From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Primerica Financial Services)
Jump to: navigation, search

Multi-level Marketing[edit]

Primerica is a MLM company, so I don't understand why this always kept getting deleted. The company identifies itself as so, therefore we have to stop these disruptive edits where someone adds "features of MLM" and leave it as "is a MLM company..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talkcontribs) 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where Primerica identifies itself as a MLM, they actually do the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Primerica does not identify itself as MLM. If you do think they do, prove it with something as a reliable source and until then leave it out.

Primerica is a Network Marketing Company. It has aspect of several types of company structures including MLM. The biggest difference, no one is required to purchase products and no money is made from recruiting. The individual structures are more like brokerage firms. One broker (RVP) with multiple agents (All below RVP). Rjhancock (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Primerica is registered not as a Multi-Level Marketing company, but as a business. It would make sense to look that up first wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMoKeCoDE (talkcontribs) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC) m —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To day that Primerica is not a MLM is either dishonest or ignorant. The fact is that people join and recruit others who in turn recruit others and so on. It is exactly a MLM. People run away from the MLM tag because it is (wrongly) associated with Ponzi schemes. The reality is that MLMs are amazaing ways to market products from toilet paper (Amway) to vitamins (Herbalife) to financial products (Primerica). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Primerica is a Modified General Agency. Not a pyramid nor a MLM. Pyramid's are illegal and MLMs a paid to recruit. Primerica is neither.rjhancock (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've worked for Primerica. You ARE paid to recruit. It IS an MLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't Primerica's agents receive part of the percentage of the sales their recruits make? If so, they don't necessarily make money when they recruit someone, but they do have a strong money incitative to recruit people, as with recruits making sales, they will make money than someone who has no recruits, it's just that this money is not as guaranteed as in "pure" MLM . —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFCmtl (talkcontribs) 04:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It's an override commission. Much like your boss getting paid more than you and receiving a bonus off of your hard work. It is NOT taken from the downline agent. The incentive isn't so much on the recruiting aspect as it is on developing those recruits into RVPs. The override is actually quite common in many fields. Real Estate, car sales, brokerage firms, insurance companies, etc. Most companies don't have a system like Primerica's. For example, in real estate, you are encouraged to have agents, but not encouraged to turn them into brokers. When they turn into brokers, the original broker loses all overrides. In insurance, if you are the "key" agent, and someone else wants that position, they must prove themselves. When they become the "key" agent, the agent that recruiting them loses the overrides. In Primerica, you actually get paid MORE by building and developing other RVPs.
In all honesty, it's becoming financially independent. Only way to do that is to build a business that pays you regardless of whether you work or not. Only way to do that is to recruit people to do the work so you don't have to. When that happens, you the owner receives an override from the work of others. How is that bad when you are encouraged to helps others do the same? rjhancock (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You just *defined* an MLM. Mike Hill, one of their independent salespersons, just called me to set up an interview about working there--he called it multi-level marketing. Why is this discussion continuing?-- (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
There are 3 traits that make a true MLM.
1) Can't make more than your upline. - Income in Primerica is determined by YOUR efforts and those of your downlines. If your downlines perform better than you, they get paid more than you.
2) Can't pass your upline. - Promotions are based on set guidelines, you hit them, you get promoted. Your upline can't stop you. If they block a promotion that you earned, you can go over there head and get it.
3) (and this one is a biggie) Can't offer or be offered as a security. Primerica sells Mutual Funds and related accounts as well as is listed on the NYSE as PRI.
Although members of the sales force will mistakenly call Primerica a MLM, it's a hybrid system between a Real Estate Brokerage (A broker with many agents) and a Franchise ( A business owner with multiple offices ). In both cases the owner receives an override off the work of those below them.
Why does it continue? People refuse to educate themselves on the finer details so mistakes happen as well as misunderstandings. (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That is an MLM. Primerica is an MLM. I can also tell you from personal experience having known dozens of peopel that have worked for Primerica and known exactly ZERO who've made money there it operated exactly like all other MLMs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it's technically a MLM or pyramid company doesn't really matter, just something about the way they do business leaves me just doesn't seem "on the level" to me. If other people want to buy from/work for them than that's their business but I think I'll steer clear for now. (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can an administrator please lock the issue one side or the other? I did a few edits adding MLM and it get edited back ASAP. I know from my experience (luckily short one) with them it's a MLM ; I have met up to 3 degrees on top of me, the agent had a big-shot title that I don't recall (vice-something or the like) and all their definition of the company pointed to MLM. I'd be extremely surprised if all those predatory practices were dropped in such a short time. DynV (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. The problem with this article clearly is that there are a lot of people who work for Primerica editing. The best thing to do is to just attract more impartial editors to the article. PeRshGo (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not so much that their are Primerica people editing it, it's more like some of the edits (like calling it a MLM when it's not) are unfounded and based on misunderstandings and misinformation.
@DynV - Just because the person who trains you MIGHT take a cut of a sale they are HELPING YOU WITH, does not automatically make it a MLM. Many companies have trainers that general get paid more than you do. If you had to train someone, in addition to your normal duties, wouldn't you want to be paid more? (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We can now end the argument, I found official comments submitted by Primerica lawyers to the FTC that describe the activities of the company as what they are: Multi-level marketing PDF. The funny thing about submissions to government agencies is that the agencies don't care about the marketing spin that you see being discussed in less serious venues (i.e. everywhere not involving regulatory issues that could, in the case of the rule Primerica was commenting on, prevent the use of MLM); they cut right through it --and, rightfully so, the lawyers working for Primerica and those hired by Primerica aren't going use anything other than exact descriptions (I have my own experience with this in dealing with FDA submissions). I would suggest that, instead of making this now moot MLM-issue a matter of being condemned, that it shifts to otherwise making the article more informative about Primerica so that a reader will learn about the company itself. --Bobak (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The FTC link has changed for the PDF containing Primerica's official comments confirming it is an MLM. It is now here --> [1]
Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 08:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Primerica spun off from Citigroup and went public in April 2010 (NYSE: PRI), when the company's IPO was heralded as one of the strongest financial services IPOs of 2010; in May 2010, the company was described by as "Re-founded and Reinvigorated" and Deutsche Bank analysts were issuing a "hold" recommendation for PRI's post-IPO stock. Ref.:

