I thought Closing.com was a nice platform for folks to find title agents until they put together a program to auto-fill Good Faith Estimates for mortgage lenders.
As I expressed to Dan, the nice fellow who called today from Closing.com, they are giving lenders a false sense of security and basically creating a platform which is about as reliable as ROBO-signing foreclosure plants.
Why is it
Friday, February 11, 2011
just deactivated my free Closing.com listing
I thought Closing.com was a nice platform for folks to find title agents until they put together a program to auto-fill Good Faith Estimates for mortgage lenders.
As I expressed to Dan, the nice fellow who called today from Closing.com, they are giving lenders a false sense of security and basically creating a platform which is about as reliable as ROBO-signing foreclosure plants.
Why is it
As I expressed to Dan, the nice fellow who called today from Closing.com, they are giving lenders a false sense of security and basically creating a platform which is about as reliable as ROBO-signing foreclosure plants.
Why is it
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Show Me The Money -- Politics and the Self-Insurance/ART Industry
The self-insurance/alternative industry is a major force in the U.S. economy, but it is largely invisible to most members of Congress. It is similarly cloaked at the state level.
So why the disconnect? Follow the money trail, or should I say the absence of such a trail.
While it’s rare these days that political contributions can explicitly “buy votes,” the reality is that financial support normally does get you access to politicians, which allows interest groups to deliver their messages in an unfiltered way.
Almost every major industry gets this concept. Sadly, our industry is one of the few notable exceptions.
This conclusion is easily quantified by looking at the political contributions made by the business community generally and the traditional insurance industry more specifically. They dwarf what has been contributed by those with an interest in protecting and promoting self-insurance.
As my role within our industry has evolved over the past few years, I have become what political operatives call a “money man,” which means I am responsible for passing the hat to collect contributions for politicians that we hope will support various legislative/regulatory priorities.
Obviously this role has provided me a unique perspective on our industry’s historic stinginess and naivety about how the political process really works.
Now of course there are exceptions. Many companies and individuals reach for their checkbooks immediately upon request and do this enthusiastically. But in my experience, soliciting political contributions is a tough sell in most cases.
Complicating matters is that political contributions at the federal level must be done through personal checks or credit cards. No corporate money is allowed.
Interestingly, there are countless individuals who have made a very nice living though their involvement in the self-insurance/ART industry, but hesitate when asked to financially support political initiatives that will help the industry. It’s difficult to square this reality.
Other individuals have the mindset that they are willing to write a check, but only when there’s a hot issue. That’s short sighted.
For those of us who clearly understand the concept of insurance, you know you can’t purchase property insurance when your house is burning down or health insurance when in an ambulance on the way to the hospital.
Making targeted political contributions is the equivalent of purchasing insurance to mitigate possible future legislative/regulatory risks.
One complication is that our industry is comprised of corporate buyers (employers) and service providers. These two segments have different motivations and capabilities for political involvement.
Service providers generally have a top-line interest in legislative/developments. In other words, they consider how such developments will affect revenue generation. In my experience this is the most powerful motivation to write a check.
Risk/benefit manager types, on the other hand, are focused on the expense line. They just want to be able to utilize self-insurance vehicles to control costs with minimal regulatory hassles. And while most view this as important, it’s uncommon that they will write a personal check in support of a corporate objective for which they do stand to directly benefit financially.
That’s not a criticism, it’s simply reality. And because of this reality, a large number of people in our industry will be confined to the sidelines of political involvement making it even more important that service providers pick up the slack.
Despite our industry’s historical underperformance in the money game, I am actually cautiously optimistic for the future. My sense is that the messaging just needs to be sharpened so that political contributions are viewed as both insurance and investments.
I will be directly involved in some targeted political fund-raising efforts over the next couple months and expect to have many one-on-one conversations as part of passing the hat. This will give me a new opportunity to test my assumptions.
Will people show me the money? I’ll circle back on this topic in the near future and let you know.
So why the disconnect? Follow the money trail, or should I say the absence of such a trail.
While it’s rare these days that political contributions can explicitly “buy votes,” the reality is that financial support normally does get you access to politicians, which allows interest groups to deliver their messages in an unfiltered way.
