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
  • Glenn Neasham to LifeHealthPro: ‘At No Time Did Fran Appear To Be Confused.’

    April 16, 2012 by Maria Wood

    The California insurance agent at the center of a case that has rocked the industry tells his side of the story

    By Maria Wood

    April 4, 2012 •

    No other story has captured the attention of the insurance and annuity industry in recent months like the case of Glenn Neasham. The California-based insurance agent was convicted last fall of felony theft for selling an annuity contract to an 83-year-old woman who was later diagnosed with dementia. Not surprisingly, his story has stirred debate over whether his conviction was justified or not.

    Neasham (below right) recently emailed LifeHealthPro.com a statement detailing his side of the case. An edited version is printed here. LifeHealthPro, ProducersWeb and National Underwriter Life & Health will continue to follow this story and its possible impact on the industry.

    Here, Glenn Neasham shares his story in his own words:

    Lou Jochim, a longtime client, contacted me in January of 2008 and said that Fran Schuber, his  girlfriend of 15 years, had a CD maturing in early February. Fran and Lou came into my office Feb. 1, 2008 to find out about products similar to Lou’s because he earned 10 percent that year.

    Lou had been my client since 1997. On that day I did my due diligence. I gathered Fran’s current financial information, monthly income, home value  (which was free and clear), goals, health status (which she herself said was  good). I inquired what was important to her as far as financial products, tax  deferral, guaranteed monthly income, long-term care, safe returns, risk tolerance, and current  financial goals. I asked her, “What would you like to improve about your current financial situation?”  As an insurance agent, I am required to make sure any products that I offer are suitable. At no  time did Fran appear to be confused.

    I also gave Fran a brochure on a product that I felt would serve her needs, which was the  MasterDex 10 (MD 10) offered through Allianz. The MD 10 had been the number-one selling fixed  indexed annuity in the country for five consecutive years. It had the best crediting strategy of the  350 fixed indexed annuities available in California. It’s a product that allows you to participate in  stock market gains with no downside risk. It also offers a fixed account, which currently earns  about 3 percent to 3.5 percent. Since 1994, this product has averaged 8 percent in the equity  options. It offers plenty of liquidity options as well: 10 percent free withdrawals, policy loan  provisions, a 10 percent bonus that is paid up front on any premiums added anytime in the first five  years (though the product must be annuitized to realize this bonus, all gains are credited annually  to the initial investment plus the bonus), and 20 percent free withdrawals if the client enters a  nursing home, which in Fran’s case would have been $44,000 per year for five years. After five  years, the full cash accumulation value of the policy can be annuitized (which means turned into a  guaranteed monthly income for 10 years or longer). If the policy owner were to die during the  payout phase, the remaining payments would go to the beneficiary.

     

     In short, this is a very safe product. Allianz, the parent company, is worth $0.7 trillion in assets and  is A+ rated by A.M. Best. Allianz owns Pimco, Oppenheimer, Fireman’s Fund, and about 700 other  companies in more than 60 countries. Allianz is the third largest money manager in the world, and  the 15th biggest corporation in the world. Allianz of North America, which did the underwriting on  this product, had 157 percent solvency, which means for every dollar, it had $1.57 cents in  reserve. This product is designed as a legacy product, or a product to provide income you can’t  outlive.

    A return visit

     On February 4, 2008, Lou and Fran came back to my office. At this time I did the presentation,  which took about one hour and 30 minutes, including the presentation and completion of the  application. During most of this time, my assistant, Deanna Jones, was in my office, as one of my  assistants typically is. Deanna Jones testified that Fran appeared “very competent” and was not at  all confused during the presentation. When we discussed beneficiaries, Fran wanted to name Lou as  the primary (he had been on her CD since 2004). She wasn’t sure who she wanted as contingent  beneficiary. They finally agreed on Betty Koenig, Lou’s daughter. Fran was told she could change  this at any time. Deanna Jones witnessed this, too. After the presentation, Fran and Lou went to  the bank to get the funds made payable to Allianz. 