The people below who claim that Primerica is an MLM may not be idiots, but they definitely are ignorant as to the company and its current direction. I would liken them to literary critics who critize a book that they've never read, or to food critics lambasting the food of a restaurant in which they've never dined. They probably have never worked for the company, and they almost surely have not worked for the company since April 2010, which was when it was "re-founded" as described above. The company, its structure, compensation, products and services have drastically changed in the past year. Thus, to the extent there is a kernel of truth to their opinions, they are basing their opinions on old information.

I've worked on Wall Street (1994-1995; 1997-1999) and I've worked in Silicon Valley, CA (1999-2003); now I work with Primerica -- I say I work "with" Primerica because PRI is a unique blend of traditional employment and self-employment; right now I'm an independent contractor; when I'm promoted to Regional VP, which will happen in 2011 in my case, my technical role as to the company will be as a franchisee. Caution: the PRI structure and business model are not for everybody: with PRI you have to work to earn money, and you have to work for advancement/promotion in the company: sounds like ordinary capitalism to me. I do have the goal, in the next five years, of building a strong enough business so I can then sell it, or at least not have to manage it hour by hour. I know my accomplishing this goal will take determination and hard work, but based on my current estimations, I will accomplish it a lot faster with PRI than I would with other financial-services companies. With PRI I am the owner and builder of my own business; PRI is the supportive structure. PRI takes care of most of my back-office, pays for nearly all of my licensing and licensing education, training and training materials; with PRI I can become a full-fledged Securities Principal, Financial Advisor, and eventually a CFP if I so choose. The leadership structure at PRI does have a hierarchy, but it's not as bad as the typical corporate structure that I'm familiar with -- mainly because I'm not an ordinary employee. Really, PRI's structure rewards me for building a viable financial-product-selling business under my leadership without regard to, or penalty because of, anything going on at corporate or anyone "above" me in the corporate structure. I've never felt like I've been "talked down to" either.

With PRI about half of the financial products my clients buy are branded "Primerica", but a number of the products are from outside vendors or vendor-affiliates with such names as Citicorp Trust Bank, Equifax, Invesco, Legg Mason, Frankin Templeton, MetLife and Genworth, to name a few. These products are sold directly to families and individuals at their kitchen tables. Thus, to call PRI a "referral marketer" is incomplete and inaccurate; we don't just "market", we also sell directly and our clients buy, just like Sears or Morgan Stanley. Nearly all of our new clients are referrals from existing clients or PRI reps, just like every other financial services company. My PRI team and I sell a broad range of financial products, including many types of insurance, investments, loans, etc. Because of PRI's unique relationship with multiple vendors, and because we our we sell a full spectrum of financial products, we can focus on what's most financially suitable for a client rather than pushing products on them that they don't need or want. The financial products we sell are some of the best-rated in the industry, are very competively priced and low-cost to our clients and include many beneficial features and cost-savings not available with our competitors. For example, PRI only sells term life insurance, which is touted by financial gurus like Suzy Orman and Dave Ramsey as the only type of life insurance that middle-income people need.

So let's ask ourselves, like Dave Ramsey has on television, how many of the rabid mob below are out there selling over-priced, rip-off cash-value life insurance policies to the doe-eyed public simply because they legally can?-- you make the call. Wikiupdate21 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of page three on this report filed by Primerica Financial Services. Here, Primerica calls itself a provider of "multi-level market opportunities." -- Ruzihm user|talk|contribs 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, this report filed in october 2010 still refers to Primerica as a company that is affected by "suggested changes to various definitions to ensure that MLMs were not inadvertently swept within the scope of the Rule.40". The footnote reads, "40 See, e.g., Tupperware-RNPR; Primerica-RNPR; Mary Kay-RNPR.". -- Ruzihm user|talk|contribs 16:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
As Ruzihm noted, it doesn't matter how good an essay is: when a group of lawyers describe the company as an MLM to the government, there's no wiggle room for marketing/PR spin. I suggest making the article strong alongside that information rather than treating it as the end-all. --Bobak (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Those of you who keep insisting that PRI is an MLM, please define for us what you think the characteristics of an MLM are; then we can discuss if Primerica meets your definition; just calling it "a MLM" over and over doesn't make it so.

