Beyond Structured Settlements

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.

Structured Settlement Surveys - 2

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

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

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

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

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

ASNP Settlement Planning Webinar Series - 1

The Academy of Special Needs Planners' (ASNP) 12-part "Settlement Planning" webinar series , which begins today, offers an important educational opportunity to learn more about this evolving profession. Evaluated in advance, based upon its online descriptive materials:

• The strengths of this webinar series appear to be the quality of the presenters and the broad scope of topics to be addressed.
• The primary omission and challenges appear to be:
  • Not including a life care planner presenter to explain the critical role life care plans play in settlement planning "needs analysis".
  • Addressing and defining: 1) settlement planning market metrics; and 2) how various settlement planning professionals integrate their work product - and at what individual and overall cost.

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

Settlement planning has been defined as both a process and a profession - and also represents a largely undefined market.

Kevin Urbatsch, ASNP's National Director and introductory webinar presenter, defines settlement planning as "the process of 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 fully enhances his or her quality of life."

Joseph Tombs, Director of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program, has defined 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."

With the exception of the structured settlement market (which generated an estimated annuity premium of $5.1 billion in 2013 and $139 billion from 1975-2013), the size of the United States settlement planning market and its various component markets has not yet been defined. Based upon industry sources, S2KM estimates the 2013 structured settlement secondary market resulted in 12,800 transfers (factoring transactions) and generated $385 million PV of secondary market purchases.

S2KM estimates more than $170 billion of annual United States tort costs represents payments to personal injury victims and their attorneys based upon Towers Watson's most recently published "Annual Studies of United States Tort Costs", and utilizing Towers Watson's 2002 "best estimate" formula for calculating payout percentages. Towers Watson's tort cost studies historically exclude property losses, workers' compensation payouts and no-fault claims.

Founded in 2000, SSP has published "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" and sponsors an annual educational conference as well as a settlement planning certification program. To S2KM's knowledge, however, neither SSP nor any other professional association has addressed, in a comprehensive manner, basic questions about "settlement plans" (see below) - presumably the most fundamental and important settlement planning work product.

Especially because of inadequate information about the settlement planning market and collaborative work product, ASNP's webinar represents a valuable opportunity to advance industry knowledge and better define settlement planning as a strategic and evolving process, profession and market.

Related questions S2KM hopes one or more of the ASNP webinar presenters (or subsequent settlement planning conferences) will address:

• Who comprises (and selects) the settlement planning team?
• What criteria and process (e.g. request for proposal) are appropriate for selecting members of the settlement planning team?
• What professional licenses and certifications are applicable?
• What work product does each settlement planning team member provide?
• Who integrates their individual work product into a settlement plan - and how?
• When is a settlement plan appropriate?
• What are the standard components of a settlement plan?
• What does a settlement plan cost?
• What settlement planning licensing and e&o coverage are necessary and applicable to protect customers?
• What does a settlement planning " fiduciary standard " mean in terms of: " best interest ", " full disclosure " and " informed consent "?
• What other metrics (besides cost) are appropriate for evaluating the success of a settlement plan?
• How are settlement planning team members compensated?
• What alternative compensation methods and/or business models would allow settlement planning to become more efficient and/or reduce costs?
• Once implemented, who has responsibility to monitor and/or amend the settlement plan?
• Which professional associations include " settlement planners " and what relevant certification programs do they offer?
• How does settlement planning differ from special needs planning? ASNP's earlier 12-part "Special Needs Planning" webinar series provides a framework for analyzing this issue.

S2KM summaries of past ASNP educational conferences:

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

For additional S2KM reporting about settlement planning, 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.

Equity-Indexed Structured Settlements

In a market desperate for innovation, Pacific Life Insurance Company appears to have answered the call with a new, optional "Indexed-Linked Annuity Adjustment Payment Rider" (ILAAPR) for its structured settlement products.

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.

Pacific Life's ILAAPR is linked to the Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P 500) index which includes a representative sample of common stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange, and NASDAQ National Marketing System. One of the U.S. Commerce Department’s leading economic indicators, the S&P 500 represents over 70% of the total domestic U.S. equity market capitalization.

