This New Product Could Save Wall Street

Recs

16

Be A Motley Fool Millionaire!

David Gardner's top pick took an epic run of 1,334%! See what he’s recommending that you buy NEXT.

After enduring the collapse of the mortgage market, Wall Street has found its next big moneymaker, and doing your part to help financial firms earn profits is simple: All you have to do is die.

Creating tradable asset-backed securities from illiquid investment assets played a big role in helping the mortgage market become as large as it did. It also created huge amounts of revenue for major Wall Street firms that underwrote those securities, including Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), and the now-defunct Lehman Brothers. But with the mortgage market in tatters, some now believe that a new product referred to as "life settlements" may bring a new wave of asset-backed securities into the market.

Why life insurance is the next big thing
To understand these new securities, you first need to understand the asset that's backing them. In a nutshell, life settlements connect ordinary people who own life insurance policies that they no longer want with investors who see value in purchasing those policies.

Here's how it works. Say you have a life insurance policy that was designed to provide for your family if you passed away. Now your kids are all grown, though, and you'd just as soon stop paying annual premiums. You can always simply choose to cancel the policy. Depending on what type of policy you own, you may be entitled to get the policy's cash surrender value back from the insurance company.

However, what you get is often far less than the true economic value of your policy. Even a term policy that has no cash surrender value may have economic value, depending on its eventual payout and your life expectancy. As a simple (though unrealistic) example, say you knew for certain that you would die next month. If you owned a $100,000 life insurance policy and just had to make a single $100 premium payment to maintain it, then it would clearly be worth it to keep the policy in force rather than canceling it.

Making a deal
That's where the life settlement comes in. An outside investor may offer to buy your policy for more than its cash surrender value. In exchange, that investor gets all the rights to future payouts from the policy. So in the example above, an investor might pay you $90,000 for your $100,000 policy. That works out well for both of you: you get $90,000 to spend while you're still alive, and the investor makes a $9,900 profit (after paying the $100 premium) in a single month.

Of course, in reality, there's a lot more uncertainty involved. If you live a long time, an investor will have to pay more in premiums to keep the policy in force, and it'll take a long time for that investor to get paid off.

As intriguing as they sound, life settlements are a relatively small business right now. Small companies like Life Partners Holdings (Nasdaq: LPHI) and a host of privately held businesses currently help facilitate them. But right now, the major obstacle is bringing investors and policyholders together; like a mortgage, each transaction has unique characteristics.

Similar to holding securitized mortgages, the appeal of a life-settlement-backed security is that rather than having full exposure to a single policy, you could own small pieces of thousands of different policies. That way, even if some policies end up losers, you'll still make money if enough other policies are profitable. That's why companies like Goldman and Credit Suisse (NYSE: CS) are closely examining the potential for life-settlement-backed securities.

Winners and losers
In this case, what's good for securities underwriters may be bad for life insurance companies. Major insurers like MetLife (NYSE: MET), Prudential Financial (NYSE: PRU), and Manulife Financial (NYSE: MFC) have already faced substantial losses in their investment portfolios resulting in part from the market's sell-off as well as exposure to financial derivatives that have performed badly. They'd obviously prefer to see policyholders surrender policies cheaply, rather than having to pay the full policy value to third-party investors on the death of the original policyholder. If the life-settlement market matures, insurers may have to raise rates to compensate for fewer canceled policies.

At least in the short term, though, a more liquid life-settlement market could help policyholders. Although the complexity of actuarial projections makes it possible that life-settlement companies could take advantage of unsophisticated policyholders, it's still likely that policyholders would get more from a life settlement than they would otherwise. In tough economic times, those proceeds could make a big difference to struggling seniors.

As Wall Street gets back on its feet, there are other signs the economy is recovering. Matt Koppenheffer has all the details right here.

“Make Big Money With Options” Motley Fool CFO Ollen Douglass recently made over $100,000 buying options on 7 well known stocks. Now we’re committed to turning his small fortune into a massive one! And we want you to join us! Enter your email address to hear more:

Fool contributor Dan Caplinger is constantly amazed at Wall Street's determination to find new ways to make a buck. He doesn't own any of the stocks mentioned in this article. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. The Fool's disclosure policy ensures that we're on the up and up with you.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 11, 2009, at 5:11 PM, CommonPaine wrote:

    The basic problem with this life settlements scheme is that the buyer of the policy have no "vested interest" in the life of the insured prior to this arrangement.

