IICF’s annual Week of Giving is upon us. How will you make a difference? (Photo: iStock)
One may not think of insurance when pondering which industries are most charitable. I know I didn’t when I first started my career in this sector. But I soon learned the truth.
In fact, I’m constantly amazed at how much this industry gives back — and how little recognition it receives for it. Take these stats, for instance: Data from FoundationCenter.org lists Metlife and Prudential in the top 50 of most charitable U.S. companies in 2014. Bankers Life raised $500,000 for the Alzheimer’s Association last year. And the Insurance Industry Charitable Foundation (IICF) has contributed more than $23.5 million in local community grants and more than 200,000 volunteer hours since its inception in 1994.
That’s just one side of the philanthropic spectrum.
The P&C side of the insurance industry has even stronger charitable chops. A 2015 McKinsey report states that P&C insurers contributed a whopping $575 million to charity in 2014 alone, which is up 15 percent from 2011.
I am, of course, writing on this topic with a purpose in mind. October 8 marks the IICF’s annual Week of Giving, when more than 8,500 insurance professionals from 85 companies across the United States will participate in more than 250 service projects within their local communities.
Held across 70 cities (most likely yours), these volunteer events will bring insurance professionals together in literacy centers, food pantries, homeless shelters and the like to provide assistance to at-risk women, children, senior citizens, those with disabilities and veterans.
As IICF CEO Bill Ross said recently, “It’s special to witness the industry come together and help change lives across the entire country.” Indeed it is.
How will you help? I urge you to visit www.WeekofGiving.iicf.org for more information and to help continue the insurance industry’s reign as one of the most giving of all industries.
See also:
Are you maxing out on charitable giving? [Infographic]
Canadian insurers ready to respond to flash flooding in Windsor: IBC
IBC is deploying the Community Assistance Mobile Pavilion (CAMP) to the Windsor-Tecumseh region.
Staff on October 3, 2016
Canada’s insurance industry is ready to respond following severe flash flooding that hit Windsor and Tecumseh on September 29.
“The beginning of fall often brings severe storms and heavy rains to parts of the province,” said Kim Donaldson, vice-President, Ontario, Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC). “While no serious injuries have been reported, there does appear to be significant flood damage in the affected areas. Residents with property damage should contact their insurers as soon as possible to begin the claims process.”
IBC is deploying the Community Assistance Mobile Pavilion (CAMP) to the Windsor-Tecumseh region. IBC staff will answer insurance-related questions and help affected residents get in touch with their insurance representative to begin the claims process.
“IBC will continue to monitor the situation in Windsor,” added Donaldson. “Flooding can cause extensive damage to homes and businesses. It’s important that Canadians understand their insurance policies and put an emergency preparedness plan in place before bad weather strikes.”
Firing yourself in an organization that you want to stay a part of is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself and for your company. (Photo: Thinkstock)
No, I don’t mean quit. I also don’t mean firing yourself in a dramatic, embarrassing, Donald Trump finger-pointing sort of way. What firing yourself really means is clearing the decks for what’s next.
In my last article about your “to-don’t” list, getting ready for a six-week sabbatical particularly inspired me. This was my first experience ever doing something like that.
Related: The real reason your big ideas go nowhere
I am beyond grateful to work for a company that understands the value of allowing their employees to design the lives they want. Since we are in the business of designing the future, it is imperative that we all see it with the freshest eyes possible, and feel positive about it. Innovation is hard, and can burn people out.
However, one of the best ways not to burn out is to set yourself up for a long rest, and set everyone else around you up for your departure. This is very different from quitting a job, actually getting fired from a job or going on vacation.
If you quit your job voluntarily, you will prepare people as best you can to take over. Once you leave, your mind gets filled up with something new, and the concern wears away for how they will do without you. It’s their problem now.
If you get fired by your boss, you basically walk out with your box of toys and go home. Perhaps you wish the organization to fail without you. If you go on a normal vacation, you just deal with the immediate and let the rest sit until you come back, which makes coming back particularly hard as well.