Indexed annuities differ from other fixed annuities based upon the method interest is credited to an annuity's value. Traditional fixed annuities credit interest at the rate set in the annuity contract. Indexed annuities credit interest based upon a formula in the index (either equity-based or bond-based) to which the annuity is linked. The formula determines whether and how much additional interest is calculated and credited.

The increasing popularity of indexed annuities is highlighted in this Investment News article which cites LIMRA data:

• Indexed annuities accounted for 46.3% ($39.3 billion) of all fixed annuities sold and 27% of total annuities sold in the U.S. during 2013.
• Indexed annuity sales increased by $5.4 billion (17%) in 2013, more than any other form of annuity.
• Pacific Life ranked thirteenth among U.S. life insurers selling indexed annuities in 2013 with 2.45% of the U.S. indexed annuity market.

By comparison:

• Estimated structured settlement annuity premium totaled $5.13 billion in 2013 and $139.5 billion from 1975 through 2013.
• Pacific Life's 2013 structured settlement premium totaled $848,725,000.
• S2KM estimates more than $160 billion per year of United States tort costs have represented payments to personal injury victims and their attorneys since 2006 - based upon Tower Watson's annual studies of U.S. Tort Cost Trends.

Pacific Life's online ILAAPR brochure features hypothetical examples and product information including:

• Structured settlement payments with the ILAAPR option can increase annually based on positive S&P 500 index returns [with a five (5%) percent cap] but will not decrease if the S&P 500 declines or remains flat.
• Unlike a variable annuity, the ILAAPR is not an investment security and does not participate directly in the stock market or the S&P 500 index.
• Like its traditional structured settlements, Pacific Life's ILAAPR payments are backed by the company's financial strength and claims-paying ability.
• ILAAPR payment increases take effect on the anniversary of when payments originally started.

Also note, according to industry sources:

• Pacific Life has received a favorable IRS private letter ruling for the ILAAPR confirming tax exclusion of its indexed payments under IRC section 104(a)(2).
• If the initial ILAAPR benefit payment is deferred, the ILAAPR indexing feature only applies after benefit payouts begin.

Whether Pacific Life's ILAAPR will experience market success and help grow the U.S. structured settlement primary market remains uncertain and subject to debate among structured settlement consultants.

To sell the product, these 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.

ILAAPR advocates will point to historical S&P 500 results. During the past 30 years:

• The S&P 500 index has increased an average 9.8 percent per year.
• In 12 of those 30 years, the S&P 500 index increased less than five (5%) percent (ILAAPR's cap) or decreased.
• Incorporating ILAAPR's five (5%) percent cap, the annual applicable S&P 500 index increase averaged 3.5 percent per year.
• Also relevant for 30 year historical comparisons: the yield on 30 year U.S. Treasury bonds in April 1984 was 12.65 percent. As of April 21, 2014, the yield was 3.52 percent.

Conclusion

The moribund U.S. structured settlement primary market needs a jump-start. Pacific Life's new equity-indexed structured settlement rider represents a welcome innovation and hopefully will become one catalyst for future market growth.

Settlement Annuities

The introduction of two non-traditional "structured settlement" products underscores the expanding role of annuities in personal injury settlement planning (settlement planning) but also raises fundamental questions about suitability, due diligence and industry education.

Pacific Life recently announced a new structured settlement product called an "Index-Linked Annuity Payment Adjustment" (ILAPA). Investment performance and annuity payments will be linked to the Standard & Poor's 500 Composite Stock Price Index, according to structured settlement brokers who participated in Pacific Life's online product introduction. Although Pacific Life hopes to launch its new product by April 1, 2014, the launch date depends on whether and when Pacific Life receives a favorable IRS Private Letter Ruling.

Havelet Assignment Company (Havelet), an independently owned company based in Barbados, is now offering non-qualified (under IRC 130) product plans for claimants or contingent fee attorneys to defer receipt of their settlement award or fee on a pre-tax basis. The plans are funded with investment portfolios, selected by the claimants or attorneys, which Havelet "wraps" with variable annuities. Havelet must issue a private placement memorandum to each prospective client. Investment performance is not guaranteed. Minimum investment funding is $500,000.

