Beyond Structured Settlements

Michael Goodman Interview

During the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2015 Annual Conference, NSSTA President Michael Goodman announced an ambitious set of goals for growing the structured settlement market.

With NSSTA's 2015 Fall Conference scheduled for October 28-30 in Phoenix, Goodman agreed to an S2KM interview wherein he assesses NSSTA's progress toward achieving those goals as well as the status more generally of the structured settlement market.

S2KM: Welcome Michael and thank you for participating in this interview. Recent NSSTA conferences have emphasized the importance of "industry unity". As NSSTA president, what are your priorities for improving industry unity?

GOODMAN:  My first priority as President of NSSTA is to identify growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry.  In order to do so, we are reaching out to all NSSTA members to request that they submit suggestions and ideas to help expand and enhance the structured settlement industry.   Regardless of the focus of your business, I want all stakeholders to work together to create growth opportunities that will benefit everyone in our industry.

S2KM: During your introductory comments at NSSTA's 2015 Annual Meeting, you suggested NSSTA needs to modify its traditional "protect and preserve" political message to inspire industry growth? What alternative are you proposing?

GOODMAN:  Preserving the ability to structure cases and protecting I.R.C. Sections 104(a)(2) and 130 have always been one of the main priorities of NSSTA on Capitol Hill with Members of Congress, and it will continue to be important. We have built a strong base of political support for structured settlements in the U.S. Congress.  We have also established close organizational relationships with disability groups, consumer organizations and attorneys.  I want to use our support in Congress and work with our advocates and friends to expand the use of structured settlements.  We have a very talented and highly professional group of structured settlement consultants in our industry and we need to really look at ourselves and determine as an industry  the best way forward. For this reason, I have created a Growth Committee that includes many of the most talented and respected structured settlement industry leaders from across the country. I have asked these leaders to focus time and energy on growing the business for all of our members.  Furthermore, we just hired a new public relations company, the Pipitone Group, which is going to revamp our website and help us to get our message out to the public.

S2KM: You referenced a "Growth Committee". NSSTA recently announced an “Industry Growth Initiative.” What is the NSSTA "Industry Growth Initiative"?

GOODMAN:  Once installed as President of NSSTA, this was my first task.  First, we asked all NSSTA members to submit ideas for growth at [email protected].  To date, we have received more than a dozen exceptional growth suggestions. Second, I tried to put together a committee of leaders within the industry that have different perspectives.  There are plaintiff brokers, defense brokers, life company representatives, property & casualty representatives and folks within management of broker firms.   With this diverse group, I have asked them to review and evaluate all of the NSSTA member growth proposals that have been submitted. Third, the Growth Committee members have been asked to develop plans to implement specific growth opportunities and develop the metrics necessary to evaluate the benefits to our industry.  We just held our Board meeting and the Growth Committee presented the best ideas and we will be announcing those to the NSSTA membership shortly and discussing in Phoenix at our upcoming Fall Meeting.

S2KM: What features and benefits will the Growth Committee offer NSSTA members?

GOODMAN:   It is important to remember that the NSSTA Growth Committee represents a highly talented cross section of industry leaders and they are going to select the very best growth initiatives developed and submitted by NSSTA members.  The Growth Committee ideas were just presented to the NSSTA Board of Directors for final approval. All of the growth ideas approved by the Growth Committee will be provided to all our members and everyone in our industry will be invited to assist efforts to implement the new growth initiatives. 

S2KM:  What metrics will determine the scope and time framework for success of the Growth Initiative?

GOODMAN:  Establishing clear metrics from the outset is critical for the success of the Growth Initiative.  Every growth project proposal submitted by NSSTA members will be fully analyzed to determine the scope of the project, the cost to implement the project and the time frame necessary to complete the project.  Most importantly, the Growth Committee will work to determine the potential benefits for our industry and our members. Once I formed the committee, it was then necessary to pick folks that were willing to lead.   My brother Bill, John McCulloch, Sean Coleman and John Arendt were selected to lead this initiative.  During our very first phone call, this was the first question that arose.   How are we going to define success and what metrics should we utilize to determine what is the best idea.  This is an ongoing debate, but with the leaders of the committee, I have complete confidence that we will have a defined path with clear goals.

S2KM: Will NSSTA's "Growth Initiative" prioritize new markets for structured settlements, expansion of traditional markets or both?

GOODMAN:  That remains to be seen.  However, I think it is important to have a completely open mind.  Our industry has changed.   We are no longer simply annuity sales folks.   With the need to understand Medicare, Medicaid, The Affordable Care Act, Lien Resolution and so much more - to be effective, it is necessary to be a settlement consultant with a wide range of knowledge.  Furthermore, the plaintiff practice has changed.   This inevitably has also led to changes within the settlement consulting landscape.  

S2KM: Which "new" or non-traditional markets do you view as most promising for structured settlements?  

GOODMAN:   There are several non-traditional markets that we are exploring.  Several ideas were proposed to the Growth Committee.  One idea in particular focuses on trying to structure FECA claims.  Federal Employers Compensation Act is the corollary to worker’s compensation for federal employees.  The government self-insures this exposure.  The system spends about $3B per annum on claims.  We are going to see if we can start utilizing structured settlements on these claims.  Separate and aside, I think it is important for us to go back to our traditional base as well.   Certain casualty programs have lost interest and it is necessary to re-engage these clients.

S2KM: NSSTA recently completed a three-part survey of its traditional sales targets: senior claims executives, claims professionals and plaintiff attorneys. What were the most important findings for purposes of NSSTA's "Growth Initiative"?

GOODMAN:  NSSTA has worked with CLM Advisors on two major surveys with more than 200 senior claims officials to find out what claims professionals think about structured settlements.  What we learned from the surveys includes the fact that an overwhelming majority of senior claims officials consider the use of structured settlements very important to their business.  Senior claims executives also reported that structured settlement consultants are well trained and provide valuable professional services. Claims officials also reported that structured settlement consultants have the ability to help identify and meet the needs of the injured party.  We also found out that senior claims officials would like more training regarding the benefits of structures generally, the use of structures in claims that involve Medicare Set-Asides and negotiation strategies when using structures. NSSTA has recently launched NSSTA University, where our members can secure continuing education credits through the state department of insurances for their structured settlement presentation to adjusters. This will allow our members to build those relationships critical during the claims negotiation process. The best way to connect with the claims professional is through education.