Many in this discussion claim Primerica is an MLM by referring to a written comment that came from a private law firm in Primerica's employ in May 2008 that was filed with the FTC in connection with that agency's proposed rule-making regarding the business opportunity rule. Nowhere in the 2008 comment do Primerica's outside attorneys specifically call their client a "multi-level" anything; rather, the comment is all a bunch of written lawyer-talk about definitions under the rule, including, among other definitions, the definition of "multi-level marketing." This clearly is not the "smoking gun" you think it is; not to mention it was from May 2008, about two years before the company's April 2010 IPO-spinoff from Citi.

There also is discussion below about the word "Primerica" showing up in an Oct 2010 FTC report in connection with the same 2008 rule-making process described above. This reference to "Primerica" also is a tiny "so what?" because this report was drafted by the FTC, not by Primerica or its attorneys, and in Oct 2010 the FTC is merely referring to the May 2008 comment described above in footnote 6 on p.3 that says: "Primerica-RNPR, etc." So the FTC is referring to comments, plural, from multiple organizations, that are similar to Primerica's attorneys' 2008 comment. Who cares? All this shows is the FTC is finally, in 2010, getting around to addressing the issues from comments from 2008. How sad is that? A new "smoking gun"-- I don't think so. What the critics are doing in this discussion is similar to dredging up old caches on google and passing them off as "new evidence" -- silly.

Again, why don't a few of you folks think of a few (3-5) specific characteristics of MLMs, so this discussion can be more than just binobo-speak: "yes you are" -- "no I'm not", "yes you are" -- no I'm not" over and over, which is how it has been playing out with the edits on the main Primerica page for the past month.

Signing off -- (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop putting your spiels at the beginning of the thread. Please instead place it at the end, thank you. Anyway, documents published by the FTC offer a neutral point of view of a business model, so it is not sufficient to dismiss the document as evidence simply for that reason. Instead, let us get to the heart of why you dismiss it. I will show my reasoning to reach my claim, and you will select one or more statements you disagree with.
  1. I understand that the 2010 document refers to MLMs that are not to be swept under the scope. Do you dispute this claim?
  2. Furthermore, I understand that it lists PRIMERICA as a specific example of such a thing. Do you dispute this claim?
  3. (1 and 2) Therefore, I infer that this document claims that PRIMERICA is an MLM. Do you disagree with this reasoning?
  4. I understand that the FTC is a neutral source in matters of business and that their definition of an MLM is the one we should use. Do you dispute this claim?
  5. (4) Therefore, I infer that if the FTC calls something an MLM, it is, at least when it was referred to as an MLM, an MLM. Do you dispute this reasoning?
  6. (3 and 5)I conclude that because this document, written by agents of the FTC, calls PRIMERICA an MLM, it is by the definition of an MLM that we accept as neutral and valid (because the FTC decides on what characteristics define an MLM, not us) that we know that PRIMERICA is in fact an MLM.
Now, please tell me which of these steps you disagree with. And then we could discuss this further. -- Ruzihm user|talk|contribs 20:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Oct 2010 FTC document: The Oct 2010 FTC-published document was published solely by the FTC and is merely referring to the May 2008 PRI-FTC published document in footnote 6 on p.3; i.e., "6.[] Primerica-[], etc." You are pretending like the Oct 2010 document is new evidence, when it's only referencing the 2008 document. Also, you are ignoring that the Oct 2010 document was solely published by the FTC, not by PRI and the FTC. Also, are ignoring the ", etc." part, which clearly indicates that Primerica's 2008 comment was not the only one of its kind; i.e., other companies were making similar comments as part of this rule-making process. Let's at least play journalists here.

The May 2008 FTC-PRI document: I don't claim to be an expert on FTC rule-making process, but I do understand federal agency rule-making in the SEC, FINRA, EPA, IRS and Fed-Treasury contexts; I also understand that from a regulated company's point of view (think 2008, not today), if I were the CEO of PRI or any other company, I would let a federal regulatory body call me and my company a "dumb-butt" if it was going to save me even $1,000 on the regulatory/taxation side. To do anything else would be a breach of my duty to my company and its shareholders. Who keeps insisting that this almost two-year old information should be included in the first paragraph on the main page for this company, especially since it went public in Apr 2010?-- Have you ever worked for a company that's gone public?-- the company, and its business model, marketing methods, etc., always change and usually change very drastically. Again, let's at least play journalists here.

