Beyond Structured Settlements

Annual Industry Reports

Historical Structured Settlement Industry Reports (2006-2015) which previously appeared on the structured settlement wiki.

Annual Structured Settlement Industry Reports:

• 2015
• Part 1 - Market Metrics
• Part 2 - Issues and Developments
• 2014
• Part 1 - Primary market
• Part 2 - Secondary market
• Part 3 - Settlement planning
• Part 4 - ELNY and Reliance
• 2013
• Part 1 - Primary market
• Part 2 - Settlement planning
• Part 3 - Secondary market
• Part 4 - ELNY and Reliance
• 2012
• Part 1 - Primary market
• Part 2 - Settlement planning
• Part 3 - Secondary market
• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York
• 2011
• Part 1 - Executive Life of New York
• Part 2 - Strategic perspective
• Part 3 - Industry developments
• 2010
• Part 1 - Looking forward
• Part 2 - Year in review
• 2009
• Part 1 - Looking forward
• Part 2 -Strategic analysis
• Part 3 - Mid-year update
• Part 4 - Year in review
• 2008
• Part 1 - Historical perspective
• Part 2 - Industry conferences
• Part 3 - Industry analysis
• 2007
• 2006

Past Reporting - ASNP, NAELA, NAMSAP

Historical S2KM reporting about conferences sponsored by ASNP, NAELA and NAMSAP which previously appeared on the structured settlement wiki.

ASNP

• 2007 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2008 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2009 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2010 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2011 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2012 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2013 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2014 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2015 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2016 ASNP Annual Meeting
• 2017 ASNP Annual Meeting

NAELA

• 2006 NAELA Advanced Institute
• 2007 Advanced Elder Law Institute
• 2008 NAELA Symposium
• Part 1
• Part 2
• 2010 NAELA Special Needs Summit
• Part 1 - summary
• Part 2 - analysis
• Part 3 - web 2.0 webinar
• 2012 Ohio NAELA Unprogram
• 2013 NAELA Annual Meeting
• 2014 NAELA Annual Conference
• 2016 NAELA Summit

NAMSAP

• 2005 NAMSAP Annual Meeting
• 2008 NAMSAP Annual Meeting
• 2010 NAMSAP Annual Meeting
• 2014 NAMSAP Regional Meeting
• Part 1
• Part 2
• 2014 NAMSAP Annual Meeting
• 2015 NAMSAP Winter Regional Conference
• 2015 NAMSAP Annual Conference

Past Reporting - NASP

Historical S2KM reporting about National Association of Settlement Purchaser (NASP) Conferences which previously appeared on the structured settlement wiki.

NASP

• 2006 NASP Conference
• Part 1 - speakers and topics
• Part 2 - structured settlement market overview and how the primary market views factoring
• 2007 NASP Conference
• Part 1 - educational program wiki
• Part 2 - primary market transfer issues
• Part 3 - primary market panel discussion
• 2008 NASP Conference
• Part 1 - primary market panel discussion questions
• Part 2 - primary market panel participants
• Part 3 - how to improve and grow the market
• 2009 NASP Conference
• Part 1 - a listing of educational issues and participants;
• Part 2 - a summary of the educational discussions;
• Part 3 - a closer look at the strategic discussions.
• 2010 NASP Conference
• Part 1 - industry issues
• Part 2 - discussion topics
• Part 3 - "protect and preserve" vs. "improve and grow"
• Part 4 - strategic questions
• 2011 NASP Conference
• Part 1 - summary
• Part 2 - criticism of S2KM reporting
• 2012 NASP Conference
• Part 1 - speakers and topics
• Part 2 - industry issues
• Part 3 - presentation summaries
• 2013 NASP Conference
• Part 1 - speakers and topics
• Part 2 - discussion of issues
• 2014 NASP Conference
• 2015 NASP Conference

Past Reporting - SSP

Historical S2KM Reporting about Society of Settlement Planner (SSP) Conferences which previously appeared on the structured settlement wiki.