S2KM: Based on recent Towers Watson studies, S2KM has estimated that more than $170 billion of United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys during 2014 compared with $5.3 billion of structured settlement premium (including workers compensation). How large is the potential U.S. annual structured settlement market?

GOODMAN:  My own estimate of potential market size for the structured settlement industry is in the $8 to $10 billion range per year.

S2KM: Traditional public policy justifications assume and maintain "structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance." This statement, on its face, does not appear to acknowledge:

• The use of structured settlements to fund Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) and special needs trusts (SNTs); and/or
• A strategic role for structured settlements in personal injury settlement planning which has been defined as "ensuring that a plaintiff who has a significant disability, lacks capacity, or has a complex financial situation will receive his or her litigation proceeds in such a way that it will not jeopardize his or her future retention of other benefits."

Isn’t it time to modify this traditional public policy justification to recognize how structured settlements can also be utilized to preserve and/or maximize public benefits?

GOODMAN: This has been an area of focus and we have a task force that is looking how best to promote structured settlements use in the government benefits arena.   We are reaching out to various groups and associations to ensure that we work together to grow the industry. We are working with the Special Needs Alliance, the Academy of Special Needs Planners, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and National Alliance of Medicare Set-A-Side Professionals to name a few. Within NSSTA, our task force includes Patrick Hindert, John McCulloch, Len Blonder and me.

S2KM: You have been a critic of "interest rate selling" as a detriment to structured settlement industry growth. What do you mean by "interest rate selling" and how can such selling be avoided in a low interest rate environment?

GOODMAN:  Far too many brokers focus on interest rates when selling structured settlements.  This makes the structured settlement strictly an investment.  My goal is always to focus on future needs.   There is no other investment that can produce the same security and tax-free payments.  I look to have a structured settlement in place to cover the recurring future needs.   If you utilize a structured settlement in this fashion, the interest rate becomes irrelevant.  

S2KM: The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has announced that you will be a featured speaker at NASP’s 2015 Annual Conference. Why did you (presumably with NSSTA’s Board of Director approval) agree to participate at a NASP conference?

GOODMAN:   We have worked very hard to address some of the “loop-holes” in certain State Structured Settlement Protection Acts.   Craig Ulman’s efforts have been amazing.   By the end of the 2016 state legislative sessions, I expect we will have tightened the structured settlement protection acts in as many as four of the states with weaker statutes.    Wisconsin and DC should have enacted strong statutes.   We have worked with NASP to try to ensure that plaintiffs have to attend hearings if they want to factor their settlement funds.  We also want to avoid forum shopping by factoring companies.   In addition, we want plaintiffs to have to disclose whether they have previously sold any portion of their structured settlement.  Rather than disagree with NASP, we have focused on trying to find common ground to provide even more consumer protections for our annuitants.

S2KM: Why have so many life companies (annuity providers) exited the structured settlement market - and what can NSSTA do to attract new companies to the market?

GOODMAN: While some life companies had exited our industry, we have also gained new firms over the past few years.  We are working on encouraging more life companies to join the industry.  That being said, I think we need to continue to be thankful and honor those companies that are currently in our marketplace.

S2KM: With the retirement of an entire generation of pioneering structured settlement brokers, does the primary market face a "succession crisis"?

GOODMAN:   I wouldn’t say we have a crisis, but it is certainly a concern.  We are looking to address the issue.  Melissa Price, from SFA, is researching new ways to offer training for new brokers.   This has always been an issue.   Our industry provides a great service and I am sure we will attract new brokers.

S2KM: Going forward, what professional backgrounds and/or skill sets best qualify an individual for success in the structured settlement market?

GOODMAN:   It is very hard to predict who will succeed and who will fail in this industry.  There have been folks that I thought would be a huge success and instead they have gotten out of our industry.   Obviously, it has become a much more complicated process over the past decade.   Understanding law, claims, public benefits and finance has become a necessity.   The most important quality to have in our industry is compassion.

S2KM: NSSTA has recently added multiple new educational programs for its members - for examples: Structures 202; "NSSTA University"; the MSSC Program. Do you see the need for any additional new and/or improved NSSTA educational initiatives?

GOODMAN:   As previously mentioned, we are looking to create new training programs for brokers that are brand new to the industry.   Other than that, I believe NSSTA has done a great job with its current educational initiatives.

S2KM: What lessons, if any, did NSSTA members learn from the ELNY liquidation that will improve the structured settlement market going forward?

GOODMAN:   I believe the entire experience educated brokers.   I believe it has made us look into the financials of each life company and made us understand how to address concerns.  Lastly, I believe split-funding has become much more commonplace.

S2KM: In addition to what we have already discussed, what other priorities, if any, have you identified for your term as NSSTA president?

GOODMAN:  My main priority is to grow the industry.  I am excited about the ideas that have been presented.  I am also excited about the enthusiasm that has been created.   I am proud that this effort has brought everyone together to focus on a common theme:  how to grow the industry for all.

S2KM: Thank you, Michael - and continued success for the remainder of your term as NSSTA President.

For additional and related recent S2KM reporting about NSSTA, see:

• NSSTA 2015 "Structures 202" Conference
• NSSTA 2015 Annual Meeting
• NSSTA Marketing Surveys: Senior Claims Executives; Claims Professionals; Plaintiff Attorneys 

Alternative Business Models

The future of structured settlements depends upon which of two alternative business models ultimately prevails - the traditional (defense-controlled) claim management model or the emerging (claimant centric) settlement planning model. (Note: see Addendum).

The Claim Management Model

The claim management business model was developed by members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), which is hosting its 2012 Annual Meeting this week in Washington, D.C. The claim management model has dominated the United States structured settlement industry since the enactment of the Periodic Payment Settlement Act in 1982. Its general characteristics:

• Defense control resulting from defense funding;
• Defense-approved lists of annuity providers and brokers;
• Proactive case identification and negotiation participation by defendants designed to sell structured settlements;
• De minimus regulation of sales conduct resulting in a lack of:
  • Disclosure - of compensation sharing and/or conflicts of interest;
  • Product suitability standards; and/or
  • Informed written consent by structured settlement recipients.
• Political and case-specific opposition to single claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs);
• A hostile view of the secondary structured settlement market.

