Quantcast
Insurance News
Web Exclusives

Life Settlement Securitizations Pose No Systemic Threat, LISA Asserts 

 

Washington

At a recent Congressional hearing, a representative of the life settlement industry derided as ludicrous claims that securitization of life settlements would constitute a potential systemic threat to economic stability.

Indeed, said Russell Dorsett, president of the Life Insurance Settlement Association, the current economic crisis prompted in part by securitization of subprime loans has caused the life settlement market to decline as much as 75% from the prior year.

Moreover, added Steven H. Strongin, a managing director of Goldman Sachs & Co., the “handful of life settlement securitizations that have occurred to date, appear to have had little or no impact on the life settlement or life insurance markets.”

They made their comments at a hearing on Recent Innovations in Securitization convened by the Capital Markets Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.

“It is somewhat ironic that we might be perceived to be a threat, in that this particular industry has suffered mightily due to the current financial crisis,” Dorsett said.

At best, he noted, the number of completed life settlement transactions during calendar 2009 might approach 50% of those completed in 2008; there are some indications that the volume of completed transaction declined by as much as 75% during the first half of 2009 compared to the same period the year before, primarily due to dearth of investment capital available to purchase policies.

 In his testimony, Strongin estimated that just over $1 billion of life settlements have been securitized since 2000.

“This remains one of the smallest and most sporadic of the securitization sectors, and while we have never been involved in a life settlement securitization, we see little investor interest in such a market given its size as well as numerous structuring challenges.”

Strongin said life settlement securitizations do not appear to pose any special securitization-related risk, and can be treated like any other securitization. “However, there do appear to be special issues in terms of consumer protection in life settlements in general that may be appropriate for Congress or a regulator appointed by Congress to address,” he said.

The hearing was convened by Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., chairman of the Capital Markets panel as an outgrowth of news stories indicating that Wall Street was turning to securitization of such assets as life settlements to replace the securitization of such assets as subprime mortgages that brought profits—and woe—to the financial services industry and the economy.

In convening the hearing, Kanjorski said he was doing so out of fear that “financiers are eager to return to the casino culture before they have even settled up the bad bets they made on subprime mortgage-backed securities.” 

Paula Dubberly, associate director of the Division of Corporation Finance at the Securities and Exchange Commission, testified at the hearing that the agency has created a Life Settlements Task Force to examine emerging issues in the life settlements market and to advise the Commission whether market practices and regulatory oversight can be improved.

She said the new panel is reaching out to other regulators, both state and federal, “to obtain a greater overview of the life settlements marketplace and assess any regulatory gaps.”

A primary concern is that while some holders of life insurance policies may be looking for additional liquidity, “these individuals may be more vulnerable due to the current environment,” Dubberly said.

“The task force will consider ways to better inform and protect these individuals,” she added.

Susan E. Voss, vice president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and Iowa insurance commissioner, said that “regardless of how federal regulators address life settlement securities, protecting the basic virtues of the life insurance policies will be of paramount importance to state insurance regulators across our country.”

 Specifically, Voss said, “we must ensure that life insurance beneficiaries–those people holding insurable interest, such as relatives of the deceased–will still be able to receive their proceeds tax-free.

“Beneficiaries are financially and emotionally dependent on the life of the insured person, and their needs remain as great today as they were before the development of the life settlement industry,” Voss said.

Moreover, if securitizations of life settlements do indeed grow, “there is an abject need for federal securities regulators to work together.”

She said they must quickly and efficiently fill all existing gaps regarding oversight of life insurance settlement securitization, in order to ensure that policyholders and investors alike are properly protected.

Voss also said the interests of state regulators when a life insurance product morphs into an investment product, is that “the rights of the insured must still be guaranteed.”


Comment on This Article

Name:
Email (will not be published):
Subject:
Comment:

    • 10/5/2009 12:34:02 PM
    • stuart egrin, invescor, ltd.
    • Life Settlement Securitizations
    • Congressman Kanjorski, et al, is to be applauded for holding the hearing. He and other Congressmen seemed puzzled as to what all the fuss was about. It is Susan Voss's written testimony that should be analyzed more closely. She wrote "Writers of life insurance currently assume that a certain number of policyholders will eventually allow their policies to lapse. For example, a financially-stable single parent who has raised her children to adulthood may no longer see the need to maintain her life insurance policy, and will simply stop paying the premium on it. However, if the market existed for that parent (and tens of thousands like her) to sell her policy instead of just allowing it to lapse, premium rates would need to increase across the board in order for companies to prepare for the increased numbers of policyholders expecting to receive face value payouts down the line." Ms. Voss first identifies the perfect situation in which a life settlement ought to be explored, admits that the industry uses lapsed base pricing models to develop their products, have a true concern about paying out claims, and argues that Iowans receiving nothing through lapsing their policy is a life insurance industry preferred action as opposed to obtaining the economic value that is available in the life settlement marketplace. I wonder what the single parent empty nester would say about this. As far as the life insurance industry having to raise prices, that argument is fallacious. The real issue is how does the life insurance industry deal with the reality that their reinsurance will not be their due to their agents and home office underwriters were not doing a proper job when the policy was applied for and issued in the first place? How can rates go up based on the increased persistency argument when the senior market, as testimony indicated has a high persistency anyway? It seems like the commissioner may have an agenda that is in direct conflict with that of consumers (the ones she is supposed to be protecting), and aligned with the insurers.

Recent Issues


Archived Issues

From Our Partners

The industry leader in providing proven sales, marketing and business success stories for the successful advisor.
Comprehensive online sales and reference information for financial and insurance professionals.
Highline Data’s Insurance Analyst PRO is the market’s premier source for insurance industry statutory and GAAP financial filings. Our suite of online advanced search and analytical tools serves the industry’s need for timely data on more than 8,000 companies.

Most Read Articles


Related Articles



www.summitbusinessmedia.com © Copyright National Underwriter Life & Health.A Summit Business Media publication. All Rights Reserved.