Quantcast
Insurance News
Web Exclusives

 Life Insurers Face Attack on Payout Mechanism 

 

WASHINGTON BUREAU -- Life insurers are defending themselves against allegations that a system for paying death benefits through checkbooks, rather than in the form of lump sums, hurts the beneficiaries. 

Some life insurers, including the insurers that run the group life programs for military personnel and federal civilian employees, use "retained asset accounts" to hold life policy proceeds. The accounts are not  bank accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and the interest rates paid are often lower than the rates paid by commercial banks.

Bloomberg Markets magazine is promoting an article, “Fallen Soldiers’ Families Denied Cash As Insurers Profit,” that calls the retained asset accounts “a secret profit center for the life insurance industry.” NPR has also covered the story.

U.S. insurers hold about $28 billion in 1 million insurer-managed death benefit accounts, and the insurers earn the equivalent of a corporate bond rate on the cash in the accounts, according to Bloomberg.

Insurers and state regulators say retained asset accounts are legal, Bloomberg says, but the magazine found legal experts who question whether holding death benefits in non-insured accounts is legal, and insurers may not explicitly tell beneficaries that funds are being held in something other than an FDIC-insured account, Bloomberg says.

Bloomberg cites the story of a 24-year-old Army sergeant who was  killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. A unit of Prudential Financial Inc., Newark, N.J. (NYSE:PRU), held the $400,000 death benefit in a general corporate account and earned investment income on the cash. A Prudential Alliance Account paid the mother of the sergeant an interest rate of 1% in 2008, while Prudential collected a 4.8% return on its corporate funds, Bloomberg says.

The American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), Washington, says published reports have cast a negative light on retained asset accounts and given the benefits the accounts provide short shrift.

Life insurers usually let beneficiaries choose between using a retained asset account, getting a lump-sum payment, or getting a series of payments, and the retained asset account option can be a useful one for beneficiaries who are facing the loss of a loved one, the ACLI says.

“Not surprisingly, financial matters may not be the first thing on their minds, and


retained asset accounts provide a secure place for life insurance policy proceeds to be held until the money is needed,” the ACLI says.

When the cash is in a retained asset account, the beneficiary can choose to withdraw the full amount immediately, take partial withdrawals, or withdraw the full amount at a later date, the ACLI says.

Although the accounts are not backed by the FDIC, the accounts are “backed by the full strength and claims-paying ability of the life insurance company," the ACLI says.

State insurance departments regulate life insurers’ investment practices carefully, and they "will act quickly to protect consumers at the slightest hint of financial difficulty,” the ACLI says.

The ACLI notes that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Kansas City, Mo., approved a retained asset account model bulletin in 1994. The model requires insurers to tell consumers about the important features of the account, the tax implications of using an account, and the interest rate payments. 

The ACLI also is defending the interest rates insurers pay on the accounts.

"Life insurers invest assets for retained asset accounts in their general accounts, generally in low-risk, conservative investments, to ensure the money is available on demand,” the ACLI says. “The rate earned by the account is comparable to similar on-demand accounts and is typically guaranteed by the insurer not to drop below a certain level. Beneficiaries can a

ccess their money at any time and transfer it to a bank account, CD or other investments with a higher interest rate.”.

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:

