Beyond Structured Settlements

S2P2J Release 61

The United States structured settlement industry has been in existence for more than 40 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning. The industry consists of both a primary and secondary market and includes "off-shore" funding products. Certain structured settlement products utilizing periodic payments provide tax advantages. With increasing frequency, structured settlement products are being integrated with other financial and insurance products and government benefits into personal injury settlement plans utilizing 468B Qualified Settlement Funds and consisting of settlement trusts, special needs trusts, and Medicare set-aside arrangements.

Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided professionals and other stakeholders involved with structured settlements an authoritative reference guide, consisting of 16 chapters with extensive footnotes and Appendix documents, to help them understand issues and fashion settlements and judgments utilizing periodic payments. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert, S2P2J features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability plus link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2017 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 61 with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Release 61 Highlights - Release 61 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics among others:

• Ezell v. Lexington Ins. Co. - Although the Complaint in this class action lawsuit was only recently filed, Release 61summarizes the Complaint and considers the plaintiffs' allegations from the perspective of "the best protection for the defense against the risk of future claims by claimants that they were misled in understanding how the 'cost' was calculated..." S2P2J's recommendation (with sample Appendix documentation): "[D]isclose the material elements of how the agreed amount will be allocated to acquire the funding vehicle and put a long-term obigor in place. Full disclosure of such elements would eliminate any basis for a later claim that a settling claimant was misled when agreeing to a structured settlement."
• Special Needs Trust (SNT) Fairness Act - Among NSSTA's strategies for growing the structured settlement market, the importance of special needs (SN) attorneys is receiving greater recognition and priority. With the enactment of the SNT Fairness Act in December 2016, the growth potential for both SNTs and structured settlements has expanded. Prior to December 2016, an injured person who received settlement funds could not create his/her own SNT. Only a parent, grandparent, guardian or court could establish a first party SNT. With this new legislation, persons with disabilities can create their own SNT unless they are mentally or legally incompetent to do so. Release 61 integrates coverage of the SNT Fairness Act into S2P2J's broader coverage of structured settlements and government benefits including Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, Federally Assisted Housing, the Affordable Care Act and ABLE Accounts.
• Contract Rights - Although a structured settlement results in a contractual obligation to make periodic payments, a party that is released from liability need not become contractually obligated for the future payments. Release 61 summarizes and discusses Nutt v. United States, a 2016 case brought by an ELNY shortfall victim. The case provides an example of how the wording of a structured settlement agreement determines whether a claimant has enforceable rights against a specific defendant, separate from the life insurance company that issued the annuity. The Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's holding finding the language of the 1985 settlement agreement required the United States only to purchase annuities to fund future periodic payments and did not require the Government to make or guarantee the payments.
• Off-Shore Companies - The increase in popularity of non-qualified assignments has resulted in efforts by some companies to offer what appear to be qualified assignments funded by companies located outside the United States. They sometimes purchase factoring rights to structured settlement payments and use these rights to offer higher effective interest rates than traditional annuity-financed structured settlements. Sales materials supporting these transactions sometimes maintain that these arrangements offer the same level of benefits and protection as traditional structured settlements. Release 61 expands prior S2P2J discussions of the substantial risks to parties entering into such agreements with offshore companies including risks for the professionals who recommend such transactions.
• Settlement Documentation - Once the terms of a structured settlement have been determined, all required closing documents must be drafted in a manner which fulfills each client's financial expectations and protects each client's legal interests. Skill is required to avoid mistakes and to anticipate potential future issues that could impact periodic payments. S2P2J devotes an entire chapter to "case closing" including issues arising after case closing. Release 61 highlights recent cases detailing the consequences of problematic settlement documentation followed by a divorce, bankruptcy, unanticipated death sequences or disputed estates.
• ELNY Class Action - Release 61 includes a summary update for a class action (Kelly v. Ringler) brought on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims which remains unresolved after a Federal District Court in Oregon denied dismissal of claims based on negligence and on certain Oregon and Alaskan statutory provisions, while granting dismissal of a claim that defendants had a continuing duty to inform the plaintiffs that their annuity stream from ELNY was threatened because of its declining financial condition. A similar class action against structured settlement broker EPS was settled in 2015. Note: this paragraph was edited on February 16, 2017.
• Secondary Market Updates - Until 2016, almost all secondary market case law developments related to transfers under state protection statutes. In 2016, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed Complaints against two structured settlement factoring companies, J.G. Wentworth and Access Funding. Release 61 updates and extends S2P2J earlier coverage of CFPB involvement in these cases and its potential jurisdiction to protect recipients of factoring transactions. Additional secondary market topics addressed in Release 61 include: Brenston case follow-up; anti-assignment provisions; commutations vs. transfers; case law defining "best interest" and proscription of split payments under some state protection statutes; continuing litigation involving arbitration clauses; plus expanded discussion of securitization including risks and issues with "re-cycled" structured settlements.

Previous recent S2P2J releases have highlighted and addressed the following structured settlement related developments and market growth opportunities:

• Updated Structured Settlement History Chart.
• Updated analysis of changes impacting primary market structured settlement business practices.
• Background coverage of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's civil investigation of J.G. Wentworth.
• Historical context for Washington Post reporting about abusive secondary market business practices in Maryland.
• Case examples for various tax concepts, provided by Professor Ken Melani of the University of Notre Dame, who teaches the tax section of NSSTA's CSSC program.
• Duties of settlement trustees under the Uniform Prudent Investors Act plus factors settlement trustees must consider when making investments.
• Analysis of NSSTA's recent marketing surveys of claims executives, claims professionals and plaintiff attorneys.
• Summary of a recent California lawsuit warning of potential malpractice dangers for plaintiff attorneys who are: 1) uninformed; 2) lack competent advisors; and/or 3) act carelessly; with regards to structured settlement issues.
• Expanded discussion of "product suitability" and how it impacts structured settlement and settlement planning professionals.
• Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2015.
• Court decisions analyzing "safe harbor" annuity rules under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 when annuities are used to preserve Medicaid eligibility.
• New cases where courts have identified questions to help judges determine whether proposed transfers of future payment rights meet the "best interest" test under various state Structured Settlement Protection Acts.
• Non-qualified assignment issues - including tax and security issues raised by off-shore assignment companies.
• Expanded coverage of Workers Compensation and Liability MSAs.
• Summary and discussion of recent PLR for indexed annuities and commutation riders.
• Introduction to ABLE Accounts.
• Practice tips for minimizing the risk of an IRS settlement challenge.
• Updated summary of lessons learned from the Executive Life Insurance of New York (ELNY) insolvency.
• Periodic payment reinsurance as an alternative means of funding structured settlements.

Also Note: all three S2P2J co-authors will appear on the same panel March 2 at the SSP 2017 Annual Conference in Las Vegas to lead a discussion titled "Current Developments in the Structured Settlement Industry."

Interview with SSP President Joe Tombs

Joe Tombs is currently completing the first year of a two-year term as President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP). SSP's 2017 Annual Conference is scheduled for March 1-3 in Las Vegas. As Tombs prepares for this event, he agreed to answer a few S2KM questions about SSP's current status and future direction. In a prior S2KM blog post, Tombs responded to the AIG Class Action Lawsuit - stating SSP is "neutral" and that SSP, as an association, has decided as a matter of policy to abandon taking any “political” positions.

