|
I think it's great - I think EIAs are the most oversold product
in my business. I have too many new clients in bad,
underperforming, long surrender EIAs that they're stuck with. |
|
they should keep in mind they are not securities, even though
I'm sure a lot of agents sell them as if they are. I want to see
the ins industry keep the nasd and sec OUT of regulation as much
as possible. they really have no business in it even though they
are probably pissed at losing assets under management |
|
I think that standards need to be established but from within
the insurance industry, not the securities industry. Indexed
annuities are not securities but an insurance product. And by
the way, I was security licensed for 25 years so I'm very
familar with both sides. |
|
Don't mind them; but it kind of reminds me of a joke about
computer salesmen. These are complicated enough that I think
many people don't even know when they're lying. |
|
I welcome the requirement for full disclosure among all products
regardless if they are under the insurance umbrella or
considered a security. The consumer is reliant upon a sales
force which appears to have a less than reputable perception.
Interestingly enough, this very sales force has the same
perception towards the companies they represent – again,
regardless of insurance or security products. |
|
I think if the securities industry gets involved the impact of
the "product" will be homogenized into the typical mix and the
clients will never understand the point of difference. |
|
One bad apple can indeed spoil the whole bunch. There are many
more ethical advisors than unethical producers, but the few
unethical ones cause the entire industry to come under scrutiny.
National standards will mean more paperwork for the honest
advisors and the people who desire to be unethical still will
be. |
|
I think these regulatory trends lead to extremes and are set by
inexperienced administrators. I have never been asked by
regulators what I thought about any new law they were ready to
propose and seldom does the industry really get involved
lobbying the outcome of these regulatios. |
|
As long as the regulations are set by a group like the NAIC,
it's fine. If the NASD is involved, it is not ok in any way,
shape or form. I like the 10/10 rule and have no problem with it
being a national regulation. |
|
I believe that national standards are a great thing. The lack of
oversight is one of the things that led to 05-50 from the NASD
in the 1st place. Granted the NASD overstepped its authority and
if we all want to be really honest the real reason they want
jurisdiction over EIA’s is increased revenue. The SEC isn’t
going to deem EIA’s securities, but at least the NASD
accomplished something. Many of their registered reps can no
longer sell EIA’s because their BD’s are so afraid of the
possible consequences. That led to increased VA business in ’06.
Hooray… everybody wins (or at least the NASD won.) There are
some good FMO’s out there that can really help you get going in
the right direction, but none of them are owned by Allianz. If
your current FMO is only interested in what’s good for them, not
your client and then you, start shopping for another one. Good
FMO’s do exist. |
|
Doesn't bother me, I am an RIA and I think the majority of abuse
comes from the non-registered insurance agent side. |
|
They mean well..but..it'S NOT the way ! |
|
I possibley may be a good idea. However, I think we can regulate
ourselfex to death. It boils down to the integrity of the agent
and his (her) willingness to investigate and thoroughly
understand the product and how to present it. |
|
not good |
|
I have no problems with regulation of the securities industry,
but the insurance industry is already regulated. |
|
If the standards are set based on the actual benefits of the
products to the consumer, I feel that this would provide a
direction for the industry. Too often, the information that is
reported in the financial news media is not only wrong, they
often distort the benefits of the products or fail to tell "both
sides of the story". |
|
Marketing and sales abuses have happened and suitability
standards are appropriate for EIAs - as long as its NOT set by
NASD. Our opinion is that EIAs are fixed annuities and insurance
products - not securities. |
|
Let the NASD regulate securities, let the insurance
commissioners regulate the insurance industry. Two different
products! |
|
Bad if SEC/NASD. Good if Insurance Commissioners |
|
Inevitable and regretable. Once again, the burden of "proof" is
shifted due to actions by "bad actors" resulting in the rest of
us having to essentially behave as we have to prove, case by
case, that we are not "crooks", that we have the client's
interest first and foremost, and that we've done some sorf of
(now to be codified) suitability and can prove it. It's a heck
of a way to have to run one's practice. |
|
Not Necessary-Not a SEC product |
|
As long as they don't move it into the NASD realm I'm OK with it
if it serves to drive agents to better understand what it is
they are recommending to their clients beyond the one sided
marketing hype of any particular company. |
|
I do not sell securities, never had, nor do I have any interest
in doing so....but...it appears to me that the real interest of
regulators (being the NASD) is their focus on securing
additional funds for the securities firms. Some agents may have
mis-represented EIAs and thats the primary excuse used. It is a
real stretch to define an EIA as a security ( refer to SEC Rule
151, Release No. 33-6645 (May 29, 1986)) But now, the NASD has
thrown its arms around another piece of the world, and the
security firms are gaining control. They tell their reps what
they can and can't sell. In otherwise the firms decide what is
in the best interest of a client they have never seen and know
absolutely nothing about. Why? Its called ROA, return on assets.
