by Structured Settlement Watchdog
Through proper fact finding, ostensibly one could gain an understanding of a plaintiff's total financial needs and plug one or more in force benefit segments similar to these into the mix, combining with one or more standard structured annuities and cash to fulfill the plaintiff's pr attorney's financial needs.
I want to reiterate, as I have in my videos and prior blog posts, that the in force structured settlement phenomenon IS already happening.
I will also add that the response from inside and outside the industry which I have received since beginning a public exploration of the inforce market has been far more positive than negative.
On November 12 2005, one of my first blog posts disputed that "factoring is part of settlement planning". It was then a major thrust of the Society of Settlement Planners which, through sponsorships, was sucking in factoring money to survive. Essentially the SSP thrust was no more than this- that a settlement planner and/or the plaintiff's attorney owed a duty to the plaintiff to discuss factoring and IRC 5891 and to assure that certain language was in the settlement documents to assure that the plaintiff would be able to factor their structured settlement, if the need arose.
Based on the research that this author has done factoring may very well NOW be a part of settlement planning and ongoing financial planning, but from an entirely different angle- the inforce structured settlement market.
Please note that investments in structured settlement payment rights are not annuities and bear transactional risk that cold cause you to incur additional expense or possibly lose your investment.
Leave a Reply