S2KM: Joe, thank you for agreeing to this interview. To further clarify SSP's new "no political positions" policy, you have also stated that SSP is now neutral about single-claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds - one of the most contentious issues within the primary structured settlement market during the past several years. Just to confirm, are you saying the SSP, as an association, no longer supports and/or will no longer advocate for single-claimant 468B QSFs?

TOMBS: That is correct. Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members. The SSP has been a zealous advocate of the single-claimant QSF in the past and I doubt any of our members have changed their opinions on the subject. We are not asking our members to suppress or to modify their own beliefs.

S2KM: What about factoring which arguably represents the most divisive political issue within the structured settlement market? If SSP is neutral, how do you explain SSP's current membership policy which to use your own words "is open to anyone interested in comprehensive settlement planning as long as they are not engaged in factoring". Doesn't SSP's membership policy itself represent a "political position"?

TOMBS: The SSP does not have an opinion on factoring. Several years ago, we held a conference in which many participants from factoring companies attended and participated. Their presence at our meeting annoyed some SSP members and a special meeting of members was called to address this issue. At that meeting, the membership voted almost unanimously to close off new membership to those applicants who were active in the factoring industry. We also decided not to expel the very few of our members who had drifted into factoring. Our individual members' views on factoring are varied and generally quite negative, but the reason factoring representatives are excluded from membership centers on the fact that we want to focus on planning at the time of settlement. (Tombs' emphasis). My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a person who ethically engages in factoring, but that the world would be a net better place if factoring did not exist.

S2KM: What do you consider to be your most significant accomplishments during your first term as SSP President?

TOMBS: Recognizing we still have more than six weeks left to achieve first year objectives, I am especially proud of four accomplishments: 1) SSP has substantially expanded its membership; 2) we have re-focused on professional settlement planning as our primary Mission and purpose; 3) we have pretty much put to bed the idea that we oppose the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA); and 4) we have developed a new set of Professional Practice Standards which we will introduce during our 2017 Annual Conference.

S2KM: How large is SSP and where are you finding new members?

TOMBS: I anticipate we will meet our goal of having 300 members by the time of our 2017 Annual Meeting. Many of our new members are trust officers, financial planners, special needs trust attorneys and staff from settlement planning practices. The new face of the SSP is truly the new faces at the SSP and the different perspectives they bring are propelling us forward in an exciting new direction.

S2KM: Have structured settlement annuity providers supported the concept of "comprehensive settlement planning"? If not, why not?

TOMBS: I don't think most structured settlement annuity providers understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements. They are just beginning to wake up to the concept and realize how important and how effective the settlement planning model can be. My experience has shown that whenever a plaintiff attorney sees and understands the settlement planning model, they will never again be satisfied with a structured settlement broker who only offers one product. Think about what happened to flip phone providers when smart phones hit the market. I predict the same thing will happen with settlement planning. If structured settlement annuity providers wait too long to transition, trust companies will have captured first mover advantage.

S2KM: At one time, the term "settlement planner" was viewed by many structured settlement stakeholders as an inflated synonym for "plaintiff broker". How would you differentiate a professional settlement planner from a structured settlement consultant?

TOMBS: Until recently, that view was entirely accurate. A plaintiff broker would simply order new business cards with the new title ("Settlement Planner") proudly displayed. Today, however, that transition creates changes in expectations, applicable standards of care, and required levels of disclosure. A structured settlement consultant approaches an engagement with a product in mind. By comparison, a settlement planner (with access to multiple products) first gathers information about the goals of the injury victims and his/her family, analyzes the data, works out a written plan, and implements the plan. A settlement planner does not play the role of a structured settlement broker, if at all, until the last step.

S2KM: What is a "comprehensive settlement plan" and how does it differ from a "structured settlement"?

TOMBS: A structured settlement is a product. A "comprehensive settlement plan" is a blueprint. It is a written document that contains a summary of the detailed analysis of the client's situation, capacities, goals, priorities, needs, and resources - and the strategies and products that will best help that client use the settlement proceeds to successfully transition into a post-settlement life in a way that allows them to accomplish their highest priority goals. The settlement planner uses the plan to guide the injury victim through the settlement process. Many of my settlement plans do not include structured settlements, but most do.

S2KM: What role(s) do you see for structured settlement annuities in settlement planning?

TOMBS: Structured settlements provide tax-free guaranteed cash flows that can be matched to the exact time that the cash flow is projected to be needed. It is a valuable tool in a settlement planner's toolbox. Carpenters love their hammers, but I would never hire a carpenter who showed up to work with only a hammer.

S2KM: What is SSP's current relationship with NSSTA and what would you like it to be?

TOMBS: Most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also members of NSSTA. The SSP's past opposition to a few of NSSTA's political positions has frayed the relationship despite great strides to mend the fences by both sides. Today, the SSP leadership fully supports NSSTA and its Mission to preserve and protect structured settlements. I believe the two organizations are symbiotic - if one does better, so does the other.

S2KM: How are SSP and NSSTA different from SSP's perspective? Do we need two associations or should their efforts be combined?

TOMBS: SSP and NSSTA are two very different organizations with completely different Missions. We share a common ancestry, but we have evolved into separate species. The difference, which is evident in our names, is not subtle, semantic, or political. Today, most of our members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not even sell structured settlement annuities. Let that fact settle in for a minute and you will begin to comprehend the extent to which the SSP and settlement planning have evolved.

S2KM: What is the scope of SSP's new "Professional Practice Standards"? Will they Replace SSP's current "Standards of Professional Conduct"? If not, how are they different?

TOMBS: At our 2017 Annual Meeting, we will announce and release practice standards that will define settlement planning and authoritatively set out the scope of the practice of settlement planning. Don't expect something complicated. SSP's Professional Practice Standards will be simple, profound statements. They will be different from a Code of Ethics or our Code of Professional Conduct. Our current Code of Professional Conduct is too structured settlement centric and is currently under review by an SSP committee. I suspect it will receive major modifications soon.

S2KM: What is the current status of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) Program? How many professionals currently possess the RSP designation?

TOMBS: The RSP designation is administered by a separate Board. The number of RSP designees is small - probably just over twenty. The program was dormant for a long time and has now been freshly updated with several students enrolled.

S2KM: Looking ahead to your second term as SSP President, what are SSP's greatest challenges?

TOMBS: We can't grow the number of professional settlement planners fast enough to keep up with market demand. This forces us to focus on two goals - increasing our membership and increasing the professionalism of our craft. We are making progress on both fronts, but we simply cannot go far enough or fast enough to meet the demand. Another great challenge is that we face resistance from entrenched businesses that actively try to slow us down to allow them to catch up.

S2KM: Joe, thank you for taking time to participate in this interview. Congratulations for your progress with SSP and best of luck for another outstanding SSP educational conference March 1-3 in Las Vegas.

SSP President Responds to AIG Class Action Lawsuit

Based upon the history of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), and the role of Richard Risk (an SSP founder and member) as one of the plaintiff attorneys, structured settlement industry participants might assume that SSP, as an association, supports the recently filed AIG Class Action Lawsuit. When asked by S2KM, however, SSP President Joe Tombs provided an unexpected response. Tombs' detailed response appears below. For context, however, S2KM first provides a brief background summary plus a summary of the AIG Class Action allegations.

