I just converted my term life policy to a whole life policy with a $14,000 cash value, can I borrow agains this money yet?
Total Comments: 20
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:38 pm Post Subject:
You can do as you please.
Answering questions is not soliciting insurance.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:39 am Post Subject:
Guest, my God, are you still here? You still haven't come out of the closet? Haven't you realized that no one takes you seriously? I'm currently working on a couple of cases with annual premiums of around $3 Mil. I've consulted Max on this matter because of his obvious expertise in the field of life insurance fraud. How could I, or anyone else, ever hire you when you won't even stand behind your statements or positions? Take accountability for yourself and stop hiding in the shadows.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 05:04 pm Post Subject:
You can do as you please.
Answering questions is not soliciting insurance.
So what is your answer when someone clicks through and asks, "May I please buy an insurance policy from you?"
Be honest, Max. Anyway that you slice it, you are soliciting. As salesmen, we do what we need to do to get our foot in the door so that ultimately we can make a sale if that is what will help the person.
You are participating in an insurance activity with the general public in states that you are not licensed that may bring you sales. Unless you would actually refuse to do business with someone who contacted you with this "non-solicitation", it is a solicitation.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with what you are doing. In fact, I admire you for trying to get business from here. I just have a problem with an insurance instructor attempting to make the claim that "just answering questions" does not entail a solicitation.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 05:09 pm Post Subject:
Guest, my God, are you still here? You still haven't come out of the closet? Haven't you realized that no one takes you seriously? I'm currently working on a couple of cases with annual premiums of around $3 Mil. I've consulted Max on this matter because of his obvious expertise in the field of life insurance fraud. How could I, or anyone else, ever hire you when you won't even stand behind your statements or positions? Take accountability for yourself and stop hiding in the shadows.
This is a board with no readers. Who is going to take anybody seriously? If I said something that is incorrect, by all means correct me. You won't do it because you know that most states will consider what Max is doing to be an advertisement.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 09:09 pm Post Subject:
Be honest, Max. Anyway that you slice it, you are soliciting. As salesmen, we do what we need to do to get our foot in the door so that ultimately we can make a sale if that is what will help the person
.
Thanks for the response, Coach. Here in America, you are still entitled to your opinion. I cannot and will not dispute you on this.
I met Max on this site several years ago and was not only impressed by his knowledge, but the fact that he clearly posts his name, position and contact information for all to see. If I did not agree with him on a particular issue, I could merely call his office and discuss the matter over the phone.
Or, if I decided to hire Max to help me work on a particular case, in South Dakota for example, and send him a large check for doing so, I could do that - because he makes his contact information, position and level of expertise available for all to see.
If I wanted to work with Max in the future and needed him qualified as an Expert Witness, I could simply make a call or two and have Max retained on a case (in Southern CA for example) so that he would be qualified as an EW in future cases. And this is all made possible because I know who he is.
I thought I was clear on the reason this website was created; that being to provide answers / guidance / feedback on insurance-related issues for consumers and/or anyone else with questions about insurance matters. I've helped a number of the people I've met on this website - and made a considerable about of money doing so. If I want to hire Max, because I'm confident in his ability to provide a service to insurance consumers and I KNOW WHO HE IS AND HOW TO CONTACT HIM, I can do just that.
Thanks, Max, for making your name and level of expertise available for all to see. I look forward to working with you in the future.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:55 am Post Subject:
Take accountability for yourself and stop hiding in the shadows.
I thought that this has been discussed in the past, but maybe not. FINRA considers public message boards to be advertising. The reason why you never see registered reps participating in a non-anonymous manner is because they would have to get prior permission for any post that they make.
In short, any registered person has no choice accept to stay in the shadows. It does not matter if the post is about insurance.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 09:53 am Post Subject:
Whew, you actually had me worried for a bit. I became an RR in 1999 and was concerned that I'd missed something.
FINRA says:
Social Networking Sites and Chat Rooms
Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn usually have static and interactive content. Static content like a profile, background or wall information is usually considered an “advertisement.” Static content is generally accessible to all visitors and usually remains visible until it is removed. As with all advertisements and sales literature as defined, a registered principal for the firm must approve, prior to use, all static content. Interactive content includes real-time extemporaneous online discussions with unrelated third parties such as in a chat room. Chat room or other content posted in an interactive electronic forum is considered a public appearance. Similar to extemporaneous discussions by an RR at a public appearance, interactive content does not require prior principal approval, but must be supervised.
Blogs and Bulletin Boards
Blog and bulletin board postings by an RR are typically static communications. As with all advertisements and sales literature as defined, a registered principal for the firm must approve all static content. Blogs may also feature interactive content, where a third party posts a comment in response to the initial blog and then the blogger responds to the third party comment. Such interactive comments by the blogger are considered to be public appearances. Similar to extemporaneous discussions by an RR at a public appearance, the interactive content does not require prior principal approval, but must comply with the content standards of the advertising rules and must be supervised by the broker dealer.
