insurance need of $500,000 exists. You are assuming that one should count his retirement nest egg as his insurance policy. By doing this, you have effectively reduced your clients retirement income since a part of his assets are locked away to act as insurance. You obviously have not been in the business very long if you think insurance needs decrease as you age. There are many reasons to have insurance later in life. How about protecting your assets from estate taxes so that your heirs don't have to pay them? How about shielding assets if you end up in a nursing home? How about having insurance after you retire so that you can get 30% more money out of a 401K? If you want to be a competent financial services representative, why don't you read books on financial planning, insurance planning and investment planning. You will learn that there is much more to properly serving a client than buy term and invest the difference. And by the way, Skull Pilot is an Internet alias. (I value my privacy) The name has two meanings; it was inspired by my father's naval flight squadron insignia that depicts a skull with a wing behind it. But it also is a reference to our personal pilots that reside in our skulls or in other words the brain. Do you really think that I believe your name is Primerica? If I did believe that then I certainly would not want to buy insurance or any other product from someone so brainwashed that he changed his name to that of the company he works for. Here's an idea. Why don't I work up a hypothetical situation?. I'll give my plan and the related costs and you do the same. We'll see who has the best strategy and products. Stay tuned.

Stuart - North Brunswick, New Jersey: You asked: It's my understanding that RVPs can't own their own offices by contract. Can you elaborate on this? Once a person reached the level of Division Leader, they can manage an office for their RVP. Between RVP and Division is Regional Leader. Oftentimes people simply say regional, which confuses new recruits. It is the regional leader, like a division, that cannot own an office. Divisions and Regionals may only be office managers for an RVP. As for RVPs, they may have as many offices that they want. For your second comment: It is unfortunate that there are many people out there who are first lured to Primerica under deceptive circumstances. This is, however, not a negative reflection on Primerica. This deception is a negative reflection on the recruiter who is not confident enough in his own future to be able to provide an honest explanation of what is being offered. And, yes! It is possible to find jobs that offer good incomes with more ease than the conditions found at Primerica. The question, however, is not ease. As with any investment, higher risks pose greater chances for failure. Higher rewards are then associated with higher risk so that a person will be willing to take the chance. A low-risk system that assures 99% success at achieving an income will always pay less, much less, than a high-risk system. The highest wages tend to be commissionable incomes that are statistically associated with high risk sales position. Beyond wages is another form of income salary. It would be incorrect to attempt to compare commission based incomes, which are wages, to salary incomes. It appears that your comments fall within this very common error. There are many salary positions of relative ease that pay much more than any wage position. You asked: Would you tell your landlord this when you don't have the money to make the rent? Are you saying to forget about budgets? And, isn't it true that newcomers are counseled to start off part time? Let us start with this last question first. Yes, newcomers are counseled to start off part time. And, that reason is simple Like Avon, Tupperware and other MLMs, Primerica is meant to be a supplemental income. If a person does well enough to break ties with his old occupation, the agent is earning a fairly steady income. But, in the meantime, a person does need his other job to pay the rent and other living expenses. The third part of you question answers the first part, doesn't it! As for budgets: It becomes extremely important with a commission based income to maintain a budget. When the money does come in, which can be quite sporadic at times, it must cover the bills until the next commission. I did not suggest people should forget budgets. I suggested that most people lack the budgetary self-discipline to successfully live on a commission based income. It is for this reason that a person must offer serious self reflection before pursuing this type of career. Too often people are extremely hasty. They are in search for a get-rich-quick scheme. They get in over their heads. Then they start the process of deception. They find themselves deceiving new recruits to build a productive team. The problem is that if they are themselves unproductive, how can they teach their recruits to be productive? Primerica sees large numbers of unproductive people being recruited by unproductive people. It is for that reason that there is such a high turnover. Lots of people come in, but most leave without ever earning any money. But, again, that is a reflection on the recruiter. As for your final comment: If a person operates his Primerica business as he would any other financial service/insurance business, he will do well. Most people that are offered the opportunity to prove themselves, however, lack any background or training in the industry. It is difficult for them to then know what the appropriate way is to operate a business. I do take issue with you and others who feel we should, thus, restrict access. Any person who takes his opportunity serious enough can go to the local library to educate himself. They can visit other insurance offices. I have good friends with Sons of Norway, Aid Association for Lutherans, and other similar life insurance companies. People are generally willing to give quality advice to those who have a sincere interest in learning. If a person is serious enough, the person can always return to school to work on a business degree too. Most people unfortunately do not; many are in search of that fabled wealth just waiting to be claimed by anyone that comes along. And, I do agree that there are too many people passing