Beyond Structured Settlements

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 Update - 2015 Annuity Sales

Structured settlement primary market annuity sales increased by $97,315,462 (approximately 2%) to $5,347,578,153 in 2015 compared with $5,250,262,691 in 2014 according to industry estimates compiled and recently distributed by Melissa Evola Price. Total 2015 structured settlement cases, however, decreased to 25,152 from 26,572 a year earlier for an average case premium of $212,610.

The 2015 annual premium totals 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 2015 results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru 2015:

• Total annuity premium: $150 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 853,800
• Average annuity premium: $175,700.

Berkshire Hathaway continued its recent primary market leadership in 2015 by generating $1.306 billion of structured settlement annuity premium - an eight (8%) percent decline from 2014 but still 24% of the 2015 industry total. 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 (down from more than 20 as recently as 2002) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). 2015 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:

• Pacific Life: $871 MM (+13%)
• MetLife: $772 MM (-11%)
• Prudential: $772 MM (+8%)
• Amgen: $613 MM (+29%)
• Liberty Life $548 MM (-10%)
• New York Life: $368 MM (+18%)
• Mutual of Omaha: $98 MM (+113%)

Evola Price's 2015 compilation also reports an annual increase in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlement assignments (from $182.3 million in 2014 to $190.3 million in 2015) 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. For S2KM's most recent estimates of secondary market metrics, see this prior blog post.

Structured Settlements 2015 - 1

Market Metrics

Although its new "Growth Initiative" has represented a well-publicized, number one priority of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) during 2015, the results of this initiative have not yet produced a noteworthy impact on structured settlement annuity sales.

As reported by Melissa Evola Price, the United States structured settlement primary market has continued to slowly recover from its 2012 nadir during 2015 with first nine months annuity sales of $3.96 billion resulting from 18,635 cases - a premium increase of 3% compared to $3.86 billion resulting from 19,778 cases for the same period in 2014. The average per case annuity premium has increased to $212,703 from $195,305.

Based upon these results, 2015 annual structured settlement annuity sales can be expected to approximate $5.4 billion. The projected 2015 annual premium totals, however, will still fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

Recent Annual Structured Settlement Annuity Premium

• 2015 (third quarter) - $3.96 billion
• 2014 - $5.25 billion
• 2013 - $5.13 billion
• 2012 - $4.82 billion
• 2011 - $4.97 billion
• 2010 - $5.5 billion
• 2009 - $5.4 billion
• 2008 - $6.2 billion

Adding the 2015 Third Quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 2015:

• Total annuity premium: $148.7 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 847,200
• Average annuity premium: $175,600.

Nine month 2015 sales results (in millions) for individual structured settlement annuity providers (per Price's report) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2014 results:

• Berkshire Hathaway: $974 MM (-12%)
• Pacific Life: $642 MM (+16%)
• MetLife: $592 MM (-13%)
• Prudential: $563 MM (+22%)
• Liberty Life: $422 MM (-2%)
• Amgen: $408 MM (+8%)
• New York Life: $298 MM (+45%)
• Mutual of Omaha: $65 MM (+63%)

Low Interest Rates

Many structured settlement industry participants attribute decreased sales to low interest rates. 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):

• 2015 (as of December 28) - 2.95%
• 2014 - 2.97%
• 2013 - 3.96%
• 2012 - 2.95%
• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Submarkets - Multiple noteworthy submarkets, each with significant structured settlement growth potential, are incorporated within the annuity production numbers set forth above. With the exception of non-qualified assignments funded with life insurance annuities sold by NSSTA members, S2KM is not aware of published metrics for these submarkets.

• Non-Qualified Assignments
  • Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130. They are generally used to defer taxable damage awards such as punitive damages as well as contingent attorney fees. Because they do not benefit from the favorable tax treatment of IRC 130, most non-qualified assignees are "off-shore" companies located in jurisdictions which do not tax the funds received by the assignee as income.
  • Two NSSTA-member annuity providers (Liberty Life and American General) currently offer and separately report non-qualified sales
  • Reported nine month 2015 non-qualified structured settlement sales by Liberty and Amgen totaled $159.0 million compared with $113.2 million in 2014 - a substantial increase which does not include non-qualified sales by a growing number of non-NSSTA member companies.
  • Release 58 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) features an expanded analysis of the non-qualified market.
• Medicare Set-Asides
  • A Medicare set-aside (MSA) is an administrative and funding mechanism utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.
  • Although Federal law does not define MSAs, or mandate specific types of MSA funding mechanisms, CMS (the responsible federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs).
  • Under current CMS rules, structured settlement annuities have an inherent cost advantage over lump sum alternatives for funding WCMSAs resulting from the method CMS prescribes for calculating present values.
  • Although industry reporting does not currently separate MSA annuity sales, S2KM has previously estimated that eight (8%) percent of 2013 structured settlement premium and 24 percent of 2013 structured settlement annuities were attributable to WCMSAs.
  • Although no specific CMS rules or requirements currently exist for liability MSAs, one professional MSA administrator has informed S2KM that liability MSAs now represent 30% of his company's cases and the percent is growing.
• Special Needs Trusts
  • Established by Congress in 1993 as part of the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act, Special Needs Trusts (SNTs) provide an authorized method for disabled individuals to hold an unlimited amount of assets in trust without disqualification for certain means-tested government benefits including Social Security Income and Medicaid.
  • When utilized as part of a personal injury settlement, SNTs are frequently funded with structured settlement annuities.
  • Similar to MSAs, industry reporting does not currently separately report SNT annuity sales.
  • Although an important strategic relationship clearly exists between structured settlement brokers and special needs attorneys, neither professional community have fully embraced the other for reasons explained in prior S2kM blog posts.
  • As a result, continuing opportunities exist to expand structured settlements funding of SNTs as well as other government benefit programs promoted by special needs attorneys such as the ABLE Act and the Affordable Care Act.

How large is the potential U.S. annual structured settlement market?

