Stock holding companies vs. Mutual companies

What are the advantages and disadvantages of having life insurance policies with the following: mutual companies who pay dividends and stock holding companies who also pay dividends. I met with both NY Life and John Hancock. The John Hancock agent was far superior to the NY Life agent, much to my amazement. I had gone into the meetings thinking NY Life had the superior product, however the agent was unprofessional and did not get to know what was best for me...she was just desperately trying to make the sale. Are mutual companies that much better thatvstock companies that it's worth working with an agent I can't stand? Has anyone done business with John Hancock and feel as if they offer great products?

no, if you cant stand the advisor because of unprofessionalism (not knowing what you need, why you need it, and educating you on options) then you should under NO circumstances work with that advisor. the reason is that an advisory relationship is not like buying a car (commodity), it is more like entering into a relationship.

would you marry a rich woman who drove you crazy just cause she had a better portfolio?

the question you pose is an all or nothing. first off, yes; the NY Life product is likely far superiour to the Hancock product (remember, i said LIKELY. i dont know the use you intend for the product nor do i know the exact offers you were made. in other words, if (as i assume) the NYL product is better, get another agent. call the office and ask to speak to someone who has been in the business for perhaps 5 years. it is increasingly unlikely that someone with that tenure is still pushy and not client focused.

good luck.

i actually remember somewhere that 1MO (i think it was you) mentioned the one issue with stock holding companies like MetLife is that their primary responsibility is to stock-holders and not to insurance clients. Thus, theoretically if they HAD to make a hard decision that hurt the insurance policy holders but helped the stock-holders, they might be more inclined to do it. Mutual companies, on the other hand, have a primary directive to support the policy holders since they are effectively the "stockholders" (that's not technically the case since it is not a publically traded stock company). Therefore, their allegiance should and will always be for the policy holders. I hope i am understanding that correctly.

po, you are understanding it correctly. you are also correct that i have stated that on posts here. there are several others who have stated the same thing.

I've been researching the circumstances and facts around the demutualization of Metlife a bit and have been trying to find objective evidence whether insurance consumers have been helped or hurt by the change. I know opinions have be posted along the lines (simplifying here) stock company bad/mutual good for consumers. Anyone have more data based observations on this?

blixet, this link will not answer your question. however, if you read inside of the file you will find several links to other sources that may provide you the guide to complete your research. good luck!

http://keepcunamutual.com/3.pdf