Primerica off as the answer to that myth. There are too many uneducated people operating their Primerica business parasitically. They lure in recruits to obtain sales leads. When I read the various posting at this site, it appears that you and the others were the victims of those parasites. That does not distract from the quality of the products that Primerica offers. Nor is that a reflection upon Primerica, except in passing due to its association. Deceptive sales practices are not permitted. Complaints submitted to the corporate office, as well as to state agencies, are taken seriously. Most people do not lodge formal complaints so Primerica cannot act on rumor or innuendo. The comfort for you and others should be that the agent that deceived you, in all likelihood, has long left Primerica. Deceptive practices indicate a level of desperation. PS: A large down-line can ensure an income based on overrides. But, hitting the pavement to do personal production cannot be overlooked. Now for the Alaskan Pilot: In an agency relationship there is the principal and the agent. The principal is called the client. The agent is the client's representative. The person to whom the agent represents the client to is the customer. Primerica is the agent's client. The agent, as paid representative, has no claim to anything that rightfully belongs to his client. The customer becomes the client of Primerica. Primerica represents their clients in the event of their death. Primerica is the agent to the client, which is the customer of the sales representative. Because the agency relationship exists between Primerica and the client, why would a departed representative make contact his former customer? That customer retained Primerica as its agent, not the sales representative. To interfere, unnecessarily, in that relationship would lead to what in law is called: tortuous interference with a contract. With so many people in need of financial services, it makes no sense to recontact an old customer. To sway them to the new business would suggest that your original advice to them was faulty. This implicates that your advice is motivated by your own self-interest, your commission, not by their interest where your commission is secondary. No, it is never good practice to contact old customers to switch them to the new company. As far as noncompete pacts are concerned, every insurance and financial services company has them. Primerica is not unusual in that regard. These are often found in many industries where the law of agency governs relationships. Honoring those noncompete pacts will lend credibility to you with the customer as well. The goal is to prevent unscrupulous representatives from jumping from company to company, bouncing their customers along with them, in order to get more front-loaded commissions. This is not in the clients' interest. And it does not say much for your ethics to suggest that this practice should be acceptable. When it comes to residuals on securities, if you refer your customer to you up-line to initiate the product, those residuals will start coming to you once you obtain your license. As for insurance, the agent should be recontacting his customers every year out of courtesy. [But, not if you move to another company.] A good agent reevaluates his customers every year to determine whether changes of circumstance have changed their insurance needs. As their needs increase, the newly licensed agent does get the commissions on those increases. A good trainer will not over-indulge, if you will, on training calls. He will lock the customer in as a Primerica client. He will ensure that the customer's minimum needs are met. And, he will ensure that there is room for the newly licensed agent to obtain a commission during the first or second year's evaluation. Although, I did acknowledge above that there are many parasites out there preying on recruits. As far a comparing Primerica to a store: I compared the cost:benefit of a Primerica franchise to the cost:benefit of any other entrepreneurial endeavor. Please do not narrow my illustration too narrowly simply to find fault. The goal is to share an understanding of the issue with an audience, many of whom may not be too knowledgeable in finance. As far as the assertion that Primerica's menu is too limited, we must remember the financial formula that every financial services company follows: Debt:Risk:Assets. Primerica does not limit its agents to any one fund family; we can give our customer any fund he wants. We are not a bank, so our debt instruments are limited. If you need a business loan go to Citibank. If you need equipment, go to Citi-capital. Our debt investments have one goal, to free up the customer's income so he can plan for his future, which is to say - begin investing. And, risk is only temporary protection until such time that one has assets. If you determine that you need $200K for insurance to protect your family; then you only need $100K after you have $100K in assets. And, you insurance need ends once you have $200K in assets. As one gets older there is a diminishing need for insurance. Having the necessary assets to care for your family upon your death is equivalent to being self-insured. Life insurance is a temporary need, not a life long need. Early in life your need grows as your family begins to grow. Your need is steady in midlife; but then it diminishes as you age. Personally, a bush pilot in the Alaskan wilderness that goes by the name of Skull would not be my first choice in seeking financial advice from. That is why recruits are encouraged to give their family member names to their trainer. A person's family and friends will see the new recruit as their former occupation, not as a financial expert. But, personally I disagree with this approach. A recruit's family and friends should be off limits so that they can approach the recruit on their own once they become comfortable with his newly acquired insights.

I got a call today from them and was fooled into thinking this was a legitamate job opportunity by someone who saw my resume and thought I would fit into their company. I am so glad I found your website and read these comments. You just saved me time and energy. I will now cancel my appt. for Thursday night with this company. I cant thank you all enough.