Outside of the settlement planning market, equity-indexed and variable annuities represent increasingly popular investments. A March 12, 2014 New York Times article titled "Annuities Not for Everyone, but They Have a Place" cites the following LIMRA statistics: "Variable and indexed annuities accounted for 80.8 percent of the $688.2 billion of annuities sold in the three years through 2013, compared with 74 percent in the previous seven years."

By comparison, estimated structured settlement annuity premium totaled $5.13 billion in 2013 (of which $164.9 million represented non-qualified structured settlement annuity premium) and $139.5 billion from 1975 through 2013.

Based upon the most recent Towers Watson Annual Study of United States Tort Cost Trends, and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates more than $160 billion per year of United States tort costs have represented payments to personal injury victims and their attorneys since 2006.

Pacific Life and Havelet's new product offerings add to the growing list of settlement planning products which S2KM noted in its blog report about the AAJ 2014 Winter Meeting. Additional marketing feedback S2KM received from structured settlement brokers who exhibited at the AAJ meeting:

• Structured settlement annuities are one of several product offerings (including single premium immediate annuities (SPIAS), fixed-indexed annuities and managed money) some leading structured settlement brokers are already selling.
• At least one leading structured settlement brokerage company sold more SPIAs and fixed-indexed annuities combined during 2013 than structured settlement annuities - and uses SPIAS almost exclusively to fund Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (MSAs).

S2KM's AAJ blog report highlights fundamental questions about these expanding product offerings, the resulting "blended products" and emerging business models.

The Pacific Life and Havelet products raise additional issues which S2KM will address in subsequent blog posts:

• Are equity-indexed and off-shore variable annuity products suitable for personal injury victims?
• What product suitability standards should apply?
• What qualifications are needed to sell these products - and/or to perform due diligence on behalf of personal injury claimants and plaintiff attorneys?
• Are structured settlement and settlement planning professional associations providing their members with appropriate educational programs to understand settlement annuities and address related suitability and due diligence issues?

GABC Publishes Final ELNY Schedule 1.15

The Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC), successor to liquidated Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), has published two versions of a final liquidation date Schedule 1.15 on its website.

Among the significant details:

• Thirty-seven (37%) percent of all remaining ELNY (now GABC) structured settlement annuities (SSAs) will experience shortfalls; and
• SSAs represent ninety-eight (98%) percent of total ELNY shortfall annuities.

Prior to ELNY's liquidation, the New York Superintendent of Financial Services filed a preliminary Schedule 1.15 for the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement with the Supreme Court of Nassau County New York on November 7, 2011.

Judge John M. Galasso issued a Memorandum Decision April 16, 2012 declaring ELNY to be insolvent and signed a separate order: 1) approving the ELNY restructuring plan as proposed by the Superintendent and the National Organization of Life & Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA); 2) converting the ELNY proceeding from rehabilitation to liquidation; and 3) appointing the Superintendent as ELNY's liquidator.

Under the ELNY restructuring plan, participating state life and health guaranty associations (PGAs) and certain life insurance companies formed GABC, a new special purpose not-for-profit captive insurance company under the laws of the District of Columbia to replace ELNY once it was liquidated on August 8, 2013. The PGAs agreed to supplement the ELNY benefit payments for annuity contracts eligible for state guaranty association coverage up to the maximum allowable by their state guaranty association laws. The various participating life companies agreed to provide additional enhancements and have set up an ELNY Hardship Fund.

The final Schedule 1.15 lists all of ELNY's current annuities, with the names of the annuity owners and payees redacted. Schedule 1.15 includes additional information such as individual contract identification numbers, the proposed "uncovered amount" (shortfall) and "total percentage of contract protected" assuming contributions from state life and health insurance guaranty associations and certain supplemental enhancements.

All PGA coverage is applied on a present value basis, according to the Schedule 1.15 footnotes, which also indicate that present values were calculated as of August 8, 2013 by Towers Watson using a 4.25% discount rate. The final Schedule 1.15 provides separate annuitant IDs, beginning with an "F", when evidence exists that some or all of the payment rights under an annuity have been transferred to a factoring company.