Since interactive content in social networking sites and blogs is considered a public appearance, RRs must follow the same requirements for participating in these forums as they would if they were speaking in person before a group of investors. There are no filing requirements, but RRs are accountable under FINRA rules and the federal securities laws for what they say. Like all public communications, interactive electronic postings must be fair, balanced and not misleading.
Granted, even though the line here is very slim, I'm confident a responsible RR can keep themselves clear of any rules violations. If you doubt your ability to do so, you'd better remain anonymous.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 04:44 pm Post Subject:
Mark,
I appreciate that you dug this up. Unfortunately, as you are showing, when someone is trying to make a point, they too often focus on the thing that makes their point while ignoring other pertinent information.
Look at what is immediately before the section that you highlighted.
and must be supervised by the broker dealer.
Go ahead and make the distinction between advertising and public appearances if you'd like. A post here may be treated as a public appearance. However, that doesn't change the point that because of supervisory requirements, broker/dealers won't allow their reps to post.
"fair, balanced, and not misleading" isn't good enough. Since supervision is required, permission must also be granted. There is no benefit to a B/D in taking time to supervise sites like this, so almost never do they allow their reps to participate.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 04:54 pm Post Subject:
Let me give you another example. Search for some registered reps that you know. Look both at Facebook and LinkIn.
Their Facebook page won't have anything about their business. Their LinkedIn page will. This isn't some coincidence where everybody is saying, "Gee, I just want Facebook for social reasons" and LinkedIn for business."
Rather, this is about supervision. Facebook is too difficult to supervise. LinkedIn is easy to supervise. B/D's almost alway forbid Facebook posts while allowing LinkedIn posts.
Posts need to be fair, balanced, not misleading, AND SUPERVISED. It is the last part that stops the posting.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:49 pm Post Subject:
Great response. I saw that prior to my post, but didn't you'd actually make reference to it - I was wrong.
Similar to extemporaneous discussions by an RR at a public appearance, the interactive content does not require prior principal approval, but must comply with the content standards of the advertising rules and must be supervised by the broker dealer.
As I said previously, there exists a very fine line between using this type of site as a means to generate sales (advertising) and participating in order to help others who clearly lack an understanding of insurance and how the policies work. In my business, we refer to these people as Victims. There is, however, a line. I know where that line is and am very careful to NEVER cross it. In fact, I also have to contend with the Conflict of Interest factor. My Broker Dealer is a good friend of mine and I'm sure he'd let me know if I strayed too close to the aforementioned line.
Because it is not that difficult for me to stay well clear of any potential violations, I just cannot imagine why it would be such a challenge for anyone else. I guess I owe you an apology.
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:38 pm Post Subject:
You can do as you please.
Answering questions is not soliciting insurance.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:39 am Post Subject:
Guest, my God, are you still here? You still haven't come out of the closet? Haven't you realized that no one takes you seriously? I'm currently working on a couple of cases with annual premiums of around $3 Mil. I've consulted Max on this matter because of his obvious expertise in the field of life insurance fraud. How could I, or anyone else, ever hire you when you won't even stand behind your statements or positions? Take accountability for yourself and stop hiding in the shadows.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 05:04 pm Post Subject:
You can do as you please.
Answering questions is not soliciting insurance.
So what is your answer when someone clicks through and asks, "May I please buy an insurance policy from you?"
Be honest, Max. Anyway that you slice it, you are soliciting. As salesmen, we do what we need to do to get our foot in the door so that ultimately we can make a sale if that is what will help the person.
You are participating in an insurance activity with the general public in states that you are not licensed that may bring you sales. Unless you would actually refuse to do business with someone who contacted you with this "non-solicitation", it is a solicitation.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with what you are doing. In fact, I admire you for trying to get business from here. I just have a problem with an insurance instructor attempting to make the claim that "just answering questions" does not entail a solicitation.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 05:09 pm Post Subject:
Guest, my God, are you still here? You still haven't come out of the closet? Haven't you realized that no one takes you seriously? I'm currently working on a couple of cases with annual premiums of around $3 Mil. I've consulted Max on this matter because of his obvious expertise in the field of life insurance fraud. How could I, or anyone else, ever hire you when you won't even stand behind your statements or positions? Take accountability for yourself and stop hiding in the shadows.
This is a board with no readers. Who is going to take anybody seriously? If I said something that is incorrect, by all means correct me. You won't do it because you know that most states will consider what Max is doing to be an advertisement.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 09:09 pm Post Subject:
Be honest, Max. Anyway that you slice it, you are soliciting. As salesmen, we do what we need to do to get our foot in the door so that ultimately we can make a sale if that is what will help the person
.Thanks for the response, Coach. Here in America, you are still entitled to your opinion. I cannot and will not dispute you on this.
I met Max on this site several years ago and was not only impressed by his knowledge, but the fact that he clearly posts his name, position and contact information for all to see. If I did not agree with him on a particular issue, I could merely call his office and discuss the matter over the phone.
Or, if I decided to hire Max to help me work on a particular case, in South Dakota for example, and send him a large check for doing so, I could do that - because he makes his contact information, position and level of expertise available for all to see.