Based on recent Towers Watson studies, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys during 2014. Within that framework, and in the context of an S2KM interview, NSSTA President Michael Goodman recently stated his own estimate of potential market size for the structured settlement industry to be $8 to $10 billion range per year.

Secondary Market

Unlike the primary structured settlement market, which has experienced modest annual sales increases since 2012, the secondary market appears to have regressed according to industry experts. As a point of reference, based on interviews with industry experts in 2012, S2KM 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.

Following zero (0%) percent growth in 2013, the number of secondary market transfers appears to have declined as much as 15% during 2014 with another decrease of as much as 7% predicted in 2015, according to various industry sources.

This decline in secondary market transfers received further confirmation from:

• An exhibit to J.G. Wentworth's December 10, 2015 SEC Form 8-K which indicates a $48 million drop in structured settlement revenue for the first three quarters of 2015 compared with the same 2014 period ($764MM vs. $812 MM).
• J.G. Wentworth's current stock price - which closed on the New York Stock Exchange at $1.82 per share on December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014.

Industry experts estimate J.G. Wentworth currently controls between 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market.

Based upon the 2013-2015 transfer estimates indicated above, S2KM further updates its estimates of historic (1986-2015) structured settlement secondary market metrics as follows:

• 168,000 transfers - involving 84,000 structured settlement recipients.
• $5 billion - aggregate sums paid to transferor structured settlement recipients.
• $12.9 billion - aggregate periodic payments purchased by secondary market companies.

For S2KM's summary of 2015 structured settlement issues and developments, see this blog post.
For S2KM's prior year summaries of the structured settlement market, see the structured settlement wiki.

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.

S2P2J Release 57 Highlights

The United States structured settlement market has been in existence for more than 35 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning.

Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided structured settlement stakeholders with 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 now features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a March 2015 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 57 with online S2P2J subcribers 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 57 Highlights - Release 57 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• WCMSAs - Release 57 re-positions and expands S2P2J's extensive summary of the new CMS rules for workers compensation Medicare set-asides, the fastest growing segment of the structured settlement primary market. Regulatory rules for liability MSAs remain essentially unchanged following the withdrawl by CMS on August 8, 2014 of it the liability MSA-related NPRM it had earlier submitted to the Office of Management and Budget.
• Indexed Annuities - PLR 143928-13 highlights the potential importance of indexed annuities and annuity riders as structured settlement funding alternatives. Release 57 features a new section explaining indexed annuities, differentiating variable annuities and summarizing the related PLR.
• Commutation Riders - PLR 143928-13 also provided favorable tax treatment for a commutation rider pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion as a potential alternative to factoring transactions. This PLR justified an expansion in Release 57 of S2P2J's current section discussing commutations.
• Non-qualified Assignments - Most non-qualified assignments depend upon off-shore assignment companies which raise tax and security issues for participants. Release 57 expands S2P2P's analysis of non-qualified assignments to address these issues.
• CLM Advisors Surveys - Release 57 summarizes results from two surveys commissioned by NSSTA to determine the value claims executives and adjustors place on structured settlements and structured settlement consultants. The results and related metrics are generally favorable and arguably provide a valuable marketing blueprint for defense brokers.
• ABLE Accounts - Release 57 features a new section describing ABLE Accounts, a tax-preferenced funding option authorized by the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act (ABLE Act) of 2014. Although some structured settlement consultants view ABLE Accounts as a competitive product, others see opportunities to fund ABLE accounts using structured settlements.
• Insurance Regulation - States historically have regulated insurance in the United States. As a result of the 2008 global financial crisis, however, new federal and international insurance regulatory agencies now exist which are targeting some of the largest structured settlement annuity providers among other financial and insurance companies. Release 57 adds a new section to introduce and explain these new regulatory developments and entities.
• ELNY and Reliance - The recent ELNY and Reliance liquidations have each impacted thousands of structured settlement recipients. Although judicial solutions have been fashioned, litigation continues - as least involving some ELNY shortfall payees. Release 57 updates S2P2J's extensive coverage of the ELNY and Reliance liquidations.
• Role of Plaintiff Attorneys - As structure settlements and personal injury settlement planning have become more complex, and plaintiff attorneys increasingly require the services of other settlement planning professionals, plaintiff attorneys should continue to perform certain essential structured settlement and settlement planning roles. Release 57 identifies and discusses those roles and provides additional related advice for plaintiff attorneys.
• Secondary Market Update - The continuing expansion of the secondary market has generated controversy and litigation as well as legislative reform and changing business practices. S2P2J continues to track these developments in expanding chapter 16 titled "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights". Release 57 highlights include "anti-assignment" issues in Illinois originating with the Brenston case and the market "chaos" some secondary market participant see occurring as the result of the Washington Square v. RSL Funding case.
• IRC 104(a)(2) Treasury Regulations - Recent U.S. Treasury Regulations for IRC 104(a)(2) relating to the exclusion from gross income for amounts received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness make two primary changes to the current regulations which Release 57 summarizes in the context of S2P2J more extensive analysis in Chapter 2 of "Taxation of Damages Received by the Claimant".

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

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

 

Structured Settlements 2014 - Secondary Market

Is the bloom finally off the rose for structured settlement secondary market leader JGWPT Holdings, Inc. (JGWPT) whose subsidiaries include J.G. Wentworth (JGW) and Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree)?

Despite strong sales since 2010, punctuated by the November 25, 2014 announcement that it had issued $207,501,000 of Fixed Rate Asset Backed Notes collateralized primarily by payment rights rights arising under court ordered structured settlement payment purchase contracts, JGWPT's NYSE per share price closed at $8.65 on December 12, 2014, down drastically from its 2014 high of $19.88 on March 4.

When JGWPT's Holdings IPO occurred November 8, 2013, with an initial offering price of $14.00 per share, one analyst opined the stock was worth at least $20 per share based upon JGW's "dominant franchise", access to securitization markets, low costs relative to competitors and "incalculable returns on capital", among other factors.

