Heard from my friend fee-only Planner today

[easysurfer]

Well, I got an email from my fee-only planner today.

But I don't know if I'm gonna answer back or not. This email came about from me a several days ago emailing my insurance agent about my LTC coverage. The agent was referred to me by the planner a few years back.

Originally, I emailed the insurance agent's company asking about automated payments to my LTC policy. Then I got a return email saying pretty much, .." call me about the payment options, and we can discuss about the upcoming LTC rate increase" I've ignored the email as since them, I'm leaning towards cancelling the policy, and readdressing LTC in the future
http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...dea-57916.html

So today checking my email I get a note from my fee-only planner, subject..."touching base on the LTC rate increase", saying pretty much.."the agent talked to her, and the planner is touching base with how I'm doing. And, I'm I doing okay in my portfolio, my investments? More than welcome to contact planner for a second opinion.."

Personally, I really don't want to talk to them. Maybe in their "expert opinion", they mean well, when they want to talk and discuss...But I'm pretty much content in my own decisions. I think that's the difculty in other opinions when it comes to money. I really don't wish to get into a discussion with my planner or agent about the Pros/Cons of keeping LTC coverage or not now or if my investment allocations etc. with my planner.

Your thoughts?

[freebird5825]

You are the customer. Period.
If you have no need of their services right now (or ever), simply respond with nothing (no response) or a polite "Thanks but no thanks". Just be honest, and graciously decline.

I used a fee-based planner (CFP firm) years ago. They periodically send me their newsletter but never apply any pressure to "come in for a tuneup". I responded politely that I am a DIY now, and I know how to find them if I need them.
I personally would not hesitate to use this particular CFP firm's services again if I had the need to. I always go by the process of letting myself sit back for a little while, assessing the problem/solution path. I admit to knowing what I don't know, do some research, and then seek advice for the empty spaces that I cannot fill via my own elbow grease.

[Animorph]

I take it you're not currently paying the planner? In that case by all means ignore her.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird5825 You are the customer. Period. If you have no need of their services right now (or ever), simply respond with nothing (no response) or a polite "Thanks but no thanks". Just be honest, and graciously decline. I used a fee-based planner (CFP firm) years ago. They periodically send me their newsletter but never apply any pressure to "come in for a tuneup". I responded politely that I am a DIY now, and I know how to find them if I need them. I personally would not hesitate to use this particular CFP firm's services again if I had the need to. I always go by the process of letting myself sit back for a little while, assessing the problem/solution path. I admit to knowing what I don't know, do some research, and then seek advice for the empty spaces that I cannot fill via my own elbow grease.

I like the idea of a gracious "Thanks but no thanks" decline, but "I'll keep you in mind" response. Since I initiated the email about my LTC, I'll do the courteous thing and reply to the company. But instead of saying something like "Am I doing the right thing?" I'll send a FYI letter like "I decided to cancel my policy..thank you for your service".

As for my financial planner, I'll respond saying the "Thanks but no thanks, but keep her in mind" letter. I probably won't even mention my LTC decision in the email (she can get that info from the LTC agent since it seems they talk already ).

I have until Oct 20th to make my decision to cancel..so no rush to reply back at the moment.

[growing_older]

Did I understand, you wrote to your insurance company, who then notified your planner. Did you ask that your planner be notified? I think you may have a breach of confidentiality to deal with. Who did you authorize to be told?

[Bestwifeever]

Yeah, it would bug me no end to think my insurance agent and my financial planner are sharing information about me.

[TN_INVEST]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer I like the idea of a gracious "Thanks but no thanks" decline, but "I'll keep you in mind" response. Since I initiated the email about my LTC, I'll do the courteous thing and reply to the company. But instead of saying something like "Am I doing the right thing?" I'll send a FYI letter like "I decided to cancel my policy..thank you for your service". As for my financial planner, I'll respond saying the "Thanks but no thanks, but keep her in mind" letter. I probably won't even mention my LTC decision in the email (she can get that info from the LTC agent since it seems they talk already ). I have until Oct 20th to make my decision to cancel..so no rush to reply back at the moment.

I tend to agree.

Seems the #1 complain folks have with their financial folks stems from lack of communication ("they made a sale and I never heard back from them"). At least these folks are trying to reach out.

Perhaps a firm "thanks, but no-thanks" would be the way to go.

[chinaco]

Insurance Agents usually want to talk to an existing customer to try to sell them something else. But, I would not ignore a contact. He may have something important to say (not sales related). It would be worth 5 minutes on the phone to find out. During the conversation, I would make it clear that I am not interested in purchasing other insurance now or in the near future. If that changes... "I will call you!"


I would have a similar conversation with the planner about insurance products!!!


Since this is a fairly new relationship with the planner and agent... I would talk to them just to see if that is how they operate. I might be inclined to dump the (fee based) planner if they are trying to turn the relationship into sales opportunities... especially if they are not relevant needs!!!

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer ...call me about the payment options, and we can discuss about the upcoming LTC rate increase" I've ignored the email as since them, I'm leaning towards cancelling the policy, and readdressing LTC in the future ...

Don't forget about the underwriting process. If you drop the policy and have a health problem... you may not be able to get coverage (at any price) later.


Rate increase or not... you purchased the LTCi for a reason. You need to think about why you bought it in the first place.

It seems that these types of insurance policies are more likely to be used by one when they get older, however something (e.g., accident) can happen in the younger years also.