The business justification for the claim management business model for defendants and liability insurers:

• Reduce claim costs by utilizing structured settlements; and
• Protect themselves from future risks by utilizing qualified assignments.

The traditional cost/risk analysis of the claim management model, however, does not adequately consider the impact on defendants of:

• Negotiating and defending damages using structured settlements funded with historically low interest rates;
• The added claim management costs specifically resulting from review of structured settlement-related file documentation;
• Potential accountability and liability resulting from:
  • Increasing legislative and regulatory protection for consumers and investors;
  • Defendant status as deep pocket originators of long-term payment promises with complex life-cycles;
  • Sales activities by defendant employees, attorneys and agents without qualified compliance supervision.

The Settlement Planning Model

As defendants and liability insurers re-think the traditional claim management structured settlement model, they should also investigate (for their own self-interest) an emerging, alternative structured settlement business model - the settlement planning model.

What is settlement planning? Joseph Tombs, a former President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and co-founder of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) program, defines settlement planning as "... a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

What is a settlement planner? The SSP Standards of Professional Conduct define "settlement planner" as "... a representative who provides advice and other services to a person participating in the design, negotiation or implementation of a settlement or satisfaction of judgment for the benefit of a person claiming a legal entitlement to an award of damages or other compensation."

Although:

• The SSP Standards recognizes that "a settlement planners may represent a plaintiff, a defendant, an insurer, a guardian ad litem, an heir of the claimant, an attorney or another person participating in the settlement services", settlement planning is more "claimant centric" than the claim management model and involves a commensurate reallocation of responsibilities and risks away from defendants and liability insurers.
• Not dependent upon QSFs, the settlement planning model recognizes that QSFs provide important advantages and protections for plaintiffs and defendants.
• Product neutral, the settlement planning model recognizes structured settlement represents a core settlement planning tool that combines relatively low investment and dissipation risks.

The basic characteristics of the settlement planning model and professional, as outlined by Joseph DiGangi at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting:

• Planning orientation
• Solutions before products
• Blended products and services
• Product neutrality
• Disclosure and informed consent
• Professional training and designations
• Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base

From a claimant centric perspective, the settlement planning process includes five stages:

• Needs assessment
• Design
• Negotiation
• Implementation
• Monitoring

 Multiple professional associations and 2012 conferences are now studying various components and issues related to the settlement planning business model:

• The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - S2KM attended and reviewed the ASNP 2012 Annual Meeting.
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum - Hosted by the University of Tulsa Law School, S2KM reviewed this settlement planning conference whose presenters included Patrick Hindert, S2KM's primary blog author. Hindert spoke about the "History of Structured Settlements" and provided a schematic analysis of the structured settlement business cycle.
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - S2KM will attend and review the SSP 2012 Annual Meeting April 30 - May 1 in Las Vegas. Among the presenters, Hindert will address "Settlement Planning Business Models: the Defense Perspective"

ADDENDUM (April 26, 2012): After reading S2KM's blog post, Charles Schell, President-Elect of SSP, asked the following question (which Schell promised to address at the SSP Annual Meeting): "Is it necessary for one or the other business model to prevail or could each side benefit by recognizing the role of the other?"

For additional information about settlement planning (aka settlement consulting or special needs settlement planning), see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlements in 2011 - 2

In a prior blog post, S2KM highlighted the historic significance of the ELNY liquidation as the dominant 2011 structured settlement industry development. This blog post offers a strategic perspective of the industry's status in 2011 focusing in part on the industry's three national associations and also providing a broader perspective for ELNY.

Strategic Overview - Primary Market

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2011. Among its 2011 accomplishments, NSSTA noticeably improved its marketing and educational programs while focusing substantial resources to help minimize problems related to the ELNY liquidation. NSSTA has attempted to balance the need to inform its members (not the public) about ELNY's status with the need to promote the strength of its life insurance markets and the state guaranty fund system.

Speaking at NSSTA's 2011 Annual Meeting, Thomas Ronce, Chairman of NOLHGA, described the current life and health guaranty system in the United States as experienced, well-financed and armed with a multitude of optional legal and financial tools. Applied to ELNY, this state guaranty system will substantially improve the recovery for many ELNY structured settlement recipients. The state guaranty system, however, will not make whole every ELNY structured settlement recipient. Unfortunately, even with guaranty fund payments and additional enhancements, many ELNY structured settlement recipients are expected to experience shortfalls.

NSSTA's 2011 Annual Meeting and Fall Educational Conference also showcased the current strength of the structured settlement market and its product providers.

• Jim Morris, President, Chairman and CEO of Pacific Life Insurance Company, accentuated the current financial strength of U.S. life insurance companies generally and explained why structured settlement annuities represent an excellent strategic product for life companies. Confirming Morris' assessment, three new product providers (Mutual of Omaha, National Indemnity and Hartford) entered (or re-entered) the structured settlement marketplace during 2011.
• William T. Robinson III, President of the American Bar Association (ABA) strongly endorsed structured settlements as "professional and dignified solutions" for injury victims based upon his first-hand experience as a litigation attorney. Robinson also suggested the ABA and NSSTA should identify shared interests and lobbying opportunities.
• American General Life President Mary Jane Fortin described AIG, a structured settlement product provider that received more than $180 billion of loans and investments from the United States government in 2008, as "a strong, stable and resilient company dedicated to keeping our promises". Fortin also dispelled several "myths" about AIG, summarized AIG's recovery from the 2008 financial crisis and expressed optimism about the future of life insurance industry and structured settlements.

Despite these positive assurances, however, primary market structured settlement annuity sales have continued to trend downward for the past three years, arguably because of the 2008 financial crisis and historically low interest rates which many experts predict will continue for the foreseeable future. What has been missing from NSSTA's leadership during 2011 has been a positive vision for NSSTA's own future and the future of structured settlements.

David Ringler, NSSTA's first President, spoke during the NSSTA 2011 Annual Meeting. Ringler stated the most important reason for creating NSSTA was "having a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs."  Sometime during the past 25 years, NSSTA lost sight of this original vision and now generally excludes industry voices and perspectives that challenge traditional structured settlement business models and practices.