After JGW consolidated its 2011 merger with Peachtree, various industry experts estimated the combined combined company's structured settlement secondary market share totaled somewhere between 50% and 75%, and its share of industry profits exceeded 80%.

What happened?

Zacks Investment Research published two reports earlier this month on December 2 ("JG Wentworth - Bear of the Day") and December 9 ("What Falling Estimates & Price Mean for J.G. Wentworth").

Zacks' conclusion: "A key reason for this [downward stock price] move has been the negative trend in earnings estimate revisions. For the full year, we have seen four estimates moving down in the past 30 days, compared with no upward revision. This trend has caused the consensus estimate to trend lower, going from $1.71 a share a month ago to its current level of $1.45."

What has caused JGW's negative trend in earnings estimates?

As summarized in S2KM's 2013 annual report about the structured settlement secondary market, JGWPT faced a multitude of problems and controversies prior to 2014. New and/or expanded problems have occurred during the past 12 months - in particular:

• Brenston case law "progeny"; and
• Washington Square v. RSL.

Brenston Case Law "Progeny"

In the Brenston case, the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2013 denied Peachtree's petition for review of an Illinois Appellate Court decision which found multiple Peachtree-Brenston transfer orders, previously approved in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute, to be void ab initio because:

• Peachtree did not file all settlement documents with the transfer court.
• Peachtree concealed "by omission" the existence of anti-assignment provisions which the Appellate Court found "material".
• The conduct of Peachtree and it's attorney amounted to an "affirmative falsehood and a fraud upon the trial court".

The denial of Peachtree's petition for review has substantially reduced the secondary structured settlement market in Illinois according to industry sources. Some annuity providers reportedly have refused to waive anti-assignment provisions in Illinois cases while others evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. In addition, some annuity providers are citing Brenston to challenge transfers in other states.

The Brenston case was also quickly followed by Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, a class action lawsuit, accusing JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including JGW and Peachtree, and Illinois attorney Brian Mack, of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA). The case has since been removed to the Federal Court in the Southern District of Illinois with that court expected to rule on various motions and petitions in February 2015.

Washington Square v. RSL

In this case, transfer company Washington Square (aka Imperial) sued transfer company RSL Funding in Texas for tortious interference with a transfer agreement that had not yet been approved in a final court order. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, held:

• RSL was “justified” in interfering with Imperial’s proposed transfer agreement prior to court approval because obtaining a better price was in the seller's "best interest".
• Transfer agreements that have not received court approval are not enforceable on public policy grounds and therefore cannot justify legal actions for tortious interference with existing contracts.

As a result of this case, a strategic marketing shift appears to be occurring within the structured settlement secondary market as rival transfer companies increasingly search court records and seek to outbid other transfer companies who are awaiting court approvals. This marketing shift may provide lower discount rates for some structured settlement recipients when they sell their payment rights. The impact on the secondary market, however, will be "chaos", according to some participants, including extra "informational" demands on the judicial system responsible for administering the state protection acts.

For JGW and Peachtree, who have invested millions of dollars to build their TV and Internet brands, this strategic marketing shift promises new, much less-well financed competitors. Like pilot fish, these competitors can be expected to offer competitive bids based upon public court filings of not-yet-approved transfers proposed by JGW and Peachtree (as well as other established transfer companies) rather than based upon their own independent marketing. Assuming this occurs, the likely per case results for JGW and Peachtree will be lower success ratios and higher costs.

ADDENDUM (added December 15, 2014) - JGWPT's September 10, 2014 Form S-1/A filing with the SEC identifies multiple "Risk Factors" at least two of which could impact other structured settlement stakeholders:

• "[T]he insolvency or downgrade of a material number of structured settlement issuers." S2KM will discuss these rating downgrades, which include Genworth, Hartford and Aviva, in a subsequent 2014 annual report about ELNY and Reliance.

• "[T]he impact of the March 2014 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau inquiry and any findings or regulations it issues as related to us, our industries, our products or in general." (emphasis added)

Change of Directions for JGWPT?

One apparent result of JGWPT's continuing problems and controversies has been a change of CEOs with Stewart Stockdale replacing David Miller in July 2014. Another result appears to be a more diversified strategy away from structured settlements.

In a November 13, 2014 press release, Stockdale stated: "We are in the early stages of transforming J.G. Wentworth and are excited about the groundwork we have laid to achieve the three key strategic pillars -- Grow the Core, Become an Information-Based Company, and Diversify." To date, this proposed transformation does not appear to have impressed investment analysts or positively impacted JGWPT's common stock.

