We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Stranger-Originated Annuities: It’s About More Than Annuities

    May 24, 2010 by Allison Bell

    Published 5/21/2010 

    The battle over stranger-originated annuities is part of a larger battle over the insurance product resale market, representatives from an insurer group and a life settlement group agree.

    Witnesses from the American Council of Life Insurers, Washington, and the Life Insurance Settlement Association, Orlando, Fla., appeared Thursday at a STOA hearing organized by the Life Insurance & Annuities Committee at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Kansas City, Mo.

    Originators of STOA transactions persuade people with short life expectancies to buy annuities with guaranteed minimum death benefits, with the death benefits going to the originators or other parties.

    The ACLI, Washington, and LISA, Orlando, Fla., have joined with other groups in condemning STOAs.

    The transactions appear to involve fraud, material misrepresentations on the annuity applications, and, in many causes, an inducement to the annuity applicant that violates most states’ Unfair Trade Practices acts, according to a written version of the ACLI testimony prepared by Kelly Ireland and Michael Lovendusky.

    “It appears that most, if not all, of these schemes, violate a wide variety of existing insurance laws,” LISA Executive Director Doug Head said in the written version of LISA’s testimony.

    Cande Olsen, chair of the Life Products Committee at the American Academy of Actuaries, Washington, testified that letting STOA transactions continue could hurt all buyers of variable annuity contracts that include guaranteed minimum death benefits, by increasing insurer GMDB costs.

    “We have no provided any specific numerical analysis as our perspective is founded primarily from the conceptual view that [STOAs] are not a proper use of annuities,” Olsen said in the written version of her testimony. “We draw parallels between [STOAs] and the suicide exclusion clause in life insurance. While the cost of paying benefits for suicide claims in the first two years of a life insurance policy could be quantified, the argument in favor of the suicide exclusion provision is not cost-based.  Purchasing a life insurance policy with the intent of an early claim due to suicide is not the proper and intended use of life insurance.”

    Head argued that life insurers have contributed to the problem by failing to screen annuity applicants properly, and that the ACLI is using the issue to as a Trojan Horse against the life settlement industry.

    “Life insurers were in a position to take preemptive action and stop these transactions from ever occurring, but they failed to implement common sense safeguards, institute obvious disclosure and eligibility review procedures, and properly train and supervise their appointed agents,” Head said. “We are concerned about and object to these efforts that attempt to connect illegitimate and fraudulent sales of annuities – and the failure of insurers to protect against these abuses – to the lawful and beneficial secondary market for life insurance.”

    The ACLI has focused on recommending measures that would affect legitimate life settlements, rather than coming up with proposals targeted to address the STOA problem, Head said.

    Ireland and Lovendusky said the ACLI is concerned that the most recent STOA transactions are a “continuation of a larger trend involving insurance products.”

    “These transactions undermine the principles upon which insurance products are created,” Ireland and Lovendusky said. “The manipulation of insurance values exploits individually designed products to benefit investors systematically extracting product values with behavior inconsistent with individual risk behavior. The investors have no concern about the detrimental effect of their activity on the insurance system as a whole.”

    This type of activity already affects life insurance and annuities, Ireland and Lovendusky said.

    “Concerns are growing that disability income and even long-term care products might have features susceptible to exploitation,” Ireland and Lovendusky said.

    Life insurers might be able to prevent some STOA transactions by underwriting annuity applicants more thoroughly, but an increased level of scrutiny will increase costs and paperwork burdens for all applicants and might make some annuity features difficult or impossible to sell, Ireland and Lovendusky said.

    In response to a question about whether current laws and regulations should be changed, Ireland and Lovendusky said, the “ACLI is studying the clarity and adequacy of existing laws and regulations and will communicate later this year whether it would recommend specific new or revised laws or regulations.”

    The battle over stranger-originated annuities is part of a larger battle over the insurance product resale market, representatives from an insurer group and a life settlement group agree.

    Witnesses from the American Council of Life Insurers, Washington, and the Life Insurance Settlement Association, Orlando, Fla., appeared Thursday at a STOA hearing organized by the Life Insurance & Annuities Committee at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Kansas City, Mo.

    Originators of STOA transactions persuade people with short life expectancies to buy annuities with guaranteed minimum death benefits, with the death benefits going to the originators or other parties.

    The ACLI, Washington, and LISA, Orlando, Fla., have joined with other groups in condemning STOAs.

    The transactions appear to involve fraud, material misrepresentations on the annuity applications, and, in many causes, an inducement to the annuity applicant that violates most states’ Unfair Trade Practices acts, according to a written version of the ACLI testimony prepared by Kelly Ireland and Michael Lovendusky.

    “It appears that most, if not all, of these schemes, violate a wide variety of existing insurance laws,” LISA Executive Director Doug Head said in the written version of LISA’s testimony.

    Cande Olsen, chair of the Life Products Committee at the American Academy of Actuaries, Washington, testified that letting STOA transactions continue could hurt all buyers of variable annuity contracts that include guaranteed minimum death benefits, by increasing insurer GMDB costs.

    “We have no provided any specific numerical analysis as our perspective is founded primarily from the conceptual view that [STOAs] are not a proper use of annuities,” Olsen said in the written version of her testimony. “We draw parallels between [STOAs] and the suicide exclusion clause in life insurance. While the cost of paying benefits for suicide claims in the first two years of a life insurance policy could be quantified, the argument in favor of the suicide exclusion provision is not cost-based.  Purchasing a life insurance policy with the intent of an early claim due to suicide is not the proper and intended use of life insurance.”

    Head argued that life insurers have contributed to the problem by failing to screen annuity applicants properly, and that the ACLI is using the issue to as a Trojan Horse against the life settlement industry.

    “Life insurers were in a position to take preemptive action and stop these transactions from ever occurring, but they failed to implement common sense safeguards, institute obvious disclosure and eligibility review procedures, and properly train and supervise their appointed agents,” Head said. “We are concerned about and object to these efforts that attempt to connect illegitimate and fraudulent sales of annuities – and the failure of insurers to protect against these abuses – to the lawful and beneficial secondary market for life insurance.”

    The ACLI has focused on recommending measures that would affect legitimate life settlements, rather than coming up with proposals targeted to address the STOA problem, Head said.

    Ireland and Lovendusky said the ACLI is concerned that the most recent STOA transactions are a “continuation of a larger trend involving insurance products.”

    “These transactions undermine the principles upon which insurance products are created,” Ireland and Lovendusky said. “The manipulation of insurance values exploits individually designed products to benefit investors systematically extracting product values with behavior inconsistent with individual risk behavior. The investors have no concern about the detrimental effect of their activity on the insurance system as a whole.”

    This type of activity already affects life insurance and annuities, Ireland and Lovendusky said.

    “Concerns are growing that disability income and even long-term care products might have features susceptible to exploitation,” Ireland and Lovendusky said.

    Life insurers might be able to prevent some STOA transactions by underwriting annuity applicants more thoroughly, but an increased level of scrutiny will increase costs and paperwork burdens for all applicants and might make some annuity features difficult or impossible to sell, Ireland and Lovendusky said.

    In response to a question about whether current laws and regulations should be changed, Ireland and Lovendusky said, the “ACLI is studying the clarity and adequacy of existing laws and regulations and will communicate later this year whether it would recommend specific new or revised laws or regulations.”

    Originally Posted at National Underwriter on May 21, 2010 by Allison Bell.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency