Jump to content

User talk:Jhickey94

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Private credit (October 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CaptainEek was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Jhickey94! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Private credit has been accepted

[edit]
Private credit, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Eden moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Brad Eden, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brad Eden (February 11)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Brad Eden

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Brad Eden, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Draft:Brad Eden, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Real Assets

[edit]

Hello, Jhickey94. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Real Assets".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck███ 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Viatical settlement have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Challenges

[edit]

Hello, Jhickey94. The Industry challenges section has been removed from Life settlement. Please refer to the article's talk page for more information. Recent editing suggests a potentially undisclosed conflict of interest, so I have to ask, are you in any way affiliated with a life or viatical settlement company, or have you been paid by anyone for your editing? Thank you, Heartmusic678 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally the OPPOSITE of promotion. Yes - I work in the industry - which is why I am knowledgeable. Below is what this individual keeps deleting. I don't understand why someone would want to remove this information. This industry is marred by scandal, and it's important to address it. These were HUGE scandals that landed on the front page of major publications like WSJ.

I am not getting paid for this. Now, I would put the question back on the person asking - as it is VERY weird they pushing this agenda of redacting important information. Are you getting paid? Why are you so focused on the suppression of information?

  • Heartmusic678, thank you for your note on the talk page. Jhickey, if you make one more such accusation, a personal attack that displays such bad faith, I will block you. You may seek the talk page where you can argue for the content--but there also, you must refrain from personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies. I apologize if my tone was harsh. However, if I am asked if I have a conflict of interest, is it not fair to ask back the same question? I will say, the writer is extremely knowledgeable about the esoteric industry - which is what caught my attention. People do not randomly know details about this industry. Also, the deletions were just weird. For example, why delete info about a $2B scandal (Life Partners) which got headlines on the WSJ for years?
      • Jhickey, thanks, but I'm not the one you attacked. Heartmusic provided an explanation--I assume you're talking about this edit? They addressed that on the talk page, and I'll just note that only the first paragraph had a citation; subsequent paragraphs did not have secondary sourcing, there were numbers for non-existing footnotes, the term STOLI is thrown in as if the audience would know, etc. Again, talk page please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • JHickey94. Thanks for the feedback. Is this the right page to discuss? How would you edit this? I just noticed the legacy footnotes had gotten deleted in the back and forth editing.0 Should I go back and add the original footnotes or just drop this?

While the life settlement industry has dramatically cleaned up, there were multiple controversies in the early days. Most notably was the bankruptcy of Life Partners in 2015. Life Partners effectively bought policies off a long life expectancy and re-sold fractional shares to individual retail investors, using a much shorter internally generated life expectancy to justify the significant mark-up.[11] As a result, over 80% of the insured lived past the life expectancy - generating shareholder lawsuits and regulator attention - especially since they were selling to retail investors.[12] However, they were not the only fraudulent life settlement fund. another notable fraudulent fund was A&O Life Policies, which defrauded life settlement investors of over $100M.[20]

The second major scandal was STOLI. STOLI is any act, practice, or arrangement, at or prior to policy issuance, to initiate or facilitate the issuance of a life insurance policy for the intended benefit of a person who, at the time of policy origination, does not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured under the laws of the applicable state.[13] This includes an arrangement or other agreement to transfer the ownership of the policy or the policy benefits to another person.[13] The main characteristic of a STOLI arrangement is that insurance is purchased as an investment vehicle, rather than to provide for the insured's beneficiaries.[14] STOLI arrangements also may be called "zero premium life insurance", "no cost to the insured plans", "new issue life settlements", "high-net-worth settlements", or "non-recourse premium finance transactions".[14]

Prior to 2008, STOLI was popular because investor demand dramatically exceeded supply, and this was a way to manufacture product (albeit illegal) to meet demand. In many ways, it was effectively a victimless crime because everybody benefited in the short term. The investor got to deploy capital, the insured/policy owner made money from selling the policy, the insurance agent got a commission, and the insurance company grew their business. However, this all collapsed in 2008 when funding dried up and regulators took a closer look at the practice. Additionally, STOLI policies turned out to be poor investments, so long-term investor demand dried up.