SSP

• 2005 SSP Annual Meeting
• 2006 SSP Annual Meeting
• 2007 SSP Annual Meeting
• 2007 SSP Fall Meeting
• 2008 SSP Annual Meeting - 2 posts
• 2009 SSP Annual Meeting
• 2010 SSP Annual Meeting
• Part 1 - topics and speakers.
• Part 2 - S2KM pre-meeting strategic perspective.
• Part 3 - leadership changes.
• Part 4 - awards and recognition.
• Part 5 - NSSTA's lobbying strategy.
• Part 6 - tax panels part 1 - introducing the participants.
• Part 7 - tax panels part 2 - discussing the issues.
• Part 8 - Dan Clark and NSSTA ethics.
• Part 9 - industry leadership and issues.
• 2011 SSP Annual Meeting
• Part 1 - speakers and topics
• Part 2 - strategic perspective
• Part 3 - tax issues
• Part 4 - transition to settlement planning
• Part 5 - transition to multiple, more flexible products
• Part 6 - transition to the internet
• Part 7 - insurer insolvencies and guaranty associations
• 2012 SSP Annual Meeting
• Part 1
• Part 2
• 2013 SSP Annual Meeting
• 2014 SSP Annual Conference
• Part 1
• Part 2
• 2015 SSP Annual Conference
• Part 1
• Part 2
• 2016 SSP Annual Conference
• SSP 2017 Annual Conference

Past Reporting - NSSTA

Historical S2KM Reporting about National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) Conferences which previously appeared on the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA Conferences

• 2005 NSSTA Winter Meeting
• 2005 NSSTA Annual Meeting - 2 posts
• 2005 NSSTA Fall Meeting
• 2006 NSSTA Winter Meeting
• 2006 NSSTA Annual Meeting - 2 posts
• 2006 NSSTA Fall Meeting
• 2007 NSSTA Winter Meeting - 3 posts
• 2007 NSSTA Fall Meeting
• 2008 NSSTA Winter Meeting
• 2008 NSSTA Annual Meeting - 2 posts
• 2008 NSSTA Fall Meeting - 3 posts
• 2009 NSSTA Winter Meeting
• 2009 NSSTA Annual Meeting
• 2009 NSSTA Fall Meeting
• 2010 NSSTA Annual Meeting
• Part 1 - topics and speakers.
• Part 2 - S2KM pre-meeting strategic perspective.
• Part 3 - leadership changes.
• Part 4 - awards and recognition.
• Part 5 - NSSTA's lobbying strategy.
• Part 6 - tax panels part 1 - introducing the participants.
• Part 7 - tax panels part 2 - discussing the issues.
• Part 8 - Dan Clark and NSSTA ethics.
• Part 9 - industry leadership and issues.
• 2010 NSSTA Fall Meeting
• Part 1 - industry issues
• Part 2 - discussion topics
• Part 3 - "protect and preserve" vs. "improve and grow"
• Part 4 - strategic questions
• 2011 NSSTA Annual Meeting
• Part 1 - speakers and topics
• Part 2 - strategic perspective
• Part 3 - tax issues
• Part 4 - transition to settlement planning
• Part 5 - transition to multiple, more flexible products
• Part 6 - transition to the internet
• Part 7 - insurer insolvencies and guaranty associations
• 2011 NSSTA Fall Meeting
• 2014 NSSTA Fall Educational Conference
• 2015 NSSTA Structures 202 Conference
• 2015 NSSTA Annual Meeting
• 2015 NSSTA Fall Conference
• 2016 NSSTA Structures 202 Conference
• 2016 NSSTA Annual Conference

NSSTA Marketing Surveys - Senior Claims Executives 2

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) has established a new NSSTA "Industry Growth Initiative,"  "designed to identify opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements and bring those opportunities to the structured settlement industry marketplace."

A recent three-part survey commissioned by NSSTA, and conducted by CLM Advisors, of NSSTA members' traditional sales targets (senior claims executives; claims professionals; plaintiff attorneys) offers valuable insights for NSSTA's Growth Initiative and therefore is the subject of an S2KM blog series. S2KM summarized NSSTA's survey of senior claims executives in this prior blog post.

