Commentary by Life Policy Group:
The media and political coverage of the industry and its predilection with ‘bad’ news has created an impression of an industry filled with fraudulent practice and consequently confidence is low. Perhaps these changes will help to raise the industry profile and give investors and regulators more comfort.
Read original article here

By Darla Mercado

On Thursday, a government task force recommended treating life settlements as securities, thus bringing the instruments under tighter regulatory scrutiny.

On Friday, some market participants backed the idea. But others bashed the plan, claiming that such a proposal would place sizable burdens on providers — and offer little added protection for institutional investors.

Commentary by Life Policy Group:
At this stage unfortunately regulation is needed which may ‘kill off’ some of the smaller players in the market, but it may well produce a more settled and professional industry. These developments are all part of the industry growing up and very much echo the experience of the UK secondary market which began its development perhaps ten tears earlier than the US life settlement market.
Read original article here

By: Darla Mercado

State insurance regulators Monday voted in favor of a proposal that would allow carriers to terminate an annuity living or death benefit if a client sold the contract over the secondary market.

The management committee and full commission of the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Commission, a group that’s affiliated with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, voted in favor of a uniform set of additional standards for guaranteed living and death benefits that are attached to individual deferred annuities.

Some 36 jurisdictions, including Puerto Rico, comprise the IIPRC. Thirty regulators took part in the full commission vote on Monday. Only Indiana voted against the proposal.

Commentary by Life Policy Group:

It’s difficult to see the logic in this.  It hardly enhances customer choice and yet again returns power to  the few!

Read the original article here

By: Darla Mercado

The American Council of Life Insurers is asking policymakers to bar the securitization of life settlements.  The group said yesterday that securitization would encourage promoters — keen on developing a secondary market — to entice seniors to sell their life insurance policies, even when it’s not in their best interests to do so.

Read the original article here

By: Darla Mercado

The life settlements and life insurance industries are criticizing President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget proposal, which includes provisions that would require additional reporting to the IRS for life settlements and would impose taxes on corporate-owned life insurance.

Read the original article here

By: Darla Mercado

To discuss life settlements or to ignore life settlements — that’s the question insurance agents and registered reps who sell insurance policies are asking themselves in light of growing confusion over their responsibility to disclose the option of selling a policy that owners no longer want.

Commentary by Life Policy Group:
How can an adviser be seen to give complete advice if he does not include all options?  It is exactly the same for insurance companies who consistently omit to let lapsing/surrendering policyholders know of the option to sell their policy.

Read the original article here

By: Darla Mercado

New York’s state Legislature has passed a bill that would to regulate life settlements, requiring brokers and intermediaries to get their insurance licenses.

Read the original article here

By: Darla Mercado

Though Finra and the SEC have spent some time examining the world of life settlements, representatives from these agencies said they still have a ways to go before fully defining the depth of their jurisdiction in that growing industry.

Read the original article here

By: Darla Mercado

A key state insurance figure has called upon the life settlements industry to keep Main Street policyholders in mind — or else.

Read the original article here

Commentary by Life Policy Group:

Here we have the issue of policies being manufactured (perhaps to fill the securitizations!) for the purpose of making an investment return rather than policies being bought for the purpose they were designed – to cover a life.  This can lead to abuses and should be stopped.