For those of you who want to only talk about the business opportunity and not the mediocre products that you sell to support the business model, I'll lay it out for you. When you sign up with PFS, you pay your $199; I don't think this is a big deal. Depending on where you live, a license may cost more or less than this but since you have to be licensed anyway, the point is moot. Now this fee does not cover a securities license, which is the most expensive license a financial professional must obtain. You also agree that your clients and sale team belong to PFS and not to you. There is a 2-year waiting period for those who leave PFS in which they are not allowed to contact their clients or down line agents. There are also geographical restrictions on where an ex PFS agent can do business. PFS does not want competition from ex agents that have moved on to a more professional career in financial services because they know their products and strategies are not competitive. When you start your training you give your up line a list of names that you will set appointments with. Your trainer will then sell insurance, mutual funds and mortgages to your family and friends. I have never been a fan of this practice because you are agreeing to let your best and potentially most loyal customers be given to someone else. And here is a neat twist; if you leave PFS, you can't replace the policies that your trainer wrote on your family and friends. This just tells me that PFS reps want recruits so they can steal their warm market and make a bunch of easy sales under the guise of training. And if you recruit someone before your license is obtained, your up line gets to train them as well effectively freezing you out of more commissions that you should get. Why not get someone licensed first and then let the new guy write the business on himself and his friends and family? Let unlicensed people observe the appointments that have been set up by their trainer, that way a new person learns how to prospect for business instead of recruits in order to get business. Now let's say that you're doing well by PFS standards and have recruited a bunch of people and you are ready to take an RVP promotion. You have to leave your best agent sometimes your best two agents to your up line before you can be promoted. If you have 10 frontline agents then your 2 best agents are probably responsible for a huge portion of your production. When they are taken from you, your business and income could take a huge hit. Now I thought this was supposed to be a business that you own. Do you really own your business if you can't keep your agents? The rationale for this is that you give up your best guys so that you can take someone else's best guys so it all works out in the end. Nice logic, don't you think? You say, cowish people should not get involved in PFS. Well I've been to some of their trainings and conventions and you all seem cowish to me. All the clapping and chanting in unison and your up line saying that emotion is the most important thing in a PFS business. I don't know about you, but I think that competent, knowledgeable and most importantly professional agents along with sound business practices and philosophy are the most important part of a financial services business. Why do you compare PFS to a store, garage or restaurant? Why don't you compare it to being self employed in the financial services business where you can recruit, train and override agents that you and not the company have claim to. Why not compare PFS to a financial services business where you can do more than buy term and invest the difference if it is in the best interest of the client? Why not compare it to a business where you can find the best products from hundreds of companies and not just a few products from one company? Why not ask your RVP how a client can get more money to live on out of his 401K if he has the right amount of the right kind of term insurance? Ask him how you get a market return without the risk of negative performance or how to get a guaranteed income based on a guaranteed 7% minimum return. Don't you think that knowing these things would be better for your clients than what you do? Wouldn't an agency staffed with people who knew these things be able to do a better job and attract people interested in doing the same rather than trying to recruit every retail worker in your local mall with promises of a six-figure income? Compare it to a financial services business where you don't have to pay a fee to use a company's web site and financial planning software but rather where companies give you all this plus marketing materials for free. Or perhaps a financial services business where you get free training through conference calls and conferences that are hosted by professionals from some of the top financial companies in the world. The only way to compare a financial services business with a restaurant is to say that PFS is a place where you can only order a burger, fries and apple pie for every meal and there are a bunch of people working there who say that this is the only way everyone should eat. Where a financial services business as described above is a buffet staffed by gourmet chefs where you can find everything you need for a balanced diet that tastes great and will contribute to your overall health and quality of life. Which restaurant would you rather eat at for the rest of your life???

You're one of the more intelligent posters from Primerica (listen up Paul from Brooklyn, you can learn how to be civilized and respectful from this poster). I'd like to make some comments: (1) "But, the goal is to become a RVP [regional vice president] so you can have your own office..." It's my understanding that RVPs can't own their own offices by contract. Can you elaborate on this? (2) "I believe it was Tom Hopkins that wrote that a commissioned position can be the hardest best paying job you ever had, or the easiest worst paying job. It is all what you make it. Most of the complaints at this site originate from those who treated the work as an easy, effortless job that consequently paid poorly." Some comments to this. First many victims of Primerica were deceived and lied to into believing that they would be getting "...an easy, effortless job...." Second, it's possible with great efficiency to make a lot of commission in the right type of position with the right type of company which is achievable by 99% of the people. Third, with respect with Tom Hopkins, Zig Ziglar and others whose works I've read, their writings in a nutshell are obsolete particularly in regards to closing out a sale. (3) "And, they accept a small paycheck because it is steady. They lack the ability to moderate their spending in between larger, widely dispersed paychecks." Would you tell your landlord this when you don't have the money to make the rent? ("the check's in the mail, just waiting for my big commission"). Are you saying to forget about budgets? And isn't it true that newcomers are counseled to start off part time? (4) "...Imagine another type of business that you may be self employed at possibly a store, a garage, or a restaurant. You would never call all of your friends and family members, harassing them to give you some business. So, do not do it with financial services either. When your warm-market is ready to use your services, they will seek you out. Focus on the general market of your local community." I agree with the advice given here, a good seller doesn't need friends or relatives to be successful (as an aside, I've told my DM that I have no friends meaning that friends aren't needed for me to be successful, a common mistake made by managers). However for someone to rake in the big dough at Primerica, you do need a big downline - selling insurance and other products won't do it.