Historic Industry Divisions

Although some structured settlement industry pioneers, including the late David Ringler, the first President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) envisioned NSSTA as "a place where everyone and anyone [could] sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs", that utopian environment never fully materialized as multiple divisions developed within both the structured settlement market and the larger personal injury settlement consulting market. Examples include:

• Plaintiff vs. defense structured settlement brokers.
• Primary vs. secondary structured settlement markets.
• Structured settlements vs. settlement planning.
• Settlement annuities vs. settlement trusts.
• Settlement planning vs. special needs planning.

Among other results, the structured settlement industry now has both a primary and a secondary market and structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have formed two national associations in addition to NSSTA: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and SSP. Although numerous and divisive issues have created serious political conflicts among these associations historically, leaders of all three associations have increasingly recognized and addressed the problems created by these conflicts.

During his three successive one year terms as SSP President, Immediate Past President Neil Johnson served as a powerful advocate for structured settlement industry unity. For example, as a guest speaker during NSSTA's 2014 Fall Conference, Johnson condemned lack of structured settlement industry unity as "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."

At the same time, Johnson proposed a "solution" for achieving structured settlement industry unity including these core elements:

• 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.

Among other highlights and milestones, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2016 Annual Conference transferred association leadership from Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson's leadership direction, which focused on structured settlement "industry unity", and also, in a dramatic policy shift, to "pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics."

AIG Class Action Lawsuit

Earlier this month, three plaintiff attorneys, including SSP founder and current SSP member Richard Risk, filed a Class Action Complaint in United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Among its allegations, the Class Action Lawsuit accuses Defendant American International Group, Inc. (AIG), a NSSTA member, and several of its affiliates of: 1) RICO violations; 2) fraudulent conduct; and 3) unjust enrichment.

Although not named as Defendants, the Class Action Complaint also identifies multiple structured settlement brokers (most, if not all, members of NSSTA) who, according to the Complaint, are "known as 'Agency Partners' [and] have been on the AIG Approved Broker List within periods relevant to this Complaint, and are part of the racketeering enterprise at issue..."

Plaintiffs characterize the primary AIG business practice they allege is illegal as a "short-changing scheme" which they describe as follows: "Defendants’ practice to fail to disclose to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class numerous material facts concerning how AIG conducted its Structured Settlement Program including, among other things, that:

• "Defendants participated in a short-changing scheme designed to allow them to recover the cost of their own structured settlement brokers, by deducting the brokers’ fees from that portion of the settlement that the settling parties had previously agreed would be one hundred percent (100%) invested in future payments;
• "Defendants accomplished this “short-change” by bundling the amount of the broker’s commission—namely, four percent (4%)—into the illustrated annuity cost;
• "Even when the broker’s fee was not 4%, AIG would keep for itself whatever portion of the commission was not paid to the broker; and,
• "As a result of the scheme undertaken by Defendants, the actual financial value of the settlement was materially lower than the value represented to injury claimants since four percent (4%) of the full amount of cash to be invested in annuity was, in fact, diverted by AIG to pay for its own Approved Brokers and In-House Brokers."

Other Plaintiff allegations:

• "AIG uses a structured settlement annuity software and quoting system that is represented by it and the Approved Brokers (and In-House Brokers) as illustrating future projected payments based on the amount of funds previously agreed between the settling parties to be invested in the annuity. But this representation is not true, because it does not reflect the commission that is paid to the broker, which is hidden in the cost or present value of the annuity communicated to the claimant or claimant’s attorney."
• "In fact, AIG trains its employees in the Structured Settlement Program, as well as its Approved Brokers and In-House Brokers, not to disclose to claimants (or their attorneys when retained) the fact that the broker’s fee is bundled into the represented annuity investment cost."
• "AIG’s employees, its Approved Brokers, and In-House Brokers are also trained to conceal this scheme, in the event of claimant inquiries about the payment of commissions, by avoiding a direct answer to the question or, sometimes, by indicating that payment of annuity premiums from the defendant’s AIG-affiliated liability insurer to American General avoids commission as a cost to claimant."
• "The AIG Approved Brokers are also required to fund periodic payments with an American General or other AIG-related annuity, if at all possible. This requirement is called the 'first and last right of refusal'.”

The Complaint includes a footnote #1 (page 1) explaining/alleging that: 1) most structured settlement "producers" are inappropriately referred to as "brokers" when in fact they are "agents" appointed by life insurance companies; 2) Use of the term "broker" is misleading and communicates a false duty of loyalty to the consumer/injury victim; 3) although a producer may hold a life agent's license, he/she cannot bind the life company when writing an annuity application; and 4) this distinction becomes important for defining a racketeering "enterprise" under the RICO Act when considering the relationship of structured settlement producers to issuers.

SSP President Joe Tombs Responds

Based upon the political history of the SSP, and role of Risk as plaintiff attorney, the AIG Class Action Lawsuit appears to present a significant test for SSP - especially in light of Immediate Past President Neil Johnson's advocacy for structured settlement unity and current President Joe Tombs' promise for SSP to avoid structured settlement politics. When asked by S2KM whether or not SSP supports the AIG Class Action Lawsuit, however, Tombs provided the following response (with S2KM emphasis):

• "We are neutral – SSP has no position at all and we will not take one in the future. A year ago, we decided to abandon taking “political” positions. Advocacy for victim’s financial rights had been a central mission of the SSP since its founding and so it was hard to let that go. A pillar of the “old” SSP’s advocacy mission was opposition to many of the features of some of the casualty company programs. Therefore, many people are confused that we don’t have a dog in this fight. Everyone expects the SSP to rush out and take its normal spot in the circular firing squad and start blastng away or at least provide the forum for a mob to form. I’m sorry to disappoint people but we are neutral - on the AIG Class Action Lawsuit or any political issue such as single claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds. Individual SSP members have the option to support or oppose specific political issues. SSP, as an association, however, will not. Our priorities are growth and the promotion of professionalism in the practice of settlement planning - both of which we are accomplishing successfully.
• "Dick Risk is a founding member and we once honored him with a lifetime achievement award at which time we granted him lifelong membership. The SSP makes no attempts to muzzle or restrain our members. They are free to think, say, or do what they wish. We used to carefully guard our roll and membership was open only to plaintiff-only structured settlement brokers. Today, membership is open to anyone interested in comprehensive settlement planning as long as they are not engaged in factoring. Our membership includes a diverse group of structure brokers from most of the larger groups, trust company officers, financial planners, special needs trust attorneys, plaintiff attorneys and many others.
• "Separate from my role as President of SSP, I have my own opinion about the AIG Class Action Lawsuit. Part of my opinion is based upon a lunch I was honored to have in 1997 or 1998 with Hank Greenberg (then CEO of AIG) and Ernie Stempel (then President of North American Operations for AIG Life & Annuity). I remember Mr. Greenberg talking about a huge high-rise building with several floors full of nothing but lawyers. He then informed me AIG spent millions on outside counsel and had other AIG lawyers scattered across the globe. In my opinion, if AIG is right, they are more than adequately equipped to handle this case without help from me or anyone else.
• "Another part of my personal opinion is that I hate structured settlement politics and I am not smart enough or educated enough to know which side is right in this lawsuit. It is a fact, however, that many of my clients cannot chose from a full selection of structured settlement products or product providers - and another fact that my market quotes include fewer companies than they did a few years ago. I wish I could still quote Hartford, for example, but we know what happened after their class action settlement. So, although I can see the AIG battle lines forming, I don't have time for the fight myself. I have an appointment with a widow this afternoon and I only wish I could offer her and her freshly fatherless children a greater assortment of structured settlement options. And if a lawsuit against AIG should ever cause American General to withdraw from the structured settlement market, I would have a still shorter list of companies to offer my clients."