    Later that day, Lou called me and said the bank was giving them problems in reference to moving  the money. Per Lou’s request, I called the bank manager to speak with her. She told me that she  didn’t have a problem with Fran, but was concerned about Lou’s influence. She also said Fran was  confused about the investment. However, Fran knew she wanted to withdraw $175,000 made  payable to Allianz.

    I went over the product on the phone for about five to 10 minutes. The bank manager said she  didn’t have a problem with the annuity; her problem was with Lou. (Later, during testimony, she  denied that went over the product with her.) The bank at no time said anything that led me to  believe Fran was confused about anything other than the benefits of the annuity. They never  expressed to me that Fran was incapable of understanding the transaction. When Fran and Lou  came back to my office to give me the check, I asked Fran if she understood the annuity and she  said yes.

    Meeting with Fran’s son

    On Feb. 5, 2008, one day after Fran bought the annuity, I called her son, Ted Schuber, and told him  about his mom’s purchase. During our phone conversation, Ted said he was concerned about his  mom’s overall health, but at no time has he ever told me his mom had Alzheimer’s or dementia. I  set up a meeting with him on Feb. 6, 2008 at my office at 3 p.m. The date is in my 2008 planner.  (Ted later testified under oath that we met the summer of 2008, which never happened. We only  met once, on February 6, 2008.)

    During our meeting, Fran’s health never came up. If Ted would have told me his mom had dementia or Alzheimer’s, I would have immediately stopped the transaction from going through.  The policy wasn’t even issued yet and the client had a 30-day free look period. I would have called  Allianz immediately and asked them and my FMO what to do in this situation. I would also have  contacted the client and asked further questions about her health.

    I was concerned about Lou only after the bank said they were concerned about Lou. I never  understood why Fran’s son wasn’t at least the contingent beneficiary. I tried to set up a meeting  with Ted and his mom at an annual client appreciation dinner, but Ted didn’t want to do that. He  said he loved his mom, wanted her to do what she wanted and wanted her to be happy.

    The investigation begins

    On Dec. 5, 2008, 10 months after the transaction, I met with Fran and Lou in my office. Lou had  called me to say that an investigator from the Department of Insurance had come to their home  on December 3 to ask them some questions. During our meeting, I asked Fran if she understood  the investment and went over the letter the courts later referred to as the “CYA letter.”

    The “CYA letter” was written because I was concerned about Fran’s choice of beneficiary. I felt Ted  should be beneficiary or at least contingent beneficiary. I also felt like I needed to protect myself  from having to use my E&O insurance because Ted wasn’t named as beneficiary. After my meeting  with Ted in February 2008, I felt more than ever that he should be the beneficiary. I even  contacted Fran and asked for a copy of the CD statement to show that Lou was the beneficiary of  the CD. He had been since 2004 and I still have the postmarked envelope that shows a date of Feb.  6, 2008.

    After our meeting on December 5, I called Lou at Fran’s home and asked him if Fran had ever had a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s or dementia. Lou said no.

     Missing information

    During my conversations with the Department of Insurance (DOI) investigator, I told her certain  things that were not in her reports. In my opinion, she withheld critical evidence. One piece of  evidence was the question of why I asked Fran and Lou to sign the CYA letter. When I explained my  concerns about Fran’s choice of beneficiary, the DOI investigator made it clear that she didn’t  believe me, and that she thought I had written the document because I knew something was wrong  with Fran. The second thing I told her was that I left my client with $100,000 in liquidity, because  Fran liked to gamble. She said, “You should have left her more money to gamble with.” The third  thing I told her was that the bank said they were concerned about Lou, not Fran. In none of her  reports does it mention any of this.