Final Schedule 1.15 Highlights

• Schedule 1.15 lists extensive information for 9241 ELNY annuities of which:
  • 4057 (44%) are structured settlement annuities (SSAs).
  • 466 (5%) are single premium immediate annuities (SPIAs).
  • 4718 (51%) are pension annuities.
• Schedule1.15 indicates shortfalls ("uncovered amounts") will occur for 1541 current ELNY annuities - even assuming state guaranty association contributions and enhancements:
  • 1504 SSAs - Note: this number represents 98% of 1504 ELNY shortfall annuities and indicates 37% of all 4057 ELNY SSAs will experience shortfalls.
  • 29 SPIAs.
  • 8 pension annuities.
• For the 1504 Schedule 1.15 SSAs with shortfalls:
  • Factoring transactions - Part or all of 407 SSA payment rights (27% of 1504) are estimated to have been transferred in factoring transactions. Note: reliable industry sources have informed S2KM the actual number of current ELNY SSAs previously factored is considerably higher.
  • $100,000 + - 1090 SSAs (72% of 1504) have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $100,000 each on a present value (PV) basis including
  • $1,000,000 + - 249 SSAs (17% of 1504) which have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $1,000,000 PV each including
  • $5,000,000 + - 21 SSAs which have "uncovered amounts" in excess of $5,000,000 PV each.
  • The largest ELNY SSA has an "uncovered amount" of $27,463,417 PV.
• The total percentage of each ELNY SSA contract value "protected" by ELNY's remaining assets, state guaranty fund payments plus additional enhancements varies from 31% to 100% depending upon the individual contract.

These final Schedule 1.15 numbers differ from the previously published Schedule 1.15 as reported by S2KM. Possible explanations:

• More factoring transactions (407 vs.156) are included as separate line items in the final Schedule 1.15.
• Some ELNY annuity payees may have died since ELNY's August 8, 2013 liquidation date.

• Present value categories may have shifted from covered to uncovered and vice versa based on interim payouts.

• GABC's actual and/or projected investment returns and expenses (which have been reported) may be different than previously projected.

For S2KM's complete and continuing coverage of the ELNY liquidation, see the structured settlement wiki.

Growing the Primary 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.

Structured settlement industry surveys and Towers Watson's annual updates of "U.S. Tort Cost Trends" provide additional evidence the primary market has not yet achieved its full potential.

Using 2008 as a baseline, the primary market annuity premium has steadily declined during the past four years:

• 2008 - $6.2 billion
• 2009 - $5.4 billion
• 2010 - $5.5 billion
• 2011 - $4.97 billion
• 2012 - $4.82 billion

Sales results for the first six months of 2013 suggest structured settlement production will continue its downward trend this year - or, at least, fall far below the premium levels achieved from 2001 to 2008.

Among the explanations for this declining primary market, industry leaders frequently mention: 1) the 2008 financial crisis; 2) historically low interest rates; 3) new regulatory restrictions; 4) the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation; and 5) the departure of several product providers including: Allstate, John Hancock, Symetra and Hartford.

Although members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have sought answers and proposed strategies to reverse this downward trend and grow the primary market, they have not been successful.

What is needed to grow the primary structured settlement market?

During the past few weeks, Patrick Hindert (S2KM's blog author) has participated in discussions exploring this question with a group of individuals including insurance executives who see underdeveloped opportunities in the primary structured settlement market.

One of these individuals is Daniel Durbin, a former NSSTA President and Senior Sales Manager with Allstate Life. Durbin currently is speaking with structured settlement industry leaders to obtain their input and evaluate their interest in representing a potential new product provider. In addition to conducting a broker survey, Durbin will be attending NSSTA's 2013 Fall Marketing Meeting November 5-6 in Dallas, Texas for additional one-on-one meetings.

"Members of our industry perform a vital public policy function by advocating for the financial well being of physically injured claimants", Durbin stated during a recent telephone interview. "In addition, we serve as important resources for all parties in personal injury negotiations."

"To jump start primary market growth", Durbin added: "we need new, more competitive product providers. To that end, I am contacting industry leaders to solicit their suggestions and support for my current efforts to expand and improve structured settlement product provider options."