But firing yourself in an organization that you want to stay a part of is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself and for your company. In preparing for being away for six weeks, anything good or bad that was going to happen would happen in that period of time.
So it forced a relentless focus on preparing my colleagues. It forced even more trust in their abilities, and also forced letting go of what’s not essential.
You have to prepare as though you are never coming back, and yet still care about what happens to the company and your colleagues. And they will figure out how to get along without you.
Two days before going out, I had a revelation. Our company, an innovation consultancy serving Fortune 1000 companies, was looking to fill a leadership role in an area that had been historically challenging for us: sales and marketing.
Related: 3 more dos and don’ts for insurance innovation (part 2)
I had been involved in helping the company search for the right person. It dawned on me that the reason why this has been so difficult is because the person who is successful in that role needs to understand inside and out (1) what we do and why we do it; and (2) what our market wants and why they want it.
Innovation is complicated: Corporations want innovation and get stuck in so many places, and it is constantly changing. The only reason it became clear is because clearing my docket and my head left a clearing in my heart. So I threw my hat in the ring, and got the job. I now get to work with the same amazingly talented people, but in a new way.
While this does not mean I’m walking away from the role of reinvention in the insurance space, it does mean the opportunity to build a team, to better understand the broader landscape of corporate innovation in many different industries, and to look at all of them with fresh eyes. It also means a deep understanding of what the most important work really is, which is finding and serving like-minded leaders who are clear in their own commitment to create change in their organizations.
So what’s the lesson in all of this? If you want change, you must create a clearing for it. Let go of something big, something you are hanging onto tightly. Enjoy the empty space for a moment, and then watch what emerges to fill it.
Read also these columns by Maria-Ferrante Schepis:
Experts say the U.S. Department of Labor is on “shaky” ground in how it regulated fixed indexed annuities. (Photo: iStock)
Oral arguments were heard last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of Market Synergy Group, a Topeka, Kansas-based consortium of 11 independent marketing organizations that accounted $15 billion worth of fixed indexed annuity sales in 2015 through more than 3,000 independent insurance agents.
In Market Synergy Group, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, the independent marketing organization is not asking the Kansas court to block the Labor Department’s entire fiduciary rule — just the provision that affects the regulation of fixed indexed annuities.
That targeted approach makes Market Synergies’ claim distinct from other lawsuits brought against the Labor Department, and could enhance its chances of success, say two legal experts.
“The narrowness of the claim is in its favor,” said Leland Beck, a Washington, D.C.-based administrative law expert that spent much of the past three decades consulting on regulatory matters at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice.
“It is much easier for a judge to grant a narrow remedy than a broader one — particularly if there is a substantial benefit in the rest of the rule,” added Beck, who is in private practice now.
A central argument in Market Synergy’s streamlined strategy is the allegation that the Labor Department failed to give “adequate notice” of its treatment of fixed indexed annuities required under the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law enacted in 1946 that sets guidelines for agency rulemaking.
When the proposed version of the rule was released in 2015, fixed indexed annuities were to be regulated under Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24, a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act that allows for commissions on the sale of fixed indexed annuities.
Two comment periods and a public open forum ensued. In April of 2016, when the final rule was released, the regulation of fixed indexed annuities had been moved to the Best Interest Contract Exemption, a new prohibited transaction exemption considered to be more restrictive to commission-based products by many stakeholders.
The problem with that, says Market Synergy and others suing the Labor Department, is that fixed indexed annuity providers, and the independent marketing organizations that market fixed indexed annuities, had no idea the Labor Department was considering such a move, and were not given the opportunity — or adequate notice — to comment on the effect moving fixed indexed annuities to the Best Interest Contract Exemption would have on industry.
Was the move to BIC a harmless error?
The APA requires federal agencies to provide public notice of proposed regulations, and give affected industries the opportunity to comment on the rules.