As one result, two additional professional associations have formed with alternative structured settlement perspectives:

• The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - SSP espouses the claimant's right to select his or her own structured settlement adviser and funding company. SSP promotes structured settlement annuities as a core product for special needs settlement planning and favors greater utilization of IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs).
• The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) - NASP promotes the right of structured settlement recipients, in compliance with federal and state laws, to sell their payment rights provided a state judge approves the sale in advance as being in the "best interest" of the transferor/payee taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents.

To its credit, NSSTA expanded the scope of its educational programs in 2011 to discuss QSFs and to provide its members with more detailed information about structured settlement secondary market. The perspective for these NSSTA discussions, however, remains defensive and protective without any attempt to envision or discuss new business opportunities or product improvements.

By comparison, SSP's vision for the the future of structured settlements is defined and supported by its "Standards of Professional Conduct". SSP views structured settlements as a core product for personal injury settlement planning. SSP's vision agrees with and encompasses the business model Joseph DiGangi introduced to NSSTA in 2009 as "Settlement Consulting" which he characterized as "a wake up call for the industry." SSP's educational conferences continue to push structured settlement industry thinking beyond its historic boundaries and the inevitability of its path dependence.

In addition to SSP, three national legal associations are developing special needs business practices and models that expand the framework and opportunities for structured settlements:

• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
• Special Needs Alliance (SNA).

Faced with the ELNY crisis, declining annuity sales and the continuing prospect of low interest rates, some primary market structured settlement stakeholders now recognize that business practices and models that made sense in the past may have survived despite the eclipse of their earlier justification.  S2KM believes more primary market stakeholders should expand their strategic perspectives and re-think structured settlements in the context of the changing legal and financial landscape.

For example, here are four 2010 developments with important consequences for structured settlement stakeholders that have heretofore received inadequate primary market educational attention:

• Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act - how does health care reform impact injury victims and what opportunities does it create for structured settlements?
• Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - how will the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) address structured settlement complaints?
• NAIC Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation - what does "suitability" mean for structured settlement annuities and how does "suitability" differ from the "best interest" standard applicable to trustees, investment advisers and structured settlement transfers?
• Spencer v. Hartford class action settlement - what are the lessons learned and resulting new best practices for structured settlements?

Strategic Overview - Secondary Market

The ELNY liquidation is also having a negative impact on the secondary structured settlement market. Some industry experts have estimated that as many as 1000 of ELNY structured settlement annuities (out of the 4168 total) have undergone transfers of some or all payment rights. Investors who have purchased ELNY annuity payment rights may not be eligible to receive contributions from state guaranty funds which historically protect "consumers". The NYLB's December 7, 2011 letters warned ELNY payees "if you have transferred any part of your right to receive ELNY SSA benefits to a third party, you may not be eligible to receive benefits from CABC related to the benefits you transferred."

Although the financial crisis of 2008 had a devastating short term impact on the structured settlement secondary market, the market has experienced robust sales in 2011 as institutional investors continue to be attracted to the relatively high rates of returns generated by restructured (post transfer) payment right obligations. More individual investors, including personal injury claimants and their attorneys, have also begun purchasing restructured payment rights although some industry experts caution against potential tax and securities law uncertainties.

The structured settlement secondary market changed dramatically in 2011 with the announced merger of  J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Settlement Funding. The merger combined the two largest purchasers of structured settlement payment rights with an estimated 80-85 percent of the market.

The merger highlights a remarkable turnaround for Wentworth whose shareholders control the majority of the combined companies. In 2009, Wentworth and two affiliated companies entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the company "encountered liquidity problems amid a tightening credit market". Wentworth laid off 120 of its 200 employees and closed its office in Las Vegas. Its general corporate bonds were "almost worthless" and were trading, if at all, for pennies on the dollar. Less than six months later, Wentworth emerged from bankruptcy with an announcement that JLL Partners (Wentworth's owners) had invested an additional $100 million in the firm.

In a significant case (Symetra v. Rapid Settlements) highlighting controversial business practices which were opposed by NASP as well as structured settlement annuity providers, a Texas court issued injunctions during 2011 prohibiting Rapid Settlement's prior business practices of using arbitration to by-pass state structured settlement protection statutes and taking security interests to gain rights of first refusal for future transfers.

Check the structured settlement wiki for additional S2KM structured settlement reporting:

• ELNY liquidation
• Annual industry reports
• Professional association meetings

ADDENDUM (12/12/2011) - S2KM's report above omits at least one important 2011 strategic structured settlement development. NSSTA and its product provider members launched the first-ever industry metrics study during 2011. For more information about metrics, see S2KM's "Structured Settlement Metrics" series featured on the structured settlement wiki.

CMS Introduces WCMSA Portal

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the creation of an Internet portal for submission of workers compensation Medicare Set-Aside (WCMSA) proposals.

The new web-based application, which CMS introduced during a town hall meeting on November 29, 2011:

• Enables WCMSA proposals to be submitted electronically for CMS review;
• Accepts submission documents and supplemental information CMS may request;
• Provides online status updates for MSA applications;
• Generates email alerts when approval letters are issued.

According to Nuquest Bridge Pointe, which participated in the testing phase of the WCMSA Portal, "...CMS' intentions are to speed the review time as much as possible and that submissions of WCMSA Proposals via the new WCMSA Portal may assist in this effort."

CMS has also created a 118 page User Manual for its WCMSA Portal (WCMSAP) with 15 chapters including "Troubleshooting" and "Sample WCMSAP Correspondence".

For additional information about the WCMSA Portal (WCMSAP), see this CMS website page and the User Manual.

For information about structured settlements and Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs), see the structured settlement wiki and Section 15.03 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

Structured Settlement Metrics - 5

How satisfied with their structured settlements are injury victims (and their attorneys) who have opted for structured settlements instead of, or in addition to, lump sum alternatives?

As part of S2KM's series discussing structured settlement metrics and analytics, this blog post addresses that question by summarizing selected results from three structured settlement surveys related to customer satisfaction:

• NSSTA 2006 Survey - as summarized during both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2007 Winter Meeting and 2007 Annual Meeting;
• AIG 2007 Survey - as reported on the AIG website and summarized during the NSSTA 2008 Annual Meeting.
• J.G. Wentworth 2008 Survey - as reported in a press release on October 29, 2008 and a media report on November 5, 2008.

