Wall Street Vultures Betting on Death: If You Die Early, They Cash In
September 6, 2009
Comments
11 Responses to “Wall Street Vultures Betting on Death: If You Die Early, They Cash In”
Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.
And how long before Goldman Sachs is buying up companies that do medical research and putting them out of business, or orders them to quit attacking minor problems like cancer and develop a cure for acne?
How is this morally any different from the life insurance companies themselves betting on your death with premium prices based on age, health, occupation, recreational activities, etc.???? They have always been based on longevity, or “how soon will you die” tables. If there wasn’t money to be made in offering the policies to begin with, there would be an industry for them. Maybe if they were called “death insurance policies”, to reflect what they really are, no one would feel there is something fundamentally wrong with an investment in a person’s early death.
,,,not sure that this will work???
[...] Wall Street Vultures Betting on Death: If You Die Early, They Cash In – Chattahbox.com(ChattahBox)—Since the near collapse of Wall Street from the sub-prime mortgage crisis, traders have been jonesing for a return to the adrenaline rush they once enjoyed from the slew of exotic financial instruments cooked up in the dark recesses of [...]
I think this is all about money.We must really have to know that Human beings are not just about money.There are lot other things also like relations.
“Any development that raises the odds in favor of a longer life, like improved health care because of the passage of health care reform, ”
Your excessife suspicion of services provided by private institutions and inordinate gullibility about the beneficence of services managed by public institutions are both evident in this piece. If I were defending insurance company interests, I would be happy to see the suppression of this competitor to my patrons; monopolistic offers of a viatical settlement to their distressed policyholders. And if I were a holder of bonds backed by insurance policies acquired through viatical settlements, and valued above all making a killing on such bonds, passage of a “single payer” government insurance program would be high on my agenda of desirable events – - imagine “everyone” getting medical services as efficiently as the customers of VA hospitals – - the death rate would be spiking upwards and my profits would be rolling in like a tsunami. Obamacare: “throw me in that briar patch, Brer Fox!”
On the other hand, since I’m concerned about the quality and availability of medical services more than making a killing on viatical settlement bonds, it’s encouraging that Obamacare is looking as lively as the dead parrot in the Monty Python skit.
[...] Read More: Wall Street Vultures Betting on Death: If You Die Early, They Cash … [...]
There’s obviously no bias in your writing (see tounge firmly impanted in my cheek). If you had appropriately researched the topic here perhaps you’d have uncovered the many possible positive aspects of this type of transaction. For a variety of reasons, there are many retirees who carry more life insurance than they need. Further, many cannot — or choose not to — afford the ongoing premiums. Did you know that some 80% of life insurance policies issued in the US never mature? The larger majority are surrendered to the carrier for built up cash value or simply allowed to lapse. The life settlement market gives consumers the option of selling their unwanted policy to investors for a multiple of what they’d get by surrendering the policy to the carrier and, certainly, generating a lump sum of cash from a policy you’re otherwise planning to let lapse is much better option. Further, the larger majority of these transactions are not done with “sick, dying people” or “desperate elderly people”. Thanks for scaring some consumers away from an opportunity to recover financially (again, tongue is firmly implanted in cheek).
Absolutely right Dan. Unfortunately this article lacks any research into the topic and reacts reflexively to a idea that seems “scary.” As a financial professional who works with these products they are highly scrutinized, regulated in the majority of states under current state insurance law, and most often done by credible well run organizations who place the privacy of the insured at the forefront of the transaction. Those people who choose to sell a policy are greatly benefited as are the investors who choose to supply the capital for the transactions. Cheers Sue, for writing on a topic you know very little about….and for writing it with a pointedly misguided viewpoint.
Profiting from death,
Government policies over the past year under both Bush and Obama have not only failed to limit the dominance of the financial aristocracy, they have in fact strengthened it. The largest banks have increased their monopoly over American finance, and the top executives and traders are anticipating record bonuses this year.
That the financial sector has been recalled to life even as the conditions for the working class deteriorate, even as millions of people are thrown out of their homes and jobs, as schools are shut down and social programs cut, is not accidental; the two processes are directly related.
That they should create a security to formalize this parasitic relationship is only natural.
[...] a move that many critics are calling a PR stunt, Goldman Sachs, perhaps the most despised firm on Wall Street, after AIG, announced on Thursday that it would not pay out end-of-year cash bonuses [...]