When interpreting some of the key findings from NSSTA's survey of senior claims executives, it is useful to compare the findings from a separate 2011 study (titled: "National Litigation Management Study") commissioned by the Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance (formerly "the Council on Litigation Management"). CLM Alliance is the parent company of CLM Advisors, the company that conducted the three-part survey project for NSSTA.

Two findings from the 2011 CLM Alliance study are significant for structured settlements and for interpreting key findings from NSSTA's 2014 survey of senior claims executives.

• Based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives, the 2011 CLM Alliance study identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed.

• Another "key finding" that emerged from the answers to the more than 160 questions covered in that 2011 CLM Alliance study: "litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them." Note: this finding was not limited to structured settlements.
  

An article in the Fall 2011 issue of CLM's "Litigation Management Magazine", discussing the 2011 CLM Alliance study, further describes a "shift in thinking" among litigation executives about metrics and analytics applicable to national service provider programs such as structured settlements:

"These programs are about much more than cost savings, although the savings can be substantial and can be in and of themselves a primary motivation to create these programs. To be truly successful, national service programs must be able to deliver the very metrics and analytics that participants said they are seeking: quality, performance, satisfaction levels. These are the metrics that a national service provider must be able to give to its clients in today's environment."

NSSTA's 2014 survey of senior claims executives confirmed continuing support among survey participants for structured settlements as well as their perception that structured settlement consultants add value to the liability insurance claims process. 100 per cent of the senior claims executives who participated in the survey, however, said their companies could do more to proactively use structured settlements:

Relative to metrics and analytics, NSSTA's survey found:

• Only 20 percent of the participants reported having any set of objectives around the use of structured settlements.
• A majority of the participants did not measure referral volume and only half measure the volume of successfully written structures.

Collaborating with individual property and casualty insurance companies (or associations such as the CLM Alliance) to identify, develop, improve, implement and measure structured settlement metrics and analytics, therefore, should represent one important marketing priority and program foundation for improving structured settlement sales.

Neither the CLM Alliance 2011 study nor NSSTA's 2014 survey recommend specific metrics or analytics to determine the effectiveness of, or to define "success" for, structured settlement programs.

Using the NSSTA 2014 survey and the CLM 2011 study as points of reference, here are some questions structured settlement brokers might discuss with senior claims executives to develop such metrics and analytics:

• How do you define whether your structured settlement program is successful?
• What performance metrics help you evaluate the effectiveness of your structured settlement program?
• How effective are your metrics and analytics in measuring success?
• Which metric is most important?
• Which metric is most difficult to obtain or confirm?
• Do structured settlements increase or decrease your claims costs?
• How do you measure the impact of structured structured settlements on your claims costs?
• What is your structured settlement success ratio?
• What changes in your program would improve your structured settlement performance?

To transform these suggested introductory questions into a successful marketing and sales strategy, structured settlement brokers must be capable of effectively discussing structured settlement metrics and analytics. NSSTA could assist its members in doing so by offering educational programs designed to improve its members' abilities to identify, develop, implement and measure structured settlement metrics and analytics.

In a final blog post analyzing NSSTA's survey of senior claims executives, S2KM will consider the significance of additional survey findings on future defense-driven structured settlement market growth.

NSSTA Marketing Surveys - Senior Claims Executives 1

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) has established a new NSSTA "Industry Growth Initiative,"  "designed to identify opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements and bring those opportunities to the structured settlement industry marketplace."

NSSTA's new Growth Initiative appears to potentially address, and/or encompass, multiple growth-oriented goals NSSTA president Michael Goodman identified during NSSTA's 2015 Annual Meeting.

Rationale for a Growth Initiative: annual structured settlement premium reached its historic 12 month industry record of $6,226,578,725 in 2008 after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007. Annual premium totals dropped off sharply from 2009 (following the 2008 financial crisis) thru 2012 before showing modest improvements in 2013, 2014 and First Quarter 2015.