    It strikes me as unduly creepy, and considering Wall Street's recent history, I wonder how long before someone decides to hurry up the insured's demise. The moral hazard here is astonishingly HUGE.

  • Report this Comment On September 11, 2009, at 5:28 PM, texam wrote:

    Life Settlements are a great investment vehicle. Especially Senior LIfe Settlements. There is no moral issue here. Life insurance is property. The Seniors have a right sell their policy to the highest bidder. The

    policy holder will net 3 to 5 times more $ by selling

    it to investors.

    I would rather see my folks live out their life with

    financial security then pass it on to me.

  • Report this Comment On September 11, 2009, at 5:30 PM, nin4086 wrote:

    I agree with CommonPaine...I can imagine the buyers of these securities fueling a new wave of terrorism!

  • Report this Comment On September 11, 2009, at 5:44 PM, msglendahowell wrote:

    There is NO moral issue.

    The insured needs to sell their policy.

    So many elderly people are in trouble because of this economy.

    This gives them security in their last years.

    It is NOT a scheme. Please do not be ignorant.

  • Report this Comment On September 11, 2009, at 7:50 PM, wyche1 wrote:

    as a life ins agent I like the idea, it does get an insured a bit more cash but it may encourage grandpa to sell that policy for 60 cents on the dollar shortly before he dies. sold/purchased/marketed correctly and for the right reasons it is good for everyone except the carrier. The big companies prohibit captive agents from getting into the viatical business. There are big commissions involved so you have to wonder how they can pay the agent so well if it is such a good deal for everyone. the big loser is the carrier, and the biggest winner is the term policyowner who sells his policy and lives beyond the term date. the owner is inclined to convert it to permanent to get their money back out

  • Report this Comment On September 12, 2009, at 2:33 PM, akutach wrote:

    It's not a moral issue, but it would make a great plot line for a psychological suspense thriller in which an otherwise healthy middle-aged person sells a very large insurance policy in a depressed state after all of his family died in a tragic accident (no need for the insurance any more). Then by innuendo and coincidence he sees and hears of other people in similar situations dying under suspicious circumstances - let's say at a group grieving therapy where he begins a relationship with the leading lady. Now he's paranoid and sees a plot to 'collect' on his valuable insurance everywhere... Enough for now. I've got to quit my day job and start writing a screenplay!!!

  • Report this Comment On September 13, 2009, at 6:24 AM, pensionsgeek wrote:

    To not invest in life settlements on the basis that senior banker’s will be taking out contracts on people who have sold their life policy is conspiracy theory going mad. Unless you really do think that Elvis and Michael Jackson really are still alive you can invest in Life Settlements with a clear conscience. The only losers are the Life Companies and based on the fact that mortality has increased exponentially in the last 20 years many of the people now selling policies were actually expected to die years ago so the insurers have already made a profit on the policy.

  • Report this Comment On September 13, 2009, at 10:55 PM, btbart wrote:

    Moral hazard is not the problem. The problem is, this just becomes yet another "tax" that investor groups can levy on other industries, without adding any value.

    That money comes from the Insurance carrier, so we shouldn't care, right? Wrong. It comes from the customers, in the form of higher premiums across the board.

    Actuarial tables currently assume a certain number of abandoned policies. It's the norm. When that percentage abandonment goes down, the premiums go up. Very simple.

    What this really becomes is yet another way for Wall Street investment groups to squeeze a few more pennies out of average people. It adds no value, creates no liquidity. It won't help the elderly at all..that is pure smokescreen. The only beneficiaries are hedge funds. It just adds another 2% or 5% or whatever on the price of a common commodity.

    Our economy is slowly but surely being consumed by parasitic speculation, which funnels more and more money into the hands of people who have the resources and political clout to maniupulate the economy.

    One day Wall Street is going to wake up and find a lynch mob of angry, unemployed people who have absolutely nothing to lose.

    Start hiring security guards.

  • Report this Comment On September 13, 2009, at 11:56 PM, planesmart wrote:

    So when has helping old people with money creepy. LPHI gives money to elderly people who need it.

    The only person that has said it was creepy, probably had friends shorting the stock.

  • Report this Comment On September 14, 2009, at 9:02 AM, daveberman7 wrote:

    They have been doing in Europe for centuries. I"m surprised it took so long to hit America. While it does sound creepy (as anything to with death does ) it is a great system that should be applauded , as well as invested in. I have watched lphi for the last couple of years and it has grown into a very good stock . I am definately piling in when my cash comes about.

