The Real Cost of Advertising: Factoring Rates Unmasked
July 22, 2015

 

Advertising: how businesses spread the word about the products and services they offer in the hopes of gaining customers.  It ranges from cheap word-of-mouth referrals to massive, expensive , mass-media campaigns on TV, radio, the Internet, and more.  For factoring companies, this isn’t as simple as Burger King showing us a juicy new burger from various angles.  It’s a matter of stimulating the need for cash. NOW.

 

We see it in the most popular advertising online: the brilliantly jingled 877-CASH NOW commercials that ran on TV and radio, featuring opera.  It was catchy, pertinent, and funny to the point of absurd; in other words, you remembered it.  For all factoring needs, JG Wentworth would burst through your skull with dramatic, operatic flair.  For structure brokers, this has been an oft-noted irritant post-structure.  Those brokers willing to provide referrals regarding which factoring companies they’d recommend for quotes are simply thrown out the window in favor of the direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns of Wentworth and other giants; mostly because the brokers themselves aren’t being contacted anymore for their input.  Is this fair?  For big factoring companies, certainly; they have the capital to advertise, so why not take advantage of it?  But what are the downsides for brokers and annuitants?  These are two-fold:

1.)    Advertising is expensive.  But more than this, keeping staff on hand to handle the influx of inquiries as a result of such expensive advertising is also expensive.  This cost cannot be easily absorbed by the corporation and must naturally flow to the consumer; in the case of factoring companies – the annuitants.  This results in annuitants getting lower rates of return on their factoring transactions.

2.)    It cuts out structure brokers.  By appealing directly to potential customers, advertising by Wentworth and other companies has severely impacted the professional and referral importance of structured settlement brokers.  Annuitants no longer have a need to contact their brokers or attorneys, in many cases, since they already know who to call if they’re in need (or tempted by) cash now advertising.  This distances annuitants from those who know best if factoring a transaction is wise or necessary: the brokers themselves.

So, what can be done to address these issues?

1.)    Know who doesn’t conduct mass advertising directly to annuitants.  Those who aren’t playing the expensive advertising game aren’t going to pass on costly inflated rates which ultimately short-change the annuitants.  Annuitants who decide to factor their structures are going to do so if their minds are made up – wouldn’t it be better for them to get the best rates possible?  Annuitants just need to be given the opportunity to speak with someone who knows where to turn beyond what they may see on TV.  They should be speaking to their brokers again; and these brokers should be referring to smaller, specialty factoring companies.

2.)    Direct-to-consumer advertising is a fact of life in every business, but this shouldn’t necessarily be one of them.  Brokers know the ins and outs of this business far better than annuitants, especially given that it was the broker who put together the structure to begin with.  Wouldn’t it be nice to be involved in the process of potentially taking them apart?  It may not even be the best thing for an annuitant to do!  Brokers input is important.  Stay involved beyond the structure.  Let annuitants know to contact you before jumping on the cash now bandwagon they see and hear on TV, and refer them to a trusted business with a record of good rates and ethical practices.

SHARE ARTICLE

Our Recent Blogs

October 22, 2026
Back in May, John Oliver closed his segment by proposing that a one-time independent guardian or advisor review every sale before it happens, and a handful of states already appoint ad litems to do something close to it. On paper it's hard to argue with: a court-appointed advisor canvasses the market and makes sure the annuitant walks away with the highest offer on the table. We'd love to tell you it works. In practice, it too often produces the opposite of what it promises. Here's what actually happens when an ad litem "shops the market." The ad litem, who as a rule knows the courtroom far better than they know factoring or finance, solicits competing bids and takes the best one. But the market they think they're canvassing isn't the market that exists. Big players, such as those with a family of companies, operate under enough names that a fistful of "competing" offers can all trace back to the same firm — a point we raised about industry aliases a decade ago, and one a Kiplinger column echoed this past June. The ad litem believes they've run a wide, competitive canvass. Often, they've just collected several quotes from the same house. It gets worse where the competition is real. In the few jurisdictions that mandate ad litems, a dominant firm, and one in particular, can afford to bid below its own cost — not to serve the annuitant, but to win the deal and bleed the legitimate competitors who can't match a rate that loses money. It absorbs those losses on the strength of the notoriously poor deals it writes everywhere ad litems aren't required. Do that long enough and the smaller ethical firms simply leave those markets or leave the business altogether. Once the competition is gone, the "best available rate" is whatever the last firm standing cares to offer, and it’s always the big one with its support cast of companies — which nullifies the entire reason for appointing an ad litem to find the best deal in the first place. The reform meant to guarantee competition ends up quietly strangling it. If that pattern sounds familiar, it should: reforms in this industry have a long habit of ending up as a gift to its biggest players. So no — we don't champion the guardian ad litem. Not because independent advice is a bad idea; it's a fine one. It's because an advisor who canvasses a rigged market and doesn't know the finance well enough to see that it's rigged, isn't the safeguard everyone assumes. The protection that actually works costs nothing and predates all of this: education and a referral. An annuitant should first hear about factoring from the structured-settlement broker who built the annuity, and that broker should refer only to factoring professionals with a clean, ethical record — no court appointment, no cold calls, no counterfeit competition, just a trusted professional pointing the annuitant toward one we'd put our name behind.
Maryland’s Numbers: What 1,800 Transactions Falling to 6 Actually Tells Us - Bentzen Financial
September 17, 2026
Explore Maryland's structured settlement reforms and the reported drop in factoring petitions from 1,800 to six. Bentzen Financial shares key industry insights.
A Decade Later: What We Said in 2014, What John Oliver Said in 2026 - Bentzen Financial
August 20, 2026
Compare Bentzen Financial’s 2014 perspective on structured settlements with John Oliver’s 2026 commentary and what it means today.
AI, Scraping, and the Next Generation of Harassment - Bentzen Financial
July 22, 2026
Learn how AI scraping can create new risks for online harassment, privacy and personal information misuse, and what individuals should understand.
Show More
SEE ALL ARTICLES