NSSTA's Growth Initiative also appears to build upon other recent NSSTA projects including a three-part structured settlement survey commissioned by NSSTA, and conducted by CLM Advisors, of NSSTA members' traditional sales targets: senior claims executives (Part 1); claims professionals (Part 2); and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3).

Although individual interpretations may differ, each of NSSTA's three surveys identified opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements and therefore each offers valuable insights for NSSTA's Growth Initiative.

For example: NSSTA's survey of senior claims executives confirmed continuing support among survey participants for structured settlements as well as their perception that structured settlement consultants add value to the liability insurance claims process.

Results of that survey, however, also suggest to S2KM that future defense-driven structured settlement market growth will require consultants to:

• Reformulate traditional structured settlement education programs applicable to property and casualty insurance clients; and
• Help these clients identify and produce better metrics and analytics: 1) to define the meaning of structured settlement "success"; and 2) to determine related program effectiveness.

To help "identify opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements", S2KM will offer its summary and analysis of NSSTA's three-part survey in a series of blog posts beginning with NSSTA's survey of property and casualty insurer senior claims executives. The remainder of this blog post summarizes findings from that survey. In two subsequent blog posts, S2KM will offer its interpretation of that survey's results.

NSSTA Survey of Senior Claims Executives - Summary

The purpose of NSSTA's survey of senior claims executives was "to generate ideas and a foundation for developing an effective marketing strategy for this industry segment."

The survey focused on answering two questions:

• "What do senior claim executives in the property casualty insurance segment perceive to be the primary values created by structured settlements and settlement consultants?"
• "In claims organizations which do not provide their own underwriting markets for structures, to what degree are there mechanisms in place for promoting, measuring, and managing structured settlements utilization?"

Survey participants were selected by CLM Advisors from ten leading insurance carriers "of varied size ... whose book of business and style of operation lends itself to the use of structured settlements" and who do not underwrite their own structured settlements.

Survey questions were organized within the following categories:

• General Trends
• Program Attributes
• Perceptions Around Value
• Reactions to Value Proposition Statements
• Forced True/False Choices
• Extracting Future Value

Although all of NSSTA's claims executives survey results provided useful feedback, some of the survey responses were predictable and unlikely to impact future structured settlement marketing. For examples:

• Most of the claims executives surveyed believed structured settlement utilization has not decreased during the past three years but has decreased during the past 10 years - and that lower interest rates are the primary factor.
• Almost all survey participants viewed their companies as having a "formal" structured settlement program either as an exclusive (one broker partner) or preferred (approved broker partner) program with varying internal stakeholder "ownership".
• The types of cases where survey participants viewed structured settlements as most effective: liability cases; minors cases; workers compensation cases; lifetime benefits; medical payments.

Other selected survey responses, as categorized and summarized below by S2KM, provide greater informational value for subsequent S2KM interpretation and analysis.

Structured Settlement Program Metrics

• 100 per cent of the survey participants said their companies could do more to proactively use structured settlements.
• Only 20 percent of the survey participants reported having any set of objectives around the use of structured settlements.
• A majority of the survey participants do not measure referral volume and only half measure the volume of successfully written structures.

Structured Settlement Value Propositions

• The strongest value propositions for using structured settlements, as viewed by the survey participants: 1) addressing future medical expenses; 2) "needs-based" negotiation; 3) addressing future lost wages; 4) adds no additional work.
• Although still in agreement, survey participants viewed two traditional structured settlement value propositions less strongly: 1) lower claims payouts; and 2) earlier claims resolution.
• Survey participants disagreed with the following structured settlement value propositions: 1) achieve earlier settlements; 2) benefit to society; 3) 35 per cent savings on MSAs; 4) equally effective on smaller and larger claims.

Structured Settlement Consultants

• 90 per cent of the survey participants believed consultants do a good job of describing their value.
• Survey participants viewed consultants' primary value proposition related to their knowledge of, and ability to sell, structured settlements.
• Two thirds of the survey participants believed that consultants skills have stayed the same, while the other one third said the skills have improved, when compared to 10 years ago.
• 90 percent believed involvement of a structured settlement consultant made a case more likely to settle.
• Survey participants, on average, believed their companies utilized structured settlement consultants in only 66 percent of appropriate cases.
• Two thirds of the survey participants believed that front line claims professionals in their organizations shared their perspective on a consultants' value.