    Another concerning fact is that, on April 1, 2008, another investigator met with Fran and Lou. Fran  told the investigator that she moved the money to help out with taxes and that no one forced her  to do it. She made her decision of her own free will. Fran further explained that she purposely  removed her son Ted Schuber as beneficiary. She said that when Ted married, his wife made it  very clear that she believed all of Fran’s assets would one day be hers and actually referred to  them as hers. Because of this, Fran no longer communicates with them, and has essentially  disowned the whole Schuber family. Fran thanked the investigator for looking into suspected elder  abuse, but she denied being forced into a decision by anyone.

    Later, under oath, the investigator said she had no video or audio recordings of the April 1 meeting  with Fran; however, the day before closing arguments, at 10:30 a.m., she produced a six-and-a- half minute audio tape. The audio wasn’t complete (it was a portion of a 15–20 minute meeting),  and it malfunctioned. On the tape, you can hear Fran say why she made the purchase, and also  that no one forced her to do so. It was not introduced into evidence and the jury didn’t hear it.

    I wish I would have testified, but my attorney said the things I would have said were largely  captured on audio tapes of voice messages I left with the DOI explaining the case, which the jury  heard. My attorney said nothing had been proved, and that we should rest and not call any of my  witnesses. There were 25 satisfied clients on our witness list, as well as others who knew me and  had worked with me in the past. A lot of the things I’m saying now were not on the audio tapes.

    A doctor’s testimony

    Another thing the jury didn’t consider was Dr. Douglas Rosoff’s testimony. Dr. Rosoff said that  unless I had witnessed Fran’s day-to-day activities, I wouldn’t have known that she had any health  issues. The doctor said the condition she’s in today had taken one year to progress. He also  affirmed that when she went to the doctor from 2005–09, she seemed competent, according to  the medical records.

    In addition, Dick Duff testified that the product I sold Fran had many more benefits than negatives,  and that it paid only an average commission. Dick is the author of five financial books and has  appeared on CNBC and CNN. He has a radio show. He is an attorney of about 47 years and still sells  annuities in Colorado, and is licensed in many other states.

    This simply was a product the client wanted. She met the criteria of the insurance company to buy  this product and I earned a nominal commission to serve her and the rest of my clients for as long  as they owned the product. I always tell my clients that if something happens to them, I will help  their spouses, or even their kids. The commission earned comes out to about one half of 1 percent  per year for the duration of the policy.

    Three days after my arrest on Dec. 17, 2010 at 10:42 a.m., I called Lou and asked him again if  Fran had ever had any diagnosis of Alzheimer’s or dementia. Again, he said, “No, she doesn’t. No  doctor’s diagnosis, period.” I asked if Fran was happy with the investment and he said, “Yes. She’s  very happy. She’s made money.”

    In closing, I want to say my client earned $42,000 in three years and seven months. Fran is  satisfied with the choice she made according to her long-time boyfriend, Lou. She had plenty of  liquidity, $100,000, in other accounts and access to another $17,500 per year for at least five  years. The annuity could have given her a monthly income for the rest of her life. Today, her  account has grown to over $217,000.

    My arrest, as I understand it, is unprecedented. This has completely ruined my business. My family  and I have lost almost everything. Our house, two cars, retirement funds and other things such as  health insurance. I’ve got four kids. I feel this verdict is unjust because some of the facts weren’t  introduced.

    I’ve been in business for 23 years. My client satisfaction rate is at least 98 percent or better. My  rating was A+ while I was a member of the Better Business Bureau until June of 2011. (I couldn’t  afford to renew.) I’ve never had any disciplinary action by the Department of Insurance prior to my  arrest. I still feel I’ve done nothing wrong. Moreover, I feel I have significantly improved my client’s  financial position.

    The italicized portion of this article expresses the views of Glenn Neasham and does not reflect the position of Summit Business Media or any of its publications.

    For more on the Neasham case, click here.

    Originally Posted at LifeHealthPro on April 4, 2012 by Maria Wood.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency