Quantcast
Insurance News
Web Exclusives

 Cuomo Issues Retained Asset Account Subpoenas 

 

WASHINGTON BUREAU -- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is looking into allegations that a common method for paying out life insurance death benefits may be unfair to beneficiaries.

Cuomo was reacting to published reports about retained asset accounts – vehicles life insurers use to hold beneficiaries’ benefits until the beneficiaries withdraw cash with checks or payment cards.

The American Council of Life Insurers, Washington, has noted that life insurers that offer retained asset accounts usually let beneficiaries choose between using the accounts and getting lump-sum payments.

Retained asset accounts can help give spouses, children or others who are grieving over the death of a loved one the ability to put off thinking about financial considerations, insurers say.

The critics cited in the published reports say life insurers earn relatively high returns on the cash and pay beneficiaries low interest rates, even though the accounts are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC). In some cases, the critics say, the insurers may not have given the beneficiaries any clear indication that the funds would be held in something other than an FDIC-insured bank.

Cuomo has subpoenaed records dealing with retained asset account programs at Prudential Financial Inc., Newark, N.J. (NYSE:PRU), which runs the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program, and MetLife Inc, New York (NYSE:MET), which runs the group life program for federal civilian employees.

The entire life insurance industry is


under investigation for the practice, Cuomo says.

Cuomo says he is launching the investigation because the practices “appear to have denied grieving military families and others of millions in life-insurance cash.”

“It is shocking and plain wrong for these multi-national life insurance companies to pocket hundreds of millions in profits that really belong to those who have lost family members and have already suffered immensely,” Cuomo says. “To make matters worse, the insurance industry appears to be hoarding millions that belong to military families whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.”

In related news, Mike Walcoff, acting undersecretary at the Veterans Benefit Administration, issued a statement expressing concern about the possibility that life insurers might be profiting inappropriately from servicemembers' sacrifice.

The VA is conducting a full investigation, Walcoff says.

The retained asset accounts used in the SGLI and veterans life programs are called Alliance Accounts.

“VA is deeply concerned that military and veteran families may potentially be harmed in some way by the use of the Alliance Account program,” Walcoff says.

After the probe is completed, VA will decide whether to continue the use of the Alliance Account program, Walcoff says.

Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., chairman of the House Veterans Affairs’ Committee, says he is outraged about reports that life insurers earn more on beneficiaries’ retained asset accounts than the beneficiaries get.

The VA employees entrusted with oversight of insurance programs for survivors “too often failed to explain all the options available for these families in their time of need,” Filner says.

The ACLI has argued that the accounts are highly secure, because they are in tightly regulated life insurance company accounts that are backed by the full strength and claims-paying ability of the life insurer.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Kansas City, Mo., developed a model bulletin for the accounts in 1994, the ACLI says.

 

Page 1 of 212Next Page

Want more news? Visit our Insurance News page and subscribe to our daily eNewsletter!

