In Defense of the “FREE LUNCH” Seminar

The National Ethics Bureau recently issued a Red Flag Reminder about Government Regulators “Hungry” for Senior “Free Lunches.” I have read references in a number of articles lately that insinuate that if an agent is holding luncheon seminars in order to meet new prospects for their senior financial business, then that SHOULD be a red flag as to their legitimacy and ethics. The fact that this notice is given in the first place is indication enough that there are growing critics who would seek to eliminate, or somehow control the marketing methods an agent chooses to use.

The core of this issue reminds me of the discussion about gun control. The question is whether it is the “free lunch” seminar that is the problem; or, if it is the few agents who choose to use the medium of seminars to fraudulently further their business with misleading information and deceptive business practices. I am all for eliminating the con artists from this industry, since this is a business of trust. The more reputable ALL agents are perceived; the better it will be for everyone. But let’s don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. The luncheon seminar is good for both agent AND seniors.

I find the claims by critics of the luncheon seminar, that simply by filling up the stomachs of seniors they will drop all of their good judgment and somehow lose their ability to evaluate financial decisions for themselves, is a naïve and offensive insinuation. Contrary to the indications in the Red Flag Reminder, the purpose of a financial seminar presented to seniors is NOT education. At least, it is not for the purpose of educating anyone about a particular financial topic. In fact, agents who attempt to provide too MUCH information about some financial concepts will more often do harm than good when attendees believe they have received enough information to make informed decisions and take action on their own. The seminar should merely open up awareness to important topics with the identification of potential problem areas, and the suggestion of possible solutions; but always with the clarification that each person’s financial situation is different and must be carefully evaluated by a professional before suitablity can be determined, and that more detailed information is required before any major decisions should be made.

But the real value of the seminar, lunch or not, is that it allows the senior attendee to privately and anonymously evaluate the agent who is speaking, BEFORE they decide if they want to consent to an individual consultation with them or disclose any personal financial information. At the same time, for the agent, it allows them to reach a large number of qualified people at one time, and THEN only have to spend time individually with the ones who specifically have a stated interest in discussing their detailed financial affairs further with the agent.

The intrusion of the government into the use of seminars as an introductory marketing method is a discriminatory affront to the thousands of honest financial professionals who use them and are diligently working hard to provide the best service possible for their clients and are simply attempting to expand their client base. All industries have used seminars, including legal, financial, investment, as well as insurance. Each industry has the interest and the means to supervise the resulting business practices of the seminar sponsors. Rather than attack the seminar as a structure, why not focus more on the inappropriate business and trade practices? Lets go after the con artists and leave legitimate business professionals alone.