Litigation

I know that some of my Texas colleagues in the industry would like us to think they're smart but man this example makes 'em out to be "as sharp as a mashed potato".

In my January 2, 2009 post Structured Settlement Consultants Using Outdated and Inaccurate Comparison with US Treasuries, I related the fact that In 1999 The Hartford produced some point-of-sale pieces for appointed structured settlement annuity brokers to use to compete with alternatives to structured annuities such as bank trusts, CDs, variable annuities and US Treasuries. 

The passage of time has rendered some of the key points of these 1999 comparisons inaccurate, not the least of which is that The Hartford is no longer writing structured settlements.

Criticism of Points made by The James Street Group and Structured Annuities, Inc.  on The James Street Group and Structured Annuities, Inc. websites respectively

• When comparing structured settlements with bank trusts and CDs the FDIC coverage is inaccurately shown as $100,000 when FDIC coverage is in fact $250,000. The FDIC has a convenient Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator (EDIE) in case you want to know more.
• When comparing structured settlements to US Treasuries the assertion that US Treasuries do not provide a hedge against inflation is not true. As the name suggests, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities DO provide protection against inflation. At least that what it says on the Treasury Direct website!
• When comparing structured settlements to US Treasuries the assertion that treasuries are subject to federal taxes is somewhat inaccurate because, pursuant to IRC 130(d) United States treasury obligations ARE an alternative permissible qualified funding asset for structured settlements. When used in that context the payments are income tax exempt in the same way that payments from a structured settlement funded by an annuity are income tax exempt.
• When comparing structured settlements to United States Treasuries, fails to acknowledge the factorability of structured settlement annuities and the fact that there may be a loss if the structured settlement payment rights are sold.

Pardon me for "hanging my wash on someone else's line", but I personally do not think it is right to use inaccurate marketing materials, particularly those that Hartford was noticed on by this author, in January 2 and verified that they do not approve. That both of these companies pawn the responsibility for the misinformation on The Hartford is being disingenous. They ARE responsible and the folks that run these companies know better.

Of the 5 companies cited in the aformentioned January 2009 post these are the remaining stragglers.

Now y'all may think I'm being "meaner than a skilletful of rattlesnakes", but this "ain't these folks first rodeo". The excuse from Structured Annuities Inc. might be that they have really busy "Dirk Weeks" and James might say he's as " busy as a hound in flea season" but as they say "you can't get lard unless you boil the hog". So start boiling dudes!