If I wanted to work with Max in the future and needed him qualified as an Expert Witness, I could simply make a call or two and have Max retained on a case (in Southern CA for example) so that he would be qualified as an EW in future cases. And this is all made possible because I know who he is.
I thought I was clear on the reason this website was created; that being to provide answers / guidance / feedback on insurance-related issues for consumers and/or anyone else with questions about insurance matters. I've helped a number of the people I've met on this website - and made a considerable about of money doing so. If I want to hire Max, because I'm confident in his ability to provide a service to insurance consumers and I KNOW WHO HE IS AND HOW TO CONTACT HIM, I can do just that.
Thanks, Max, for making your name and level of expertise available for all to see. I look forward to working with you in the future.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:55 am Post Subject:
Take accountability for yourself and stop hiding in the shadows.
I thought that this has been discussed in the past, but maybe not. FINRA considers public message boards to be advertising. The reason why you never see registered reps participating in a non-anonymous manner is because they would have to get prior permission for any post that they make.
In short, any registered person has no choice accept to stay in the shadows. It does not matter if the post is about insurance.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 09:53 am Post Subject:
Whew, you actually had me worried for a bit. I became an RR in 1999 and was concerned that I'd missed something.
FINRA says:
Social Networking Sites and Chat Rooms
Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn usually have static and interactive content. Static content like a profile, background or wall information is usually considered an “advertisement.” Static content is generally accessible to all visitors and usually remains visible until it is removed. As with all advertisements and sales literature as defined, a registered principal for the firm must approve, prior to use, all static content. Interactive content includes real-time extemporaneous online discussions with unrelated third parties such as in a chat room. Chat room or other content posted in an interactive electronic forum is considered a public appearance. Similar to extemporaneous discussions by an RR at a public appearance, interactive content does not require prior principal approval, but must be supervised.
Blogs and Bulletin Boards
Blog and bulletin board postings by an RR are typically static communications. As with all advertisements and sales literature as defined, a registered principal for the firm must approve all static content. Blogs may also feature interactive content, where a third party posts a comment in response to the initial blog and then the blogger responds to the third party comment. Such interactive comments by the blogger are considered to be public appearances. Similar to extemporaneous discussions by an RR at a public appearance, the interactive content does not require prior principal approval, but must comply with the content standards of the advertising rules and must be supervised by the broker dealer.
Since interactive content in social networking sites and blogs is considered a public appearance, RRs must follow the same requirements for participating in these forums as they would if they were speaking in person before a group of investors. There are no filing requirements, but RRs are accountable under FINRA rules and the federal securities laws for what they say. Like all public communications, interactive electronic postings must be fair, balanced and not misleading.
Granted, even though the line here is very slim, I'm confident a responsible RR can keep themselves clear of any rules violations. If you doubt your ability to do so, you'd better remain anonymous.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 04:44 pm Post Subject:
Mark,
I appreciate that you dug this up. Unfortunately, as you are showing, when someone is trying to make a point, they too often focus on the thing that makes their point while ignoring other pertinent information.
Look at what is immediately before the section that you highlighted.
and must be supervised by the broker dealer.
Go ahead and make the distinction between advertising and public appearances if you'd like. A post here may be treated as a public appearance. However, that doesn't change the point that because of supervisory requirements, broker/dealers won't allow their reps to post.
"fair, balanced, and not misleading" isn't good enough. Since supervision is required, permission must also be granted. There is no benefit to a B/D in taking time to supervise sites like this, so almost never do they allow their reps to participate.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 04:54 pm Post Subject:
Let me give you another example. Search for some registered reps that you know. Look both at Facebook and LinkIn.
Their Facebook page won't have anything about their business. Their LinkedIn page will. This isn't some coincidence where everybody is saying, "Gee, I just want Facebook for social reasons" and LinkedIn for business."
Rather, this is about supervision. Facebook is too difficult to supervise. LinkedIn is easy to supervise. B/D's almost alway forbid Facebook posts while allowing LinkedIn posts.
Posts need to be fair, balanced, not misleading, AND SUPERVISED. It is the last part that stops the posting.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:49 pm Post Subject:
Great response. I saw that prior to my post, but didn't you'd actually make reference to it - I was wrong.
Similar to extemporaneous discussions by an RR at a public appearance, the interactive content does not require prior principal approval, but must comply with the content standards of the advertising rules and must be supervised by the broker dealer.
As I said previously, there exists a very fine line between using this type of site as a means to generate sales (advertising) and participating in order to help others who clearly lack an understanding of insurance and how the policies work. In my business, we refer to these people as Victims. There is, however, a line. I know where that line is and am very careful to NEVER cross it. In fact, I also have to contend with the Conflict of Interest factor. My Broker Dealer is a good friend of mine and I'm sure he'd let me know if I strayed too close to the aforementioned line.
Because it is not that difficult for me to stay well clear of any potential violations, I just cannot imagine why it would be such a challenge for anyone else. I guess I owe you an apology.
Add your comment