MLMs: You never answered my simple question: what does the term "MLM" mean to you?-- don't think PRI here; think 3-5 specific characteristics of an MLM. Let's at least play at real debate here. (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Folks: We're not here to discuss what MLM means, or whether we think that term applies to this company. Our opinions don't count. We're not here to debate either. We should be concerned solely with summarizing what reliable sources say on the matter. We're not journalists - we're encyclopedists.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It's irrelevant what I think is an MLM—only what a verifiable, neutral source will call an MLM.-- Ruzihm user|talk|contribs 12:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
And there's no more reliable source than the company's own lawyers. Any other arguments, without similar caliber sources, are irrelevant. --Bobak (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable -- Ruzihm user|talk|contribs 15:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Primerica has an aggressive sales force that like other MLM companies, aggressively seeks to recruit new salespeople with "get rich quick" pitches. Many potential recruits will look at this article, and it is important for them to see some key information about the company. A link to the wikipedia MLM page is thus very important. The average compensation per agent figure is also important. This page appears to be the victim of aggressive editing out of negative information by company employees.

As for the doubts that Primerica is an MLM, I am adding a link to a San Francisco Chronicle article that describes it as such.

Declanscottp (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not an MLM. In MLMs you have don't have to be licensed hy the state to work there. With Primerica, you have to be licensed by the state to work with them. By the way our pitches aren't "get rick quick." It takes time to make money in Primerica. The owner of the office I work in has been on Primerica for 9 years and he only makes 600k. He didn't start out like that. It took blood, sweat and tears for him to make that sort of income. So in conclusion, we are not an MLM since you have to be licensed by the state to work with us. KAE581 (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

POV in Criticism[edit]

In 2007 Primerica's licensed agents earned an average of $6820 in compensation. The income level that an agent achieves is also depicted upon the licenses obtained, contract level at which the agent receives commissions and the amount of personal production and commission-based business written in the field as well as the size and activity of an agent's downline. Generally, Agents who work hard and persevere will make the most money.

This is 3/4th of the paragraph on criticism in the company. How is this criticism? I have read through the talk and can see that numerous representatives work hard to polish the company's reputation, surely they can at least see that this is unacceptable, this page is categorized as Multi-Level Marketing, why is this not more clearly stated in the criticism section. (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Primerica is a modified general agency that uses the network marketing method. Primerica is not a multi-level marketing company. This has also been stated above. rjhancock (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia should include all significant views found in reliable sources. If some folks say it's a multi-level marketing organization, and others say it's a modified gernal agency, then we should include both of those views. See WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, however Primerica IS registered as a Modified General Agency. The formation was taken from how Real Estate Brokerage houses work (A broker overrides agents). Many insurance companies also use a similar model. Neither are considered Multi Level Marketing companies however even though they market the same way as well as additional methods. rjhancock (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Find a source that says so and add it.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure where to add it, however, it is listed on Citi's history page of Primerica [[2]] starting in the 1984 section and on. AL Williams is referred as a general agency. rjhancock (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit unclear. "A. L. Williams general agency." It's not a sentence. And it refers to a predecessor entity, not Primerica. But if you want to say that AL Williams was referred to as a "general agency" then the source would appear to support that.   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


RE: The recent tech updates. Some of the news was released internally and not publicized. I've tried to locate public sources to no avail. I do think it is newsworthy to note that Primerica agents can do applications on their phone as I've yet to hear of other companies allowing that. Most either require filling out a paper application, or online/over the phone. I have heard of one of Primerica's copy cats allowing securities applications soon though. rjhancock (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's newsworthy then let's wait until it's been reported in the news. Every company has technologies for internal communication. But in general we don't report that XYZ Co. has just installed pneumatic tubes, or that Amalgamated Industries has added to its fleet of carrier pigeons, or that United Widgets has switched to using organic paper in their memos. And many things are reported in internal memos that are not news either, such as changes to the dress code or 401k program. Let's stick to verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Although the finer details are not newsworthy, I do believe the architecture change is at least noteworthy. Section was shortened to reference the article with a paraphrases excerpt. rjhancock (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
We need a secondary source, not just a press release from the firm, to show that this is notable in any way.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New Company[edit]

Today, PFS is announcing a massive amount of changes to the company (public facing stuff should be released via PR) including name changes, logo changes, structure changes, etc. Since I am no where near skilled enough (as of now) to make said changes, shall I just post the PR links once released and let someone else do the edits? rjhancock (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