Additional Marketing Feedback

• Survey participants would value more educational and informational services from structured settlement consultants on such topics as: 1) their facilitation roles; 2) MSA requirements; 3) structured settlement benefits; 4) internal rates of returns; 5) industry developments and trends; 5) case specific advice including post-mortems and how claim handlers perform.
• Other recommendations: 1) expand Medicare services; 2) add online resources to price benefits; 3) obtain references from defense counsel.

S2KM will analyze selective findings from NSSTA's survey of senior claims executives in two subsequent blog posts.

S2KM summarized historic structured settlement surveys which preceded NSSTA's three-part survey project in this prior blog post.

Structured Settlement Primary Market Growth

The 2015 First Quarter Report of structured settlement annuity provider sales recently compiled and selectively distributed by Melissa Evola Price provided welcome news for the industry.

Structured settlement 2015 first quarter annuity premium of $1,332,047,252 increased by more than $230 million (21%) compared with the 2014 first quarter annuity premium of $1,101,839,529. This 2015 first quarter total is the largest since 2009 when reporting companies produced $1,418,930,180 of structured settlement annuity premium.

Annual structured settlement premium reached its historic 12 month industry record of $6,226,578,725 in 2008 after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007. Annual premium totals dropped off sharply from 2009 (following the 2008 financial crisis) thru 2012 before showing modest improvements in 2013 and 2014.

Note: Melissa Evola Price's quarterly structured settlement report is now copyrighted by her company, Structured Financial Associates, Inc. (SFA). Price and SFA have granted S2KM permission to publish selected portions of her report on both S2KM's blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") and the structured settlement wiki.

The improved 2015 first quarter structured settlement sales appear to result, in significant part, from a purposeful, renewed marketing focus by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and its members including:

• Marketing Boot Camp - NSSTA transfigured its 2013 Fall Educational Conference into a "Marketing Boot Camp" - "designed to help every member who attends learn how to increase the number of referrals they get from their clients and how to develop new clients."
• Structures 202 - NSSTA revised its prior Structures 101 educational program (primarily for case managers) in 2015 to attract and assist "Next Generation" structured settlement participants who are new to the market and rapidly replacing the pioneering generation of professionals who created the structured settlement industry in the 1970s and 1980s.
• NSSTA University - During its Fall 2014 Conference, NSSTA announced a new "NSSTA University" service whereby NSSTA will partner with any member to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars or insurance claims departments or law firms.
• MSSC - Complementing and extending its Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) Professional Certification Program, NSSTA has added a new Master's Certificate in Structured Settlement Consulting (MSSC). NSSTA recognized and honored the most recent graduates of both programs during its 2015 Annual Meeting.
• New Market Surveys - In partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA's Marketing Committee commissioned a three part survey project during 2014 to provide its members with valuable marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed. These surveys have now been completed: Part 1 (senior claims executives); Part 2 (claims professionals); Part 3 (plaintiff attorneys).
• Prudential Survey - Complementing NSSTA's new market surveys, NSSTA member and structured settlement provider Prudential recently published the results of its 2013 survey of 400 claimants who had entered into a settlement of a physical injury or workers’ compensation claim of at least $100,000.

In addition to these marketing initiatives, NSSTA finally appears to be encouraging some degree of structured settlement "industry unity".  NSSTA President Michael Goodman highlighted the following recent "NSSTA successes" during NSSTA's 2015 Annual Meeting:

• A strong relationship with the American Association for Justice (AAJ);
• Improved dialogue with the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP);
• Guest educational participation involving SSP and National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) representatives;
• Successful cooperation with NASP to enact revised structured settlement protection legislation in Illinois.

Do the positive 2015 first quarter results anticipate further growth in the structured settlement primary market? And, if so, what resources and strategies will be required?

S2KM will address these questions in subsequent blog posts based in part on the results of the most recent structured settlement market surveys sponsored by NSSTA and Prudential.