Joe Tombs is currently completing the first year of a two-year term as SSP President. SSP's 2017 Annual Educational Conference is scheduled for March 1-3 in Las Vegas. As Tombs is preparing for this event, he agreed to answer a few additional S2KM questions about SSP's current status and future direction. That interview will appear in a follow-up S2KM blog post.

NSSTA 2016 Annual Conference

Len Blonder is a structured settlement pioneer now beginning an unprecedented third term as President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). It may seem counterintuitive, therefore, or perhaps wishful thinking, but one could describe NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference, which occurred April 6-8 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida April 6-8, as a "New Beginning."

Following the transformative leadership of Michael Goodman, NSSTA's immediate past President, however, the opportunity for such a new beginning now exists and the 2016 NSSTA Annual Conference Educational Program outlined some of the future possibilities.

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Opening Remarks - Michael Goodman
• NSSTA Objectives - Len Blonder
• Settlement Experiences and Aftermath - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Tania Root; Todd Falzone, Esq.
• Wrongful Imprisonment: Claimant Story - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Kwame Ajamu
• Structuring Wrongful Imprisonment Claims - John McCulloch and Ryan Jandreau
• Trusts and Structured Settlements - Dan McCarthy (Moderator); Phillip Krause; Tim Denehy
• Mediators and Structured Settlements - Connie Klingler (Moderator); Hyram Montero; Len Blonder
• Projecting Future Economic Damages After the ACA - Roger Bernstein; Noah Katz; Nichole Segal
• Property & Casualty Insurance Program Growth - (Michael Goodman and Len Blonder - Moderators); David Crowe; Richard Woollams
• Legislative and Political Update - Eric Vaughn
• NSSTA Growth Initiative Update - Sean Coleman (Moderator); Jim Early; Melissa Evola Price; Ryan Jandreau
• SSPA Success Stories - Michael Goodman (Moderator); Andy Prindable; Sally Greenberg
• NSSTA Legal Update - Tim O'Driscoll; Peter Vodola; Steve Harris

S2KM COMMENTARY ON SELECTED TOPICS

NSSTA Growth Initiative

During Goodman's Presidency, NSSTA revised its historic and defensive "protect and preserve" strategy by embracing a new "Growth Initiative" which already appears to have generated new energy and improved "community" spirit. Progress reports for preliminary "Growth Initiative" priorities [re-starting P&C programs; convertible lump sums; and Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) amendment(s)] were all positive. Equally important, the overall theme was forward looking asking: "How can we move forward? How can we change the dialogue?"

Supporting its "Growth Initiative", NSSTA has also expanded its industry outreach and networking with other professional associations. Improved relationships among NSSTA, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has helped unify the structured settlement market. Working together, NSSTA and NASP have added important consumer protection provisions to five state structured settlement protection statutes. As one result, Goodman declared in his Opening Remarks: "we can no longer use factoring as an excuse for not growing the industry."

Len Blonder Presidency

How will Blonder, a 38 year plus industry veteran who, as much as any single individual, has been personally responsible for "protecting and preserving" the tax foundation for structured settlements, respond to NSSTA's current leadership challenges and market opportunities?

"The times are changing and we must change", Blonder stated, as he addressed NSSTA's membership to begin his third term as President. "The business is more complicated. We must determine how the parts fit together. Despite plaintiff growth, defendants remain indispensable to structured settlements. Defendants must continue to play a key role."

Unless NSSTA faces an unexpected crisis, Blonder said his plans for NSSTA include continued industry and community growth. Based upon the preliminary success of the "Growth Initiative", Blonder announced it would become a permanent NSSTA committee and expand its current list of priorities. As a result of recent state legislative successes, Blonder stated he expects NSSTA to spend less time on factoring legislation and more time on judicial education during his term as president.

Among NSSTA's challenges and priorities, Blonder highlighted: growing NSSTA's membership and increasing membership diversity; continuing to improve relationships with outside associations; and improving public relations generally for both NSSTA and structured settlements.

Re-starting P&C Programs

Speaking as part of a panel discussing Property and Casualty Company Program Growth, Richard Woollams, President of Claims for AIG Commercial Insurance, provided a contrarian perspective concerning future structured settlement growth and industry change. Asked to predict what the structured settlement market will look like in five years, Woollams opined: "the same as today with more broker consolidation and better technology."

Woollams also identified reasons why some P&C companies have reduced their structured settlement program participation: "competing priorities; increasing compliance requirements; and inertia". Woollams further challenged NSSTA's membership by stating: "in workers compensation cases, the savings for defendants is obvious. Can you quantify the cost savings with liability cases? Even a couple of points pays for program compliance and administration."

Woollams' challenge concerning "cost savings for liability cases" echoes findings about "metrics and analytics" from a 2011 study (titled: "National Litigation Management Study") commissioned by the Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance (formerly "the Council on Litigation Management") as well as NSSTA's own 2014 survey of Senior Claim Advisors conducted by CLM Advisors.

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."

Also relative to metrics and analytics, NSSTA's 2014 survey of senior claims executives 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.

Affordable Care Act

A separate NSSTA conference panel discussion about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) titled "Projecting Future Economic Damages After the ACA and Collateral Source Rule Changes" highlighted one way NSSTA members can utilize structured settlements to quantify potential cost savings for defendants. That being part of an expert team that provides defendants with two-tier (with and without ACA coverage) case specific calculations of future economic damages.

As NSSTA's ACA panel pointed out, the admissibility of ACA coverage for trial purposes (both for evidence and damage calculation) depends upon the common law collateral source rule which not only varies by state, but also is subject to current, state-specific post-ACA legal disputes as to applicability. This contested claims environment, plus the applicable expert damage team recommended by the NSSTA panel (featuring a structured settlement broker), represents both a strategic growth opportunity for NSSTA members as well as a priority for continued in-depth education.

Trusts and Structured Settlements

The NSSTA conference panel discussing "Trusts and Structured Settlements" provided another window for viewing potential structured settlement change and growth. Contrary of traditional structured settlement perspectives, which view trusts as competitive products in a zero sum settlement game, panelist Tim Denehy (who identified himself as a "settlement planner" offering trusts and structured settlement annuities) insisted: "A structured settlement does not solve every problem. However, by offering additional products, I can sell more structures."

Fellow trust panelist Phillip Krause, who also sells multiple settlement products, stated: "I analyze products as an investment fiduciary." He added, however: "There is more potential liability with a multi-product model." As an alternative to a multi-product model, Krause suggested structured settlement brokers might partner with, or delegate product sales to, a trust provider. Moderator Dan McCarthy supported a more traditional approach saying he continues to defer to plaintiff attorneys' relationships with banks and trust companies.

