Friday, March 19, 2010
Review of Banks' Q1 2010 Earnings
Scotia Capital, 19 March 2010Strong Earnings, Ahead of Market Expectations• Canadian banks reported another quarter of strong operating results. Bank earnings again exceeded Street expectations for the fourth straight quarter, thus further confirming that the bottom in operating earnings this cycle was Q2/09, which coincided with what we believe was peak quarterly loan loss provisions. Operating
Friday, March 5, 2010
TD Bank Q1 2010 Earnings
Scotia Capital, 5 March 2010• TD reported an increase of 26% YOY to operating earnings of $1.60 per share, above expectations. Earnings were better than expected due to strong results from Canadian P&C and Wholesale Banking with credit quality stable. ROE was 15.5% with RRWA very high at 2.88%.Implications• Canadian P&C earnings were a record, increasing 23% YOY with revenue growth of 11% aided
Friday, February 19, 2010
Have you noticed your Auto Insurance Premiums Changing?
many Auto Insurance Companies have finally implemented the Prop 103 changes on how they rate customers for their auto insurance. In many cases for the insurance company, this ment they had to completely revise how they currently rated drivers.
Today, after implementing these requirements as required by law, many consumers are seeing a reduction in their rates, while others are seeing increases. It is still unknown the percentages of consumers having a positive benefit from the changes.
Why is this important?
Before most insurers, used garaging address(zip code) as a major factor in coming up with the premiums for the risk. The changes now require the major factor for rates to be the drivers record and miles driven.
Now most of the industry at the time, was telling consumers this will result in a rate increase. This is still true, depending on where you live. For example if you live in an area with higher risk for theft, accidents etc, you will probably see a rate reduction, if in turn you live in an area with lower risk you probably will see a slight increase.
Now that mileage is also a major factor, the same is true. It is important that when you speak to your insurance provider that you are conservative with your mileage estimates, just putting any # out there, can cost you in the pocket book!
Today, after implementing these requirements as required by law, many consumers are seeing a reduction in their rates, while others are seeing increases. It is still unknown the percentages of consumers having a positive benefit from the changes.
Why is this important?
Before most insurers, used garaging address(zip code) as a major factor in coming up with the premiums for the risk. The changes now require the major factor for rates to be the drivers record and miles driven.
Now most of the industry at the time, was telling consumers this will result in a rate increase. This is still true, depending on where you live. For example if you live in an area with higher risk for theft, accidents etc, you will probably see a rate reduction, if in turn you live in an area with lower risk you probably will see a slight increase.
Now that mileage is also a major factor, the same is true. It is important that when you speak to your insurance provider that you are conservative with your mileage estimates, just putting any # out there, can cost you in the pocket book!
What does Prop 103 Mean to you as a consumer?
Well to answer that question, you first must know what Prop 103 is.
Below is the information provided by the Dept of Insurance.
Proposition 103
Prop 103 was passed by California voters on November 8, 1988.
California is one of the fewer than a dozen prior-approval states in the nation.
Prop 103 was implemented by then Commissioner Garamendi.
Prior to Prop 103, California Department of Insurance (CDI) operated under McBride-Grunsky Insurance Regulatory Act. This act did not require insurance companies to file rates for approval except for health and life.
Prop 103 was authorized by the consumer and taxpayers union.
Rate Regulation and Prior Approval of Filings
Beginning November 8, 1989, property and casualty insurance rates had to be approved by the insurance commissioner prior to use.
Rate Filing Bureaus were created in the Rate Regulation Division on December 16, 1988 to implement provisions of Prop 103.
CDI has prior approval authority of insurer rates, not underwriting guidelines; however, CDI does review underwriting for compliance with existing regulations, e.g., for discriminatory or unfair practices.
In 2002, the Rate Regulation Division processed 7,770 filings.
Lines Regulated by Proposition 103
The following lines of insurance are regulated by Prop 103: Personal automobile, dwelling fire, earthquake, homeowners, inland marine, and umbrella, commercial aircraft, boiler and machinery, burglary and theft, business owners, earthquake, farm owners, some fidelity, fire, glass, , medical malpractice, miscellaneous, multi-peril, other liability, professional liability, special multi-peril, and coverage under the United States Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Compensation.
Act Rollback Provisions
Prop 103 required every insurer to reduce its rates at least 20% less than those rates that were in effect on November 8, 1987.
Since 1989, the Rate Regulation Division has been responsible for negotiating with insurance companies to meet their rollback obligations.
Public Notice
Prop 103 states that public notice must be given for all rate applications.
Deemer Provision
Prop 103 states that an application is deemed approved 60 days after public notice is given unless:
within 45 days of public notice, a consumer or consumer group requests and is granted a hearing or the commissioner determines not to grant the hearing and issues written support of that decision, or
the commissioner determines to hold a hearing, or
the proposed rate adjustment exceeds 7% of the then applicable rate for personal lines or 15% for commercial lines, in which case the commissioner must hold a hearing.