For S2KM's most recent structured settlement primary market reports, see:

• Structured Settlements 2014 - Primary Market
• Structured Settlement Update - 2014 Annuity Sales

SSP 2015 Annual Conference - 2

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) hosted its 2015 Annual Conference last week in Las Vegas with an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP). For a list of SSP speakers and topics, see this prior S2KM blog post.

In his keynote address, SSP President Neil Johnson re-affirmed SSP's traditional commitment to "open dialogue" of industry issues with a mandate for "healthy, respectful discussion of all industry issues, controversial or not - rejecting the the temptation to sweep the uncomfortable under the carpet."

While seeking to engage all perspectives to identify shared permanent interests and discuss industry problems and issues, Johnson acknowledged and accepted that conference attendees would not agree on all issues - and they did not.

Some of the issues discussed:

• The need for structured settlement industry unity - encompassing education and, in some situations, political lobbying.
• How NSSTA and NASP are collaborating to improve state structured settlement protection statutes.
• Improving public relations by first acknowledging and addressing structured settlement primary and secondary market problems.
• The uniqueness of the structured settlement product and the need for better primary market self-regulation.
• The impact of "fiduciary standards" on settlement planning and the future of structured settlements.
• Collaborative primary/secondary market strategies for addressing "the darker side of factoring".
• Settlement planning as an important and distinctive growth strategy for structured settlements.
• Differentiating settlement planners from single-product plaintiff structured settlement brokers.
• Financial planners - a competitive threat or the next generation of structured settlement consultants and settlement planners?
• The inevitability and risks of "off-shore" settlement planning products in a globalized world.
• Lessons learned from the Executive Life debacle for claimants and their attorneys and advisors.
• How settlement planners and structured settlement consultants misuse life care planners and life care plans.
• The Social Security Administration's recent hostility toward special needs trusts (SNTs) and what it means for structured settlements.
• How and why settlement planners must learn to take control of the Medicare set-aside (MSA) process.
• The explosion of multi-claimant QSFs - a missed market for structured settlements?

None of these issues were resolved in Las Vegas. What did occur was a healthy exchange of ideas among leaders of historic structured settlement adversaries (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) with active participation from leaders of other settlement planning associations. The result: a unique industry gathering as much like a diplomatic conference as an educational event.

With NSSTA's President, Executive Director, and several members of its Board of Directors in attendance, whether and how NSSTA (as well as NASP) and its members will respond remains uncertain. NSSTA helped to initiate a more open industry dialogue during its own Fall 2014 Educational Conference by inviting SSP President Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde to appear as featured speakers.

Structured Settlement Industry Unification

During the NSSTA Fall 2014 conference, Johnson outlined a "Blueprint for Industry Unification" which he and NSSTA President Kevin Silo continued to discuss in Las Vegas in a repeat performance of their "Presidents' Panel". Johnson's appeal for unity characterized "industry disarray" as a "threat to our future." Labeling diversity "good" and disparity "bad", he called for a united front before the public.

In Johnson's words: Lack of structured settlement industry unity is "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

Both Johnson and Silo expressed optimism, however, about the future of structured settlements - especially in the context of generational transition. Johnson, in particular, highlighted potential opportunities amidst his self-described industry disparity, including a strengthened resolve and commitment for improvement and growth. According to Johnson and other settlement planners, the structured settlement industry needs a wakeup call - a fresh look and reevaluation that includes, but extends beyond, NSSTA's "protect and preserve" orientation.

Here are the core components of Johnson's proposed "solution" for structured settlement industry unity:

• Recognizing and accepting product and professional diversity.
• Identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues.
• Engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues.
• Promoting and practicing settlement planning with the structured settlement annuity as a core strategic product.

The Future of SSP

Throughout its 15 year history, SSP has punched beyond its weight class. Born out of a troublesome recognition that the structured settlement playing field was seriously tilted to the disadvantage of plaintiffs and their advisors, SSP has helped bring respect and professionalism to the plaintiff side of the table by emphasizing "settlement planning", not "settlement selling".