  • Report this Comment On September 14, 2009, at 2:50 PM, BigUpBU wrote:

    To answer a few questions: while it is true that you must have insurable interest in order to take out a policy on someone, you do not have to have insurable interest to purchase one on the secondary market. The basis for this is found in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1911: Grigsby vs. Russell. This case ruled that a policy is personal property and can be “transferred for value” at will.

    As far as a morality issue, life settlements creates a "win-win" situation for both insured and investors. At age 78, would you rather continue paying $250,000 a year premium with your recently battered portfolio, or would your rather recoup some of your premiums and receive $1,000,000 for your $3MM death benefit and enjoy the fruits now?

    As an investor, I would rather take my chances for a potential hefty double digit return without any correlation to the stock market. In my professional opinion, this is the BEST alternate asset classes I've even seen or invested in.

    As far as knowing whose policies I'm invested in, I know nothing more than what I have invested, and what my payout will be in the near and distant future.

  • Report this Comment On September 14, 2009, at 4:40 PM, CommonPaine wrote:

    If you have a whole life type policy and are 78 years old, you're likely to have well over 2/3 of face amt. available in cash value. That $3,000,000 policy would have a surrender value around $2.3 million, or more if it is a plan that is paid up before age 100. If it is a participating plan, you're likely to have a cash value of the dividends (if you haven't already cashed them out), on top of that which would probably bring your total CSV close to $6 million. Selling this for $1 million would be good, how?

    Of course, the policyholder could have bought a term policy. The question then becomes, what is the likelihood of it still being in force. Most term policies would have expired long ago. S/He is 78! The kids and grandkids are grown. Why has s/he been paying a premium for something no longer needed? If one bought a policy that large, it must have been to cover some potentially huge inheritance liabilities. By now most of those liabilities should have been handled too.

    Using your numbers of $1 for every $3 of face value sounds like a lot more than a double diigt return (depending on how soon the old geezer croaks).

    Someone has to know who the insured is. If it is bundled with other policies to create a "mutual fund", and party X is operating the fund, why would a Bernie Madoff-like party X who isn't getting the kind of return he suggested the buyers would receive not get a little antsy and try to improve his/her return by giving grandma a little help?

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Melaschasm wrote:

    CommonPaine, why should the old guy settle for 2/3 of the payout, if a hedge fund is willing to pay 3/4 of the payout?

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 4:42 PM, CommonPaine wrote:

    You're just pulling numbers out of thin air. Where does the 3/4 come from?

    A healthy 78 year old has far more to lose by selling a participating whole life policy than he has to gain. His dividends will more than pay his premiums. So he's does not need to forkout anything to keep all his death benefit intact. In the real world, he could get about 2x the face amt. in cash. And his death benefit will be more than 2x.

    If he is seriously ill, he should get an immediate payout from the buyer that is closer to face amt. If he is seriously ill, what will he use the money for? Health care costs are a probable use. He does have the loan value of the policy available instead of selling it if he thinks he may survive. If he thinks he will not survive, any attempt to distribute money to his heirs at this late date to avoid inheritance taxes will not succeed.

    I still suspect that this scheme is designed to produce a win for financial predators than it does to help the policyholder.

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Fool wrote:

    I LOVE IDEAS.

    ALL OF THESE COMMENTS OFFER MERIT OF

    THOUGHT.

    THIS IS LIKE A REVERSE MORTAGE AGREEMENT??

    II'M APPRECIATIVE OF AND FOR AMERICAN

    INNOVATION. I THINK IT'S EXACTLY WHAT IS

    NEEDED AT THIS TIME.

    LET'S HAVE QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND JUST

    SEE IF WE CAN'T DO BETTER WITH OUR INVESTMENT MONEY THAN A SAFE 1.9% OR SO

    CD.

    ALSO, I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL

    NOT SETTLE FOR CONDITIONS THAT DICTATE

    WHAT WE CAN'T DO. LIKE THINK, ACT, LIKE

    REAL AMERICANS EVEN IF WE'RE WILLING TO

    TAKE SOME FINACIAL RISKS.

    IT'S AMERICAN ISN'T IT??

    BOB TEWKSBURY

  • Report this Comment On September 17, 2009, at 3:04 PM, stuartin wrote:

    Each transaction is unique is the understatement of the day. Licensed life settlement providers, the buyers of these policies, are concerned about the age of the insured, the health of the insured, the life expectancy of the insured, the premiums required to keep the policy in force, the face amount of the policy, the type of policy, the cash value in the policy, if any, the insurance company who issued it, the credit worthiness of the insurer, the gender of the insured, etc. Let's just say they are not fungible like a share of a publicly traded company.