In prior blog posts, S2KM examined structured settlement "quality" and "performance" metrics and analytics in the context of a 2011 National Litigation Management Study sponsored by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM). That study identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

In a subsequent blog post, S2KM will provide commentary and suggest conclusions about customer satisfaction with structured settlements based upon the results of the three surveys.

NSSTA Survey - The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) survey consisted of 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", the survey 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. Among the results:

• 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.
• 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.

AIG Survey - Conducted by Esearch.com, Inc., the AIG survey included 1000 U.S. participants. 80% of the participants had no connection with any personal injury case while 20% had previously been involved directly or indirectly through a family member in a personal injury case. Participants 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.

• In AIG's first survey hypothetical, AIG provided no information about structured settlements. Results:
  • 65% of respondents said they would elect a lump sum of which
  • 49% said they believed they could make their own long term decisions and
  • 26% said the lump sum was more appropriate to pay bills and pay off debt.
• In AIG's second survey hypothetical, AIG provided survey respondents with information about structured settlements - presumably this "AIG Backgrounder" which AIG features on its website. Results: 73% of respondents said they would elect a structured settlement.
• 206 of 1000 participants said they or their family had been involved with a personal injury case. Results for those 206 participants:
  • 86% had elected lump sum.
  • 57% said they were unaware of structured settlements.
  • 64% said their attorneys did not inform them about structured settlements.
  • 57% of those that elected a lump sum said their settlement funds were already depleted.
  • 71% of respondents who said they favored a structured settlement did so "to provide a regimented stream of income designed to cover expenses".

J.G. Wentworth Survey - The J.G. Wentworth survey consisted of 115 participants who had previously sold some or all of their structured settlement payment rights to Wentworth and focused upon the reasons they: 1) agreed to a structured settlement; and 2) subsequently sold (transferred) some or all of their structured settlement payment rights. According to a J.G. Wentworth marketing executive, the survey resulted from recommendations made at the 2008 Structured Settlement Thought Leadership Conference. Relevant questions and results:

How many years ago did you settle your original lawsuit?

• 70.9% - More than 10 years ago.
• 14.5% - 5 to 10 years ago.
• 13.6% - 1 to 5 years ago.
• 0.9% - Past 12 months.

When you settled your original lawsuit, why did you accept payments over time rather than a single lump sum of cash?

• 23.4% of the participating structured settlement recipients said they never were given a lump sum option.
• 38.3% had been minors whose settlements were approved and/or selected by judges and guardians.
• 38.3% of the respondents offered the following reasons for accepting a structured settlement:
  • 23.4% - Payments over time seemed like a better deal.
  • 7.4% - Not sure I could manage a large amount of cash.
  • 6.4% - To pay future medical expenses or special needs.
  • 1.1% - Faster way to settle.

How satisfied are you that you accepted a structured settlement?

• 25.0% - As a minor, a structured settlement was considered the best option.
• 24.1% - Mostly satisfied.
• 21.3% - Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
• 18.5% - Completely satisfied.
• 6.5% - Slightly dissatisfied.
• 4.6% - Completely dissatisfied.

Do you wish you and your attorney had negotiated for a single lump sum settlement?

• 31.5% - No.
• 27.8% - As a minor, I was unable to negotiate my settlement terms.
• 20.4% - Maybe.
• 10.2% - Yes.
• 10.2% - I don't know.

When you settled your original lawsuit, how well informed were you about structured settlements?

• 30.5% - Due to my status as a minor, I was not informed.
• 27.6% - Very well informed.
• 24.8% - Not well informed.
• 17.1% - Well informed but still had questions post-settlement.

Why did you sell all or part of your structured settlement?

• 60.2% - Pay bills.
• 8.3% - Start a business.
• 8.3% - Home improvement.
• 5.6% - Pay for education.
• 5.6% - Cash made more sense than waiting.
• 4.6% - Buy a house.

Did selling your structured settlement help solve your financial problem?

• 40.7% - Mostly.
• 32.4% - Yes.
• 21.3% - Only helped a little.
• 5.6% - No, it did not help.

Would you sell payments again?

• 36.3% - Maybe.
• 30.1% - No.
• 18.6% - Yes.
• 8.0% - Probably.
• 7.1% - I have already sold all of my payments.

If you sold only part of your settlement, do you plan to keep the rest of your payments as a structured settlement?

• 42.3% - Yes.
• 35.1% - I don't know.
• 9.0% - No, I plan on selling all of my payments.
• 8.1% - I already sold all of my payments.
• 5.4% - No, I plan on selling some of my payments.

For complete S2KM reporting and commentary about structured settlement metrics and analytics, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 7

Fulfilling the promise to pay future periodic payments has been the primary mission, and a cornerstone for success, of the United States structured settlement industry for more than 30 years.

With the exception of Executive Life Insurance Company of California, which collapsed in 1991 and resulted in some individuals receiving somewhat less than 100% of their payments, all structured settlement recipients, or the factoring companies and/or investors who purchased their payment rights, have to this date received their promised future periodic payments in full.

What happens if and when a structured settlement annuity provider is financially unable to meet its periodic payment obligations?

In the United States, the regulation of insurance and insurer insolvency is governed by state law. Insurance companies are expressly excluded as debtors under the Federal Bankruptcy Code. For structured settlements, however, the Federal Bankruptcy Code could apply if a non-insurance qualified assignee entered bankruptcy.

Most state insurance laws provide for the Commissioner of Insurance of the state where an insurance company is domiciled to:

• Determine that an insurer should be placed in liquidation.
• Petition a state court to enter an order of liquidation.
• Serve as receiver or liquidator when an insurer is placed in liquidation.
• The liquidator's role is to wind up the insurer's business under court supervision.
• In New York, the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) manages insurance company liquidations as well as conservatorships and rehabilitations.

Since 1971, when the National Association of Insurance Commissioners first promulgated the Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Model Act (Model Act), state life and health guaranty associations have provided a safety net to protect consumers from some of the risks resulting from the insolvency of a life or health insurance company.

Every state, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, currently has a life and health guaranty association. All of these guaranty associations are members of the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA).