Effective on April 1st, Primerica's name will officially change to Primerica, Inc and not be Primerica Financial Services. Effective that date, PFS will also no longer be a sub of citi-holdings. rjhancock (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Source? If so, we should probably move the article to the new name on that date. The article should retain the use of "PFS" for the old company and use the new name for future material. It should also be removed from the Citigroup category then.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
This should suffice. Almost every article on the IPO deals with Primerica, Inc and not Primerica Financial Services. Primerica, Inc is the new company that will eventually be the parent for all the subsidiaries (life, securities, etc). AM Best Rating ReAffirmation rjhancock (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Looks like the one line paragraph was pulled from the disclosure page. Is that even noteworthy since it really isn't criticism? rjhancock (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The heading could be changed to reflect the content. Perhaps something like "Agent compensation".   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
But is it even worth being in? It's posted on the standard disclosures page as well as on all recruiting disclosures handed out by agents. Especially since it is a bit misleading. It is the average of all agents, not those that actually turn in business so it includes the ~83% that don't turn in anything. rjhancock (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I just searched Google and found this recent article: [3] It seems to cover compensation and recruitment issues. I suggest we summarize its material in this section.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really, I talked with the author before he published it. He was looking for anything to smear the company name. Some of the information he has posted is also outdated despite just going live. If a document is referenced, I suggest the original prospectus and summarize it. I think it would be a better source than a writer referencing a blog post as his source. rjhancock (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears to have been published or at least hosted by the SF Chronicle. Has Primerica asked for a correction or anything like that? There's no requirement that sources be neutral.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it was republished at the SFC. I honestly don't know if they sent a letter. I'm a mere agent trying to help keep the article NPOV. I'll accept negative criticism when it's written with documented evidence by a credible third party (court rulings, SEC, FINRA, Regulatory organizations, etc). Not an author citing a forum posting or writing due to a lack of understanding of the company. Granted criticism has a POV by nature, most for any company can be surmised by either a bad experience or a misunderstanding. rjhancock (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The SF Chron, by republishing the material, is taking responsibility for it. In what way is the article inaccurate?   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
1) Primerica is NOT a MLM. Primerica is a Modified General Agency. 2) Primerica does not employ it's agents. The agents are 1099 Independent contractors. 3) annuities are sold through MetLife. 4) few of the products are Citi's, most are not. 5) Goal of the rep is to help families, not push products. 6) although 11 Tier, RVPs only make overrides no more than 6 deep. 7) An office can be a building or an agents car. As an RVP, they are REQUIRED to have a brick and mortar office to store files. 8) not all licensed agents pay the POL fee and that fee is different based on level as well with RVPs paying more than agents. 9) To find an agent's office, all one really has to do is google it (New York, NY - where the author lives) is showing 303 listings in Google Maps). rjhancock (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to look into this further. I suggest we don't make any changes to the section for the time being. Just one comment for the moment, regarding point #5, I'd assume that the main goal of an agent is to make money. If they were simply interested in helping families there are probably more direct ways of doing so.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The goal of each agent is determined by each agent. The over all goal the company sets for each agent is to help families. My main goal has always been families first and I stress that with each client. Some agents are anything for a buck. Overall in my office is make all you can, but put the client first. If it ain't good for the client, don't do it.
I don't doubt that that is your personal experience. But in a dispute between an article published by the SF Chronicle and the personal experience of an editor the Wikipedia policies favor the published source.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
True. Company's mission statement is simply "To help families become debt free, properly protected, and financially independent." To incite a constructive debate, how does that imply pushing products? rjhancock (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This is really a philosophical discussion, and not suited to this effort. But I'm not aware of any company that says it's purpose is to push products, yet that's what generally ends up happening otherwise they'd go out of business. Anyway, we need to look at the broader issues surrounding this source to judge its reliability.   Will Beback  talk  06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Will, you have the patience of a saint, dealing with these Primerica Kool-aid drinkers in a calm, rational fashion as you do. Unfortunately, you are dealing with people desperate to cling to an ideology, and no amount of patience and topical discussion is going to allow any criticism, sourced or otherwise, to live long on this page.

Links critical of the company have once again been removed without explanation, as well as the entire "criticism" header. I have reviewed them and am putting them back in. Declanscottp (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


What part of the article looks like an ad? From what I can read, it looks like the history of the company. I don't see a SINGLE part that screams "Contact your local Primerica agent today!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The unencyclopedic and overwhelmingly positive tone make the article read like a press release rather than an encyclopedia article. PeRshGo (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So because there is little to no verifiable negative information about a company the article is automatically assumed to be advertising when it's just giving a company history with verifiable third party sources? As has been stated before, if one can find VERIFIABLE negative information, post it. I've watched this article for the last several years, little actual negative can be posted per Wikipedia's guidelines. And of all the press releases I've read (which are quite a few), NONE have read anything like this. (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I looked at several other companies Wiki pages. They contain similar content. By PeRshGo's standards, they are also advertisements. Should we mark them as well? All content in this article can be verified by 3rd parties. The lack of trustworthy verifiable negative content does not mean there isn't any, just that it is hard to find or hard to link to. I've looked. What little I find isn't worth linking to or has not easy link to it (FINRA's database for example). Even by Wikipedia's standards this article is NOT an advertisement, but by yours it is. (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
An article can be filled to the brim with information verified by 3rd parties, but still be written like an advertisement. It's a matter of balance and tone. You continue to revert edits without addressing the glaring problem. You continue to bring up the issue of a lack of negative verifiable third party sources. I haven’t even mentioned that. The article is just clearly written like an advertisement, and as such is inappropriate for this forum. PeRshGo (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
And I've looked up other companies on Wikipedia that are also written in a similar fashion that are NOT marked as advertising. Second, if it was so clearly marked as an advertisement, why wasn't it marked BEFORE over the last few years? Also, how is the much abbreviated history of a 33 year old company an advertisement when there is NOTHING in the article saying, directly or indirectly, to contact any agent. Isn't Wikipedia suppose to be an online source of information that is publicly editable to ensure accuracy?
I've also had several advertising majors review the article, not one says it's advertising. Please clarify what part you think constitutes advertising? History? Reception? Compensation (which I don't think should be there but some might find it useful)? Seriously, please enlighten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for all if definite examples of what might be regarded as 'Advertising' in the article was given. Overall I think this article is approaching borderline, but generally ok. But the tone of it could be improved. For example, after a quick scan of the article I noticed this bit;