    Just like insurers have long used the law of large numbers to work on their behalf so too will investors because while the amount to be at time of claim is certain, the face amount of the policy, when that payment will be made is estimated and not guaranteed. So investors need to have some powder dry to be able to pay for premiums a little bit longer than they had planned in some cases.

    This is not something that the average retail public investor should be looking at, in my opinion.

    Insurers raise rates because of statutory reserve requirements established by the states. Today there is talk that they will have too but it is more likely because they have mispriced their products like the property and casualty business did years ago and have had substantial portfolio losses. They can not blame it on the life settlement industry because it is too new and the amount of policies that have been settled represents way less than 1% of all of the policies in-force.

    Life settlements involve policies with insured's who are over age 65 and have a life expectancy of over 2 years but less than 10. The insured is NOT terminally ill. If so, there are other options that are likely more favorable.

    Life settlements are for people who have already decided that they no longer want or need their policy so lapse or surrender is a likely option. So obtaining the economic benefit for themselves rather than letting the insurance company retain it is simply put, American.

    The life settlement industry is regulated in over 70% of the states and require that licensed life settlement brokers take on a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the policy and according to their instruction. All offers, counter-offers, declinations, and rejections must be disclosed to the policy owner among other things.

    So if it is suggested that policy owners are possibly not getting good deals when they attempt to settle their policy then my question is how come upon the initial issuance of the policy life agents are not held to the same high standards? Life agents are agents of the insurer and are not fiduciaries to the policy owner or insured, they do not have to shop around to provide the best price, features, and benefits.

    Many insurers today forbid their agents from even discussing the life settlement option and today a couple of states are now requiring that insurers disclose that their policy holders have the life settlement option when lapse or surrender situations present themselves.

    I wouldn't be too concerned about the life insurance industry. With over 1000 companies in business in the United States today they are ripe for consolidation if anything.

  • Report this Comment On September 23, 2009, at 3:37 PM, giuglia wrote:

    There's absolutely nothing creepy about buying securitized life insurance. After all, all you're doing is betting that the policy holder will die soon enough for you to make a profit. Lassez faire and all that. But do you think the brokers will be interested in buying up policies from the young and healthy? How about the old and healthy? No, they'll get a higher return by buying up policies from the sick and elderly. So what's wrong with buying up the policies of a bunch of sick old people and crossing your fingers that they die quickly? Nothing creepy about that...

    Then again.... I'll bet those securities would sell really well in some sectors... say, for-profit health insurance CEOs? They could make a killing...

  • Report this Comment On September 25, 2009, at 11:27 AM, jep69 wrote:

    This is wrong on so many levels that I'm shocked and saddened to see so many in favor of it!

    Ask Larry King how well life Settlement worked out for him. Life insurance can only be gotten when it’s not needed, there are limits on how much an individual can get and if you give it up there’s a good chance you’ll never get anymore. Estate planning becomes much more difficult with out it.

    Just look back through the last year for an example of how wrong this will go. The securitization of mortgages brought the economy to its knees for many of the same reasons that mass securitization of Life Settlements is and will be an horrific idea.

    Mortgage brokers were running through the streets getting anyone and everyone that they could to get a loan or refinance because of the demand for these mortgages that could be bundled, sliced and bundled again then sold as triple A Bonds! Now the same freaks that created that Frankenstein's Monster want to do it all over again, this time with people's lives!

    Pathetic, despicable, unconscionable are just a few words that come to mind.

    Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the outcomes...

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 982905, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/1/2009 10:03:56 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
The Public Health-Care Plan's Problem

Related Tickers

11/30/2009 4:00 PM
GS $169.66 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Goldman Sachs Grou… CAPS Rating: ***
MFC $17.46 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Manulife Financial… CAPS Rating: ****
PRU $49.85 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Prudential Financi… CAPS Rating: **
MET $34.19 Down +0.00 +0.00%
MetLife, Inc. CAPS Rating: **
CS $52.41 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Credit Suisse Grou… CAPS Rating: *
MS $31.58 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Morgan Stanley CAPS Rating: **
LPHI $18.84 Up +0.23 +1.24%
Life Partners Hold… CAPS Rating: **

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Futures exchange: A futures exchange is a market where commodities contracts are traded. The best known one is the New York Merchantile Exchange.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!