So before you let that policy lapse... you really need to think about it. I think it would be a bad idea to just let is lapse with the intention of figuring it out later. Two obvious risks (IMO)

1. Chance of some health problem or injury in the younger years that requires a large LTC expenditure.
2. Chance of other health problems occur, that do not require LTC today, but make you uninsurable from the insurance companies' underwriting perspective.

There is no simple answer... You should do the analysis to understand your needs better and compare all of your options if you are going to revisit the decision.

If I were intending to replace the LTCi coverage in the future, I would get the new coverage before I let the current coverage lapse because of risk of not being insurable in the future due to the underwriting process.... or your can get coverage but at a higher premium cost because you represent a higher risk due to some health status changes.

[donheff]

I don't see this as nefarious. The insurance agent recommended the FA so presumably knew OP wanted/needed financial advice. OP expressed concern about LTC rates going up but failed to followup. The insurance agent (reasonably) assumes OP may have financial concerns about the LTC costs and alerts FA that OP may have such concerns. FA is in a good position to advise about the implications of loss of LTC. Clearly, the agent may stand to benefit from advice that keeps OP insured but that is no biggy conflict. All told, no harm, no foul. In essence both agent and adviser are just being proactive. If you are going to hire advisers, let them advise. You still make the decisions.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff I don't see this as nefarious. The insurance agent recommended the FA so presumably knew OP wanted/needed financial advice. OP expressed concern about LTC rates going up but failed to followup. The insurance agent (reasonably) assumes OP may have financial concerns about the LTC costs and alerts FA that OP may have such concerns. FA is in a good position to advise about the implications of loss of LTC. Clearly, the agent may stand to benefit from advice that keeps OP insured but that is no biggy conflict. All told, no harm, no foul. In essence both agent and adviser are just being proactive. If you are going to hire advisers, let them advise. You still make the decisions.

Actually, it's the other way around in that the FA recommended the insurance agent. I agree that they are for the most part just being proactive. It does feel a little funny that one must have talked to the other (all over little old me ), but I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt.

The rate increase psychologically is a bummer (I know, was not singled out, that's how it is in LTC insurance). Yet it makes one think, what good is the inflation protection when the inflation protection being protected is protecting the inflation costs to the insurance companies as they can just file a rate increase.

As a consumer, it's as if I was buying a new car, say, negotiated a deal on a new Toyota Prius. But the dealer goes, guess what, you can't get the Prius, but here's a Honda Insight Hybrid. Still a hybrid, still might offer a great value, but not what I negotiated for and a Prius has more value than an Insight.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer Actually, it's the other way around in that the FA recommended the insurance agent. I agree that they are for the most part just being proactive. It does feel a little funny that one must have talked to the other (all over little old me ), but I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt.

I have a small group of experts I refer my clients to. For example, I have a good relationship in my area with one of NML's top agents. What he knows about LTC, buy-sell, second to die etc, is more than I could learn in a lifetime. So, do I provide value if I can offer an expert to help the client? His/her other options are surfing the net or talking to family and friends to try to find someone who knows their stuff. The fact that I have vetted this person makes my clients feel comfortable, and get the services of one of the top persons in his field at arguably the top insurance company in America. I think that provides value, but most on here would say no.........

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude I have a small group of experts I refer my clients to. For example, I have a good relationship in my area with one of NML's top agents. What he knows about LTC, buy-sell, second to die etc, is more than I could learn in a lifetime. So, do I provide value if I can offer an expert to help the client? His/her other options are surfing the net or talking to family and friends to try to find someone who knows their stuff. The fact that I have vetted this person makes my clients feel comfortable, and get the services of one of the top persons in his field at arguably the top insurance company in America. I think that provides value, but most on here would say no.........

I think it provides very good value. It is what people of means have always relied on in the past, and usually it worked pretty well.

The agent cannot kidnap you and make you buy something, so what is the problem?

Ha

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I think it provides very good value. It is what people of means have always relied on in the past, and usually it worked pretty well. The agent cannot kidnap you and make you buy something, so what is the problem? Ha

Well, most folks on here think an FA provides no value, so just throwing that out there..........

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco Don't forget about the underwriting process. If you drop the policy and have a health problem... you may not be able to get coverage (at any price) later. Rate increase or not... you purchased the LTCi for a reason. You need to think about why you bought it in the first place. It seems that these types of insurance policies are more likely to be used by one when they get older, however something (e.g., accident) can happen in the younger years also. So before you let that policy lapse... you really need to think about it. I think it would be a bad idea to just let is lapse with the intention of figuring it out later. Two obvious risks (IMO) Chance of some health problem or injury in the younger years that requires a large LTC expenditure. Chance of other health problems occur, that do not require LTC today, but make you uninsurable from the insurance companies' underwriting perspective. There is no simple answer... You should do the analysis to understand your needs better and compare all of your options if you are going to revisit the decision. If I were intending to replace the LTCi coverage in the future, I would get the new coverage before I let the current coverage lapse because of risk of not being insurable in the future due to the underwriting process.... or your can get coverage but at a higher premium cost because you represent a higher risk due to some health status changes.

I decided on a flip-flop and am gonna stick with my LTC policy.

The first knee-jerk reaction was to cancel the darn policy as insurance premiums (especially LTC, I think, feels like throwing good money after bad).

But you're right, I do have LTCI for a reason.

It's no fun, thinking about oneself needing LTC. I'm healthy, young (in LTC terms), yet as for risk itself, the possibility of getting in a car wreck and needing care from that is reason enough to stick with the policy.

Guess only time will tell if I was a fool or a genius.