 Clients have the opportunity to get insurance quotes on the spot and complete the life application paperlessly.

This sounds a bit too much like an advert directed at potential clients, emphasising the ease and speed of the process. It would be better phrased without reference to any of this, which is of course all a matter of opinion. So something like ;

Paperless Insurance quotes and life applications can be obtained and completed online.

This is factual, neutral, and doesn't have the hint of an advert about it.

Problems like this are evident in a number of places in the article. They need to be re-written so they do not sound like the article is addressed to potential customers or 'sales representatives'. Remember, this article is primarily about the company. Not its products, nor speculation/opinion about who its customers are and how they benefit from it.

Hope this helps. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite factual. Life quotes can NOT be done online but via the TurboApps software on the Window Mobile platform used by it's agents, but I get the point. Auto/Homeowners quotes/applications CAN be done, but are done via a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is outdated. Life quotes can now be done by agents using TurboApps either using the internal website or apps for iPad, iPhone or Android. Windows mobile is mostly phased out but can still be used for mutual fund applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the article slightly to take out some unnecessary information to make it look more encyclopedic and blunt. Please let me know if it sounds better. P.S. (Off-topic) Why isn't my signature linked to my talk page? Timberlax 15:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlax (talkcontribs)

Can somebody remove that "Advertisement" claim in the box on top? This is a factual piece and looks nothing like an advertisement. Why is this here? Can it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason this page doesn't have a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section? (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add one if you have legitimate and pertinent information to share.COice6 (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the people recently asking to remove the "Advertisement" claim, I agree. That notification tag was created during a discussion that is over two years old. Apparently, a lot has already been done to remedy this issue. However, to further douse the potentially advertisement-like quality of this Wikipedia page, I edited the "Travelers and Citigroup era" section, removing the sentence stating, "(Primerica CEO Joe Plumeri) gave a five-hour speech at one meeting, pausing only to change his sweat-soaked shirt." That is unnecessary detail. Was that added simply to evoke an emotional response of awe or something? If you want to undo that removal, by all means, go ahead. I won't stop you. I really don't care about that line at all. Technically, there's actually nothing wrong with it at all. I made that removal purely in efforts at appeasing any potential residual objections to the notification tag's removal. Ultimately, there are no further significant specific instances where this page might conveys itself as an advertisement. Thus, I have removed this notification tag. Any substantial objections should be discussed here. COice6 (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious redirect[edit]

Why is $MART a redirect to this page? If there is a connection, it should be explained on this page. If not, the redirect page should be deleted. YBG (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Because $MART is a product that used to be offered by Primerica and is still being offered in Canada (I believe). It was a product that, on average, had a higher interest rate than a traditional mortgage, clients paid less in fees, interest, and had it paid off sooner than a traditional mortgage. When the mortgage bubble burst, the product went away. It is important to note that it had one of the lowest default rates in the industry (~ 0.5% ). It was a great product, just unconventional and had limited funding backing it. rjhancock (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I'd suggest that a brief note be added to this article so that the redirect is not so unexpected. YBG (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agent Compensation Section Removal[edit]

Wikipedia, advertising the monetary compensation paid to agents of a specific insurance company? That needs to remain removed. No other insurance company on this Wikipedia database has a "Agent Compensation" section. Why should this one be an exception? True: agent compensation information for various companies may be found online. However, advertising this sort information for prospective employees is NOT the responsibility of Wikipedia. COice6 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(2016) According to Primerica's "Book of Destiny" Cumulative big earners list, and applying the fine print below it, which reads; "These figures represent 12-month rolling cash flow levels, including advances, which have been achieved by Primerica representatives, past and present, at some point during their affiliation with a Primerica Company, beginning in 1977. The representatives are not necessarily achieving those levels at this time. Further, the numbers reflected in the “Cumulative Number of Earners” column are cumulative from level to level and, therefore, include all representatives who have ever achieved the stated cash flow figures." The following can be deduced (as of 12/31/14); $50+k earners-3067 reps $100+k earners-2845 reps $1M+ earners-51 reps $2M+ earners-16 reps $5M+ earners-1 rep Since 1977, there have been a minimum of 500,000+ individual reps. Of those, a mere 5,980 reps have ever exceeded $50k earned during their best "12 month rolling window", in 38 years. And many may have only done it once. That represents a mere 1% of all their reps over 38 years. One can therefore say that 99% earn less than $50k, during any 12 month rolling window.