Public Viewing Rooms
Prop 103 states that all rating information provided to the commissioner must be available for public inspection.
Advisory Organizations
Prop 103 eliminated rating organizations.
Advisory organizations which still exist must file loss costs and forms with Rate Regulation Division.
Personal Automobile Rating Factors
Prop 103 requires personal automobile insurance rates be determined using the following primary factors: insured's driving safety record, number of miles driven annually, and number of years of driving experience insured has had, among others.
Good Driver Discount Provision
Prop 103 states that an insurer cannot refuse to write an applicant who qualifies for a good driver discount.
A good driver discount should be at least 20% below the rate the insured would otherwise have charged for the same coverage.
A good driver discount applies if all of the following criteria is met: licensed driver has not had more than one violation point during the past three years, was not the driver of motor vehicle that involved an accident which resulted in death or in total loss of damage exceeding $750, and was not principally at fault.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Revised - June 20, 2008
Structured Settlements in the United States
Structured Settlements in the United States
Have you ever wondered if what you know about Structured Settlements in the United States is accurate? Consider the following paragraphs and compare what you know to the latest info on Structured Settlements in the United States.
Truthfully, the only difference between you and Structured Settlements in the United States experts is time. If you'll invest a little more time in reading, you'll be that much nearer to expert status when it comes to Structured Settlements in the United States.
The United States has enacted structured settlement laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels. Federal structured settlement laws include sections of the (federal) Internal Revenue Code. State structured settlement laws include structured settlement protection statutes and periodic payment of judgment statutes. Medicaid and Medicare laws and regulations affect structured settlements. To preserve a claimant’s Medicare and Medicaid benefits, structured settlement payments may be incorporated into “Medicare Set Aside Arrangements” “Special Needs Trusts."
Structured settlements have been endorsed by many of the nation's largest disability rights organizations, including the American Association of People with Disabilities and the National Organization on Disability.
In April 2009, financial writer Suze Orman wrote in a column that structured settlements "provide ongoing income and reduce the risk of blowing a lump sum through poor financial choices." In response to a reader's question, she added that financial security can be improved "if you use the structured payouts wisely."
Knowing enough about Structured Settlements in the United States to make solid, informed choices cuts down on the fear factor. If you apply what you've just learned about Structured Settlements in the United States, you should have nothing to worry about.
Have you ever wondered if what you know about Structured Settlements in the United States is accurate? Consider the following paragraphs and compare what you know to the latest info on Structured Settlements in the United States.
Truthfully, the only difference between you and Structured Settlements in the United States experts is time. If you'll invest a little more time in reading, you'll be that much nearer to expert status when it comes to Structured Settlements in the United States.
The United States has enacted structured settlement laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels. Federal structured settlement laws include sections of the (federal) Internal Revenue Code. State structured settlement laws include structured settlement protection statutes and periodic payment of judgment statutes. Medicaid and Medicare laws and regulations affect structured settlements. To preserve a claimant’s Medicare and Medicaid benefits, structured settlement payments may be incorporated into “Medicare Set Aside Arrangements” “Special Needs Trusts."
Structured settlements have been endorsed by many of the nation's largest disability rights organizations, including the American Association of People with Disabilities and the National Organization on Disability.
In April 2009, financial writer Suze Orman wrote in a column that structured settlements "provide ongoing income and reduce the risk of blowing a lump sum through poor financial choices." In response to a reader's question, she added that financial security can be improved "if you use the structured payouts wisely."
Knowing enough about Structured Settlements in the United States to make solid, informed choices cuts down on the fear factor. If you apply what you've just learned about Structured Settlements in the United States, you should have nothing to worry about.
Legal Structure of structured settlement
Legal Structure of structured settlement
Do you ever feel like you know just enough about Legal Structure of structured settlement to be dangerous? Let's see if we can fill in some of the gaps with the latest info from Legal Structure of structured settlement experts.
Now that we've covered those aspects of Legal Structure of structured settlement, let's turn to some of the other factors that need to be considered.
The typical structured settlement arises and is structured as follows: An injured party (the claimant) settles a tort suit with the defendant (or its insurance carrier) pursuant to a settlement agreement that provides that, in exchange for the claimant's securing the dismissal of the lawsuit, the defendant (or, more commonly, its insurer) agrees to make a series of periodic payments over time. The defendant, or the property/casualty insurance company, thus finds itself with a long-term payment obligation to the claimant. To fund this obligation, the property/casualty insurer generally takes one of two typical approaches: It either purchases an annuity from a life insurance company (an arrangement called a "buy and hold" case) or it assigns (or, more properly, delegates) its periodic payment obligation to a third party ("assigned case") which in turn purchases a "qualified funding asset" to finance the assigned periodic payment obligation. Pursuant to IRC 130(d) a "qualified funding asset" may be an annuity or an obligation of the United States government.
