Foxes, Henhouses, & Conflicts of Interest
July 31, 2018

 

You might remember some time ago the open question posed to the industry: Why is Berkshire still a NSSTA member?  That question really teased out a larger issue that apparently prompted dozens of pages be written and dedicated to twisting and framing into far more acceptable, more  marketable language.  Here’s some blunt, honest talk to fill in all the gaps in such smiley bend-over talk.

Did you know that it’s apparently acceptable for insurers to factor their own annuities, but not another’s?  One’s OK because it’s called “servicing” whereas the other is called “factoring.”  In other words, when someone 
else  makes money, it’s “factoring,” which is  bad  for the client, but if the  insurer  makes the money, then it’s “servicing,” which is  good  for the client.  This is merely poorly-veiled marketing-speak for insurers preferring to make money themselves in as many areas as possible, squeezing out as many competitors as possible.  Giants have mighty appetites, after all.

The idea that insurers factoring their own annuities is somehow good for the annuitants themselves is a Robin Hood story; just as fictitious as the fairy tale.  Many of you are opposed to factoring on principle, but argue that if the annuitant gets more money in the end, then hey, who cares if it’s the insurance company doing it?  This approach is problematic because it simply doesn’t account for all the facts.

Insurance companies that factor their own annuities aren’t providing a service, they’ve got the proverbial 
golden ticket : the names, addresses, and payment details of every annuitant which, lest this be lost in translation, is a salesman’s goldmine.  You can mine your list for as long as you keep putting structures together.  But again, how’s that a bad thing, even from a business perspective?  How is that damning?  Because it’s a blatant conflict of interest for insurers.

Structures are put together in a careful way, with insurers as legally specified 
gatekeepers  to factoring transactions.  They are the second line of defense, behind the Courts, to securing a factoring transaction based on an annuitant’s demonstrative  need , not simply desire, for structured funds.  How are insurers, in their gatekeeping function, supposed to adequately gatekeep against their own profit motives?  Are insurers going to object against making more money for themselves?  Of course not.

Some may claim that no profit is made off these transactions.  That’s silly to the point of foolish.  No service line or product from any insurance company exists to 
not  turn profit.  As for measuring this profit, don’t look exclusively at the red or black numbers at the bottom of the sheet, but instead consider this:  insurers get tax breaks for making secure, guaranteed payments to underwrite structured settlements, the same structures that they’re going to now purchase, at a discount, and  still  enjoy the tax breaks despite not paying out to injured parties anymore, thus enjoying huge profits.  Beyond this simple rehash of how providing services actually  does  make money, there’s something more problematic at work: optics.

Structure brokers need attorneys to work with them to put these things together.  Attorneys already have qualms with the mere existence of factoring, so that many won’t advise structures for their clients, the would-be annuitants.  How does it look to these attorneys, then, for insurance companies – supposed benevolent gatekeepers – to have everything they need, that glorious 
golden ticket , to relentlessly market to their clients?  Not so good.

Don’t believe any of this is happening, or that it’s just a twist on the benevolent intentions of your favorite insurer?  Look at those who already do it:  Visit Symetra’s website (symetra.com/clearscape) to see how unabashedly they sell factoring by marketing their familiarity as the insurance company and the ease of having all the required paperwork already.  Allstate, too, has an ongoing factoring entity.  Still others are taking it a bit slower, rolling into ‘test markets’ before unleashing themselves nation-wide, napkin and cutlery ready.  The list goes on.

Insurers aren’t white knights bludgeoning the evil factoring industry; they’re foxes guarding the henhouse, gatekeeping be damned.  Don’t like this new development?  Speak up; stand up and object.  Otherwise, you should remind annuitants to say ‘thank you’ while you assist them in bending over.

Fire and brimstone aside, we 
do  have an industry-wide solution that can satisfy most, if not all parties.  It just requires us all to be on the same page before we get there.  The article is forthcoming.

 

SHARE ARTICLE

Our Recent Blogs

November 28, 2025
It’s a time to be thankful! We’d like to show our appreciation for everyone out there who, like us, is focused on crafting the best solution to our clients’ needs. Moreover, the season demands we take the time to acknowledge a few things. First, and the hard work NSSTA has done to ensure greater fairness in the factoring process. Work in Georgia and Florida to ensure aggressive poaching has been nullified is commendable and should be the standard everywhere. Likewise, a tip of the hat to Texas, whose personal identifying information (PII) protections guarantees that annuitants don’t get harassed ad nauseum from the moment the ink dries on their structured settlement agreements or when they’ve made the decision to cash something out. We’d also like to thank the work of those who go unrecognized too often: the IPAs who help both us and the courts with guaranteeing that our more vulnerable annuitants get the proper added input and security. It’s not required in all states, but we’re sure to use them as often as we can. The best consultation doesn’t just come from us, and we know plenty of clients need that added layer of protection to feel comfortable. Where some may try to lead annuitants away, knowing full well that the deal is a result of their aggressive telemarketing or clever jingles, we know we can trust you and your referrals. They wouldn’t be doing this unless they needed to. Finally, we give thanks to you. Enjoy the turkey, good company, and inevitable food coma. 
November 3, 2025
“Happy Halloween!”
September 19, 2025
Factoring isn’t the boogeyman and structures are not perfect. The best structured settlements are beautiful, but don’t get attached to them. Life happens, and as such it’s life, not factoring, that is the enemy of a structured settlement. The best laid plans, like the best policies, with the best intentions, can’t s
October 11, 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.
Show More
SEE ALL ARTICLES