Comment on This Article

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

    • 7/30/2010 5:30:17 AM
    • Gilbert W. Chapman
    • On the Pru's & Met's Tactics
    • As a retired life insurance agent, it seems that anytime ethics come into question within our industry, the Met and the Pru are always mentioned at the top of the list for questionable activities. Yet, I seldom (if ever) have read about mutual companies, like Mass Mutual, New York Life, the Guardian or Northwestern 'crossing the line'. Just an observation . . . But I am starting to wonder whether stock companies have senior executives who share the lack of 'values' exhibited by Enron, Goldman, et al.
    • 7/30/2010 6:31:55 AM
    • larry
    • death benefit holdings
    • The insurance industry should have to have deposit accounts that are insured at the least.
    • 7/30/2010 10:15:37 AM
    • Robert Hanten
    • Retained Assets
    • Arthur: What interest rates have the RI Accounts been paying? Anything would be better than money markets or checking. And really AG Cuomo, is this the most pressing financial services "scandal" out there to occupy your time. You look ridiculous.
    • 7/30/2010 10:51:46 AM
    • Nestor J. Rodriguez
    • Life Insurance Proceeds
    • My wife passed six years ago and my proceeds were held on a retained asset account. It has been great having not to worry about what to do with money and dedicate my time to my children and other more important things. The interst rate that the money has earned has been always higher that what the banks have to offer. I checked sporadically how the market is doing and asked different bankers if they could do better but the result has always been to leave the money at Genworth. I have accumulated enough money to pay for private college education because I'm thinking that this money belongs to a very specific goal. This goal was set up by my wife to pay for college. I guess that because it never came out of the insurance company, it always gave me the peace of mind that it is safe. I know it is not FDIC insured, but looking at the financials of the insurance companies compare to the "insured banks" I take insurance companies over banks anytime.
    • 7/30/2010 11:12:19 AM
    • Deb Roth
    • Retained Asset Accounts
    • What part of retained asset accounts do you people not understand? The beneficiary of the life insurance is given a checkbook, all of their money is available to them with the signing of their name on a check. If they think the insurance company is making too much money holding their money, then write the check and get all of it out!!! It's that simple!!! Once you have the money and you deposit it in a bank in a savings account or CD, are you that stupid that you don't realize the bank is making a PROFIT on your money also?!?! They pay you .5 to 1.25% interest and turn around and loan it out to other customers at 5 to 8% interest!!! Do you think they are making too much PROFIT too?!?!? Also most insurance companies offer the retained asset account as one option for death proceeds and apparently do a much better job of explaining what it is. Maybe the government should hire some reputable insurance agents (like me) who can explain it to people.
    • 7/30/2010 11:13:23 AM
    • Beatrice D Rosier CLU
    • Retained Asset Death Benefit payments
    • There is nothing wrong with this procedure. All beneficiaries have the choice to immediately cash these checks and put them into other financial instruments. If they choose to delay activities in the accounts, that is their choice. The media is again sensationalizing something about which they know nothing - then the politicians jump on the band wagon. Average people then think they've had a raw deal. There is no point to this finger pointing. Why not instead emphasize the fact that the insurance companies are secure; that death benefit payments are generally fairly large and beneficiaries usually need some guidance in how to invest so they have access to the funds immediately, but time to deal with decisions that could be lasting?
    • 7/30/2010 11:26:47 AM
    • Jeff
    • Beneficiary accounts
    • Any "professional" advisor who assists in processing a death claim involving a "beneficiary account" fully and simply explains to the recipient that it (my firm does so) is an interest bearing (checking) account and clearly not a "bank" (FDIC-covered) account. Rep Filner's comment is unfair toward insurance companies, as the simple alternative of providing the beneficiary with a lump-sum check (or advising them to immediately re-allocate the beneficiary account by writing the same check) to deposit into their local bank allows that bank to profit at their interest rate spread (albeit w/FDIC protection). What's next? Will Mr's Filner & Cuomo demand that banks credit whatever investment return they net on the same assets, versus their standard checking/money market/CD rates? This topic verifies why beneficiaries need the guidance of a professional advisor immediately. That's the area the Veteran's Affairs' Committee can and should address.
    • 7/30/2010 3:51:30 PM
    • Ric Cochran
    • Cheap-Shot Publicity Scam! Payback for Thwarting Rule 151A?