NSSTA has been slow to explore and/or embrace the evolving settlement planning profession in which structured settlement annuities, as well as trusts, represent strategic, interactive products. Other professional associations, especially SSP and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), have been more proactive than NSSTA in analyzing settlement planning issues. As more plaintiff brokers offer trusts and other non-structured settlement products, and share commissions with defense brokers, NSSTA should consider helping its members better understand how settlement planning impacts the sale of structured settlements - creating new opportunities as well as risks.

Structuring Wrongful Imprisonment Claims

John McCulloch and Ryan Jandreau traced the history and explained the significance of IRC 139F which was enacted December 21, 2015 as part of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). "In the case of any wrongfully incarcerated individual," IRC section 139F provides: "gross income shall not include any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal matter) relating to the incarceration of such individual for the covered offense for which the individual was convicted." Damages paid for wrongful imprisonment, however, which are not derived from a personal, physical injury, are not eligible for an IRC section 130 qualified assignment. Although the exact number of exonerees is not known, McCulloch and Jandreau cited sources estimating approximately 4000 nationally over the past 15 years.

NSSTA DIRECTORS AND AWARD WINNERS - NSSTA announced the election of two Directors: Mal Deener and Ryan Jandreau. In addition, the following individuals were honored during the conference:

• President's Award - Debbie Sink
• Leadership Award - Susan Clark and Robert Caples
• Service to the Industry Award - Andrew McClain

CONCLUSION

Assuming NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference represents a "New Beginning" for the structured settlement industry, the upcoming year will be one of the most important, if not the most important, in NSSTA's history. Based upon his leadership experience and prior accomplishments, Len Blonder appears uniquely qualified to help NSSTA determine how the parts of an increasingly complicated business fit together in order to continue to grow structured settlement annuity sales and improve the lives of personal injury victims.

CORRECTIONS AND  OMISSIONS

S2KM began receiving valuable feedback to this blog post almost immediately following its publication. Examples:

The second paragraph under "Trusts and Structured Settlements" above has been changed from what originally appeared in this blog post, at the request of Phillip Krause, to clarify that he used the word "investment" and not the word "professional." Krause explained: "An 'investment fiduciary' is a specific role within the management of a Trust. The Trustee delegates or directs investment decisions to the 'investment fiduciary.' The role of 'investment fiduciary,' is separate from the role of a 'structured settlement consultant.' An investment fiduciary uses registered investments with the SEC/FINRA.  A broker dealer may also be involved in the approval of the appropriateness of investments held within the Trust.  The oversight by an OSJ or compliance officer is also common."

S2KM could (still might) write an entire blog post about the informative "Property & Casualty Insurance Program Growth" discussion moderated by Michael Goodman and Len Blonder and featuring Richard Woollams and David Crowe. Some of Woollams' comments appear in the original blog post. Crowe also offered valuable insights and recommendations for re-starting P&C structured settlement programs including the importance of: 1) identifyinging one or more internal structured settlement "champions"; 2) showing the impact on a P&C's bottom line; 3) defense and plaintiff brokers working together for a more efficient settlement process; 4) attracting bright young professionals to the structured settlement industry - a problem, he stated, is shared more generally by the insurance industry.

Structured Settlement Surveys - 2

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), in partnership with CLM Advisors, has recently completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provide NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

Complementing NSSTA's surveys, NSSTA member and structured settlement provider Prudential recently published the results of its own 2013 survey of 400 claimants who had entered into a settlement of a physical injury or workers’ compensation claim of at least $100,000 from 2003 to 2013.

Considered together, these four surveys provide valuable insights into how key stakeholders currently view the structured settlement market. They also provide a point of reference for, and comparison with, other structured settlement market surveys several of which have been completed or updated since S2KM published this previous blog post in November 2008.

What follows are brief summaries of prior structured settlement surveys. In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will review and evaluate the most recent NSSTA and Prudential surveys.

• NSSTA 2006: Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys and Structured Settlement Recipients - This NSSTA-sponsored survey was titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association" and was directed by Robert E. Hoyt, the Dudley L. Moore, Jr. Chair of Insurance at the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. It consisted of attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys). Among the reported results:
  • Only 7% of personal injury settlements between $75,000 and $100,000 include structured settlements; and only 30% of personal injury settlements above $1 million included structured settlements.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?" , surveyed attorneys responded: trust company/department - 30%; Financial planner - 28%; Structured settlement consultant - 23%; No response - 19%.
• American General 2007: Survey about Structured Settlement Public Awareness - Sponsored by AIG American General and conducted by Esearch.com, Inc. in September 2007, this survey included 1000 U.S. participants - 80% had no connection with any personal injury case; 20% had previously been involved directly or indirectly through a family member in a personal injury case. Respondents who had no connection to a personal injury case were asked to read two hypothetical scenarios and answer questions on how they would react.Those with a direct connection to a personal injury case were not only asked to read the hypothetical scenarios, but also to answer questions based upon their real life experience. AIG's conclusion: the structured settlement industry needs to better educate Americans about structured settlements.
• J.G. Wentworth 2008: Survey of Structured Settlement Recipients - The survey consisted of 115 structured settlement recipients who had previously sold payment rights to J.G. Wentworth. The survey questions addressed both primary and secondary market issues, focusing upon the reasons the respondents: 1) first agreed to a structured settlement; and 2) then subsequently sold (transferred) some or all of their structured settlement payment rights. S2KM's prior reporting about the survey's primary market questions, responses plus related S2KM comments appears here. S2KM's prior reporting about the survey's secondary market questions, responses plus related S2KM comments appears here.
• Jeremy Babener 2009: Dissipation Legal Research Paper - Titled "Justifying the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy: The Use of Lump Sum Settlements," this paper examines and challenges the myth of the squandering injury victim. In it, Babener refutes the existence of any published study supporting the statistic that "90% of lump sum recipients dissipate their recoveries within five years" and identifies 12 existing dissipation studies relevant to structured settlements that reach a contradictory conclusion: injury victims have no greater propensity to dissipate money than non-injury victims.
• Towers Watson 2011: "Update of U.S. Tort Cost Trends" - The 2011 update represents the 15th study of U.S. tort costs, and the most recently published, by Towers Watson. Note: a Tower Watson representative has informed S2KM it has no current plans to publish further updates. The 2011 study reported $264.6 billion of 2010 U.S. tort costs and excluded: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs. Tower Watson's 2002 study had previously translated overall tort costs in 2001 into these additional cost categories and percentages: 1) administrative costs - 21%; 2) defense costs - 14%; 3) plaintiff attorneys -19%; 4) economic loss - 22%; and 5) non-economic loss - 24%. Based on the 2011 study and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM has estimated that since 2011 more than $170 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys.
• Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) 2011: "National Litigation Management Study" - This survey of litigation management executives analyzed 30 litigation-related service areas including structured settlements. Commissioned by CLM (formerly the Council on Litigation Management ) and conducted by Revere Advisory, it identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives. CLM membership includes: corporations, insurance companies, government agencies, defense attorneys and law firms plus individuals "who participate in litigation and the management thereof (Corporate Counsel; Risk, Claims and Litigation Managers; Adjusters and Service Providers etc.)."
• Daniel Durbin 2013: Survey of Structured Settlement Brokers - Durbin, a former NSSTA President and Senior Structured Settlement Sales Manager with Allstate Life, conducted an informal survey with a group of leading structured settlement brokers to obtain their input and evaluate their interest in representing a potential new structured settlement product provider. Durbin identified himself as part of an investor group of individuals including insurance executives who see underdeveloped opportunities in the structured settlement primary market. Although Durbin has not published the results of his survey, he has presented to several industry groups and stated that the survey showed the interest is high as long as the new firm is financially strong with competitive rates.
• Melissa Evola Price 2002-2015: Quarterly Reports of NSSTA Member Structured Settlement Annuity Provider Sales - Melissa Evola Price's quarterly structured settlement report, selectively distributed to NSSTA members, 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. Her reports include historical data from 1975-2001 which is sourced with permission from "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).  Evola Price most recently reported 2015 first quarter structured settlement annuity premium of $1,332,047,252, an increase of more than $230 million (21%) compared with the 2014 first quarter structured settlement annuity premium of $1,101,839,529.