Other 2014 Secondary Market Developments

• Educational Dialogue - For the first time, educational programs sponsored by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) featured representatives of the National Association of Settlement Planners (NASP) as participants in secondary market panel discussions. For the ninth consecutive year, NASP featured primary market representatives speaking about primary market issues at their annual educational conference. For summaries of these conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.
• Case Law - In addition to the Washington Square and Brenston-related cases summarized above, noteworthy 2014 case law developments occurred in Texas and New York related to split payments and servicing arrangements. Two Texas cases required JGW to continue servicing arrangements under prior court approved orders and also to service subsequent assignments by the same payees to another transfer company. Multiple New York judges expressed their concerns about servicing arrangements while approving structured settlement transfers. At least 27 state structured settlement protection acts prohibit partial transfers. During 2013, MetLife began actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.
• State Legislation - Although structured settlement protection act (SSPA) activities occurred in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Mississippi during 2014, only Minnesota enacted a legislative amendment. Minnesota amended its SSPA to require notice of the date and judicial district of any prior application for transfer filed by the transferee relating to a prior proposed transfer with the payee including whether the proposed transfer was approved or denied. If granted, such notice must provide the amount and due dates of transferred structured settlement payments, the aggregate amount, the discounted present value and the gross amount payable to the payee.
• PLR-143928-13 - Issued by the Internal Revenue Service in August, this two-part private letter ruling approves favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity which includes the possibility of a commutation by the recipient pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion. In a prior blog post, S2KM described this PLR as potentially "game changing" because it overcomes an industry concern (enunciated in a 2006 Robert Wood article) that commutations do not qualify for favorable tax treatment afforded third party factoring transactions under IRC 5891.
• Re-cycled payment rights - Representing a small fraction of secondary market sales, the resale to personal injury victims and their attorneys of payment rights previously acquired in a structured settlement factoring transaction (sometimes misleadingly referred to as "recycled structured settlements") continues to cause serious concern among most primary market participants. NSSTA considers engaging in or promoting the marketing or distribution of re-cycled payment rights to be risky, confusing and unregulated investment activity and inconsistent with its Mission.
• Discount rates - Discount rates for structured settlement transfers vary widely depending upon multiple factors including: single vs. multiple bids; fixed vs. life contingent payments; size of payments purchased; length of payment deferral; perceived financial strength of the annuity provider; and/or state law (eg. North Carolina rate cap). The NCOIL State Structured Settlement Protection Model Act, which NSSTA and NASP have agreed to support, contains a definition for "discounted present value" which is generally higher than, and unrelated to, the discount rate actually incorporated into most structured settlement transfers. Regardless of discount rates, judges continue to deny proposed transfers that do not otherwise satisfy the "best interest" test. Reasons include: funds from prior transfer(s) were not used for stated purposes; stated purposes do not justify approval.
• Secondary market sales
  • Based on interviews with industry experts in 2012, S2KM estimated 2012 structured settlement 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.
  • Opinions differ as to secondary market sales growth during 2013 and 2014 ranging from no growth to 7% growth per year.

S2KM will address 2014 developments related to personal injury settlement planning and the ELNY liquidation in subsequent blog posts,

For additional related S2KM reporting, see:

• NASP 2014 Annual Conference.
• Primary Market 2014 Report
• Prior Year Annual Reports

Structured Settlements 2014 - Primary Market

The United States structured settlement primary market has continued to slowly recover from its 2012 nadir during 2014 with first nine months annuity sales of approximately $3.9 billion resulting from 19,778 cases (as reported by Melissa Evola) a premium increase of 3% compared to $3.73 billion for the same period in 2013.

Total projected 2014 annual premium of $5.28 billion, however, is expected to fall substantially short of the historic 12 month industry apogee ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007. For estimated annual structured settlement annuity sales since 1976, see the structured settlement wiki.

Adding these 2014 third quarter results to historic U.S. structured settlement totals, S2KM estimates the following primary market metrics from 1976 thru September 30, 2014:

• Total annuity premium: $143 billion.
• Total structured settlement cases: 822,000
• Average annuity premium: $174,000.

Nine month 2014 sales results for individual structured settlement annuity providers (per Evola's report) which are members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) plus the rounded increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2013 results:

• Berkshire Hathaway - $1.113 billion (+ $79 million)
• MetLife - $678 million (+ $114 million)
• Pacific Life - $553 million (- $47 million)
• Prudential Life - $463 million (+ $90 million)
• Liberty Life - $430 million (+ $21 million)
• Amgen/USL - $378 million (- $57 million)
• New York Life - $206 million (+ $14 million)
• Mutual of Omaha - $40 million (- $10 million)

Notes

• Allstate and John Hancock, which have departed the structured settlement market, sold a combined $79 million of structured settlement annuities during the first nine months of 2013.
• To better understand their clients' "perceptions, utilization and understanding of the value of structured settlement consultants" (and presumably to improve industry sales), NSSTA has retained CLM Advisors to conduct separate marketing surveys of property & casualty 1) senior claims executives and 2) claims adjustors as well as 3) plaintiff attorneys. The results of Phases 1 and 2 were presented at NSSTA 2014 educational conferences.

Low Interest Rates

Many structured settlement industry participants attribute decreased sales to low interest rates. 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):

• 2014 (as of December 5) - 2.97%
• 2013 - 3.96%
• 2012 - 2.95%
• 2011 - 3.91%
• 2010 - 4.25%
• 2009 - 4.08%
• 2008 - 4.28%
• 2007 - 4.84%
• 2000 - 5.94%
• 1990 - 8.61%
• 1980 - 11.27%

Submarkets - Two noteworthy submarkets are incorporated within the structured settlement annuity production numbers set forth above:

• Non-Qualified Assignments
  • Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC section 130.
  • Unlike qualified assignees, U.S.-based, non-qualified assignees are subject to income tax on the amount they receive from whatever entity assigns (or more accurately "delegates") periodic payment obligations for claimants who do not qualify for tax exclusions under IRC section 104(a)(1) or (2) - such as employment discrimination cases or deferred attorney fees.
  • Despite the promise of a large potential "non-qualified assignment" market, reported sales on non-qualified structured settlement annuities by NSSTA members have declined since 2012.
  • Reported nine month 2014 non-qualified structured settlement sales totaled $113.2 million compared with $124.3 million in 2013.
• Medicare Set-Asides
• A Medicare set-aside (MSA) is an administrative and funding mechanism utilized in certain categories of settlements to protect Medicare's interests as "secondary payer" under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.
• Although Federal law does not define MSAs, or mandate specific types of MSA funding mechanisms, CMS (the responsible federal agency) has established certain basic requirements for workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs).
• No similar rules exist for liability MSAs. In October 2014, CMS withdrew a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which was expected to address liability MSAs.
• Under current CMS rules, structured settlement annuities have an inherent cost advantage over lump sum alternatives for funding WCMSAs resulting from the method CMS prescribes for calculating present values.
• Based upon industry sources, S2KM has previously estimated that eight (8%) percent of 2013 structured settlement premium and 24 percent of 2013 structured settlement annuities were attributable to WCMSAs. Under current CMS rules, these numbers could increase in 2014.

