🔹 A Historical Archive
During the mid‑2010s, several structured settlement brokers raised concerns about the marketing of in‑force structured‑settlement payment rights through Settlement Asset Management Trusts (“SAM Trusts”), offered by Synergy Settlements in partnership with a South Dakota‑chartered trust company. Similar questions circulated about in‑force structured‑settlement payment rights more broadly.
A 2016 Synergy explainer described a SAM Trust as “a trust containing high‑yield fixed annuity payment rights with guaranteed returns from highly rated life insurers exclusively for injury victims.” That phrasing reflected the marketing posture of the period. The underlying assets were not annuities, but receivables purchased from existing payees, and therefore did not carry the statutory protections associated with newly issued structured settlement annuities.
At the time, financial planners had been offering inventory‑based solutions for years, and I had been writing about them for well over a year. The appeal was tied to the rate environment: traditional structured settlements were temporarily constrained by low short‑term interest rates, while older in‑force payment streams carried higher crediting assumptions. Promoters positioned ESI as “an inventory‑driven solution, as opposed to the standard structured settlement, which is rate‑book driven.”
If you were looking for a royal‑blue 1970s Cadillac with wide‑wall tires, an 8‑track player, and fuzzy dice, you could only buy it if it happened to be on the used‑car lot that day. Inventory existed when it existed. The existence of such solutions was framed as evidence that innovation was alive and well, not as a threat to life insurers or annuity sales.
🔹 Structural Mechanics
The underlying mechanics involved acquiring in‑force structured‑settlement payment rights from original payees, breaking those payment streams into smaller investor‑facing segments, and repackaging them as receivables held inside a trust structure. These were not newly issued annuities and did not carry the statutory protections associated with annuity contracts. The economics were driven entirely by the characteristics of the underlying receivables—timing, amount, credit exposure, and transfer‑order integrity—rather than by any insurer guarantee.
🔹 Not for Everyone
These products required a level of sophistication to understand and an even higher level of skill to explain to audiences with varying degrees of financial literacy. ESI could be purchased inside or outside a trust, in an IRA, Roth IRA, qualified plan, or through a deferred‑payment facility such as Kenmare Assignments Ltd. For planners who understood the structure, the strategy was positioned as a way to enhance advisory value; attorneys could offer certain clients an alternative solution.
🔹 Archival Note
This post is preserved for historical context. SAM Trusts and ESI‑style offerings were mid‑2010s products tied to a specific rate environment and are no longer offered.
Leave a Reply