EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Life Insurance-Bankers' New Best Friend
A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in the banks.
— John C. Calhoun, Speech from 1836
The fun has not gone out of banking after all. Following the disastrous fall of 2008, conventional wisdom had it that many of the things that made banking fun, like amazing bonuses and fascinating (if not understood) financial instruments were going to follow the dinosaur into extinction. That, of course, did not happen. Bonuses are as big as ever and a recent announcement discloses that a new financial instrument that is far more interesting than a bundle of mortgages is about to hit the market. It involves life insurance.
For years life insurance was thought of as something to provide cash following its owner’s death to be used for a variety of purposes ranging from the payment of taxes to providing funds for young families to replace the lost earnings of the parent who died. As families grew older, in many cases the need for life insurance diminished. Owners of those policies took advantage of the cash value in the policy and accepted that amount from the company in lieu of keeping the policy in force. Since the cash value the policy holder received was much less than what the company would have to pay were the policy in force at the policy holder’s death, the insurance company was delighted to redeem the policy for its cash value instead of its face value.
Unfortunately for the insurance companies, a greedy group of people sprang up who said to policy holders that getting cash value from the life insurance policy was a rip-off. They offered to buy the policies for more than their cash value. The purchasers figured out how long the insured was likely to live and, adding in the policy proceeds payable at death, came up with a price they were willing to pay the insured. The insured, who no longer wanted the insurance, was delighted to have more than the cash value of the policy to spend before death. Sensing a good thing, Wall Street has figured out how to turn this practice into something that is even better than the collateralized debt obligations based on mortgages. (Those would have been a win-win situation for everyone if the unimaginable and unimagined had not occurred.) This latest financial instrument is a guaranteed win-win almost for sure. Here is how it works.
Assume that one thousand very old people all have $1 million life insurance polices with low cash values. Those people would not be tempted to cash in their policies for the cash value. Along comes a bank and agrees to pay each of them $700,000 for the policy. It names itself the beneficiary, begins paying the premiums and bundles the 1000 policies into a $700 million bond called “Death Pays” and sells interests in the bond to investors. If all the insureds die within 30 days, the investors will be thrilled because Death Pays will now be worth $1 billion, an increase in value for the investors of $300 million in 30 days. If, however, all the insureds take the money they got from selling their policies and go on a tour sponsored by AARP to a spa that has a treatment that gives them an additional 30 years of life, the holders of “Death Pays” will be less than thrilled. (Were that to happen the issuer of “Death Pays” bonds might hire hit men to accelerate events that would cause the policies to mature but that brings with it a completely different set of problems that are beyond the scope of this column to examine.)
Life insurance companies are not terribly happy with the idea that their policies will remain in force instead of being sold for cash value. If this new idea catches on, more and more of their policies will be bought and kept in force until the happy day the insured dies. Indeed, Kathleen Tillwitz, a senior vice-president at a firm that is rating 9 proposals for life-insurance securitizations from private investors told the New York Times that “our phones have been ringing off the hook with inquiries.” An investment banker not authorized to speak to the NYT (or other media) who spoke to the NYT said: “We’re hoping to get a herd stampeding after the first offering.”
Some analysts say that this is a wonderful new product since death is not related to the rise and fall of stocks. They are right, unless a dramatic fall in the stock market is accompanied by falls from window ledges as happened during the great depression. If that were to happen the amounts owed by the companies on the life insurance policies could exceed the insurance companies’ ability to pay, thus causing their insolvency and the need for a government bailout. Thanks to the sophistication of those constructing these new investments, that almost certainly will never happen.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


12 Comments so far
Show AllAs noted at Grumpy Squirrel on WordPress a little while ago, an enterprising person can find a perfect opportunity here. The people who buy the policies have to continue to pay the premiums. The sooner the old folk die, the sooner the vultures collect. Hence, a new service, a new business is born, or an old one rises from the ashes of the Mafia - Murder, Incorporated, now specializing in offing old people for a piece of the insurance action.
Now where did I put my pistol...?
ricg: Murder - Incorporated ... Wouldn't that be Blackwater, a.k.a. Xe Services, LLC?
I heard on TV that many big employers take out life insurance policies on their workers. Then, by denying them health care they increase the chances that they will collect.
Just to be clear: The company is the beneficiary, not the employee.
This is legal in all but a few states.
Yup. They are referred to as "Dead Peasant" policies. And I'm not kidding about that name. Go ahead and Google it.
Wow, that's a good one. Talk about conflict of interest...
I don't understand why would a life insurance company pay anyone other than the beneficiaries specified in the policy? Or why would they allow anyone but relatives as beneficiaries? Seems to me the insurance companies have to be in the game in order to do that. Reminds me of how AIG was just a collection agency of Goldman-Sachs.
Your memory is apt. Big money loves big money, just as one bureaucracy loves another. They cooperate with each other, from countries to the Vatican to corporations--always against the people. We are screwed. If you don't believe it it just has not come home to you yet.
Arktig, you don't understand? Safeway supermarket had their cigarette packs for sale on a freestanding display at the end of the service area. Teenagers could walk behind it and spin it to the brand of their choice, completely out of the sight of any observers. I complained about this, and the employee said they had no space for the cigarettes behind the counter, it was needed for the camera film. She then added helpfully that the cigarette companies reimbursed Safeway for stolen cigarettes. "Oh really!" I said and sent off a letter to headquarters informing them that I was writing a letter to the editor about Safeway's collusion with cigarette manufacturers in addicting the youth of America to cigarettes. Somehow they found room behind the counter.
The short answer to your question is yes, they're in the game. They're there to sell policies, not to worry about who stands to gain. As long as they gain, they aren't getting in each others' way. But I think when there are just a few giants left standing they will fight each other until there is only one left. Global domination.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Could someone kindly confirm my understanding of how this works?
The type of life insurance, where you only pay a monthly premium, must accumulate value for the above said inquiry to work. So if you die early, ordinarily the insurance company should lose money, as you have not given the company enough money to cover the cost of the premium.
If they short the money by 300k, as the article says, the insurance amount is now worth less that much to you, but is that much more to the insurance company right away. That is how they are saying they are in the black with each loan, and now it is a fund that they can bet on like the credit swap derviatives.
Therefore, if you die early, and you are already getting the reduced amount, they are making money off you, even though you are not too far vested into the account.
?
Love
Zero
I think the deal is you (the insured) get the cash from the bank (less than the full value of the policy). The bank then becomes the beneficiary on the policy, instead of whomever you may have originally designated. The sooner you die, therefore, the sooner the "investment" pays off (at the full value of the policy).
It seems like this targets those who are hard up for cash -- kind of like reverse mortgages, but with a morbid twist. I could be wrong about that. But that's how I interpreted the story.
Who wants to be worth more to an 'investor' dead than alive? Targeted killings for the banker's Christmas bonus will be next.
..."(Were that to happen the issuer of “Death Pays” bonds might hire hit men to accelerate events that would cause the policies to mature but that brings with it a completely different set of problems that are beyond the scope of this column to examine.)"...
Never underestimate the power of greed. Talk about "death panels!"