Dodd-Frank and Structured Settlements

What impact will the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and related international regulatory developments, have on structured settlement annuity providers?

Proposed Amendment to Dodd-Frank

That issue was indirectly spotlighted this week when Senator Susan Collins (R., Maine) announced progress on a bill that would amend Dodd-Frank to permit the Federal Reserve to exempt insurers from new capital rules for banks.

Although the Federal Reserve has not yet published capital rules for insurers, "the Fed maintains it is required to set minimum capital requirements for insurance companies similar to the standards banks face," according to a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article (subscription required).

Enacting legislation to reopen Dodd-Frank will be difficult, the WSJ article states, because many Senate Democrats fear such a bill would include broader changes and the Obama administration has opposed legislation that reopens Dodd-Frank before it has been fully implemented by regulators.

Many insurers believe "bank-centric" capital rules supervised by the Federal Reserve would require them to increase capital and product prices thereby creating a competitive disadvantage. Structured settlement annuity providers MetLife, Prudential, New York Life, and Mutual of Omaha have joined a lobbying coalition of insurers seeking separate capital requirements that take into account their business model, according to various new sources.

A recent LifeHealthPRO article , however, confirms life insurer expectations for increasing federal and international regulatory supervision quoting Gary Hughes, executive vice president and general counsel of the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) as stating: “In the very near future, a major segment of the U.S. insurance business will have material aspects of its capital structure dictated or influenced by someone other than a state insurance regulator.”

Hughes added: "life insurance regulation in the U.S. can no longer be viewed as a purely domestic matter” and highlighted the importance of regulatory cooperation, according to the LifeHealthPRO article.

"If the capital standards of the states, the Federal Reserve (FSB), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) and the European Union are not generally consistent," he stated, "the resulting competitive disparities mainly involving the relative cost of capital will significantly disrupt the U.S. and the global life insurance markets.”

BACKGROUND - Insurance Regulation, Capital Requirements and Structured Settlements

The United States insurance industry historically has been regulated by the states whose regulatory responsibility was reaffirmed in 1945 when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act .

Following the collapse of First Executive Corporation and its two Executive Life subsidiaries in 1991, which had invested heavily in "junk bonds" and had sold a substantial number of structured settlement annuities, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms including risk based capital (RBC) requirements. RBC requires insurance companies with higher amounts of risk to retain higher amounts of capital and surplus.

Prior to the Executive Life collapse, state insurance regulators had used fixed capital standards to monitor the financial solvency of insurance companies. Under fixed capital standards, depending upon the state and its line of business, insurance companies were required to maintain the same minimum amount of capital, regardless of the financial condition of the company.

Enacted in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, Dodd-Frank created changes in the United States financial regulatory system that impact all aspects of the financial services industry including insurance.

Among those changes, Dodd-Frank established the U.S. Treasury's Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and "vested FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector ... and to represent the United States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors [IAIS]".

Established in 1994, IAIS is "the international standard setting body responsible for developing and assisting in the implementation of principles, standards and other supporting material for the supervision of the insurance sector", according to its website.

IAIS' mission is "to promote effective and globally consistent supervision of the insurance industry in order to develop and maintain fair, safe and stable insurance markets for the benefit and protection of policyholders and to contribute to global financial stability."

The IAIS, whose members constitute nearly all of the world's insurance supervisors including the FIO and the NAIC, has committed to develop by 2016 and implement by 2019 the first-ever risk based global insurance capital standard (ICS).

The FIO published a report December 12, 2013 about "how to modernize and improve the system of insurance regulation in the United States." The report concludes:

• "[I]n some circumstances, policy goals of uniformity, efficiency, and consumer protection make continued federal involvement necessary to improve insurance regulation."
• However, "insurance regulation in the United States is best viewed in terms of a hybrid model, where state and federal oversight play complementary roles and where the roles are defined in terms of the strengths and opportunities that each brings to improving solvency and market conduct regulation."

Dodd-Frank also requires the Federal Reserve to regulate and establish capital levels for nonbank companies designated as "systemically important". The Financial Stability Board (FSB),an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system, published a list of nine insurers on July 18, 2013 that it identified as “global systemically important”. The FSB list includes three United States insurers, AIG, MetLife and Prudential - each of which currently sells structured settlement annuities in the U.S. market.

Although these insurers insist they are nothing like banks in terms of insolvency risks, "regulators are more worried by non-insurance activities carried out by insurance groups than by their core activities", according to a July 27, 2013 article in The Economist titled "Global Systemic Insurers".

"But it is not clear", The Economist article adds, "which activities the FSB considers core and which it thinks are too racy for insurers. Regulators (and others) worry about some annuities, savings-like products which offer guaranteed returns to customers."

Dodd-Frank and Product Suitability Standards

In addition to the insurance regulatory and capital requirement changes discussed above, Dodd-Frank directed the SEC to study the need for a new, uniform fiduciary standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and to apply such a uniform standard if it deemed necessary.

This study is potentially important for structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning because:

• Both of these related markets currently lack uniform product suitability standards.
• By comparison, structured settlement protection acts impose a "best interest" standard on the secondary market.
• Broker-dealers and investment advisers increasingly participate in settlement planning.
• Settlement planning increasing integrates structured settlement annuities with other insurance and financial products ("blended products") in settlement trusts subject to "best interest" fiduciary standards.

Although the SEC published a fiduciary standard study in January 2011, it has not yet published any related regulations. S2KM reviewed settlement planning product suitability standards in a four-part 2012 blog series.

Global Insurance Capital Standard

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), whose members constitute nearly all of the world's insurance supervisors including the United States Treasury's Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and the National Association of Insurance Commissioner (NAIC), has committed to develop and implement the first-ever risk based global insurance capital standard (ICS), according to Peter Braumüller, chairman of the IAIS Executive Committee.

This development was reported by the Duane Morris law firm in an October 11, 2013 Alert which also identified a 2016 target date for development of the ICS with full implementation expected in 2019 following two years of testing and refinement.

Established in 1994, IAIS is "the international standard setting body responsible for developing and assisting in the implementation of principles, standards and other supporting material for the supervision of the insurance sector", according to its website.

IAIS' mission is "to promote effective and globally consistent supervision of the insurance industry in order to develop and maintain fair, safe and stable insurance markets for the benefit and protection of policyholders and to contribute to global financial stability."

The Duane Morris Alert additionally reported conflicting reactions to the ICS from representatives of the FIO and the NAIC.