    • This should have, and could have, been addressed in a deliberate way within the financial industry IF the instigators were concerned about beneficiaries. Instead, this began with a hit piece, err... "news story" in Bloomberg likely planted by parties with an ax to grind against insurance companies. It follows the same well-worn path the securities industry and plaintiff lawyers followed when they attacked fixed index annuities, each for their own reasons. It's no surprise attention hungry politicians like Andrew Cuomo and others are jumping on the bandwagon. There's money and political capital to me made. Right and wrong is really beside the point. A few thoughts: There's a lot to be said for grieving beneficiaries to have the ability with a checkbook to write either a single check or multiple checks. There's a valid argument for families not to make hasty decisions in a time of grief they may regret a short time later. Checkbooks make it easier to divide money among different institutions as well as different advisers. The checkbooks are not really made for buying things so much as providing choices in how to distribute the funds. Surely bankers and brokers would love the single check that earns no interest and must be cashed in a short time because they get all the money brought to them quickly. A beneficiary wishing to diversify among advisers with a single check has to deposit the money and face a sales pitch against taking any part of the money elsewhere. Plaintiff attorneys obviously see this as the next big class action score. If the past is any guide, the individual litigants will get a pittance, if anything, while attorneys, after vilifying the companies, will make lucrative settlements that net the attorneys many millions of dollars. The securities industry and their so-called regulators see an opportunity to trash an industry they see as a competitive threat simply because the performance of so many of their products have underperformed to put it mildly. Bankers would also love to see that money coming to them in single checks though their rates are nothing to brag about. And, do you know what? Bankers profit from the spread, too. What's the difference other than which institution has the money? FDIC? Please! Who's lost money in any of these beneficiary accounts? If even a single person had, don't you think they would be giving interviews on TV right now? I'd like to see a responsible journalist investigate the genesis of the Bloomberg story. I smell a press release that connected most of the dots ahead of time from someone with an agenda. Most reporters, I'm sorry to say, don't have enough time or initiative to put all that together. It's a dirty little secret that many get their "stories" from press releases they get every day. And they get a lot. I have to wonder if taking this low road is meant to try to cause e a run on the insurance companies. It would be interesting to know if anyone who had advance knowledge of this so-called story took short positions in PRU or MET, especially if they took profits yesterday. If they're still in, they're bleeding as the stocks of both are rallying nicely. There's no shortage of hypocrites among the attackers. Those who are cynically using survivors of our fallen heroes to advance their own agendas are the ones really victimizing veterans' families.
    • 7/30/2010 4:27:10 PM
    • Dick McFarland
    • Death Benefit Checking Accounts
    • What a waste of tax payer funds. These accounts are optional, very convenient, usually pay some interest, & are as safe as the life insurance death benefits that are deposited into them. I have found the MetLife account much better than having to take the time to go to a bank to open a checking account that typically has fees, doesn’t pay any interest, & then having to wait for the bank to grant access to the out of state funds. If the check is for more than $100,000 then the bank clerk will probably try to sell them a CD or some other investment that will tie up their funds. These accounts give the beneficiaries time to get sound advice on what to do with the funds by relieving them of the stress of having to decide what to do with a large check when they are in the grieving process. If the beneficiary decides they want to do something else with the proceeds, all they have to do is write a check for the balance in the account. I think there are many other things that actually do negatively impact consumers that need to be looked into.
    • 7/30/2010 4:33:20 PM
    • vijendra lochan
    • retained asset
    • beneficiary's are left in dark,company's should be liable with heavy penalties.return of income should be improved with better interest etc.As an agent i am concern about some co's rates as well why it's so much in difference,lower in commission and low in return.co's are hungry of new buiseness threr rtn sucks.good job mr cuomo
    • 7/31/2010 1:20:43 AM
    • Gary Hannah ChFC
    • Benefits often exceed FDIC Insurance Amount
    • Has anyone stopped to think that death benefits often exceed the limits of FDIC insurance? Far better to have these proceeds in a GUARANTEED account at a life insurance company, where the legal reserve system says them must maintain reserves sufficient to GUARANTEE the promised benefits. Life insurance companies are the only class of financial instutition that can GUARANTEE benefits without limit. Banks can't guarantee the return of your investment in a CD. They must insure it with an insurance company, FDIC.
    • 7/31/2010 1:24:32 AM
    • Gary Hannah ChFC
    • Benefits often exceed FDIC Insurance Amount
    • Has anyone stopped to think that death benefits often exceed the limits of FDIC insurance? Far better to have these proceeds in a GUARANTEED account at a life insurance company, where the legal reserve system says them must maintain reserves sufficient to GUARANTEE the promised benefits. Life insurance companies are the only class of financial instutition that can GUARANTEE benefits without limit. Banks can't guarantee the return of your investment in a CD. They must insure it with an insurance company, FDIC.

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.