In an unassigned case, the defendant or property/casualty insurer retains the periodic payment obligation and funds it by purchasing an annuity from a life insurance company, thereby offsetting its obligation with a matching asset. The payment stream purchased under the annuity matches exactly, in timing and amounts, the periodic payments agreed to in the settlement agreement. The defendant or property/casualty company owns the annuity and names the claimant as the payee under the annuity, thereby directing the annuity issuer to send payments directly to the claimant. If any of the periodic payments are life-contingent (i.e., the obligation to make a payment is contingent on someone continuing to be alive), then the claimant (or whoever is determined to be the measuring life) is named as the annuitant or measuring life under the annuity.
In an assigned case, the defendant or property/casualty company does not wish to retain the long-term periodic payment obligation on its books. Accordingly, the defendant or property/casualty insurer transfers the obligation, through a legal device called a qualified assignment, to a third party. The third party, called an assignment company, will require the defendant or property/casualty company to pay it an amount sufficient to enable it to buy an annuity that will fund its newly accepted periodic payment obligation. If the claimant consents to the transfer of the periodic payment obligation (either in the settlement agreement or, failing that, in a special form of qualified assignment known as a qualified assignment and release), the defendant and/or its property/casualty company has no further liability to make the periodic payments. This method of substituting the obligor is desirable for defendants or property/casualty companies that do not want to retain the periodic payment obligation on their books. A qualified assignment is also advantageous for the claimant as it will not have to rely on the continued credit of the defendant or property/casualty company as a general creditor. Typically, an assignment company is an affiliate of the life insurance company from which the annuity is purchased.
An assignment is said to be "qualified" if it satisfies the criteria set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 130. Qualification of the assignment is important to assignment companies because without it the amount they receive to induce them to accept periodic payment obligations would be considered income for federal income tax purposes. If an assignment qualifies under Section 130, however, the amount received is excluded from the income of the assignment company. This provision of the tax code was enacted to encourage assigned cases; without it, assignment companies would owe federal income taxes but would typically have no source from which to make the payments.
To comply with the provisions of IRC 130, periodic payments generally cannot be accelerated, increased, decreased, etc. The rights to receive structured settlement payment rights may be transferred (see structured settlement factoring transaction).
Now you can understand why there's a growing interest in Legal Structure of structured settlement. When people start looking for more information about Legal Structure of structured settlement, you'll be in a position to meet their needs.
Do you ever feel like you know just enough about Legal Structure of structured settlement to be dangerous? Let's see if we can fill in some of the gaps with the latest info from Legal Structure of structured settlement experts.
Now that we've covered those aspects of Legal Structure of structured settlement, let's turn to some of the other factors that need to be considered.
The typical structured settlement arises and is structured as follows: An injured party (the claimant) settles a tort suit with the defendant (or its insurance carrier) pursuant to a settlement agreement that provides that, in exchange for the claimant's securing the dismissal of the lawsuit, the defendant (or, more commonly, its insurer) agrees to make a series of periodic payments over time. The defendant, or the property/casualty insurance company, thus finds itself with a long-term payment obligation to the claimant. To fund this obligation, the property/casualty insurer generally takes one of two typical approaches: It either purchases an annuity from a life insurance company (an arrangement called a "buy and hold" case) or it assigns (or, more properly, delegates) its periodic payment obligation to a third party ("assigned case") which in turn purchases a "qualified funding asset" to finance the assigned periodic payment obligation. Pursuant to IRC 130(d) a "qualified funding asset" may be an annuity or an obligation of the United States government.
In an unassigned case, the defendant or property/casualty insurer retains the periodic payment obligation and funds it by purchasing an annuity from a life insurance company, thereby offsetting its obligation with a matching asset. The payment stream purchased under the annuity matches exactly, in timing and amounts, the periodic payments agreed to in the settlement agreement. The defendant or property/casualty company owns the annuity and names the claimant as the payee under the annuity, thereby directing the annuity issuer to send payments directly to the claimant. If any of the periodic payments are life-contingent (i.e., the obligation to make a payment is contingent on someone continuing to be alive), then the claimant (or whoever is determined to be the measuring life) is named as the annuitant or measuring life under the annuity.