Patrick, I will get to you; but first to Dave in Fort Wayne: The name is Effie. She is a very popular and sincere RVP that operates her own office in Greenwood. She is well known, and well respected by her peers. Now, for Patrick's original question: You cannot manage an office without proper credentials. This means that you must get Life licensed, and you must obtain a series 26 securities license. And, yes! You will be on commission. You will first be an associate that will be able to offer home loans while you study for your life license. Then, you will be able to sell life insurance while studying for your securites license, which is two exams - the series 6 and 63. Eventually, you would be promoted to a Division manager that can operate a satelite office for a RVP. But, the goal is to become a RVP [regional vice president] so you can have your own office like Effie down there in Greenwood. [She was able to achieve that goal in just under three years]. Are you willing to focus on your future for three years to secure a solid business for yourself? Be warned: I believe it was Tom Hopkins that wrote that a commissioned position can be the hardest best paying job you ever had, or the easiest worst paying job. It is all what you make it. Most of the complaints at this site originate from those who treated the work as an easy, effortless job that consequently paid poorly. If you lack ambition find alternative work where you can collect a paycheck. If you want an opportunity that most places have denied you of, and if you are ambitious enough to be self-disciplined, then take the opportunity. Remember: The complainants on this site that have failed at Primerica lacked the self-discipline to succeed on their own efforts. We are conditioned by our early education to report to a location and to do as instructed. Most people lose the ability to act independently. Most of the complaints against Primerica are that there is no structure within which to live the life of a barnyard cow. You see these people all over. They stand in long lines at movies and restaurants to be like everyone else. They will stand in the Wal-Mart check out line for 30 minutes simply to pay for a $10 item. Their time has no value so they squander it. These people do not value their time enough to manage it effectively. They require a supervisor to tell them what to do because they cannot imagine their role themselves. And, they accept a small paycheck because it is steady. They lack the ability to moderate their spending in between larger, widely dispersed paychecks. They lack discipline. They need their employers to impose discipline by evenly dispersed paychecks. And, they are willing to surrender much of what their efforts are worth for that superimposed discipline. If you are a cowish sort that lack discipline like most people, then get a typical cowish job that most people get; let your employer tell you what to do. If you are a cut above your peers, do not hesitate to give Primerica a try. Live the life of the wild mustang. Primerica allows you to live your own life outside the barnyard fences of traditional jobs. If you decide to go with Primerica, here is a suggestion: Imagine another type of business that you may be self employed at possibly a store, a garage, or a restaurant. You would never call all of your friends and family members, harassing them to give you some business. So, do not do it with financial services either. When your warm-market is ready to use your services, they will seek you out. Focus on the general market of your local community.

After reading all the scams and cons they have running, I'd never trust anything that primerica or citi have to say. This isn't just creative marketing or stretching the truth a little just to make the sale. Instead, these companies are out and out ripping people off and selling them trash using every fraudulent method they can think up. I don't give a d**n what they offer me. A ton of gold. A pound of cut diamonds. Eternal riches or everlasting sex with supermodels. No! Forget it! I don't want any part of your trash companies or your d**n scams! So, keep your garbage and get the hell away from me before some of your dirt and diseases contaminate something that belongs to me. Besides, where would a losing operation like yours possibly get anything of value anyway? That's my answer!

Yes. I have been contacted, but for fort wayne. Say Hi to Effe when there in Idianapolis. No, they are not looking for branch managers. They are looking to steal names and address from you so that they can conduct business with you(and your family/friends) in order to make a commission for themselves. They steal your commision from you. If you do decide to become a representative after hearing the sales pitches, then I would recommend they train you using ONE OF THEIR PROSPECTS and not give them any names until you feel comfortable conducting business with people you know. Another suggestion is to place your name on the Indiana Do Not Call list. Primerica can not call anyone on this list.