Talk:Life settlement

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removing Unencyclopedic Content:

I have (again) removed content that is unencyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia is not a news website. FinanceReferee —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC). — FinanceReferee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I feel that putting quotes around the word "legal" in the opening sentence is unencyclopedic in nature. This is a legal practice and putting the word in quotes with no reference makes the sentence subjective. -68.115.145.10 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with STOLI Page:

This would compromise the objectivity of the Life Settlements article. STOLI is a scheme by which people who lack an insurable interest in a person's life seek to originate policies on that person primarily for the purpose of selling the policies at a later date. This practice is illegal in several states. Life Settlements are the legitimate sale of a life insurance policy by a policy holder for an amount less than the face amount but greater than the value that could be obtained by surrendering the policy to the issuing carrier. Life settlements are legal and are regulated in the majority of states. The two are distinct and only related in the sense that the only incentive for STOLI is the fact that the value of the STOLI transaction is realized by selling the policy. Combining would be like combining articles on Chop Shops and Used Car Sales. The current "See Also" reference is appropriate.Dhoruba (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible suggestion. The two are entirely distinct. STOLI has negative connotations and is illegal as it implies stranger originated life insurance. Life Settlements on the other hand, while controversial, is a multi-billion dollar industry with trade associations and clear legal frameworks. Under no circumstances should this page be merged with STOLI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.65.3 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life Settlements have nothing to do with policy origination so it should not be directly tied to the issue of Stranger Originated Life Insurance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.250.3 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to point out that life settlements are being resold to third parties, who in fact have no insurable interest against the insured. there are lots of reliable, verifiable, secondary sources that could be referenced to improve this article. i believe eventually this will happen. Thank you. Decora (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LifeSettlementsFund.com

I found this site which apparently already offers the product: [1]

Prior to this I thought the "product" was still in development. They only offer investment for non-USA market. Any idea why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroddo (talk • contribs) 10:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links section

I seem to be having an external link "war" with an anonymous user using IP address 24.22.186.5. His edits haven't been unsound except for his judgment concerning external links. His latest edit removed the non-commercial informational links and substited a link to a commercial quote site. I've reverted that. If you ever read this, man, the articles at Wikipedia aren't your advertising department. – 2*6 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user at IP address 71.228.14.6 constantly changing external links section to include a commercial site.

Abuse

This is obviously cut and pasted from someone's commercial brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephJFK (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is a puff piece that looks much like sales material from a life settlement provider. The named "Big Five" appears to be a distortion of the LE provider market place. I have been watching this market for the last 5 years and have never heard of the fifth entity. The "Big Four" are 21st Services, AVS, Fasano and EMSI. I do not work for any of these entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.31.177 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... it is an advertisement. It is taken word for word in many places from material at at least two websites of life settlement providers:

http://www.safeharborlife.com/Home .... has the paragraph with the implied endorsement by Warren Buffet.

http://www.safeharborlife.com/theprocess .... has identical "typical cases"

Other parts are taken word for word from:

http://www.blackhawkwealth.com/paradigm.html ...e.g. "This decision established a life insurance policy as transferable property that contains specific legal rights..." and "Although the secondary market for life insurance is relatively new, the market was more than 100 years in the making. "

So if this is taken with knowledge and consent, it is really sales material, and if not, it is a potential copyright violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.31.177 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links section

A few people, in business, in the financial world, in 2 diffrent countries, create an "international society", and they get an implied endoresement from Wikipedia due to an external link on wikipedia ?

Do you understand the liability ramifications of this? Somebody needs to do their homework. Who owns the domain names ISLSP.org and .com?

Is there an actual organization, that is, corporation, set up anywhere? http://www.linkedin.com/pub/george-polzer-480-278-5232/5/35b/5b4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.87.95 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a real organization ISLSP, which is well respected. Now regarding this article about STOLI it should not be merged with Life Settlements. STOLI is an action that some unscrupulous people do with life insurance. If you were to merge articles than you should also merge mortgage with fraud, democrat with communism, credit with ID Theft, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.182.191 (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree with the statement: "Now regarding this article about STOLI it should not be merged with Life Settlements. STOLI is an action that some unscrupulous people do with life insurance". This is merging an abuse of the insurance industry with an unrelated legitimate industry of life settlements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshovlin (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles should not be merged. One is a legitimate asset transfer that can give a policyowner a sound exit strategy from their unwanted policy. The other is designed at inception to be sold, thereby seriously calling into question the insurable interest that exists at the time of policy issue. STOLI is no more than an emergent trend that makes use of the market history in regards to policy value two years from date of issue. It takes it's forms in products such as non-carrier approved premium financing and the more stealthy beneficial interest purchase of the trust whereby no owner and bene changes are filed with the carrier. In most cases the insured is compensated upwards of 3% of the death benefit to lend their unused insurance capacity. I've always said, "put 3 or 4 smart commissioned based guys in a room together and they will figure out how to make alot of money." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.241.210 (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry First

An anonymous user removed all references to cited statements on Coventry First's operations relating to its relationship with AIG (which both parties would have liked to keep as low key as possible) and also to its Vice President's, Reid Buerger, alleged specific actions to defraud a number of policy holders of millions of dollars for corporate profits. All statements were cited and footnoted by reputable sources. It does seem as though this industry, which is in its infancy of making billions of dollars, is quite protective of its online reputation. I have reverted to my original contribution to reflect verified, cited sources for the information provided.