Structured Settlements in 2012 - 2

Settlement Planning

Compared with the structured settlement primary market, which was characterized by continuing sales declines in 2012, the related settlement planning market appears to have experienced growth and vitality in 2012.

The primary evidence of this growth and vitality consisted of the increasing number of educational conferences addressing settlement planning topics during 2012. These included:

• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) Annual Meeting
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum
• Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) Annual Meeting
• Qualified Settlement Fund Symposium
• Various National Academy of Elder Law Attorney (NAELA) Conferences - of which S2KM attended the 2012 Ohio NAELA Unprogram.

One of the challenges for measuring the growth of the settlement planning market is the lack of market metrics. For example, despite continuing market inquiries, S2KM has been unable to identify reliable national market metrics for qualified settlement funds, special needs trusts, settlement trusts, or Medicare set-aside arrangements.

Towers Watson Studies

The most valuable market research for settlement planning S2KM has identified has been the Annual Studies of United States Tort Costs published by Towers Watson (formerly Towers Perrin) since 1985. These studies:

• Calculate tort costs resulting from five insured plus uninsured business lines: 1) commercial multi-peril; 2) medical malpractice; 3) product liability; 4) other liability; and 5) commercial auto.
• Exclude: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs.
• In 2002, Towers Watson also translated overall tort costs for 2001 into the following categories and percentages: 1) administrative costs (21%); 2) defense costs (14%); plaintiff attorneys (19%); economic loss (22%) and non-economic loss (24%). Towers Perrin discontinued this portion of its analysis in 2002. It was "devilishly difficult" according to Russ Sutter, a Towers Watson principal and actuary who directs their annual tort cost studies, "primarily because we lack reliable information from plaintiff attorneys". These percentages therefore represented Tower Watson's "best estimate" in 2002.

Based upon Towers Watson's most recent 2011 Annual Study and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates, that at least since 2006, more than $160 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys.

Settlement Planning Issues

Among many settlement planning issues, S2KM viewed the following as the most strategically important during 2012:

• The evolutionary relationship between structured settlements and settlement planning;
• Comparing these two business models;
• Improving settlement planning by expanding structured settlements;
• What we have learned about the settlement planning market;
• Settlement planning tax challenges - including stress-induced physical ailments;
• How the Affordable Care Act (ACA) impacts settlement planning;
• How states are reforming Medicaid programs to address budgetary shortfalls and the ACA;
• Whether a standard of practice exists for using Medicare set-aside arrangements in liability cases;
• The application of product suitability standards to settlement plans funded with structured settlements;
• The impact of Dodd-Frank's uniform fiduciary standard on settlement planning.

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

• Part 1 - Primary market

• Part 2 - Settlement planning

• Part 3 - Secondary market

• Part 4 - Executive Life of New York

ELNY Liquidation Hearing - 4

The Executive Life of New York (ELNY) Liquidation Hearing enters its seventh day today before Judge John M. Galasso in Room 35 of the Nassau County State Supreme Court Building in Mineola, New York. This blog post provides a summary update for S2KM readers. Note: see also the Addendum.

Days 1 and 2 - Attorneys for ELNY's Receiver, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (Superintendent), and the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) present their case for ELNY's liquidation and approval of a proposed Restructuring Agreement to create successor company Guaranty Association Benefits Company (GABC). They present two witnesses: Jonathan Bing, Special Deputy Superintendent of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), and expert witness Jack Gibson, a Managing Director of Towers Watson.

Attorneys for ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims cross examine Bing and begin their cross-examination of Gibson. Before the Superintendent's attorneys complete their case, Judge Galasso allows ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims attending the hearing to offer oral testimony as an accommodation to their travel schedules.

Day 3 - Attorneys for ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims continue their cross examination of Gibson. Judge Galasso denies their motion to compel immediate disclosure of source materials relied upon by Gibson as well as copies of all objections filed in connection with the Petition to liquidate and restructure ELNY.

Attorneys for the shortfall victims had argued that claims of confidentiality by the Superintendent intentionally deprived their clients of full and fair access to important and relevant information and, accordingly, a full and fair opportunity to challenge the Superintendent's proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement. They also claimed it is "extremely prejudicial" to require them to cross-examine Gibson ("a highly skilled actuary") without access to the source data and assumptions he used to perform his calculations.