Product Developments - Significant structured settlement product developments occurred during 2014 including:

• Equity-indexed Annuity Rider - Pacific Life has obtained a Private Letter Ruling (PLR-143928-13) from the IRS approving favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity with annual payment adjustments based on the performance of the Standard & Poors 500 Index. Although life insurance companies first offered equity-indexed annuities during the mid-1990's to compete with indexed mutual funds, Pacific Life's ILAAPR represents the first U.S. equity-indexed structured settlement option. To achieve market success, structured settlement consultants must convince settlement recipients that potentially higher long-term ILAAPR payouts (based upon S&P 500 performance) will offset lower starting payments compared with traditional structured settlement annuities.
• Hardship Conversion Feature - PLR-143928-13 also approves favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity with a commutation pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion which the PLR describes as follows: "The Notice of Hardship Conversion provides that the Assignee will consider a request from Claimant to convert future guaranteed structured settlement payments to an immediate lump sum payment, in certain qualifying hardship circumstances, if the request is approved by a court or applicable administrative authority pursuant to a qualified order under § 5891(b)(2). The qualifying hardship circumstances are financial hardship due to medical expenses, expenses related to a terminal illness, home improvement expenses for handicap accessibility, job loss, loss of home, and the same type of expense for the payee’s dependents. Assignee expressly represents that it reserves the right to decline any hardship conversion request and that it will consider each hardship conversion request on a case-by-case basis. In addition, Assignee represents that it will not allow any hardship conversion in the first year after a qualified assignment."
• Periodic Payment Reinsurance - Although first offered in 1982, Berkshire Hathaway re-introduced its periodic payment reinsurance product during 2014.  Issued by National Indemnity Company, a Berkshire property and casualty company, this product is available for both tax-free periodic payments [under IRC 104(a)(1) and/or (2)] and non-IRC 130 tax-deferred periodic payments. In many respects analogous to traditional structured settlements, Berkshire asserts multiple advantages for its reinsurance product. These include greater financial strength than other structured settlement product providers plus higher interest rates because, unlike life insurers, National Indemnity's investments are not concentrated in bonds. Unlike traditional structured settlements, however, periodic payment reinsurance does not qualify for guarantee fund coverage and cannot be used by self-insureds. For more detailed analysis of periodic payment reinsurance as well as other structured settlement financing alternatives, see Chapter 3 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Primary Market Challenges - Reporting on NSSTA's 2014 Fall Educational Conference, S2KM summarized the following challenges currently facing the structured settlement primary market:

• Generational transition
• Stagnant growth
• Polarized and complex overlapping market(s)
• Alternative business models
• Increasing competition
• Changing success factors

In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will address 2014 structured settlement developments related to the secondary market, personal injury settlement planning and the ELNY liquidation. For prior S2KM annual reporting, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA 2014 Fall Educational Conference

Although David Ringler was unable to attend the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2014 Fall Educational Conference October 29-30 in La Jolla, California, he had an apparent impact. Ringler, NSSTA's first president, previously re-stated his original vision for NSSTA during NSSTA's 25th anniversary celebration in 2011:

"Although we do need to constantly be on the watch for legislative change, I still believe having a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs is the most important reason for NSSTA. I have called it a common “talk table”, although I agree that is not exactly a very elegant term. If we can continue this tradition, there is no problem we cannot overcome."

Many industry participants, including some NSSTA members, have questioned whether NSSTA has lost sight of this original purpose and tradition. For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a political litmus test for membership, as well as for topics and speakers at its educational conferences. As one result, structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have founded two other national structured settlement associations: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) in 1996 and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) in 2000.

NASP and SSP Participation

Perhaps responding to Ringler's clarion call, NSSTA opened its members-only educational program in La Jolla by inviting NASP President Patricia LaBorde and SSP President Neil Johnson to speak.

LaBorde was featured on a Secondary Market Panel, moderated by John McCulloch, which also included Stephen Harris and Patrick Hindert as panelists. McCulloch's questions targeted primary market concerns such as the prevalence of secondary market transfers, consequences of transfer company advertising and secondary market discount rates. The resulting discussion captured the audience's undivided attention and hopefully will result in expanded educational dialogue between NSSTA and NASP to include shared political and business interests.

Johnson and current NSSTA President Kevin Silo jointly addressed "Industry Challenges", a panel discussion moderated by NSSTA President-elect Michael Goodman. Repeating portions of his SSP 2014 keynote speech, Johnson proposed the following solutions for achieving industry unity: 1) recognizing and accepting product diversity; 2) focusing on client and customer service; 3) identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues; 4) engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues; 5) improving relationships among stakeholder groups; 6) promoting and practicing settlement planning not settlement selling.

Generational Change and Challenges

NSSTA and the primary structured settlement market face multiple challenges (see below) - perhaps none greater than succession. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s?

In addition to generating more than $140 billion of annuity premium, the legacy of NSSTA's retiring generation includes enactment of the existing structured settlement legislative framework: current IRC sections 104(a)(1) and (2) and 130 plus multiple state periodic payment of judgment statutes and (with NASP) enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection statutes. More recently, however, NSSTA's aging leadership has focused on defense - with "protect and preserve" its principle mantra.

NSSTA attempted to addressed this generational succession issue at its Fall conference by juxtaposing panels featuring past NSSTA Presidents and "Next Generation" brokers. The impression that emerged: NSSTA and the primary market have reached an historic crossroads - with multiple stakeholders, issues and options, but no clear future direction.