According to a brief on the APA published by the American Bar Association, any “agency change from the original proposal will require additional notice and comment unless the change is a ‘logical outgrowth’ of the proposal.”
The same brief describes a provision of the APA that instructs courts to consider the “harmless error” principle if a regulation is challenged on the grounds that stakeholders were not given fair notice to comment on a change in the final rule from the proposal.
The Bar Association’s brief says agencies often argue that their failure to follow required comment procedures was harmless, “typically because they would have reached the same result anyway.”
In the oral arguments heard in Kansas last week, lawyers from the Justice Department and Labor Department raised the harmless error principle before U.S. Judge Daniel Crabtree.
Effectively, government attorneys were asking the court to consider the harmlessness of moving fixed indexed annuities to the Best Interest Contract Exemption, if indeed the court found stakeholders did not have adequate opportunity to comment on the move, according to Erin Sweeney, an ERISA attorney with Miller and Chevalier.
“The fact that DOL raised it was significant,” said Sweeney in an interview. “To take up their limited time telegraphs that the DOL is concerned it is a big enough problem that they want the judge to be clear: if the notice on FIAs was not adequate, he has to consider if there ultimately is harm in that.”
Sweeney thinks the fact that the Labor Department raised the specter of the harmless error principle “came right to the edge” of an admission on the part of the government that regulators did not do a good enough job communicating the fate of fixed indexed annuities in the final rule.
“That speaks loudly to me,” added Sweeney. “It says to me the DOL thinks they are on shaky ground.”
Leland Beck said that in raising the harmless error principle, attorneys for the government were arguing that the Labor Department would have made the same decision on fixed indexed annuities no matter what comments were provided, had industry had the chance to offer them.
“That is arrogant at best,” said Beck. “Failure to give notice (to comment) is not a harmless error. The plaintiffs have been deprived of their right to comment on a proposed rule.”
For that reason, plaintiffs have a good argument that the provision of the rule impacting fixed indexed annuities should be vacated, according to Beck.
Market Synergy asked DOL to prove adequate notice to comment
During the hearing, attorneys for Market Synergy asked the Labor Department to provide proof that annuity providers and independent marketing organizations were given adequate notice to comment on the provision moving the regulation of fixed indexed annuities to the Best Interest Contract Exemption.
Attorneys for the government produced 20 comment letters from industry, stakeholders and three attorneys, according to Sweeney, who attended the hearing.
Nine of those comment letters were focused on the treatment of variable annuities under the proposed rule, not on fixed indexed annuities. Another five comment letters were in support of the proposed rule’s treatment of fixed indexed annuities under PTE 84-24.
Only one comment letter, from Mercer Bullard, a securities expert, former assistant chief counsel at the Security and Exchange Commission, and a strong supporter of a uniform, industrywide fiduciary standard, suggested the Labor Department should change the proposed rule, and regulate fixed indexed annuities under the Best Interest Contract exemption.
Sweeney says the absence of comment letters from independent marketing organizations was conspicuous, and evidence that the Labor Department did not give adequate notice for industry to comment on treatment of fixed indexed annuities in the final rule.
“The FIA market has a lot of big guns,” said Sweeney. “There are about 200 IMOs in the country. Had they seen this coming they each would have submitted a comment letter. But the record is silent because no one saw this coming — if industry had expected this they would have hammered their position home in comment letters.”
Handicapping Market Synergy’s chances
In National Association for Fixed Annuity Providers v. Thomas E. Perez, recently argued in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs raised similar claims to Market Synergy’s, but are seeking an injunction against the entire rule, a much more substantial outcome than would be an injunction against one provision of the rule.
In Chamber of Commerce of USA, et al. v Thomas E. Perez et al., which is scheduled for a November hearing in the Northern District of Texas, a collection of industry trade associations is also seeking to have the entire rule thrown out. That lawsuit makes eight allegations under several laws, including a First Amendment claim. It also raises the question of the treatment of fixed indexed annuities under the final rule, and whether regulators failed the requirements of the APA.