NOLHGA was founded in 1983 and operates as a not-for-profit corporation. The primary mission of NOLGA and its members, who are separate from but work closely with state insurance regulators, is to ensure that consumers receive (at a minimum) a level of financial protection as prescribed by state statute when a life or health insurance company fails.

Perhaps anticipating the possible insolvency of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) provided a timely and valuable educational discussion about state life and health guaranty associations featuring Thomas Ronce and Craig Ulman during its 2011 Annual Meeting.

In his NSSTA presentation, Ronce explained how the state life and health guaranty structure differs from FDIC protection because of the non-uniform state-based provisions, lack of pre-funding, and the nature of the guaranty itself. Ronce reviewed the history of the guaranty associations and also discussed:

• Guaranty association coverage issues.
• Powers and duties of guaranty associations.
• How assessments are calculated.
• Collections and tax offsets.
• NOLHGA's role generally and in multi-state insolvencies.
• NOLHGA's Insolvency Task Forces.

Ulman focused his discussion of guaranty association coverage on "Issues, Pitfalls and Developments Affecting Structured Settlements". Among the issues:

• Guaranty association coverage limits - with more than half the states providing $250,000 or less.
• Owner-based coverage vs. payee based coverage - with most states providing the later.
• The NAIC Model Act subrogation provisions (enacted in 27 states) which specifically address and impact structured settlements.

As potential pitfalls for structured settlements, Ulman highlighted general and state-specific coverage exclusions as well as timing issues which could determine whether and when a state guaranty statute applies to a structured settlement recipient.

As significant, related developments, Ulman identified several enacted or proposed amendments to state guaranty statutes:

• Replacing owner-based coverage with payee-based coverage.
• Increasing coverage limits from $100,000 to $250,000.
• Adopting subrogation provisions based on § 8.K.(3) of the NAIC Model Act.
• Relaxing or eliminating the prohibition on advertising the availability of Guaranty Association coverage.
• Reducing or eliminating state tax offsets for Guaranty Association assessments.

For additional information about structured settlement annuity company insolvencies and state insurance guaranty associations, see sections 3.05 and 5.04 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

For S2KM's complete reporting about the SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings, see the structured settlement wiki.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 4

One of the notable features of the 2011 educational conferences sponsored by the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) was how relatively few speakers focused on traditional structured settlement issues.

Of those who did, some offered external perspectives on structured settlements (attorneys, judges, financial planners, unions). In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee provided an update on structured settlement legal issues.

Most of the other SSP and NSSTA 2011 educational speakers addressed structured settlements in the context of either:

• Peripheral topics such as: strength of life companies; state guaranty associations; Executive Life of New York (ELNY); internet marketing; certification programs; and the sale of structured settlement payment rights; or
• Settlement planning topics such as: Medicare set-asides (MSAs); special needs trusts (SNTs); 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs); taxation (income and estate) of damages; lien resolution; non-qualified products; and allocation of medical expenses.

Two SSP presentations were also noteworthy for providing both a general understanding of settlement planning and the role of structured settlements as a core component of settlement planning:

• Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller - "Working with a Special Needs Attorney";
• Jack Meligan - "Dissecting a Settlement Plan".

Urbatsch and Fuller, special needs attorneys and members of the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), addressed a variety of settlement planning topics:

• What is a settlement plan?
• What types of injury victims require settlement planning?
• What professionals should comprise a settlement planning team?
• What special needs issues should a settlement plan address?
• In addition to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, what government programs should a settlement plan consider?
• What benefits do these various government programs provide?
• Why are damage allocations important for settlement planning?
• Who is, and who is not, qualified to make damage allocations?
• What are the disadvantages of, and alternatives to, special needs trusts (SNTs)?
• How does health care reform impact settlement planning, Medicaid and SNTs?
• Why are 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) important for settlement planning?

Meligan's discussion focused on a case-specific settlement plan. Meligan's recommended planning considerations included: "better quality of life"; new care facility; medications and therapy; estate planning; whether an SNT is appropriate; and whether a Medicare set-aside (MSA) is necessary. His proposed settlement plan recommended specific products and product and service providers for:

• A structured settlement payable into a SNT.
• An MSA funded in part with a structured settlement.
• Resolution of Medicaid and Medicare liens.
• A Treasury bill money market account.
• A "laddered" certificate of deposit portfolio.
• Investment in silver coins to address inflation.
• A will plus consideration of estate taxes.
• Prescription medications.
• Family evaluation to assist with life style changes.

S2KM comments about structured settlements and settlement planning:

• The future of structured settlements depends upon whether, how, when and by whom structured settlements are integrated into settlement planning.
• Settlement planning requires and deserves greater educational attention - by SSP and NSSTA as well as by special needs attorney associations.
• The SSP discussions led by Urbatsch, Fuller and Meligan provided a good introduction to many settlement planning issues.
• If NSSTA continues to study settlement planning (or settlement consulting), it might be valuable to review and compare:
  • SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" with NSSTA's "Code of Ethics";
  • SSP's "Registered Settlement Planner" (RSP) certification program with NSSTA's "Certified Structured Settlement Consultant" (CSSC) program;
  • SSP's 2011 educational agenda with NSSTA's 2011 educational agenda.
• New settlement planning standards need to be identified and established. For example: definitions and vocabulary; knowledge requirements; professional planning team composition; roles and responsibilities; individual and integrated work product; product recommendation criteria; licensing and certification; business practices including compensation disclosure, conflicts of interest and informed consent; documentation; and financing products and mechanisms.
• QSFs and structured settlements can improve settlement planning and therefore should be considered in every complex personal injury case.

S2KM comments about Meligan's sample settlement plan:

• At least until someone else presents a personal injury settlement plan featuring structured settlements in an educational forum, Meligan's plan represents the industry standard.
• It would be valuable to study and compare settlement plans developed by different professionals (trustees, special needs attorneys, and financial planners) for the same case example.
• Every settlement plan recommending a structured settlement should:
  • Justify why structured settlements are appropriate (product suitability) and more appropriate than comparable alternatives products - for example: SPIAs and indexed annuities.
  • Include some tax analysis to determine whether "tax-free" products are needed or justified.
  • Justify recommended amounts allocated to purchase structured settlements. Among the most frequent and severe settlement planning criticisms of structured settlements:
    • Single product structured settlement agents have an inherent conflict of interest that should disqualify them from allocating settlement proceeds;
    • Structured settlement agents invariably over-structure cases which limits planning options and increases the likelihood of future factoring transactions.
  • Disclose compensation (including shared compensation) from all recommended products subject to the recipient's informed consent.
  • Reference IRC section 5891 and the applicable state structured settlement protection statute(s).
  • Include a comparison of projected revenues from all sources and projected expenses.

