by Structured Settlement Watchdog
A paragon is a large, flawless diamond. The title is now used figuratively to denote a model of excellence or perfection of any kind; one having no equal. One of our competitors has elected to use the word “paragon” to promote itself. Yet judging from its published comparison of structured settlement to other financial products on the website of Westlake Village, CA based Paragon Settlement Group, it is evident that the “diamond” has flaws”.
Hartford Woobie Comparison Chart Alert
Paragon Settlement Group compares structured settlements to alternative investments available to plaintiffs, using the Hartford Woobie chart which appears to be compiled from information supplied to structured settlement brokers by Hartford Life Insurance Company, in 1999. It’s now 2011! According to whois.net the website was created in 2010.
Why Paragon Settlement Group would choose to put out what is now long obsolete information is anyone’s guess.
A. Paragon Settlement Group fails to acknowledge that structured settlements can be funded with an annuity OR an obligation of the United States government [See: IRC 130(d)]
B. Paragon Settlement Group also fails to acknowledge that FDIC limits were temporarily increased to $250,000 (from $100,000) during the height of the financial crisis of 2008-2009, an increase that has been subsequently made permanent.
See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Sec. 335. PERMANENT INCREASE IN DEPOSIT AND SHARE INSURANCE.
(a) Permanent Increase in Deposit Insurance.—Section 11(a)(1)(E) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(E)) is amended—
(1) by striking “$100,000” and inserting “$250,000”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentences: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the increase in the standard maximum deposit insurance amount to $250,000 shall apply to depositors in any institution for which the Corporation was appointed as receiver or conservator on or after January 1, 2008, and before October 3, 2008. The Corporation shall take such actions as are necessary to carry out the requirements of this section with respect to such depositors, without regard to any time limitations under this Act. In implementing this and the preceding 2 sentences, any payment on a deposit claim made by the Corporation as receiver or conservator to a depositor above the standard maximum deposit insurance amount in effect at the time of the appointment of the Corporation as receiver or conservator shall be deemed to be part of the net amount due to the depositor under subparagraph (B).”
(b) Permanent Increase in Share Insurance.—Section 207(k)(5) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1787(k)(5)) is amended by striking “$100,000” and inserting “$250,000”.
There is no further need for example. This is a “disease” that has previously beset others in the structured settlement industry as I have highlighted previously in this forum. It certainly is an embarrassment, in my opinion, when an industry colleague takes so little pride in their marketing materials to slap up obsolete material. The “better to keep your trap shut and let other people think you’re a fool…” rule applies. Is it too much to ask, for the benefit of the structured settlement industry (and the structured settlement consumer) for Paragon Settlement Group to do the right thing? How about it fellas?
Chorus — Goodbye Woobie Tuesday
Goodbye Woobie Tuesday,
Hartford dropped all that stuff.
They let the blanket go, man —
Why cling to outdated fluff?
Goodbye Woobie Tuesday,
The chart’s not foolin’ us.
If Dodd‑Frank pushed it up,
Why push it so fupped duck.
http://www.paragonsettlementgroup.com/pdf/StructuresVersusOtherFinancialProducts.pdf
Related Reading
Structured Settlement Comparisons: Ditch The Hartford Woobie October 15, 2010
Structured Settlement Contest: Help Us Identify the ‘Bonehead’ Firm – Structured Settlements 4Real®Blog The Hartford Woobie makes an appearance) January 5, 2017
Leave a Reply