In an assigned case, the defendant or property/casualty company does not wish to retain the long-term periodic payment obligation on its books. Accordingly, the defendant or property/casualty insurer transfers the obligation, through a legal device called a qualified assignment, to a third party. The third party, called an assignment company, will require the defendant or property/casualty company to pay it an amount sufficient to enable it to buy an annuity that will fund its newly accepted periodic payment obligation. If the claimant consents to the transfer of the periodic payment obligation (either in the settlement agreement or, failing that, in a special form of qualified assignment known as a qualified assignment and release), the defendant and/or its property/casualty company has no further liability to make the periodic payments. This method of substituting the obligor is desirable for defendants or property/casualty companies that do not want to retain the periodic payment obligation on their books. A qualified assignment is also advantageous for the claimant as it will not have to rely on the continued credit of the defendant or property/casualty company as a general creditor. Typically, an assignment company is an affiliate of the life insurance company from which the annuity is purchased.
An assignment is said to be "qualified" if it satisfies the criteria set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 130. Qualification of the assignment is important to assignment companies because without it the amount they receive to induce them to accept periodic payment obligations would be considered income for federal income tax purposes. If an assignment qualifies under Section 130, however, the amount received is excluded from the income of the assignment company. This provision of the tax code was enacted to encourage assigned cases; without it, assignment companies would owe federal income taxes but would typically have no source from which to make the payments.
To comply with the provisions of IRC 130, periodic payments generally cannot be accelerated, increased, decreased, etc. The rights to receive structured settlement payment rights may be transferred (see structured settlement factoring transaction).
Now you can understand why there's a growing interest in Legal Structure of structured settlement. When people start looking for more information about Legal Structure of structured settlement, you'll be in a position to meet their needs.
Definitions of structured settlement
Definitions of structured settlement
The following article includes pertinent information that may cause you to reconsider what you thought you understood. The most important thing is to study with an open mind and be willing to revise your understanding if necessary.
See how much you can learn about Definitions structured settlement when you take a little time to read a well-researched article? Don't miss out on the rest of this great information.
A definition of “structured settlement” can be found in Internal Revenue Code Section 5891(c)(1) (26 U.S.C. § 5891(c)(1)), which states that a structured settlement is an "arrangement" that meets the following requirements:
=>A structured settlement must be established by:
===>A suit or agreement for periodic payment of damages excludable from gross income under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(2) (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2)); or
===>An agreement for the periodic payment of compensation under any workers’ compensation law excludable under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(1) (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(1)); and
=>The periodic payments must be of the character described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Internal Revenue Code Section 130(c)(2) (26 U.S.C. § 130(c)(2))) and must be payable by a person who:
===>Is a party to the suit or agreement or to a workers' compensation claim; or
===>By a person who has assumed the liability for such periodic payments under a qualified assignment in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 130 (26 U.S.C. § 130).
It is important to note that the language immediately prior to Internal Revenue Code Section 5891(c)(1) states that the definition that appears there is "for the purposes of this section". Internal Revenue Code Section 5891 entitled "Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions" deals with the excise tax imposed on the "factoring discount" (see IRC 5891(c)(4)), when there is a purchase of structured settlement payment rights and the exceptions to the excise tax. A number of structured settlement industry commentators have been observed attempting to broaden the express language that appears in the Internal Revenue Code.
Hopefully the sections above have contributed to your understanding of Definitions structured settlement. Share your new understanding about Definitions structured settlement with others. They'll thank you for it.
The following article includes pertinent information that may cause you to reconsider what you thought you understood. The most important thing is to study with an open mind and be willing to revise your understanding if necessary.
See how much you can learn about Definitions structured settlement when you take a little time to read a well-researched article? Don't miss out on the rest of this great information.
A definition of “structured settlement” can be found in Internal Revenue Code Section 5891(c)(1) (26 U.S.C. § 5891(c)(1)), which states that a structured settlement is an "arrangement" that meets the following requirements:
=>A structured settlement must be established by:
===>A suit or agreement for periodic payment of damages excludable from gross income under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(2) (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2)); or
===>An agreement for the periodic payment of compensation under any workers’ compensation law excludable under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(1) (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(1)); and
=>The periodic payments must be of the character described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Internal Revenue Code Section 130(c)(2) (26 U.S.C. § 130(c)(2))) and must be payable by a person who:
===>Is a party to the suit or agreement or to a workers' compensation claim; or
===>By a person who has assumed the liability for such periodic payments under a qualified assignment in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 130 (26 U.S.C. § 130).
It is important to note that the language immediately prior to Internal Revenue Code Section 5891(c)(1) states that the definition that appears there is "for the purposes of this section". Internal Revenue Code Section 5891 entitled "Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions" deals with the excise tax imposed on the "factoring discount" (see IRC 5891(c)(4)), when there is a purchase of structured settlement payment rights and the exceptions to the excise tax. A number of structured settlement industry commentators have been observed attempting to broaden the express language that appears in the Internal Revenue Code.
Hopefully the sections above have contributed to your understanding of Definitions structured settlement. Share your new understanding about Definitions structured settlement with others. They'll thank you for it.