For additional S2KM reporting about:

• SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - see the structured settlement wiki;
• Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning - see this earlier S2KM blog post.

 

Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning

The purpose of this blog post is to compare structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning. As noted in an earlier S2KM blog post, the transition from structured settlements to settlement planning is one of three fundamental transitions reshaping the structured settlement industry. The other two fundamental transitions:

• From a singular, illiquid, and non-assignable product to multiple products with greater flexibility to address changing needs and circumstances of injury victims;
• From traditional (pre-Internet) to web-based business models, processes and skill sets.

Among statutory definitions, "structured settlement" is defined in IRC 5891 (c)(1) and Section 2(m) of the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act. Wikipedia offers an additional definition for "structured settlement". Financing diagrams provide a visual perspective for understanding traditional structured settlement financing alternatives and methodologies.

As summarized in this history diagram, structured settlements and the structured settlement industry have experienced significant changes since structured settlements were first utilized in the United States during the late 1970s including:

• The secondary market;
• 468B qualified settlement funds;
• Integration with Medicare and Medicaid; and
• Integration with settlement trusts.

This transaction diagram demonstrates how, as an integrated product, structured settlements have become increasingly complex legally and financially with multiple stakeholders and documents.

One result of this increased integration and complexity has been the evolution of structured settlements from a stand alone product into a core product for a more comprehensive profession called "settlement planning" - which some participants refer to alternatively as "settlement consulting" or "special needs settlement planning".

Although no statutory or standard definitions exist for settlement planning, leading practitioners and advocates, including Jack Meligan and Joseph DiGangi, have offered their own definitions and explanations. In addition, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has adopted the "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" and offers a Registered Settlement Planner  (RSP) certification program.

Here is how Meligan, SSP's President, explains settlement planning:

• "Settlement Planning is the modern day [holistic] approach to assisting personal injury (and other types of) claimants with the personal, and highly unique, financial planning decisions surrounding the settlement of their claim.
• "Settlement Planning starts from the premise that structured settlements are not the answer to everything that everyone needs or wants to do with their settlement dollars.
• "Using that as a starting point, the first in a long line of questions for any personal injury claimant to answer is: 'What do you want this settlement to accomplish for you? What is the most important thing? Then, what is the, second most important, third most important, etc'.
• "Only after you, as the claimant, answer the question above should you really begin to craft a plan to help you reach those goals."

DiGangi spoke about "settlement consulting" at the 2009 Winter Meeting of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).

• In what he termed "a wake up call for the industry", DiGangi criticized the traditional structured settlement business model and knowledge standards.
• He also outlined his vision for industry transition, improvement and growth which he termed "comprehensive settlement consulting".

DiGangi characterized the current structured settlement industry as "a stagnant market" based upon an outdated "annuity broker" business model. Structured settlement clients and competitors, according to DiGangi, share negative perceptions about structured settlement consultants. As examples of negative perceptions, DiGangi cited the industry's single product offering and limited knowledge base.

As an alternative to the "annuity broker" structured settlement business model, DiGangi proposed a "consultant" model with multiple products and services providing added value for, and with, other settlement stakeholders.

Characteristics of DiGangi's settlement consulting model:

• Planning orientation;
• Solutions before products;
• Blended products and services;
• Product neutrality;
• Compensation disclosure;
• Professional training and designations;
• Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base.

During his 2009 NSSTA presentation, DiGangi also highlighted several transitional issues: licensing; conflicts of interest; collaboration models; and work process infrastructure.

S2KM will summarize and evaluate how SSP and NSSTA addressed "settlement planning" during their 2011 Annual Meeting educational conferences in a subsequent and related blog post.

Timothy Morbach of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG) developed the linked diagrams in this blog post. TSSG is an affiliate and strategic partner of S2KM Limited. Viewers can enlarge the diagrams to improve their visibility.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 3

Whether and when personal injury settlements are taxable to their recipients represents one of the most important structured settlement legal issues. Both the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) featured multiple tax presentations during their 2011 educational conferences.

At the SSP conference, Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener each separately addressed multiple settlement tax issues. Wood discussed: "468B Qualified Settlement Funds" (QSFs) and "Common Settlement Tax Mistakes and How to Fix Them". Babener's SSP presentation addressed three topics:

• Maximizing the medical expense deduction;
• Emotional distress and the medical care exception; and
• Inheritance of personal injury proceeds.

The NSSTA conference also featured a QSF presentation by Martin Jacobson titled "The Ins and Outs of 468B Funds". In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee Update included a summary of a 2011 tax case, Espinoza v. Commissioner, plus an introduction to IRC Section 5891 as part of a discussion about the secondary structured settlement market.

Wood, who has written both a textbook and a Tax Management portfolio about QSFs, utilized case examples to explain several QSF issues: when is a QSF available; formation of a QSF; who should serve as QSF administrator; what are the QSF administrator's responsibilities; determining QSF income and deductions; information reporting responsibilities; amounts to report and forms to use; reporting of structured settlements; and terminating a QSF.

In his presentation about identifying and fixing settlement tax mistakes, Wood highlighted several issues: the need for professional tax computations; interest is always taxable; punitive damages; attorney fees; tax allocations; miscellaneous itemized deductions; above-the-line deductions; the unclear scope of section 104; sex abuse and wrongful imprisonment cases; the Murphy case; constructive receipt; employment disputes; Form 1099; as well as qualified and non-qualified structured settlements. For related writing by Wood, see the Wood & Porter website as well as S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.

Like Wood, Babener is both a prolific writer about settlement tax issues, as evidenced by Babener's website and related commentary appearing on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki, and a frequent speaker at educational conferences sponsored by SSP and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP). Also similar to Wood, Babener's SSP presentation and handouts utilized case examples (as well as tables) to help communicate his analysis. Equally appropriate for their audience, both Wood and Babener emphasized settlement tax planning and incorporated structured settlements into their discussions.