    • 7/29/2010 7:31:30 AM
    • Don Aronowitz
    • So whats wrong with a "checkbook" benefit
    • Thirty three years offering life insurance I have seen more than my share of beneficiaries go through life insurance proceeds like water thru a sieve, only to have regrets later on. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to have an option of taking the funds on an intermittent basis rather than take the funds as a lump sum. Allow the family to go through the grieving process...first.Just as long as the beneficiaries realize that the funds do belong to them and accessible at any time. With respect to not being FDIC insured,we purchase insurance from companies based on their strength and claims paying ability,why be concerned now?
    • 7/29/2010 8:40:01 AM
    • Doug Head, LISA.
    • Life Insurance Death Benefit Payments
    • For well over a decade, in the laws of each state which has passed Life Settlement regulation, as well as in all Model Acts, life settlement companies have been required to pay purchase prices in lump sums to policy sellers. It is shocking to me, as it must be to the world, to learn that insurers habitually do not pay beneficiaries in a lump sum upon being advised of the death of an insured. If Life Settlement Companies were engaging in this practice, on purchasing a policy, I can imagine the response of the insurers. Thank goodness the life settlement industry knows how to place and recieve a claim. Perhaps this is the reason for the continuous opposition of the insurer flacks to the very existence of settlements or public knowledge thereof.
    • 7/29/2010 8:58:55 AM
    • The Georgia Yankee
    • Retained Accounts for Life Inruance Benefit Payouts
    • If insurers are to benefit from beneficiaries leaving their benefits in retained accounts, I believe that benefit should be disclosed to the beneficiaries, including an exposition of the interest rates to be earned. Insurers might feel less uncomfortable about this if they were to share more of that income with the beneficiaries. Right now, it simply looks as if the insurer is taking advantage of the beneficiary.
    • 7/29/2010 9:58:25 AM
    • J Garth Swartley, LUTCF, CSA
    • Bloomberg Creates a Story Where None Exists
    • This is not a story, it is pure sensationalim. The beneficiary has the option (and is advised they have the option) to take a lump sum or write a check for a lump sum at a later date. And so what it the account is not FDIC insured. Either are annuities and they have performed much better than CDs or MM accounts. This article is total fluff and plays to the people who believe insurance companies are always out to screw them. I suggest Bloomberg report on real issues instead of lame attempts to create them where none exist.
    • 7/29/2010 10:00:05 AM
    • Ray Smith
    • It is an OPTION, folks
    • Why are we getting hyper about yet another choice for receiving death benefit proceeds? Beneficiaries can take a death benefit as a lump sum...or not. Why take away a choice that may be beneficial for some?
    • 7/29/2010 11:32:03 AM
    • Gimme A. Break
    • This is all they have to worry about?
    • C'mon, there are so many other real abuses they could be looking into. This is simply a non-event. Being able to write your own check at anytime is a good thing, and they can keep records where they spent the money.
    • 7/29/2010 11:32:20 AM
    • Steve A Bracey
    • C. Acct's
    • The Lady in question first refused the money! Dah! and now she's complaining? It's her Money, she can do with it what she wants. The Company did her a favor by placing it into an interest bearing account. She lost no money! Did anyone ever hear of the power of 0[zero] Had she invested the money into the stock market, she would not have had any guarantee! Please folks! When you recieve a large amount of money, call a financial advisor. This way, you can make your money work for you. AMEN!
    • 7/29/2010 12:26:44 PM
    • Bea Rosier
    • retained assets death benefits
    • I see nothing wrong with this procedure. The beneficiary is free to make full withdrawal immediately upon receipt of the 'checkbook'. Nothing prohibits the beneficiary from putting these funds into an insured account or into a vehicle with a higher return. This is one more example of sensationalizing something. Our media should have better things to do.
    • 7/29/2010 12:33:56 PM
    • Blake Woodard
    • Consumer "Alchemists" Turn Positive Into Negative
    • One of the neatest inventions in the life insurance industry the last two decades has been the life insurance death claim checking account. Instead of giving a widow a check for $1 million that must be deposited and await the bank’s new funds retention policy, we give her a checkbook for a checking account already earning interest, and she can write one check to move the money all at once or keep the account open for her daily needs. This gives a beneficiary much more flexibility. Our agency saw how these checking accounts helped a Woodard widow last fall, after the tragic death of her husband. Leave it to “consumer activists” to turn a positive into a negative and hurt consumers. Consumer activists have done much harm to the insurance industry and the public we serve through ignorance such as that reported in this article.
    • 7/29/2010 12:50:31 PM
    • Kbwest
    • It's not the checkbook it's the account
    • When reading the Bloomberg article yesterday I wasn't bothered by the retained asset account as much as money from these types of accounts commingling with general account funds. The general account funds are not guaranteed but the retained asset account are. If the accounts are not in one pot I don't have a problem at all. It is my understanding that not all insurers keep them in the same pot.
    • 7/29/2010 1:03:01 PM
    • Spanky
    • A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?
    • These accounts offer consumers options. If the client wants a check for the full death benefit amount, the insurer will provide it. Otherwise this is basically setting up a checkbook account where the consumer receives interest similar to a bank checking account and can write checks (up to the full balance) as needed. Sure the insurance companies make money on it. But if the consumer took a lump sum and deposited it in their bank account, the banks would make similar money. Since when is consumer choice a bad thing?
    • 7/29/2010 2:17:44 PM
    • Michael W.
    • Current article
    • It seems that any time the Insurance industry does anything that helps or save the public's money someone comes along and finds fault with it. As the ACLI has pointed out, giving the beneficary a choice of a lump sum payment or a checkbook give them "a choice" and in a way protects them from all the vulgers from coming out when they think the beneficary has some money. As far as the articles comment about pay a lower interest rate than the banks, did the writer of this article check what rates the banks are paying these days? FDIC insurance is almost broke (bank bailouts)and it is now only guaranteeing 250K per account per bank. Life insurance companies are the best bet for beneficaries benefits til they clear their minds and figure out what they want to do. The author is complaining about the interest rate the insurance company earns, the banks earns a good interest rate as well, but don't share it with the public, they keep it to boost their bottom line and profits. A good insurance professional has been and will be there to assist the family, the bank will only be there if there is a large deposit and when that is gone, oh well.
    • 7/30/2010 6:37:49 PM
    • Gary Hannah ChFC
    • My Daily Rant
    • A couple of points: 1. The legal reserve system - better to have a guarantee of the entire amount of the death benefit from a life insurance company than entrust your money to a bank, which cannot guarantee the return of your money but must insure it through the limited and nearly bankrupt FDIC system. The reason is the fractional reserve system used in the banking system versus the legal reserve system used in the life insurance business. The lament about no FDIC insurance on the account is a red herring thrown up by others who want a shot at the money/bereved. Pretty much in that order. 2. This is a choice that many families choose simply because they are not ready to deal with the finality of their loved one's death. Some are ready sooner than others. It is a very personal choice. 3. This is all about disclosure and retaining control of assets where possible. Insurance companies are about making money while guaranteeing outcomes. They, like all financial intermediaries, earn or hope to earn a return in excess of that payout guarantee. That is their margin. Far better to be dealing with a financially sound company than not. Financially sound companies earn a profit. 4. Where is the agent in these cases to offer well-considered advice and consolation? The agent is in the best position to know his customer and his/her needs and offer advice accordingly. Insurance companies set themselves up for criticism like this when they bypass the agent to deliver a death benefit. 5. In the article it was mentioned that had she known the option was available shw would certainly have rolled the death benefit into a ROTH IRA. This new option (since about May 2008) is not widely known and thus probably not routinely disclosed. Not sure the regs have been written on it but likely so. Again, disclosure. Thus endeth my daily rant.

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.