S&P 400 Addition[edit]

On Feb 14, 2013 Primerica is being added to the S&P 400 MidCap Index[1]. Where would the best place to add it be? I'm thinking under IPO as an update. rjhancock (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Edit request on 15 June 2013[edit]

Illegal claim?

Please remove any references of Primerica being an Multi Level Marketing Company because it is an inaccurate statement, that potentially violates Libel Laws.

I believe that the State of Texas requires that ALL Multi-Level Marketing Companies REGISTER as such in Texas. This is Texas Law, and can be verified on the Texas Attorney General website (or the Georgia Attorney General Website). Other states (not all) have similar laws concerning the registration of MLM companies. IF Primerica was an MLM then they would be operating illegally in the State of Texas, because they are not registered as an MLM in Texas. Primerica has had offices in Texas for at least 30 years. If this company truly was an MLM, the state of Texas has had decades to identify, make them comply, and then prosecute them for non-compliance with Texas MLM registration laws. Since the State o f Texas has not attempted to make Primerica comply with MLM Laws, then obviously Primerica is not an MLM company. To insist that they ARE an MLM, borders on violating Libel Laws. They are not an MLM, to say that they are is not a true statement. And knowing that they are not an MLM, and still printing that they are an MLM would seem that the persons who submitted this information could possibly be doing so with malicious intent, to cause harm to the reputation of Primerica.

I would recommend talking with someone that has a legal background, as this article, as printed seems, to be in violation of LIBEL laws, but again, I am not an attorney.

All references to Primerica being an MLM should be removed, as Primerica does not meet the legal definitions of MLM companies as described by the Laws of several States. It is the Law that decides the definition of Business Models, not some random statement made by a newspaper journalist.

Please make this entry accurate by the laws that govern, not the opinion of a journalist. Timofut (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

We have at least one reliable source that explicitly does call it an MLM, and we (as editors) are forbidden from using our own logic to say anything other than what sources explicitly say. For example, it's your analysis as a non-lawyer of legal issues that says they are not MLM, in conjunction with your consideration of the state of one jurisdiction's enforcement of one of its sets of regulations. See also the above discussions on this talk page, where someone notes that Primerica filed documents with FTC in which they identify themselves as MLM! (footnote 8 in the current article). DMacks (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
In Texas, there are requirements that Primerica do not me regarding REGISTERING as a MLM company. They are located here:
Most notably, sign up fees are much less than $500, there is no requirement to purchase any product, and no guarantees are made about return on investment. The law states nothing about what Texas constitutes as a MLM, only that those companies require registering as one. rjhancock (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

11 Dalbar Awards[edit]

PFS Investments earned it's 11th Consecutive Dalbar Award for Customer Service. Should this be noted anywhere? rjhancock (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. That link is just a press-release, and neither Dalbar Award not Dalbar seem to go anywhere relevant. That doesn't prove anything, but it's a good indicator that this award isn't especially significant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. If you can find a better source, it might possibly be worth it, but I doubt it. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The Dalbar award is given out to companies that far exceed customer service expectations. Going beyond "Above and Beyond" so to speak. From an encyclopedic standpoint, I see it won't add any real value. However, could the award links be updated to point to the 11th one instead of the 9th? (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I changed the source from the old press release to the new one above. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014[edit]

Please include at least an opportunity for people to see what happens to a lot of people because of this "company".. (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done Sorry, that source doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines (Reliable sources). Since there is no editorial oversight to comment-sections, and contributors are basically anonymous, the complaints cannot be verified, which is a core principle of Wikipedia (see WP:SPS for details). If you can find a better source, please bring it to out attention, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Primerica IS NOT a Multi-level Marketing Company![edit]