Jacobson's QSF discussion at the NSSTA conference specifically addressed the single claimant issue. Jacobson focused his analysis on the statutory language of IRC 468B, related Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) and related Revenue Procedure 93-34.

• Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) requires and permits a QSF to be "established to resolve or satisfy one or more contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has given rise to at least one claim asserting liability ..." (emphasis added).
• Revenue Procedure 93-34 sets forth the rules under which a QSF will be considered a "party to the suit or agreement" for purposes of Section 130 and includes a stipulation that all Section 130 requirements still apply (emphasis added).

Jacobson highlighted the issue of whether Revenue Procedure 93-34 means that constructive receipt and economic benefit apply to single claimant QSF-funded Section 130 Qualified Assignments. For purposes of the single claimant QSF issue, Jacobson identified what he termed "the real questions":

• Does a single claimant have economic benefit of the funds placed in the QSF?
• Does the single claimant have "unqualified availability" of those funds?
• Has IRC Section 130(c) been satisfied?
• Is there going to be an IRS ruling applicable to single claimant QSFs?
• In the continuing absence of such an IRS ruling, Jacobson quoted Robert Wood's recommendation to "avoid the single claimant controversy" by establishing QSFs with multiple claimants.

With deference to Martin Jacobson for his valuable presentation and gratitude that NSSTA's educational programs have begun to address important and controversial industry issues, S2KM suggests these additional "real questions" concerning single claimant QSFs:

• Why haven't any NSSTA or SSP members applied for one or more IRS rulings applicable to single claimant QSFs?
• For example, what constitutes "multiple claimants" for purposes of QSFs - multiple family members as claimants? government liens? a plaintiff attorney's compensation claim?
• Does public policy favor or not favor single claimant QSFs? If not, why not?
• As Jeremy Babener addresses in his important QSF paper, how far has existing federal legislation eroded the applicability of the constructive receipt and economic benefit tax doctrines to structured settlements:
  • Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 - allowing "secured creditor status"; and
  • Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001 - allowing transfers of payment rights ("factoring") pursuant to state protection statutes.

For additional information about:

• Structured settlement tax issues - see Chapter 2 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J);
• Single claimant 468B QSFs - see S2KM's blog post "Single Claimant QSF Update"
• SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

SSP and NSSTA 2011 Annual Meetings - 2

This blog post continues S2KM's discussion of the 2011 annual conferences of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) with a strategic perspective. A prior S2KM blog post identified speakers and topics featured by SSP and NSSTA. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will summarize and provide commentary about selected speaker presentations.

SSP's conference, open to members and non-members, addressed two general topics: "Special Needs Settlement Planning" and "Practice Improvement: Marketing and New Products". NSSTA's conference, for members only, celebrated NSSTA's 25th anniversary. It also included a NSSTA business meeting with reports from immediate Past-President Michael Kelly, new President Dan Finn, Executive Director Eric Vaughn, Assistant Executive Director Peter Arnold and the Chairpersons of NSSTA's several committees.

One of the highlights of NSSTA's 2011 conference was the honoring of NSSTA's past presidents. David Ringler, NSSTA's first president, spoke briefly at the conference and re-stated his original vision for NSSTA:

"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, question whether NSSTA has lost sight of this original purpose and tradition. Does NSSTA continue to represent "a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss [structured settlement] issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs"? The answer, unfortunately, is "no".

For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a strict 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 SSP in 2000.

Fortunately for NSSTA members and the structured settlement industry, based upon its 2011 conference, NSSTA appears to be expanding the scope of its educational programs to address important but controversial industry topics such as IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds, IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes. The educational programs offered by both NSSTA and SSP also increasingly discuss three fundamental transitions reshaping the structured settlement industry:

• From structured settlements to settlement planning;
• From a singular, illiquid, and non-assignable product to multiple products with greater flexibility to address changing needs and circumstances of injury victims;
• From traditional (pre-Internet) to web-based business models, processes and skill sets.

With the structured settlement industry facing these and other challenges, including aging leadership, declining structured settlement annuity sales, anticipated legislative changes plus an increasingly complex legal and regulatory business environment, where is the strategic vision and what are the strategic priorities for NSSTA and SSP?

NSSTA President Dan Finn and Executive Director Eric Vaughn identified the following:

• NSSTA challenges:
  • Promote the expanded use of structured settlements
  • Expand the structured settlement market
  • Protect structured settlement annuitants
  • Defend IRC sections 104(a) and 130
  • Enhance the Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program
  • Unify the structured settlement industry
• NSSTA objectives
  • Expand IRC section 104 (a)(2) to include wrongful imprisonment and sexual abuse cases
  • Expand government use of structured settlements
  • Promote structuring of MSAs in liability cases
  • Promote the structuring of Social Security disability payments
  • Promote the professionalism of structured settlements

SSP President Jack Meligan prioritized three objectives:

• Improve SSP's marketing to plaintiff attorneys
• Create an SSP lobbying presence
• Enhance the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program

Two of NSSTA's featured speakers, Jim Morris, President, Chairman and CEO of Pacific Life Insurance Company, and William T. Robinson lll, President-Elect of the American Bar Association (ABA), added important and positive assessments for structured settlements.

Morris accentuated the current financial strength of U.S. life insurance companies and explained why structured settlement annuities represent an excellent strategic product for life companies. As corollaries to Morris' presentation:

• NSSTA announced that two highly rated annuity providers, Mutual of Omaha and Berkshire Hathaway, have re-entered the structured settlement market; and
• Thomas Ronce and Craig Ulman clarified the life and health guaranty association system and how that system applies to structured settlements.

Robinson praised structured settlements as "professional and dignified solutions" for injury victims based upon his first-hand experience as a litigation attorney. Structured settlements represent "state of the art" tools for all attorneys to consider when negotiating and resolving personal injury cases according to Robinson. In his capacity as President-Elect of the ABA: Robinson also:

• Spotlighted the current funding crisis facing state courts; and
• Suggested the ABA and NSSTA should identify shared interests and lobbying opportunities.

For S2KM's reporting and commentary about past SSP and NSSTA conferences, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.