A few years ago that ratio was rather significant. It is
certainly one of the measurements used in estimating revenue for
the future. Now it's much lower. So forget the fact that a
client might WANT to lock up his money for a period of time,
forget the fact that he's scared of mutual funds and
recommendations on stock like Enron etc. The firms still know
what is best for the "uneducated" masses. Why not leave the
responsibility where it belongs...the agent? If he messes up,
let a court decide. If EIAs or rather Indexed Annuities are
finally classed a security, once again Wall Street will have
succeded in pulling the wool over the public eyes. My suggestion
is that they focus a bit higher on the totem pole, like security
company management and marketing practices that are abuses of
the public trust and leave the insurance industry to the
insurance industry. Take the current situation a small step
further: EIAs become classed as a security, Mr. Independent
Insurance Agent must be re-licensed to continue to market and
service HIS clients. Guess who controls licensing...NASD and
Securities Firms...once in, guess who decides what Mr.
Independent Agent can now sell. (Not to mention all the
additional regulation, compliance and cost involved.)
INTERESTING NOTE: If you are securities licensed, your
broker-dealer likely already has the right to regulate
everything you sell (fine print). If they choose not to do so,
then you have a "Selling Away" agreement that the company has
agreed to. This has existed for a long time, so NASD, just let
the firms take care of their reps and make sure management is
taking care of the firm. Your role in the American business
scene is Securities, stay out of the insurance business. |
|
Depends upon what the standards. But, I believe it will happen. |
|
depends on who the regulators are and what they are regulating. |
|
I think they want part of the commision |
|
fine |
|
I would prefer stronger regulations through the individual
states with a required CE for EIA's each year. The biggest
problem is the uninformed agents who don't understand how the
EIA really works and overpromising returns to their clients. |
|
No problem with that. |
|
Bad idea. The insurance companies should regulate and control
the sales process |
|
Isn't it regulated enough? |
|
Considering the confusion out there, it's probably a good idea.
Having said that, it's also clear that the regulators are
sometimes too zealous and actually hurt the consumers with some
of their methods of "protection." |
|
Needs to be done. Need to get the bad apples out of the
industry. Too many people can sell an EIA. Put more strict cost
in the licensing aspect and you will take care of the rift raft |
|
I think some standards are good. I think the biggest issue is
training of agents. I think most agents don't have proper
training on the products and are not doing the best job for
their client not for dishonest gain, but simply from ignorance. |
|
Just another way for them to make more money. We would be better
off if companies were more regulated (i.e. Americo offered a 7
yr, 10yr, and 14 yr. EIA with all the moving parts the exact
same, except surrender charges, and pays 3 totally different
levels of commissions to the producers based on how long they
can lock the client up for) This puts a lot of added pressure on
the agent to do the right thing. I think if we started at the
top and put more pressure on the companies offering these
rediculously high commissions we would we be starting off in the
right direction. |
|
I think it's a great idea - I think most EIAs are sold by
insurance agents without a securities license and they are
marketed as investments without market risk. They should be
regulated to make sure they aren't marketed that way. |
|
I sell consumer driven EIAs. We must eliminate commision driven,
long term contracts with abusive high surrender schedules that
dirt-bag, desperate agents sell because they are two lease
payments overdue on their compact car. Much more regulation is
overdue. |
|
Good, but this not a securty. |
|
I welcome the regulation |
|
They want the money. If they deem it a security, then they can
charge NASD fees, transaction fees, etc. It is all about money
to fill their coffers. |
|
I agree we need to have high standards established. The
insurance agent who only sells cancer insurance should be
required to complete suitablity tests before selling EIA's. I do
not believe they should be classified as securities for they are
not by definition. Punish the individual agent if they abuse
EIA's suitablitiy not the insurance companies. Hold agents
accountable. |
|
I believe there should be a requirement (CE courses) similar to
the selling LTC products, where the agents or financial service
reps would be adequately trained so that they know what they're
selling and recommending to their clients. |
|
Not enough scrutiny of the products being rolled out by the
companies! |
|
You would think that variable annuities with all its regulation
is good for consumers;it is not. Security reps over sell
variable products mostly for commission. At least an insurance
agent selling an EIA will not have to worry about loosing money
for a client in a bad market. |
|
its a good thing as long as it is helpful for the client and not
just additional paperwork that they can be confused by. |
|
opp0sed to it |
|
I think it is good in general but I believe the NASD and SEC
need not get involved! |
|
It would be a HUGE plus as long as they don't over do it. There
are many agents selling these products verse advising the
clients and using the products as one tool in the mix. |
|
It's none of their business.The NASD is doing it to capture lost
revenues! |
|
I really don't like it but it is probably necessary because
there have been sales agents who have inappropriately sold them
theat has cause the insurance & legal industry to do a closer
inspection of the industry and regulate sales procedures. |
|
Don't like because many regulators have no financial experience
on the retail side. |
|
I believe we need to equip and educate producers to provide
EIA's & EIUL's. I strongly endorce the Insurance industry
viewpoint to create the CE requirements to accoplish that for
above mentioned issue... BUT I DO NOT want the DOGS of the SEC-NASD
to create more problems and regulate for profit purposes OUR
Industry! |
|
I don't approve |