Over his long career in administrative law, Beck has seen the harmless error principle invoked countless times.
Still, the long body of decisions offers little indication of how Crabtree, a 2014 Obama administration appointee, will rule.
“The evaluation is always fact specific,” said Beck. Some courts have found significant violations of APA to be harmless, and others have found minimal harm enough to stay some rulemaking, he said.
Beck says the burden the government carries in the three lawsuits against the Labor Department rule is considerable.
“An order to vacate the provision under the APA would be a nationwide order,” noted Beck. “Industry only needs to win in one court — the government needs to win in every court. That is the cross the government bears.”
See also:
NAFA plots course in DOL rule fight
Fiduciary rule causes insurers to pull back on financial products
DOL 101: The fiduciary rule’s impact on insurance-only agents
Have you Liked us on Facebook?
Originally published on BenefitsPro. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
On this episode of Designing Spaces we wise up to some smart solutions for a safer and more secure home, as well as peace of mind. Topics include home owner’s insurance, a monitored home security system, and DIY roof repair.
Underwriting is the process of deciding what makes an applicant eligible for a loan, based on factors including credit history and other considerations, such as income, debt, and employment. Each lender has its own underwriting team that works to approve loan applications based off a pre-set foundation of lending criteria.
Have you recently applied for a student loan? Is your application in “underwriting”? How does underwriting fit into the student loan application process?
A lender’s underwriting criteria, or credit standards, determine whether a borrower is eligible for a loan. While the lender may have other criteria used to determine eligibility, most underwriting criteria is common. The underwriting team decides what criteria to consider when determining whether to approve or deny a student loan application. Each lender will have similar but different criteria.
Each lender’s underwriting team will approve or deny a loan application based on documentation provided during the application process. For example, underwriters might specify that a borrower have a certain amount of annual income and ask the loan applicant to provide several official paystubs in order to verify that income. Usually, lender’s accept this documentation online for easy submission.
Why do lenders care about underwriting?
Strong underwriting standards are important for a few reasons, the most important of which is loan quality. It’s in the best interest of the lender and the borrower to only approve applications for borrowers who can repay the loans. Underwriting criteria such as credit history, debt-to-income, and other factors that are unique to each lender.
I want to talk to you a little bit about student loans. You probably as a doctor know more than you want to know about student loans, but I want to talk about how they correlate to mortgage underwriting guidelines, and specifically with a physician loan how we look at those and how they’re addressed.
On a conventional loan and also on an FHA loan, they look at student loans and anything that’s going to reenter the repayment period within twelve months has to be counted against your debt to income ratio. Now that can really be a challenge, because if you’re coming out of a residency and you’re going right into practice, most the of the time, your payments are going to start within that first twelve months of starting into practice. Which means we have to count it against you, and if you’re like so many of the physicians I work with with a large number of student loans out there and maybe starting at an income that maybe isn’t enough to offset that, it can put you in a situation where your debt to income ratio is too high.
So, the beauty about a Physician Loan is, they don’t look at that. Anything that is currently not in repayment, they don’t count at all against your debt to income ratios, which of course will allow you to qualify without a co-signer and potentially for a higher loan amount.
So, that’s it about student loans for doctors, if you have any other questions, I welcome you to shoot me an email or give me a call. I’d love to help you into your next home.
Please call Josh with any questions you have about Physician Loans at 801-747-1210.
Josh Mettle is a top producing mortgage lender specializing in financing Physicians, Dentists and Medical Professionals at Citywide Home Loans. Check out his site http://www.utahphysicianhomeloans.com/ for medical professionals. Josh is also a fourth generation real estate investor, and owns a number of rental homes, apartment units and mortgages. If you’re ready to buy or sell residential real estate, get Josh’s latest free tips, tools and newsletter at http://www.utahphysicianhomeloans.com/ and be sure to check our FREE Relocation Package for Physicians. To learn more about Josh, go to http://www.joshmettle.com.