Primerica IS NOT a Multi-level Marketing Company! Primerica Does NOT claim to be an MLM and it is NOT registered as an MLM! It is registered as a financial services marketing and distribution company. As an agent, YOU DO NOT GET PAID TO RECRUIT new agents! You get paid when you teach, train and develop a new agent to help their clients with the services and products, in the form of a shared commission or override, just like in the real estate business model and just like other financial firms in this country do. Which by the way, have been proven to be some of the best products of it's kind on the market today. No one get's paid to recruit or when you recruit another new agent. Those are the FACTS no matter what anyone says! If someone calls Primerica a MLM weather they work as an agent or not, it is FALSE information! The agent could be new and still not yet fully understand the business model if he or she has not been properly informed or trained. For those who insist on describing Primerica as an MLM or network marketing business, I would encourage you to do your due diligence and contact the company headquarters directly and ask them for the FACTS before making false claims about the company's business model and structure. They will tell you that they are a new hybrid business model in which they blend many different business models, (i.e. traditional corporate business with "entrepreneurship"). The current CEO, Glenn Williams stated that exact information on national T.V. during the 5 year anniversary of the company's IPO on Wall Street in April 2015. The false information and myths that are being published to the internet about Primerica on a constant basis is absolute mis information and often times intentional attacks by competitors or individuals who were not willing to work hard in order to be successful with the company. Some people claim to have worked with Primerica, which may be true but, still the false attacks are often times malicious and hateful attempts to damage the companies reputation. Those who claim to have worked with Primerica and "didn't make any money", never disclose to everyone how much Time and Effort they did or DID NOT put into trying to make money, which is 99% of the reason why they didn't make money. It doesn't happen over night. That's why it's NOT a Get Rich Quick scheme! It requires real work. Just like a real business does. Many people are not willing to actually work at it, or they are not trainable, or they simply "give up" the first time something doesn't go there way, therefore they quit on themselves and probably don't succeed at much of anything else either. Which is why they are still looking for some other way to be successful. Meanwhile, those who stick with it at Primerica are the ones everyone talks about who are making their dreams come true and making a great living by helping others do the same. Let's call it what it is.... To be Successful... YOU HAVE TO WORK HARD and remain trainable. Just because someone failed in the business, that does not make that Primerica's fault or even a reason to call them a MLM. Primerica was recently named by Forbes Magazine as one of America's Top Most Trusted Financial Companies, where they actually ranked at the Very Top with a high score of 99% over almost all other companies. In addition to this, Primerica has countless notable accolades and industry awards including having won the Dalbar Mutual Fund Service Award for 12 years in a row. Primerica was recently recognized by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution as one of the best workplaces in Georgia. Primerica maintains an A+ rating with AM's Best and the BBB and they are highly regarded on wall street and by experienced investors as a "good investment" due to the brilliance and success of their business model. Please get the FACTS and from a FACTUAL source when making claims about Primerica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

[4] - I think this says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, especially secondary sources, and does not accept personal anecdote or original research. The MLM claim is sourced to this article from the San Francisco Chronicle. If you believe this information is incorrect, you need to present verifiable sources supporting that. Additionally, your description of multi-level marketing seems somewhat selective, and getting paid to "teach, train and develop a new agent to help their clients with the services and products, in the form of a shared commission or override..." seems entirely compatible with a MLM business. I've lost track of how many MLM's describe themselves as being a "new" type of business to try and distance themselves from the label... Wikipedia doesn't list non-notable awards without solid secondary sources explaining their significance, and BBB ratings are usually considered too routine to mention. Anyway, please use reliable sources, not personal experience, when editing Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Primerica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

undue weight[edit]

This is being given undue weight

In 1998, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) censured and fined PFS Investments Inc., the securities arm for Primerica, for failure to properly supervise a group of registered representatives in Dearborn, Michigan. The SEC found that PFS Investments Inc. had failed to have in place effective policies and procedures to follow up adequately on three complaints received about the Dearborn registered representatives, "selling away" activities. Prior to the SEC's ruling, PFS Investments Inc. hired an independent consultant to review its supervisory and compliance policies and procedures to prevent and detect violations of the federal securities laws. By the date of the ruling, PFS Investments reported it had complied with the final recommendations made by the independent consultant.[24]

The SEC handles episodes like this with many brokers all the time. Unless such things are being given equal prominence on all broker/dealer wiki pages, then this is undue weight which only serves to insinuate things (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2016[edit]

About Primerica, Inc. Primerica, Inc., headquartered in Duluth, GA, is a leading distributor of financial products to middle income households in North America. Primerica representatives educate their Main Street clients about how to better prepare for a more secure financial future by assessing their needs and providing appropriate solutions through term life insurance, which we underwrite, and mutual funds, annuities and other financial products, which we distribute primarily on behalf of third parties. In addition, Primerica provides an entrepreneurial full or part-time business opportunity for individuals seeking to earn income by distributing the company’s financial products. We insured approximately 5 million lives and have over 2 million client investment accounts at December 31, 2015. Primerica stock is included in the S&P MidCap 400 and the Russell 2000 stock indices and is traded on The New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “PRI”. - See more at: (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Primerica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017[edit]

Primerica is not a multi-level-marketing company. It is a network marketing company. (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism Section and protected status[edit]

Based on the talk history, there was previously a criticism section. Given the persistent non-NPOV edits by company "independent businessmen" ignoring very clear NPOV evidence from the company's own lawyers, and ultimately requiring this page to be made semi-protected, I suspect that the criticism section has met a similar fate. I request that whatever remains in the edit history be restored and that the article be given protected status to protect it from further ultimately biased edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2017[edit]

1) Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "|foundation = February 10, 1977" to "|foundation = {start date and age|1977|2|10}" to correspond to Primerica's official founding date?

2) And could somebody also un-abbreviate the "GA" and change it to simply "Georgia"? Along with the "United States" being abbreviated to simply "U.S."? So that it's "|location = Duluth, Georgia, U.S.". (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Partly done: Only thing not done is that I simply removed the US invocation. Izno (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Primerica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)