Selling insurance is hard.

Even if there is no competition, it is hard.

It is harder if there is competition.

The agent/broker needs to make the sale to

In short, there is a lot of pressure to make the sale, and there may be a sense of panic if the sale seems to be slipping away, especially to another agent/broker.

So it is no wonder that we are tempted to use any tools at hand to make the sale, including pointing out our company�s advantages and the competitor company�s limitations. This activity can range from simply comparing ratings published by Best, Standard & Poor�s, Moody�s, and Duff & Phelps to slanderous remarks about the competing company.

Slanderous remarks surely qualify as "company bashing" and should be avoided by all practitioners. In fact, evidence of such activity should be reported to the local American Society chapter for possible disciplinary action (if the alleged wrongdoer is a CLU) and to the aggrieved company for possible legal action.

But disclosure and comparison of ratings seem to me to be not only acceptable behavior, but possibly a professionally required step.

The client is certainly entitled to have all relevant information about the purchase he or she is contemplating and this includes information about the company. I believe this relevant information includes (but is not limited to):

Our first obligation is to protect our client and not our company. The American Society�s Code of Ethics provides that in a conflict of interest situation, the interest of the client shall be paramount. To protect our clients� legitimate interests, all this relevant information should be freely available, and we should feel comfortable and, under many circumstances, compelled to present it along with the usual illustrations. Companies who wish to hide from the light of truth should suffer the discipline of our free market. Companies who are injured by falsehood should aggressively seek to overturn the falsehood and replace it with truth.

Perhaps this open market of information will help to encourage executives to manage companies more responsibly and producers to become more concerned about their companies� financial strength and ratings. This result would benefit both policyholders, agents/brokers, and the companies themselves.

I believe we cross the line into company bashing when we leave the objective presentation of information and, to use a word popular in politics, put an unduly negative "spin" on information. For example, what is the real difference between AAA and AA ratings?

Obviously, disseminating information that is false, or editorializing in a negative manner without using data at all, is even worse. Company bashing, so defined, is unprofessional and gives the whole industry a black eye. Further, it could easily result in litigation by the agent/broker who has lost a sale because of twisted information, by the client who has perhaps purchased a policy that was second best, or by the company who was slandered.

While I encourage agents/brokers to tell the truth about companies and interpret the truth fairly, I also encourage all of us, companies included, to take ethical and legal action against the type of company bashing just described. It has no legitimate place in our industry and it smears us all.