Day 4 - Attorneys representing ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims continue cross-examining Gibson. Judge Galasso agrees to two of their requests: a reservation of rights to call a witness representing NOLHGA to testify about participating Guaranty Association (PGA) coverage amounts and issues; and a Microsoft Excel version of Schedule 1.15 of the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement. In addition to Day 2 testimony from ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims, their attorneys have also entered documents into the Court record including:

• Written and oral statements by ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims;
• A Society of Actuaries Structured Settlement Mortality Study;
• An article titled "The Trouble with ELNY" written by Peter Bickford.

Day 5 - Attorneys from Hogan Lovells, representing Travelers Insurance Company as an "Objector", use their opportunity to cross-examine Gibson to show their support for the proposed Restructuring Agreement. Note: Hogan Lovells also serves as General Counsel for the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).

Cynthia Lindsey, an attorney representing a Michigan structured settlement shortfall victim, reaches the opposite conclusion during her cross examination of Gibson. After quoting dictionary definitions for "fair" and "just", Lindsey characterizes the proposed Restructuring Agreement as "a bunch of bull" telling Gibson: "You are asking this Honorable Court to approve this plan based upon your assumptions. You don't have facts." After repeated questioning by Lindsey, Gibson acknowledges NOLHGA has paid Gibson's employer, Towers Watson, "more than $3 million" since 2006 for their ELNY consulting work.

On re-direct examination, attorneys for the Superintendent (Sidley Austin) and NOLHGA (Faegre Baker Daniels) encourage Gibson to repeat claims from his earlier testimony that the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement represents the "best plan" and that none of the ELNY payees will be worse off compared with a straight liquidation.

Day 6 - Edward Stone, an attorney representing several structured settlement shortfall victims, continues questioning Gibson on re-cross examination. Stone questions whether all shortfall victims will be better off under the proposed Restructuring Agreement compared with a straight liquidation. In a straight liquidation, ELNY shortfall victims could receive full coverage payments from PGAs instead of net payments under the proposed Restructuring Agreement. Stone also introduces the idea of an alternative restructuring plan for ELNY and asks Gibson whether he considered various plan options.

Among Stone's suggested alternatives: 1) discounting ELNY's future deferred lump sum obligations to reduce ELNY's future liabilities and provide immediate cash for ELNY payees; and 2) selling ELNY to an existing life insurance company that could benefit from (and pay a premium for) ELNY's net operating loss carryforwards. Note: in an earlier interview with the Courthouse News Service, Stone stated he could develop a more "fair and equitable" alternative ELNY restructuring plan if he had access to the same information provided NOLHGA and Gibson since 2006.

When Gibson finally steps down (after six days of testimony and cross-examination), attorneys for the Superintendent and NOLHGA call NOLHGA's President, Peter Gallanis as a witness. On cross-examination, Carrie Tendler, an attorney representing multiple structured settlement shortfall victims, gets Gallanis to confirm that PGA contributions under the Superintendent's proposed Restructuring Agreement will be "net amounts" - i.e. their full coverage caps minus credits for current ELNY assets.

The ELNY Liquidation Hearing resumes Friday March 23, 2012 with Tendler continuing her cross-examination of Gallanis. For S2KM's complete reporting about ELNY, see the structured settlement wiki.

Day 7 ADDENDUM - Testimony by, and cross-examination of, NOLHGA's President Peter Gallanis continued on Friday March 23 eliciting the following information: Gallanis acknowleged GABC has not yet selected an investment manager or developed an investment strategy. Attorneys for structured settlement shortfall victims raised two issues related to the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement:

• Orphan contract enhancements create a potential public policy issue because they shift available funds that could be paid to other ELNY shortfall payees.
• If an ELNY structured settlement payee with life contingent payments dies, that payee could receive less than the present value posted on Schedule 1.15 creating a potential legal claim for his/her estate.

The ELNY Hearing continues on Monday March 26 with attorneys for the ELNY structured settlement shortfall victims expected to present witnesses.