Recognizing the strategic role of structured settlements, settlement planning nonetheless seeks the "best interest" of its injury victim clients and includes multiple products and multiple experts.

Despite these accomplishments, and perhaps because of them, SSP's future as an association is uncertain. NSSTA has more plaintiff structured settlement brokers than SSP and has been more successful in adding a new generation of members.

Other, well-organized, non-structured settlement professionals, such as special needs attorneys and life care planners, increasingly focus their marketing, educational programs and work product on settlement planning using SNTs and MSAs as their gateway.

As was evident in Las Vegas, however, SSP continues to raise the educational bar for an entire industry of settlement professionals. Settlement planning remains an evolving profession - largely unregulated with few industry standards. The ultimate role and growth potential for structured settlements within the settlement planning market have not yet been determined.

SSP's ability to organize an educational conference where an unprecedented cross-section of industry leaders engaged in civil discussions about strategic industry issues suggests SSP has an important continuing role within both the structured settlement and settlement planning markets.

For S2KM reporting about prior structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlement Update - 2014 Annuity Sales

Structured settlement primary market annuity sales increased by $115,881,836 (approximately 2%) to $5,250,262,691 in 2014 compared with $5,134,380,855 in 2013 according to industry estimates compiled and recently distributed by Melissa Evola Price. Total 2014 structured settlement cases also increased to 26,572 from 26,533 a year earlier for an average case premium of $197,586.

The 2014 annual premium totals, however, still fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6,226,578,725 in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

Adding these 2014 results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru 2014:

• Total annuity premium: $144.75 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 828,600
• Average annuity premium: $174,700.

Berkshire Hathaway, which re-entered the structured settlement market in 2011 following a multi-year hiatus, continued its recent primary market leadership in 2014 by generating $1.424 billion of structured settlement annuity premium (28% of the industry total) during 2014. Evola Price's report did not indicate how much of Berkshire Hathaway's premium was attributable to reinsurance and/or non-qualified structured settlement sales.

The U.S. structured settlement market now consists of eight annuity providers which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). 2014 sales results (rounded in millions) for the seven other structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola Price's report) plus the rounded percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2013 results:

• MetLife: $868 MM (+20%)
• Pacific Life: $773 MM (-9%)
• Prudential: $712 MM (+30%)
• Liberty Life $608 MM (+9%)
• Amgen: $477 MM (-19%)
• New York Life: $312 MM (+13%)
• Mutual of Omaha: $46 MM (-47%)

Evola Price's 2014 compilation also reports an annual increase in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlement assignments (from $164.9 million in 2013 to $182.3 million in 2014) as a portion of the overall structured settlement numbers. Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred attorney fees.

Although Evola Price's report does not indicate the percentage of structured settlement premium and/or annuities attributable to workers compensation Medicare set-aside (WCMSA) cases, WCMSAs have become an increasingly important submarket for structured settlements. S2KM has previously estimated that as much as eight (8%) percent of recent structured settlement premium and 24 percent of recent structured settlement annuities are attributable to WCMSAs.

Evola Price's reports do not provide information about the structured settlement secondary market. Based upon interviews with secondary market experts in 2012, S2KM previously estimated 2012 structured settlement secondary market activity to be:

• 12,000 secondary market transfers - with less than 120 contested by annuity owners and/or providers.
• $360 million of total secondary market purchases (money paid to transferors).
• $30,000 average individual transfer.

Industry opinions differ as to secondary market sales growth during 2013 and 2014 ranging from no growth to 7% growth per year.

Accepting those 2012 secondary market estimates and assuming level secondary market sales during 2013 and 2014, S2KM estimates historical 1986-2014 structured settlement secondary market metrics as follows:

• Approximately 160,000 structured settlement transfers have occurred since 1986;
• Involving approximately 80,000 recipients - many of whom have made multiple transfers;
• With approximately $5.1 billion PV in aggregate sums paid to those recipients.
• For an average of approximately $32,000 per transfer.

For related S2KM reporting about structured settlement 2014 developments, see:

• Primary market
• Secondary market
• Settlement planning
• ELNY and Reliance