Whatever next generation of NSSTA leaders emerges will face several challenges:

• Stagnant growth - Since achieving $6 billion of annual annuity sales in 2001, structured settlement premium growth has stagnated with 2013 sales totaling $5.1 billion.
• Polarized market(s) - NSSTA's leaders have been unable, and/or unwilling, to unify the structured settlement market(s) around such shared interests as: primary market growth; preservation of existing legislation; and consumer protection - which prioritizes maintaining promised periodic payments.
• Alternative business models - Can alternative structured settlement models (traditional defense vs. emerging plaintiff) continue to co-exist and collaborate?
• Complexity - Structured settlements represent a strategic product within the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) market.
• Product features - Will Pacific Life's recent private letter ruling encourage structured settlement annuity providers to expand their product offerings to include "equity-indexed" annuities and "hardship conversions"?
• Competition. Within the settlement planning market, the growth and leadership of other product and service providers has increasingly exceeded the growth and leadership of structured settlement participants.
• Success factors. To expand sales within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA's leaders must re-think and re-engineer historical success factors - backgrounds and skill sets; educational programs; business models; product enhancements; sales and marketing strategies.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The settlement planning market is knowledge-intense and increasingly Internet-based. To continue, and increase, their historical success within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members must improve their knowledge management capabilities. One preliminary step is to identify and evaluate existing strategic knowledge. NSSTA and its members possess three primary types of strategic knowledge:

• Product knowledge - The "Tax Posse", the ACA summary, and even the Non-traditional Products presentation at NSSTA's Fall conference represent good examples of NSSTA's product knowledge. Perhaps more important, and more valuable, than explicit product knowledge, NSSTA members possess tacit (intuitive, experiential) knowledge of how structured settlements work. In the context of the secondary market, however, NSSTA member knowledge of its own product is arguably much weaker, and, therefore, incomplete and less valuable.
• Relationship knowledge - Much of NSSTA's Fall conference related to, and re-enforced, NSSTA's and NSSTA members' settlement planning relationship knowledge about and with: 1) plaintiff attorneys; 2) insurance associations; 3) insurance claims adjustors; 4) national consumer associations; 5) U.S. Congressional members; 6) MSA administrators; 7) SSP; and 8) NASP. In settlement planning, as in life more generally, it is not what you know but who you know that counts the most.
• Market knowledge - Compared with other settlement planning market segments, NSSTA (and NASP) appear to have developed and maintained more accurate market metrics including quarterly and annual premium and cases in total and for each member product provider. To further expand structured settlements into the settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members might begin to track additional metrics. For examples: what percentage of structured settlements are utilized to fund MSAs, SNTs and settlement trusts more generally. Which categories of structured settlement recipients are most likely to sell payment rights and why?

MARKETING INITIATIVES

NSSTA conference speakers introduced multiple new marketing initiatives including:

• "NSSTA University" - NSSTA's Debbie Sink 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.
• CLM Survey Part II - In partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA's Marketing Committee summarized CLM Survey Part II (claims adjustors) of an eventual three part survey project. Part I surveyed claims executives. Part III will survey plaintiff attorneys. These surveys provide NSSTA members with valuable marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

• Introduction and Welcome - Eric Vaughn.
• Industry Challenges - Michael Goodman (Moderator), Kevin Silo, Neil Johnson.
• Next Gen Brokers - Louis Masry (Moderator), Kristen Chess, Ryan Garrison, Tony Robinson.
• Financial Issues for People with Disabilities - Sally Greenberg and Mark Perriello.
• AAJ Treasurer Elect - Elise Sanguinetti.
• MSA Professional Administration - Tom Adams (Moderator), Marques Torbert, Joe Anderson.
• Affordable Care Act - Jordan Bossler.
• Past NSSTA Presidents - Moderators (Kevin Silo; Eric Vaughn); Jeff Bowers, Len Blonder, Joe Costello, Mal Deener, Dan Durbin, Randy Dyer, Dan Finn, Patrick Hindert, John Machir, Henry Strong.
• Factoring Panel - John McCulloch (Moderator), Stephen Harris, Patrick Hindert, Patricia LaBorde.
• Non-Traditional Products - Erin Muller (Moderator), John Arendt, Ryan Jandreau, Jeff Reinhold, Chris Shumate, Ravi Vaswani.
• American Insurance Association - Peter Foley.
• CLM Survey Part II - Taylor Smith, Susan Clark, Jeff Livingston.
• Tax Posse - John McCulloch, Timothy O'Driscoll, Tom Ronce.
• NSSTA CE News - Erin Muller and Debbie Sink.

Congratulations to NSSTA and conference chairperson Erin Muller for re-establishing NSSTA's tradition of educational programs featuring speakers with multiple viewpoints on industry issues "regardless of beliefs". David Ringler and other structured settlement pioneers should feel gratified - and hopeful for NSSTA's future success.

For S2KM's reports about prior NSSTA educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting

Increasing use of structured settlements by plaintiff attorneys and their clients requires a more "unified marketing strategy" by stakeholders according to multiple brokers who exhibited at the recent American Association for Justice (AAJ) 2014 Annual Conference in Baltimore.

Seven primary market brokers, one structured settlement annuity provider and two secondary market companies were prominent among the 141 sponsors and exhibitors at the AAJ conference which also included as exhibitors multiple companies offering lien resolution, MSA compliance, life care planning, legal finance and economic consulting services.

Other marketing advice from AAJ structured settlement exhibitors offering insights into how to grow the primary market:

• "Our industry needs more educational marketing.
• "The secondary market has stolen our brand and we need to get it back.
• "Many plaintiff attorneys do not discuss structured settlements with their clients.
• "We need to educate plaintiff attorneys to stop thinking of their clients as 'investors' and to recognize the benefits of structured settlements.
• "Most plaintiff structured settlement brokers are too narrowly focused on product.
• "Future success requires 'full service' not just annuities - financial planning, settlement trusts and lien resolution.
• "Plaintiff brokers need to be more holistic and offer plaintiff attorneys a 'brain trust' of strategic relationships.
• Offering non-structured settlement products and services to plaintiff attorneys 'has taken the lid off' our company's original view of the size of the settlement planning market."