• FIO - Michael T. McRaith, director of the FIO and chairman of the IAIS Technical Committee, offered this assessment: "[f]rom the [2008] financial crisis, we learned that our global financial regulatory regime should be more robust and comprehensive in scope, and jurisdictions should share a commitment to global standards."
• NAIC - Ben Nelson, CEO of the NAIC, issued this response to the IAIS's announcement: "Although U.S. state insurance regulators continue to have serious concerns about the timing, necessity, and complexity of developing a global capital standard given regulatory differences around the globe, we intend to remain fully engaged in the process to ensure that any development augments the strong legal entity capital standards in the U.S. that have provided proven and tested security for U.S. policyholders and stable insurance markets for consumers and industry."

The United States structured settlement industry played an important historical role influencing the development of risk based capital requirements for insurance companies and will likely be impacted by related national and international developments.

Historical Background

• The United States insurance industry historically has been regulated almost exclusively by the states whose regulatory responsibility was reaffirmed in 1945 when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
• Following the collapse of First Executive Corporation and its two Executive Life subsidiaries in 1991, which had invested heavily in "junk bonds" and had sold a substantial number of structured settlement annuities, the NAIC adopted several model reforms including risk based capital (RBC) requirements.
• RBC requires insurance companies with higher amounts of risk to retain higher amounts of capital and surplus.
• Prior to the Executive Life collapse, state insurance regulators had used fixed capital standards to monitor the financial solvency of insurance companies.
• Under fixed capital standards, depending upon the state and its line of business, insurance companies were required to maintain the same minimum amount of capital, regardless of the financial condition of the company.
• As a result of the 2008 global financial crisis and huge exposures to subprime real estate mortgages incurred by one its non-insurance subsidiaries, American International Group, Inc. (AIG), a significant structured settlement annuity provider, required a $182 billion government bailout to avoid collapse.
• The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), enacted in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, created changes in the United States financial regulatory system that impact all aspects of the financial services industry including insurance.
• Among many provisions, Dodd-Frank, according the U.S. Treasury website, "vested FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector ... and to represent the United States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors [IAIS]."
• The Financial Stability Board (FSB),an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system, published a list of nine insurers on July 18, 2013 that it identified as “global systemically important”.
• The FSB list includes three United States insurers, AIG, MetLife and Prudential - each of which currently sells structured settlement annuities in the U.S. market.
• Although these insurers insist they are nothing like banks in terms of insolvency risks, "regulators are more worried by non-insurance activities carried out by insurance groups than by their core activities", according to a July 27, 2013 article in The Economist titled "Global Systemic Insurers".
• "But it is not clear", The Economist article adds, "which activities the FSB considers core and which it thinks are too racy for insurers. Regulators (and others) worry about some annuities, savings-like products which offer guaranteed returns to customers."
• The Duane Morris Alert also reported the IAIS announcement "that by late 2014 it will have finalized and made ready for implementation 'straightforward, backstop capital requirements' for insurers that are designated as global systemically important insurers."

Structured Settlements in 2012 - 1

The U.S. structured settlement industry in 2012 increasingly defined itself into three related markets (the primary, secondary and settlement planning markets) with the liquidation of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) representing the dominant industry storyline.

This blog post highlights 2012 non-ELNY structured settlement developments for the primary market. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will highlight structured settlement developments for the 2) settlement planning and 3) structured settlement secondary markets and summarize 4) ELNY-related events.

Primary Market

The primary structured settlement market in 2012 was characterized by continuing sales declines including the departure of two annuity providers (Hartford and Symetra). As reported by Melissa Evola and "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), annual structured settlement annuity premium reached an historic high in 2008 ($6,226,578,725) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

The 2011 structured settlement annuity premium total of $4,974,710,838 represented an approximate 10 percent decline from 2010 and an approximate 20 percent decline from 2008. And based upon reported third quarter 2012 numbers, this year's structured settlement annuity numbers could be even lower.

Through the end of September 2012, reported nine month structured settlement annuity premium totaled $3,570,584,333 compared with 2011 ($3,638,466,321) and 2008 ($4,429,915,586) figures for similar nine month results. The comparable nine month case totals for these years: 2012 (18,701 cases); 2011 (21,846 cases); and 2008 (25,545 cases).

Many structured settlement industry participants attribute declining sales to low interest rates including future forecasts by the Federal Reserve. Market yields on U.S. Treasury securities at 30 year constant maturity peaked at 13.45 percent in 1981. Here are several historic average annual rates for 30 year Treasury securities (source: U.S. Department of the Treasury):

• 2012 (as of December 21) - 2.93%
• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Critics of the primary structured settlement market attribute the continuing sales decline to a broader set of factors. For example, speaking at the 2012 National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) conference, Mark Wahlstrom described 2012 as "another bad year for the primary market". He characterized declines in primary market annuity premium as a "negative trend that will eventually impact the secondary market" and identified the following causes:

• The structured settlement is an insular, closed community with aging leadership and a shrinking sales force.
• Structured settlement annuity providers, and most brokers, lack marketing and innovation skills.
• Primary market participants are intimidated by the Internet.
• Instead of offering customer solutions, the primary market continues to sell a single product.
• With historically low interest rates, that product produces a zero return when you consider inflation.
• The primary market has not responded strategically to tort reform and increasing competition from other professionals.
• By continuing their "factoring wars", the primary market has missed opportunities to cooperate with the secondary market.
• The ELNY liquidation means the primary market can no longer claim all structured settlement recipients have received 100% of their payments.

Perhaps the most positive 2012 development for the primary structured settlement industry was the remarkable business turnaround of American International Group, Inc. (AIG). Four years following its $182 billion financial bailout of AIG, the United States Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve sold almost all of their remaining AIG ownership interest during 2012, which at one time reached 92 percent, and achieved a net positive investment return of $22.7 billion.

AIG's significant role in the U.S. structured settlement market, and the impact of AIG's 2008 financial collapse, are apparent from annual AIG structured settlement annuity premium results (compiled by Melissa Evola) with AIG's estimated annual share of the U.S. structured settlement annuity market in parentheses.

• 2002 - $1.179 billion (19%)
• 2003 - $1.195 billion (20%)
• 2004 - $1.221 billion (20%)
• 2005 - $1.316 billion (21%)
• 2006 - $1.463 billion (24%)
• 2007 - $1.468 billion (24%)
• 2008 - $1.454 billion (23%)
• 2009 - $0.429 billion (8%)
• 2010 - $0.499 billion (9%)
• 2011 - $0.395 billion (11%)

For the first three quarters of 2012, based upon Evola's reporting, AIG (Amgen/AILife) sold $409,213,518 of total structured settlement premium representing 11 percent of total U.S. structured settlement annuity premium ($3,570,584,333) for the same period. 

Additional post in S2KM's blog series: "Structured Settlements in 2012":

• Part 1 - Primary market

• Part 2 - Settlement planning

• Part 3 - Secondary market

• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York

AIG Bailout Ends

Four years following its $182 billion financial bailout of American International Group, Inc. (AIG), the United States Department of Treasury (Treasury) and the Federal Reserve have now sold almost all of their remaining AIG ownership interest, which at one time reached 92 percent, and have achieved a net positive investment return of $22.7 billion.