If the anonymous user who attempted to blank out the entire section would like to dispute any of my contribution, here is your place.

I have reinstated the original piece and included more citations and references. Chubby Burger (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Chubby Burger— Chubby Burger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I see it has been removed again. I think much of this material would be appropriate on a Coventry First page, but it's a bit too editorial in tone, and too exhaustively focused on one firm, to appear here. Uucp (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an editor than I will refrain from reverting again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubby Burger (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC) — Chubby Burger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am a "reviewer" but not an editor. I have suggested what I think is the best path for this information, but I'm not otherwise going to get involved with this dispute. Uucp (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Uucp, you are an editor. So am I. So is Chubby Burger. Anyone who has ever edited a Wikipedia page, even without registering a user name, is an "editor". - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, I took his question to mean "administrator" Uucp (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Viatical settlement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge (consensus opinion). Klbrain (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two article cover most of the same information. Although some sources draw a distinction between life settlements and viatical settlements (based on whether or not a person is terminally ill), they are still essentially the same thing. Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

In my opinion (being a Life Settlement Broker myself) this article should revolve entirely around the fact that the people are "Terminally Ill". This does change the nature of the beast and is a completely different thing than a "Life Settlement" (which technically anyone @ any time could do, for the right price).

The history of Viatical settlements started with the rise of AIDs in the 80s, when people had no clue when/if they were going to die, they would just sell the policies. Insurance companies did not like this and made the option for "Viatical Settlements" to be available and governed more closely by them. Morgan 12:25PM 6/13/2012

I vote against merging the articles. While both types of settlements basically involve the sale of a life insurance contract, they have distinct histories and continue to evolve separately. The practical differences remain large both from the perspective of those entering into the settlements, and in terms of the economic characteristics of the two industries. While readers should understand that both terms refer to the sale of a life insurance contract, they are two separate animals in the practical context. Xanthis (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against merging the articles as well. The two transactions are pretty different in nature. Viatical settlements are meant to help individuals who are really sick pay for medial care. They target those with life expectancy of under 2 years and typically pay out upwards of 80% on the policy value. On the other hand, life settlements are meant for individuals who no longer need their policy. These target individuals with 2-15 years of life expectancy and pay out around 20-25% of policy value. The reasons for the transactions are different and the economics are different. Also the alternatives are different. For viaticals, you can often get accelerated benefits released which is not the case for life settlements.Wlingke (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Premium and pay-out assurances

In the Brokers section the sentence

As part of the purchase transaction the investor assumes responsibility for paying all future premiums required to keep the policy in force.

seems to need some expansion about the protected nature of the payment stream. What if the investor files for bankruptcy? Is the responsibility for premium payment high in the priority queue for assets or simply the nature of any other debt by the investor?

Likewise in the Investors section

The life settlement provider is the entity that enters into the transaction with the policy-owner and pays the policy-owner when the life settlement transaction closes.

there needs to be some explanation of the effect of bankruptcy or other business failures on the payment stream to the insured. Are there any state laws to protect the insured from contractual default? Do any states require re-insurance for the payment stream?
Thanks. SBaker43 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STOLI Section Should Be Removed from Life Settlements Page

I recently was performing research on life settlements and discovered the Wikipedia page for "Life Settlements Life Settlement". On this page a section is featured that is titled "STOLI".

After reading this section, and mentally associating this type of financial product with life settlements, I became very confused because the information that was being presented made it seem like both financial options were illegitimate. Not only does it smudge the integrity of life settlements as a viable financial option, it also can be viewed as misleading because the product offering is completely different. "Scheme" is being used to describe what STOLI is, and I think that the association made could be be harmful to anyone who is researching these types of financial products that are similar to life settlements.

Now, the last line of the content does say: "STOLI is not a life settlement. Life settlements occur long after issuance of the policy.", but my question would then be, "If this is not a type of life settlement, why would it be featured on the life settlements page, when STOLI has it's own Wikipedia page?". I think this information has been improperly categorized and I suggest that this content be moved to the following URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger-originated_life_insurance.

Thank you for taking my suggestion into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomaffei (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Life settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Challenges

This section has been removed from the article's page. I made edits to consolidate the section, improve the language, source information that was unsourced and maintain a neutral point of view by removing all mentions of specific companies, some of which appear to have been targeted in this section of the page. After the edits were reverted, the formatting was no longer up to Wikipedia's standards. Heartmusic678 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]