by Structured Settlement Watchdog Updated June 27, 2026
As I’ve previously opined “Secondary Market Annuity” is a scam label for Structured Settlement Receivables. Investing in structured settlement payment rights, which are clearly not annuities, carries more risk and lacks the regulatory oversight of genuine annuities, raising doubts about their suitability for injury victims.
No state statute or the D.C. Code contains the term “secondary market annuity”
Based on the search results, the term does not appear in any state’s insurance laws, annuity statutes, or regulatory chapters. The statutes referenced in the search results cover life insurance, annuities, suitability rules, rate filings, exemptions, and consumer protections, but none include or define “secondary market annuity.”
“Secondary market annuity” is not a legal term of art in any state insurance code
- States regulate annuity contracts, structured settlements, life settlements, and assignments, but not anything called a “secondary market annuity.”
- The term is therefore purely a marketing label, not a statutory category.
Why this matters
Because the term does not appear in law:
- It has no statutory definition,
- It has no regulatory protections,
- It is not recognized by insurance departments,
- And it can be misleading, since the products sold under that label are typically structured settlement receivables ( factored structured settlement payment rights), not annuities.
Multiple failed attempts to trademark
The USPTO Questioned the Legitimacy of the Claims
There have been two attempts to trademark the term “secondary market annuities” first by an individual and then an entity out of the Portland Oregon area and the descriptions filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) in those failed applications are most interesting.
The first was by Thomas B Hamlin of Somerset Wealth filed 04/10/2012 USPTO File #85593963
Annuity services, namely, account and investment administration; Annuity services, namely, account and investment administration and the investment and distribution of annuity funds; Annuity underwriting; Financial services, namely, providing an investment option available for variable annuity and variable life insurance products; Investment management of and distribution of annuities; Investment management of and distribution of variable annuities; Issuance and administration of annuities; Underwriting, issuance and administration of annuities. The USPTO denied the registration
An identical submission was filed by jointly by Tyson Wright and SMA Hub Inc. USPTO File # 86251800.
The USPTO rejected SMA Hub’s attempt on similar grounds.
In its July 23, 2014 office action rejecting SMA Hubs filing, the USPTO cites Marketwatch “Here, the attached definition from Marketwatch.com shows that the wording “secondary market annuity” refers to a type of investment in which an investor purchases “the right to receive the contractual guarantees (typically in payment from) from the original annuity policy.”
SMA Hub’s Hollow Argument for an Annuity That DID NOT fool the USPTO
The USPTO office action in response to the SMA HUB filing appears to question the tie-in between the description in the filing and what is actually being sold
“The applicant must respond to the following questions for the application record:
- Do applicant’s services feature or relate to secondary market annuities?
- If so, please explain.
- Do applicant’s promotional materials mention secondary market annuities?
- If so, please explain and provide a copy of such materials. This may take the form of a fact sheet, an instruction manual, and/or advertisements or promotional materials. If such materials are not available, the applicant must submit a detailed description of the investments and annuities features by applicant’s services or which are the subject matter of applicant’s services”.
SMA Hub never responded and the filing was abandoned.
USPTO Exhibits were Telling
Exhibits attached to the USPTO office action had this to say about “secondary market annuities” (the u-annuity)
- “My bottom line: Steer clear of the product. The time-honored insight holds: A higher yield means greater risks. I don’t see anything “safe” about a secondary market annuity for the average retiree”. The Skinny on Secondary Market Annuities Chris Farrell Economics editor Marketplace, February 10, 2012, in response to a retiree who asked “I am retired and would like to safely increase income. What is a secondary market annuity? Is it a suitable vehicle for putting a portion of retirement funds to safely increase guaranteed retirement income?”
- “But as is so often the case when investments are promoted on the basis of high yield, these deals are unsuitable for most investors. Even in the rare situations when they might make sense, you must proceed with extraordinary caution” Jason Zweig Wall Street Journal. Another Can’t-Miss Deal That Can Miss Spectacularly