Underperforming Market

Many industry observers view the United States structured settlement primary market as a strategic, underperforming segment of the larger personal injury settlement planning market:

• Primary market structured settlement annuity premium increased approximately seven (7%) percent to $5.134,380,855 in 2013 (compared with $4,819,124,617 in 2012) according to industry estimates compiled by Melissa Evola.
• Total structured settlement cases in 2013 also increased to 26,533 from 25,038 a year earlier for an average case premium of $193,495.
• The 2013 annual premium totals, however, fell 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.
• Evola's 2013 compilation also reported an annual decrease in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlements (from $170.1 million in 2012 to $164.9 million in 2013) despite earlier industry projections of a large and growing market .
• Non-qualified structured settlements represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred plaintiff attorney fees.
• Independent industry sources further report a substantial shift in recent structured settlement premium with increasing sales to fund workers compensation Medicare set-aside arrangements (WCMSAs).

For comparison, based upon Towers Watson's 2011 Annual Study of "United States Tort Cost Trends" and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys. The Towers Watson study excluded: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs.

Structured Settlement Marketing - to Defendant Insurers

Although primary market structured settlement participants have successfully marketed their products and services to defendants and their insurers, they have been less successful marketing to plaintiff attorneys and their clients.

A 2011 National Litigation Management study, commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM) and conducted by Revere Advisory, identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

The success of structured settlement marketing to defense insurers was further evidenced by a 2014 study of "how senior claims executives perceive the value of structured settlements and the value that structured settlement consultants bring to the table" commissioned by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and conducted by CLM Advisors. Among the findings - ninety percent of respondents:

• Indicated their organizations maintain a “formalized structured settlement program”; and
• Reported their belief that, when a structured settlement consultant is involved, claims are “more likely to settle.”

 Structured Settlement Marketing - to Plaintiff Attorneys and Injury Victims

Earlier in 2006 (before interest rates crashed), NSSTA sponsored a survey of plaintiff attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys) titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association." Among the results, as reported at NSSTA's 2007 Winter and Annual meetings:

• Structured settlement recipients:
  • 65% said they had not heard about structured settlements prior to settlement.
  • Most were uncertain whether a structured settlement consultant was involved with their case.
  • 34% recalled receiving educational information while 75% of this 34% said the information was helpful.
  • 66% first learned about structured settlements from their trial attorney.
  • 75% said they were very happy their settlement included structured settlement annuities.
  • 75% said they would recommend a structured settlement.
• Plaintiff attorneys involved in structured settlements:
  • 95% said they are proponents of structured settlements.
  • 70% said they retain a structured settlement consultant at least for some cases.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?", the attorneys responded:
    • 30% - Trust company/department.
    • 28% - Financial planner.
    • 23% - Structured settlement consultant.
    • 19% - No response.

Based upon the 2006 survey results, however, NSSTA estimated only 7% of personal injury settlements between $75,000 and $200,000 include structured settlements; and only 30% of personal injury settlements above $1 million include structured settlements.

Growing the Primary Market

What explains the apparent differences in marketing success by the primary structured settlement industry to 1) defense insurers; and 2) plaintiff attorneys and personal injury victims?

Several explanations are possible. They deserve and require greater analysis by the primary market. As one example, while defense brokers essentially sell a singular structured settlement product to their clients without direct competition from other financial/insurance product providers, plaintiff brokers must compete with settlement trustees, financial planners and other providers of asset management services.

As a result, plaintiff structured settlement brokers increasingly are evolving into alternative business models that offer structured settlement annuities as one of multiple products and more fully participate in a larger, more complex business (personal injury settlement planning) than structured settlement defense brokers.

Growing the primary structured settlement market therefore requires its proponents to ask themselves these fundamental questions: "what business are we in?", or, stated somewhat differently, "in what markets do we, or should we, participate?"

Failure to sufficiently address these issues has perpetuated both "inside-the-box" strategic thinking and traditional marketing strategies responsible, in part, for recent sales declines of the structured settlement product - a product which offers multiple, unique advantages and benefits from public policy endorsement, multiple tax preferences and statutory consumer protection.

The Settlement Planning Market

Despite an abundance of related professional associations, participants and conferences, as well as legislative and regulatory developments, personal injury settlement planning remains an evolving concept and market with competing definitions, standards and business models and many unanswered questions.

Many recent and continuing legislative and regulatory developments impact personal injury settlement planning, including:

• Affordable Care Act
• CMS WCMSA Reference Guide
• The SMART Act
• Defense of Marriage Act
• Dodd-Frank Uniform Fiduciary Standard
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

Settlement planners consist, or represent a blend, of several professionals in addition to traditional personal injury litigation participants. These professionals include: tax attorneys, special needs attorneys, trustees, financial planners, structured settlement specialists, life care planners, economists, Medicare set-aside (MSA) specialists and damage allocators.

Professional associations, in addition to AAJ, whose members engage in settlement planning include: NSSTA, SSP, NAELA, ASNP, SNA, NAMSAP, AANLCP - and NASP assuming the definition of settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime.

To grow the primary market, structured settlement proponents must learn how to better market the benefits and applications of structured settlements to plaintiff attorneys and these other professional groups and associations in the context of evolving settlement planning marketing, work product, business standards and educational priorities.

This educational and marketing challenge requires all structured settlement participants to fundamentally "re-think" structured settlements and their own roles in personal injury settlement planning. One result should be consideration of a more unified marketing strategy to plaintiff attorneys and their clients among heretofore competing professional associations such as NSSTA, SSP and NASP.

Conversations with structured settlement exhibitors at the AAJ 2014 Annual Meeting indicate some primary market plaintiff brokers already understand this message and are transitioning their business models accordingly.

For S2KM's report about the AAJ 2014 Winter Meeting, see this prior blog post.

Government Medicaid Reports

Despite continuing evidence and predictions of expanded enrollment for private health insurance pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid planning, especially for long-term care costs, continues to represent a settlement priority for many past and present personal injury victims.

Medicaid is a means-tested program jointly funded by the Federal government and the states that provides health insurance to eligible low-income individuals. Each state manages its own Medicaid program with flexibility to determine eligibility and other criteria.

