Press

  • Financial regulators did not identify the problems occurring with sales to military members until they were brought to light by press reports for various reasons.  (p11)

2005 11 – GAO – Financial Product Sales: Actions Needed to Better Protect Military Members, Government Accountability Office – 88p

  • Linda M. Lankowski:  I think any way that we can make illustrations more understandable to the public is certainly going to help us.
    • We’ve seen the problems that have occurred when Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) was given an illustration with a vanishing premium, and he had absolutely no idea that he had bought a policy that was not paid up in four years.
  • It caused many problems for the industry; it caused many problems because the press got involved, and the press doesn’t understand the products as well as it thinks it does.

1995 – SOA – Practical Illustrations and Nonforfeiture Values, Society of Actuaries – 14p

  • ….part of a series of three.
  • Republicans and Democrats from both sides of the Hill took part in a discussion entitled, “Where Were the Watchdogs When the Savings and Loans Were Robbed”?

1989 0501 – National Press Club / CSPAN – Where Was the Press During the S&L Crisis? – [link]

  • The Wall Street Journal, in a back page article several weeks ago, discussed Universal Life Products, Variable Life and traditional permanent insurance – both participating and non-participating. – <WishList>
  • The Journal’s comparisons showed the Universal and Variable Life products to great advantage.
    • Of course, a critical aspect of the illustrations – for both Universal and Variable – is the assumed rate of interest.
  • The Wall Street Journal article assumed a rate of approximately 11% for the Universal Life and Variable Life illustrations.

—  Stanley B. Tulin

1981 – SOA – The Future of Permanent Life Insurance (rsa81v7n36), Society of Actuaries – 22p

  • 2019 1216 – Letter – Reporters Committee for thed Freedom of the Press (rcfp.org) to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Supreme Court of the United States
    • Re: Proposal for Supreme Court rule addressing sealed court records – 66p