WARNING: Buying Secondary Market Deals
Jul 13, 2016

In recent years there has been a proliferation of secondary market firms touting higher yields through either individual payment streams or trusts backed by factored payment rights.  However, in light of recent developments, I strongly advise caution and due diligence.  This is no indictment of any secondary market seller, but a warning of what may lie ahead in this market.  My concern is that some of these secondary market trusts may be sitting on ticking time bombs of potentially toxic assets.  I believe that the following longstanding and unethical business practices in the factoring industry may finally come home to roost:

Forum shopping – This has been a rampant problem where factoring companies will fake the residency of an annuitant in a rubber stamp jurisdiction to get a transfer approved easily.  The motive is either that the proper jurisdiction is particularly difficult to get any case approved, or that much higher profits can be made in jurisdictions with little oversight.

Coercion – Unethical factoring companies are notorious for pressuring at-risk annuitants into unwarranted transactions.  These annuitants have no business selling payments so the factoring companies lie to the Court to get the transfer approved.  A perfect example is the recent Baltimore lead paint fiasco, where cognitively impaired annuitants were manipulated into predatory discount rate transactions, complete with bogus independent professional advice.

Fraud – Likely not as common but factoring firms have been known to forge documents.  A NASP firm was recently sued for forging an annuitant’s signature on lottery transfer documents and I am aware of another pending case alleging forged signatures by two NASP firms buying structured settlement payments.

In total, the number of questionably sourced transactions falling into the above categories is quite considerable.  The common denominator is that all these transactions constitute fraud committed upon the Court.  Consequently, we are now starting to see suits being brought to vacate some of these deceitfully obtained court orders.  When orders are vacated, the purchased payments revert back to the annuitant, potentially leaving the investor holding the bag.

For these secondary market firms, the security of the factored payments they buy is only as good as the ethics of the factoring companies with which they do business.  Compounding the risk is the fact that secondary market firms typically buy from smaller producers since the larger firms usually have institutional investors.  The exposure lies in the fact that many of these smaller firms are scamming, unethical, fly-by-night court record scrapers who, just like Access Funding in the wake of the Baltimore investigations, will simply close up shop if they get caught, leaving few to no assets to go after.  Ultimately, how many vacated orders can these trusts absorb before they’re in serious trouble?

That leaves the question of how bad the fallout will be from vacated orders.  It will depend on what transpires with the Baltimore situation and whether the plaintiff bar truly takes notice.  There have only been a handful of suits to date, so how it all shakes out is anyone’s guess.  It could be minor, but it could also be game changing. That’s why I’m suggesting caution.  If you’re considering a trust product, I recommend waiting until the dust settles unless you can be assured that they have contingencies in place to cover potential losses.  If you’re considering the purchase of individual payment streams, there are other firms who do factoring transactions by the book, like us.  You simply need to ask where the transaction was sourced and do some research.  An upcoming article may help you sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to reputable factoring companies.  In the interim, feel free to call us with any questions.

SHARE ARTICLE

Our Recent Blogs

11 Oct, 2022
Myth: You will lose money by factoring, so take out a loan instead. Reality: Whether you factor annuity payments or take a loan, there is a cost to obtaining money, but many people believe that factoring involves “losing” money. This misconception comes from comparing the cumulative future payments with the present value lump sum payment offered by the factoring company. For instance, if an annuitant has 200 monthly payments of $1,000 , the cumulative payments would be $200,000 . In this case, a factoring transaction might net the annuitant approximately $100,000 or 50% of the cumulative total. This is not “losing” money, it is the result of obtaining future payments early at a 10% discount rate. If instead the annuitant took a $100,000 loan at 10% and paid it back over 200 months , the total cost including interest would also be $200,000 (assuming the annuitant had sufficient credit to get the loan). A loan requires credit, collateral, origination fees, and carries the risk of late fees and foreclosure if payments are not made when due. In the factoring scenario, the annuitant would need to wait 200 months (almost 17 years) to collect the full $200,000 , during which time the equivalent present value of the payments is continually diminishing due to inflation. A dollar will not have the same purchasing power in 17 years as it has today.
20 Sep, 2022
The foundation of abuse in the factoring industry is cracking! South Carolina’s supreme court as well as its senate are readying for reform in response to the most recent expose (see here , here and here ). Both the court and the legislature are intent on fixing a clearly broken system. Despite the natural inclination to copy what other states have done (MN, GA, LA, etc.), whose reforms ironically ended up benefiting the worst abusers of the industry, we suggest a simpler reform that will solve the absolute majority of abuse: Keep the personal identification information (PII) protected for all structured settlement recipients from here on out. This way, the companies guilty of these abuses won’t be able to find new victims. More: make such protection retroactive. This is already standard practice for minors receiving structures, and it works, at least until they turn 18. Extending this protection would do wonders for structure health. What predatory companies can’t find, they can’t chase. Keep people safe and their identification information secure. Advocate for smart reforms.
27 Jun, 2022
Another day, another question of abusive cash now transactions. Another lead paint victim, too. See here for more details. It all begs the question: why do the big cash now companies prey on the head injured? Is it a delicacy? Or are they just hoping no one will notice? Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we harp on brokers needing to educate their annuitants on how factoring is useful in some situations, and completely inappropriate in others. It’s why brokers are the referral gatekeepers, or at least, they should be. Anyone with a severe personal injury, especially one affecting their judgment, requires greater aid in both pre and post structure environments. Even if a factoring transaction might have addressed the legitimate needs of the man in the article, was factoring the whole thing really necessary? Probably not. It’s why consultation is required, not just telemarketing. As for the court and its involvement in the issue of whether insurers have a duty to question factoring transactions, full stop. Requiring insurers to question factoring transactions would increase their liability, as well as the fact that while courts must apply the best interest standard, an ethical factoring company uses the annuitant’s best interest as its guiding light. Furthermore, it is the duty of the court to determine whether a factoring transaction is in the best interest of the seller and serves as final gatekeeper. That’s the whole purpose of going to court in the first place. If not the courts, then the legislatures in whatever state is affected by abusive or exploitative practices. We’ve seen this throughout the country in the past few years, such as in Louisiana, Georgia, and Minnesota. It’s cumbersome to add additional requirements upon the companies involved in a potential transaction when the issue isn’t whether the company’s sought to conduct business as usual, but whether the court authorized it in the circumstances they are meant to scrutinize. Factoring transactions can and should be done according to set rules. No forum shopping, no poaching, no scraping, no “gotcha!” checks, no flagrant flouting of the TCPA and other applicable state consumer protection laws. There’s a right way and a wrong way. Promote the right way. Educate. Consult. Refer. We’ll be here.
22 Nov, 2021
We're thrilled to see that others are contributing to the factoring expose by the Minnesota Star Tribune . This time, structured settlement consultant Dan Finn. You can read his take on factoring and the Star article here . What's more, you can see Cam Mears delve into the details on factoring in his one-on-one interview with Finn here on YouTube! Factoring doesn't have to be the boogeyman. Make sure it's done right by referring only to those you trust to offer proper consultation.
Show More
SEE ALL ARTICLES
Share by: