It goes without saying that paying bribes, kick backs and rebates in the process of soliciting insurance is illegal!
Ostensibly such rebate restrictions are to protect consumers from being tempted to business with those whose best quality is the rebate itself and to help prevent the "big bad guys" from trampling on the "small good guys".
Structured settlement professionals are regulated by state insurance departments where they solicit business. To solicit structured settlements one must possess an active life insurance license in each state of solicitation and follow the concomitant laws of the state governing such practices.
Factoring companies who buy structured settlement payment rights are unregulated and unlicensed and can do just about what ever the heck they please when it comes to attracting people to part with long term financial security.
The following appears on the website of "financial crack" dealer Woodbridge Investments:
Financial consideration that is tied to the sale of insurance, including structured settlement annuities is illegal, however the fact that politicians and regulators are either not aware or not doing anything about this factoring company loophole is a national tragedy. Or is it?
By the logic employed by the political and regulatory inaction on this issue, WHY shouldn't insurance producers be allowed to PAY REBATES, BRIBES OR KICK BACKS OR MAKE SERIAL FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS as an inducement for business? Why shouldn't an insurance agent be allowed, for example, to buy a TV for a client (like Woodbridge)? Why shouldn't a structured settlement consultant be able to pay the mortgage for a client (like Imperial structured Settlements- factoring company says) or make fraudulent advertising promises (like many factoring companies baiting with "cash now").
HOW ABOUT SIMPLY SUBMITTING TO TOTAL FRICKIN' ANARCHY IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS?
Yeah right, rainbow Mohawk topped insurance agents and a mosh pit, that is is all we need! "A little Sid Vicious in my life, A little Johnny Rotten by my side" (apologies to Lou Bega for the "bastardization" of his mambo)
The status quo however, is patently unfair in view of what Woodbridge Investments is doing, is it not?
How is it that such companies are referred to as "vultures" by a Rhode Island judge (Netti C. Vogel) and others yet the "vultures" marketing practices continue to be unregulated?