Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Death Pays

The fun has not gone out of banking after all. Following the disastrous fall of 2008, conventional wisdom had it that many of the things that made banking fun, like amazing bonuses and fascinating (if not understood) financial instruments were going to follow the dinosaur into extinction. That, of course, did not happen. Bonuses are as big as ever and a recent announcement discloses that a new financial instrument that is far more interesting than a bundle of mortgages is about to hit the market. It involves life insurance.

For years life insurance was thought of as something to provide cash following its owner’s death to be used for a variety of purposes ranging from the payment of taxes to providing funds for young families to replace the lost earnings of the parent who died. As families grew older, in many cases the need for life insurance diminished. Owners of those policies took advantage of the cash value in the policy and accepted that amount from the company in lieu of keeping the policy in force. Since the cash value the policy holder received was much less than what the company would have to pay were the policy in force at the policy holder’s death, the insurance company was delighted to redeem the policy for its cash value instead of its face value.

Unfortunately for the insurance companies, a greedy group of people sprang up who said to policy holders that getting cash value from the life insurance policy was a rip-off. They offered to buy the policies for more than their cash value. The purchasers figured out how long the insured was likely to live and, adding in the policy proceeds payable at death, came up with a price they were willing to pay the insured. The insured, who no longer wanted the insurance, was delighted to have more than the cash value of the policy to spend before death. Sensing a good thing, Wall Street has figured out how to turn this practice into something that is even better than the collateralized debt obligations based on mortgages. (Those would have been a win-win situation for everyone if the unimaginable and unimagined had not occurred.) This latest financial instrument is a guaranteed win-win almost for sure. Here is how it works.

Assume that one thousand very old people all have $1 million life insurance polices with low cash values. Those people would not be tempted to cash in their policies for the cash value. Along comes a bank and agrees to pay each of them $700,000 for the policy. It names itself the beneficiary, begins paying the premiums and bundles the 1000 policies into a $700 million bond called “Death Pays” and sells interests in the bond to investors. If all the insureds die within 30 days, the investors will be thrilled because Death Pays will now be worth $1 billion, an increase in value for the investors of $300 million in 30 days. If, however, all the insureds take the money they got from selling their policies and go on a tour sponsored by AARP to a spa that has a treatment that gives them an additional 30 years of life, the holders of “Death Pays” will be less than thrilled. (Were that to happen the issuer of “Death Pays” bonds might hire hit men to accelerate events that would cause the policies to mature but that brings with it a completely different set of problems that are beyond the scope of this column to examine.)

Life insurance companies are not terribly happy with the idea that their policies will remain in force instead of being sold for cash value. If this new idea catches on, more and more of their policies will be bought and kept in force until the happy day the insured dies. Indeed, Kathleen Tillwitz, a senior vice-president at a firm that is rating 9 proposals for life-insurance securitizations from private investors told the New York Times that “our phones have been ringing off the hook with inquiries.” An investment banker not authorized to speak to the NYT (or other media) who spoke to the NYT said: “We’re hoping to get a herd stampeding after the first offering.”

Some analysts say that this is a wonderful new product since death is not related to the rise and fall of stocks. They are right, unless a dramatic fall in the stock market is accompanied by falls from window ledges as happened during the great depression. If that were to happen the amounts owed by the companies on the life insurance policies could exceed the insurance companies’ ability to pay, thus causing their insolvency and the need for a government bailout. Thanks to the sophistication of those constructing these new investments, that almost certainly will never happen.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer in Boulder, Colorado. He can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.

 

More articles by:
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
Elliot Sperber
Build More Gardens, Phase out Cars
Chris Gilbert
In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 
Muhammad Othman
Let Us Bray
Gerry Brown
Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?
Rev. William Alberts
Judge Kavanaugh’s Defenders Doth Protest Too Much
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail