You will be viewed as an insurance salesperson vs. a financial advisor in my opinon.  There are limited places to go from there.

I found their operation to be sparse, limiting AND they want you pushing small policies to middle America.   It may sound noble, but you'll work your behind off to make a mediocre living.

(I interviewed with them and passed on them)

If you want to be a planner and not just a broker or investment advisor (the major difference I'm pointing to here is the ability to build a high quality financial plan and do things like tax and estate planning), starting with an insurance company is probably the best way to go.   I'm just not impressed with Met.     Look to New York Life or Mass Mutual.    Go to the financial-planning.com boards for more company suggestions.

There is a difference between stock brokers (sometimes called financial consultants), investment advisors, money managers and financial planners.  They are all noble options, but your best path option will depend on which you want to be.

So what do you want to be?

And a stock jock from a wirehouse IS considered a financial advisor?

Insurance is the foundation for any retirement planning. Without it it's possible to lose everything in the final quarter.

Stock jocks hate insurance because they can't pressure their clients to trade policies every three months.

May I add, insurance selling IS a different animal and in my opinion, harder to sell, but you build relationships with your clients that can make it a lot easier to gather the rest of their assets.

In the right company, learning that process, even if you end up out of insurance, will probably aid your financial success.

I'm not sure Met is the place because I can't tell if their training is worth a darn, but again...aiming for little policies is probably not a great idea.

[quote=RealityBichslap]

And a stock jock from a wirehouse IS considered a financial advisor? [/quote]

You'll have a hard time finding a "stock jock" at a wirehouse these days.... OTOH, you'll have no problem finding a 1,000 Ned Ryerson clones at any gathering of insurance guys. 

I didn’t say a stock jock was an advisor, I said they are often termed as “financial consultant.”  Advisor is actually a regulated term and the NASD says a series 6 or 7 person can’t use the term “advisor” unless they’ve passed the 65 or 66, and I think (this part I’m not certain of…been a while) you have to be either an RIA or affiliated with one.

You're asking NOW?!!!

I don't have any personal experience with them, but guess it's a job at any rate...

"Stock jocks hate insurance because they can't pressure their clients to trade policies every three months."

what an ignorant comment....

[quote=BrokerRecruit]You will be viewed as an insurance salesperson vs. a financial advisor in my opinon.  There are limited places to go from there.[/quote]

I had a similar question. Nationwide Financial is recruiting me. Apparently they market in 4 channels, some of which are wirehouse and bank formats. The channel that I am considering  sounds decent because they use an independent registered investment adviser (1717 Capital Management) and are capable of offering stock and a variety of mutual fund options to clients, clearing through Pershing. I hear a lot of people talk about being independent, is this what is meant by independence? The company itself markets itself under a different name than Nationwide and I believe generates both 1099 (outside investments)and W2 (Nationwide product) income. I have been told that Nationwide obviously wants to see some insurance being sold since there's a relationship, but in the investment arena there's free reign. Also, the interior looks very professional (much more so than Ameriprise's Chicago office did). It seems like a law firm inside whereas Ameriprise at least seemed like a fraternity scene, and the managing partner has his CFP which gives me some hope about the investment side besides just insurance. I'm also looking at Raymond James and possibly Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. Where would you rank this Nationwide opportunity amongst these choices. Is it just another insurance company trying to represent itself as something else. The training seems to be only 3 months and then you are supposed to be completely busy and be setting appts. or meeting already scheduled appts. But they seem selective about how many people they start at once and it seems like the training may be better. They also likened themselves to a franchise, claiming that I will have like 5 times the surival likelihood I would at a ML or MS or RJ. Thoughts?

Well, i started at Met today and wasn't too thrilled to find out that i had to pay for a laptop. Of course i asked about this during the interview but was told i did not have to purchase one. So much for trusting what is said in the interview. Also, they have a mandatory "call night" one day a week from 6pm-8pm. There are about 4 mandatory meetings a week i have to attend. So much for feeling entreprenuerial!!!

For a company that seemed like they enjoy pushing financial services, i sure heard a lot today about their insurance products and not so much about the brokerage world.

You were told by SEVERAL on this board that Met is an INSURANCE house. Despite this, you went ahead and hired on with them.

NO sympathy for you. NONE.

[quote=bjack73]

Well, i started at Met today and wasn't too thrilled to find out that i had to pay for a laptop. Of course i asked about this during the interview but was told i did not have to purchase one. So much for trusting what is said in the interview. Also, they have a mandatory "call night" one day a week from 6pm-8pm. There are about 4 mandatory meetings a week i have to attend. So much for feeling entreprenuerial!!!

For a company that seemed like they enjoy pushing financial services, i sure heard a lot today about their insurance products and not so much about the brokerage world.

I never asked nor expected to receive any sympathy. However, i appreciate the response. Nice name by the way, at least the middle part.