Two recent government reports addressing Medicaid issues should interest settlement planners and structured settlement consultants, as well as special needs and elder law attorneys.

CEA Medicaid Expansion Report

In addition to expanding private health insurance, the ACA also expanded eligibility for Medicaid by offering financial support to states that expand Medicaid eligibility to non-elderly individuals in families with incomes below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Through 2016, the Federal government has committed to paying participating states 100 percent of the related costs reducing to 90 percent in 2020 and subsequent years.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the Federal government could give states a choice to accept Medicaid expansion but could not require them to do so. To date, 26 states and D.C. have expanded Medicaid and 24 states have not. A political battle continues between President Obama's administration and states that have declined to expand Medicaid.

To promote further Medicaid expansion, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) published a report this month titled "Missed Opportunities: The Consequences of State Decisions Not to Expand Medicaid" (CEA report). The report states that 5.2 million people have gained Medicaid or CHIP coverage in states that have expanded Medicaid. It also cites an Urban Institute estimate that 5.7 million people will be deprived of health insurance coverage in 2016 if the other 24 states do not.

The CEA report concludes: "by expanding their Medicaid programs, States can improve access to essential medical care, reduce financial hardship, improve their citizens' mental health and longevity, and claim billions of dollars in Federal funding that could boost their economies today."

To quantify the benefits of expanded Medicaid to newly insured individuals, the CEA report relies on estimates from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment (OHIE). The OHIE, which the CEA characterizes as "a unique research opportunity", resulted from Oregon's 2008 decision to allocate Medicaid coverage by lottery.

Acknowledging "[t]he limited sample size of the OHIE makes it more difficult to reach firm conclusions about the effect of Medicaid on objective measures of physical health", the CEA report also relies on parallel research literature that uses "quasi-experiments created by past policy changes."

The CEA report quantifies the following purported benefits for newly insured individuals on a state-by-state basis with supporting maps and tables:

• Improved access to care
• Greater financial security
• Better mental and overall health

In addition, the CEA report utilizes data from the Congressional Budget Office and Urban Institute to quantify the following projected benefits of expanding Medicaid for state economies with supporting state-specific maps and tables:

• Additional Federal funds
• Increased employment
• Greater overall economic activity

CEA Report Criticism

Perhaps predictably, given the political debate that surrounds the ACA and Medicaid expansion, many commentators have criticized the CEA report. One example is Robert Samuelson, whose op-ed titled "The Real Medicaid Problem" appeared in the July 14, 2014 issue of the Washington Post.

Samuelson questions whether the promised 90 percent Federal reimbursement rate will remain permanent. He quotes Matt Salo of the National Association of Medicaid Directors: “The ACA says what it says. Future Congresses can repeal or modify it.”

Samuelson also points out how demographic trends ("ignored by the [CEA] report") could become a financial albatross for the states. As one result of rising Medicaid costs, according to Samuelson, "[t]he competition between nursing homes and home health care — on the one hand — and classroom teachers, higher education, police and other governmental services — on the other — will intensify."

In a similar critique, a July 11, 2014 Wall Street Journal article , written by Chris Jacobs and titled "Why States are Hesitating to Expand Medicaid", highlights a recent study of "State Healthcare Spending on Medicaid" sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and findings by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Development to explain why many states have not rushed to expand Medicaid.

For a state-specific example (Virginia) of opposing political viewpoints concerning Medicaid expansion, compare this July 11, 2014 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Fred Barnes with this July 11, 2014 Washington Post editorial.

GAO Medicaid Report

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also published a recent Medicaid report titled "Medicaid: Financial Characteristics of Approved Applicants and Methods Used to Reduce Assets to Qualify for Nursing Home Coverage" which may prove cause for concern among special needs and elder law attorneys.

As justification for its study, which was requested by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the GAO points out:

• "Medicaid paid for nearly one-third of the nation’s $158 billion in nursing home expenditures in 2012"; and
• Many individuals utilize various planning techniques to reduce their assets and qualify for Medicaid - despite continuing efforts by Congress to discourage such activity and to address financial eligibility requirements for Medicaid coverage of nursing home care. See, for example "The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005".

Historically, many special needs and elder law attorneys have devised these asset reduction techniques and advised their clients when and how to utilize them.

In responding to the Congressional request for information about the extent of asset reduction techniques to qualify for Medicaid nursing home coverage, the GAO report:

• Examined financial characteristics of applicants approved for Medicaid nursing home coverage in selected states; and
• Identified methods used to reduce countable assets to qualify for Medicaid as well as information state Medicaid workers consider most useful in assessing an applicants’ financial eligibility.

Among its findings, the GAO report identifies four main methods used by applicants to reduce their countable assets (income and resources) and qualify for Medicaid coverage:

• "Spending countable resources on goods and services that are not countable towards financial eligibility, such as prepaid funeral arrangements;
• "Converting countable resources into noncountable resources that generate an income stream for the applicant, such as an annuity or promissory note;
• "Giving away countable assets as a gift to another individual—such gifts could lead to a penalty period that delays Medicaid nursing home coverage; and
• "For married applicants, increasing the amount of assets a spouse remaining in the community can retain, such as through the purchase of an annuity."

NAELA Response

Promising a thorough analysis of the GAO report, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) has responded with a press release recommending the GAO report as "a starting point for an urgent review of the long-term crises that millions of Americans and their families are facing."

The GAO report, according to NAELA, "highlights the impact of a public policy that requires persons needing long-term services and supports for chronic diseases such as dementia, ALS, and Parkinson's to impoverish themselves to be eligible for treatment under Medicaid while those with heart disease and more acute maladies receive health care coverage through Medicare."

For additional NAELA resources addressing long-term care and Medicaid, see:

• NAELA position paper
• "Myths and Realities about Medicaid Planning"

For additional S2KM reporting about Medicaid and the ACA, see the structured settlement wiki.