The third major challenge has been self-dealing by life settlement providers and brokers - to the detriment of policy owners and investors. Most notably, Coventry was fined $12M by the state of New York for deceptive business practices.[15] Coventry also settled a lawsuit with AIG (a large life settlement investor at the time), where Coventry would use multiple shell companies to disguise policy ownership when reselling to AIG to obtain a higher profit.[16] However, these activities are not just limited to Coventry, as other life settlement brokers and providers have engaged in similar activity, albeit on a much smaller scale.Although it has dramatically improved, the life settlement industry faced challenges early on. One challenge is aggressive and deceptive marketing motivated by high sales commissions for providers and brokers. As the market for policies grew more competitive, these intermediaries gained the potential to earn as much as 30 percent of the sale price of a life settlement. This incentivized intermediaries to push life settlement sales in the secondary market, despite policyholders' level of interest in selling, surrendering or lapsing their policies.[21]

In addition, the industry has struggled with false life expectancy evaluations, poor premium reserves that increase investor costs, false promises of high profits with low risk, clean-sheeting (not disclosing a life-threatening illness in a policy application), dirty-sheeting (falsely claiming a life-threatening illness in a policy application).

Life settlement regulations have been adopted across the Unites States to prevent fraud and promote fair practices. As of 2010, 44 U.S. states adopted a form of the model uniform law developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Federal level regulations were developed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). [21]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally the OPPOSITE of promotion. Yes - I work in the industry - which is why I am knowledgeable. Below is what this individual keeps deleting. I don't understand why someone would want to remove this information. This industry is marred by scandal, and it's important to address it. These were HUGE scandals that landed on the front page of major publications like WSJ.

I am not getting paid for this. Now, I would put the question back on the person asking - as it is VERY weird they pushing this agenda of redacting important information. Are you getting paid? Why are you so focused on the suppression of information?


While the life settlement industry has dramatically cleaned up, there were multiple controversies in the early days. Most notably was the bankruptcy of Life Partners in 2015. Life Partners effectively bought policies off a long life expectancy and re-sold fractional shares to individual retail investors, using a much shorter internally generated life expectancy to justify the significant mark-up.[11] As a result, over 80% of the insured lived past the life expectancy - generating shareholder lawsuits and regulator attention - especially since they were selling to retail investors.[12] However, they were not the only fraudulent life settlement fund. another notable fraudulent fund was A&O Life Policies, which defrauded life settlement investors of over $100M.[20]

The second major scandal was STOLI. STOLI is any act, practice, or arrangement, at or prior to policy issuance, to initiate or facilitate the issuance of a life insurance policy for the intended benefit of a person who, at the time of policy origination, does not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured under the laws of the applicable state.[13] This includes an arrangement or other agreement to transfer the ownership of the policy or the policy benefits to another person.[13] The main characteristic of a STOLI arrangement is that insurance is purchased as an investment vehicle, rather than to provide for the insured's beneficiaries.[14] STOLI arrangements also may be called "zero premium life insurance", "no cost to the insured plans", "new issue life settlements", "high-net-worth settlements", or "non-recourse premium finance transactions".[14]

Prior to 2008, STOLI was popular because investor demand dramatically exceeded supply, and this was a way to manufacture product (albeit illegal) to meet demand. In many ways, it was effectively a victimless crime because everybody benefited in the short term. The investor got to deploy capital, the insured/policy owner made money from selling the policy, the insurance agent got a commission, and the insurance company grew their business. However, this all collapsed in 2008 when funding dried up and regulators took a closer look at the practice. Additionally, STOLI policies turned out to be poor investments, so long-term investor demand dried up.

The third major challenge has been self-dealing by life settlement providers and brokers - to the detriment of policy owners and investors. Most notably, Coventry was fined $12M by the state of New York for deceptive business practices.[15] Coventry also settled a lawsuit with AIG (a large life settlement investor at the time), where Coventry would use multiple shell companies to disguise policy ownership when reselling to AIG to obtain a higher profit.[16] However, these activities are not just limited to Coventry, as other life settlement brokers and providers have engaged in similar activity, albeit on a much smaller scale.Although it has dramatically improved, the life settlement industry faced challenges early on. One challenge is aggressive and deceptive marketing motivated by high sales commissions for providers and brokers. As the market for policies grew more competitive, these intermediaries gained the potential to earn as much as 30 percent of the sale price of a life settlement. This incentivized intermediaries to push life settlement sales in the secondary market, despite policyholders' level of interest in selling, surrendering or lapsing their policies.[21]

In addition, the industry has struggled with false life expectancy evaluations, poor premium reserves that increase investor costs, false promises of high profits with low risk, clean-sheeting (not disclosing a life-threatening illness in a policy application), dirty-sheeting (falsely claiming a life-threatening illness in a policy application).

Life settlement regulations have been adopted across the Unites States to prevent fraud and promote fair practices. As of 2010, 44 U.S. states adopted a form of the model uniform law developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Federal level regulations were developed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). [21]

September 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jhickey94&oldid=1046021962"