This remarkable result was achieved today when the Treasury announced the sale of 234 million common shares at $32.50 per share, the same price it received for a similar sale in September 2012.

For details about the most recent sale plus an historical perspective on AIG's recovery, see this Bloomberg News article posted on "New Jersey Business".

AIG Structured Settlements

AIG's significant role in the U.S. structured settlement market, and the impact of AIG's 2008 financial collapse, are apparent from annual AIG structured settlement annuity premium results compiled by Melissa Evola - with AIG's estimated annual share of the U.S. structured settlement annuity market in parentheses.

• 2002 - $1.179 billion (19%)
• 2003 - $1.195 billion (20%)
• 2004 - $1.221 billion (20%)
• 2005 - $1.316 billion (21%)
• 2006 - $1.463 billion (24%)
• 2007 - $1.468 billion (24%)
• 2008 - $1.454 billion (23%)
• 2009 - $0.429 billion (8%)
• 2010 - $0.499 billion (9%)
• 2011 - $0.395 billion (11%)

For the first three quarters of 2012, based upon Evola's reporting, AIG (Amgen/AILife) sold $409,213,518 of total structured settlement premium representing 11 percent of total U.S. structured settlement annuity premium ($3,570,584,333) for the same period.

Within those totals, AIG sold "non-qualified"(tax deferred) structured settlement annuity premium of $35,406,499 representing 25 percent of the total non-qualified structured settlement annuity premium ($143,480,280).

For estimated annual structured settlement annuity premium (1975-2011), see the structured settlement wiki.

NASP 2012 Annual Conference - 2

Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the enactment of IRC 5891, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 2012 Annual Conference last week in New Orleans.

The conference featured an ambitious and successful educational program highlighting prior NASP accomplishments and focusing on emerging issues that impact both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. For the first time in NASP's history, conference attendance was open to primary market participants.

S2KM previously published an introductory blog post identifying NASP 2012 conference speakers and topics and providing links to S2KM reports from previous NASP conferences. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will recap speaker presentations.

This blog post offers S2KM's general observations and impressions of some of the broader structured settlement industry issues based upon NASP's 2012 conference.

Why Has Factoring Flourished?

Compared with the primary structured settlement market, both NASP and the secondary market appear to be flourishing. What explains this paradoxical success?

The groundwork for secondary structured settlement market success began in 1997 when NASP launched a strategic lobbying initiative resulting in the enactment of IRC 5891 and NCOIL's Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act).

Although neither legislative development would have been possible without support from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the lobbying agendas of the two associations were markedly different. Ultimately NASP prevailed on several critical issues including:

• "Best interest" standard vs. NSSTA's preferred "financial hardship" standard.
• Denying annuity owners and providers the right to veto proposed transfers.
• Eliminating maximum discount rates.

In addition to NASP's lobbying success, NASP's members have achieved considerable, and controversial, marketing success utilizing aggressive television advertizing and sophisticated Internet techniques. As one measure of this marketing success, the primary market now claims the secondary market has "stolen the structured settlement brand".

Both the primary and the secondary structured settlement markets were devastated by the 2008 financial crisis which:

• Temporarily shut down asset-backed securities markets including securities backed by structured settlement payment rights.
• Created an industry liquidity crisis which resulted in:
  • J.G. Wentworth, the largest secondary market company, entering bankruptcy in 2009.
  • AIG, the largest primary market company, receiving a financial bailout from the U.S. government in 2008 and 2009.
  • Both Wentworth and AIG have subsequently recovered and regained their respective market leadership roles.
• Reduced interest rates to historic low levels causing a substantial reduction in primary market sales beginning in 2009.

As of the 2012 second calendar quarter, the secondary structured settlement market appears to have fully recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. The primary market has not yet recovered. Part of the reason is that interest rates, whether high or low, affect the primary and secondary structured settlement markets differently.

Other reasons, however, also help explain the growing success of the secondary structured settlement market.

• Structured settlement transfers improve the structured settlement product by addressing a critical need for many structured settlement recipients - a liquidity need that was not properly addressed in the original settlement plan or, alternatively, resulted from unanticipated developments.
• Continuing strong demand exists among some institutional and individual investors for recycled structured settlement payment rights.

Linked Markets - Same Customers

Having failed politically to end structured settlement factoring, NSSTA, and many annuity providers, have adopted alternative strategies which appear to be misguided attempts to create obstacles and impede the growth of the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA's 2006 bylaw amendments represent one such example. As NSSTA explained to its members: "because [the secondary market] activities [prohibited by the amendments] are inconsistent with the membership qualifications, engaging in those activities can lead to suspension or expulsion from membership and to denial of new membership applications." (emphasis added).

The increasing "administrative fees" annuity providers charge factoring companies, either as a condition to avoid "opposed transfers" or to allow transfers of life contingent payment rights, represents another example. Ultimately, the structured settlement recipients who transfer payment rights pay for those administrative fees which, for some annuity providers, now represent a new profit center.

How do these types of actions help the structured settlement customer or improve the structured settlement industry?

Both NSSTA and NASP, and their members, share a common existential interest in IRC 104(a)(2) and 130. Both NSSTA and NASP recognize the anticipated re-writing of the U.S. tax code expected to begin following the 2012 Presidential election represents a threat to those tax sections.

Arguably, the existence of IRC 5891, which not only links to IRC 104(a)(2) and 130, but also to the 48 state structured settlement protection statutes, has both expanded and strengthened the U.S. structured settlement legislative framework.

Having collaborated to help enact IRC 5891 and the NCOIL Model Act, shouldn't NSSTA and NASP also collaborate to defend and maintain IRC 104(a)(2) and 130 - and to identify additional shared interests for structured settlement industry improvement and growth?

Improving Industry Education

In his opening comments at the NASP 2012 conference, outgoing NASP President Matthew Bracy challenged attendees to make the structured settlement transfer business better: "better in the marketplace, better in the courts, and above all better for the customers who so need the service this industry provides."

One way NASP "walks the walk" of secondary market improvement is by inviting its critics to speak at NASP conferences. NASP challenges these critics not only to address secondary market problems but also to recommend improvements.

Critics who have spoken at past NASP conferences include: Jack Meligan, Stephen Harris, Peter Vodola, John Darer, and Richard Risk. Other critics, including NSSTA leaders, have been invited but have declined to participate.

Jan Schlichtmann, keynote speaker for the 2012 NASP conference, began by stating: "I don't like your advertizing". He then praised NASP for inviting and encouraging criticism to better itself and the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA also has permitted criticism as part of its educational programs. Examples include: Joseph DiGangi (see: "Settlement Consulting") and Dan Clark (see: "SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings"). Whenever NSSTA has addressed strategically important and/or controversial issues (egs. IRC 468B and IRC 5891), however, NSSTA members generally hear only "politically correct" speakers and perspectives.

Because of the importance of issues such as qualified settlement funds (QSFs) and the secondary market for the future of structured settlements, NSSTA members increasingly must rely upon non-NSSTA educational programs and educational resources to interact with the people and ideas challenging and changing the structured settlement industry.

During 2012, these educational programs have included: the SSP conference, the ASNP conference, the Risk settlement planning practicum and the QSF symposium.

Fortunately for NSSTA members, as well as members of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), NASP has now opened an entirely new educational forum to challenge and expand their understanding of structured settlements.