Almost every major industry gets this concept. Sadly, our industry is one of the few notable exceptions.
This conclusion is easily quantified by looking at the political contributions made by the business community generally and the traditional insurance industry more specifically. They dwarf what has been contributed by those with an interest in protecting and promoting self-insurance.
As my role within our industry has evolved over the past few years, I have become what political operatives call a “money man,” which means I am responsible for passing the hat to collect contributions for politicians that we hope will support various legislative/regulatory priorities.
Obviously this role has provided me a unique perspective on our industry’s historic stinginess and naivety about how the political process really works.
Now of course there are exceptions. Many companies and individuals reach for their checkbooks immediately upon request and do this enthusiastically. But in my experience, soliciting political contributions is a tough sell in most cases.
Complicating matters is that political contributions at the federal level must be done through personal checks or credit cards. No corporate money is allowed.
Interestingly, there are countless individuals who have made a very nice living though their involvement in the self-insurance/ART industry, but hesitate when asked to financially support political initiatives that will help the industry. It’s difficult to square this reality.
Other individuals have the mindset that they are willing to write a check, but only when there’s a hot issue. That’s short sighted.
For those of us who clearly understand the concept of insurance, you know you can’t purchase property insurance when your house is burning down or health insurance when in an ambulance on the way to the hospital.
Making targeted political contributions is the equivalent of purchasing insurance to mitigate possible future legislative/regulatory risks.
One complication is that our industry is comprised of corporate buyers (employers) and service providers. These two segments have different motivations and capabilities for political involvement.
Service providers generally have a top-line interest in legislative/developments. In other words, they consider how such developments will affect revenue generation. In my experience this is the most powerful motivation to write a check.
Risk/benefit manager types, on the other hand, are focused on the expense line. They just want to be able to utilize self-insurance vehicles to control costs with minimal regulatory hassles. And while most view this as important, it’s uncommon that they will write a personal check in support of a corporate objective for which they do stand to directly benefit financially.
That’s not a criticism, it’s simply reality. And because of this reality, a large number of people in our industry will be confined to the sidelines of political involvement making it even more important that service providers pick up the slack.
Despite our industry’s historical underperformance in the money game, I am actually cautiously optimistic for the future. My sense is that the messaging just needs to be sharpened so that political contributions are viewed as both insurance and investments.
I will be directly involved in some targeted political fund-raising efforts over the next couple months and expect to have many one-on-one conversations as part of passing the hat. This will give me a new opportunity to test my assumptions.
Will people show me the money? I’ll circle back on this topic in the near future and let you know.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
ADA 2.0 Packs a Sharper Edge for Workers' Comp. Self-Insurers
The landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 substantively changed workplace rules in ways that required employers to adapt a variety of hiring and return-to-work practices in order to maintain compliance.
Now 20 years later, the ADA has been amended and the implications for workers’ compensation self-insurers are significant. At issue is that ADA 2.0 will impose several new restrictions on how return-to-work programs can be structured.
The new final regulations are expected to be released this spring, but in anticipation of this expanded regulatory reach some self-insured employers have already felt the sting.
Over the past the year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been quietly adding nearly 300 investigators to enforce ADA requirements. Most recently, they have been targeting larger companies (generally self-insured) to determine if their return-to-work programs are ADA 2.0 compliant.
This is a fundamental change in EEOC’s historical approach of investigating claims made by specific employees. In other words, the EEOC is now essentially conducting on-site “audits” to determine possible ADA 2.0 violations.
Companies are already starting to pay big fines as part of negotiated settlements as the EEOC flexes its muscles in advance of the release of final regulations – proactive enforcement, indeed.
For example, late last year Sears settled an EEOC complaint for $6 million in connection with its employee absence policy that was deemed to improperty accommodate disabled workers. United Airlines recently paid more than $600,000 for a policy that refused the allow returning workers with disabilities to work reduced hour shifts.
With the EEOC investigative staffing ramp up, it’s clear that audit and enforcement efforts will pick up significantly this year and likely entangle many workers’ compensation self-insurers with carefully structured return-to-work programs.
The good news is that there are ways that employers can make sure they are ADA 2.0 compliant and we’ll report on that in the coming months.
In the meantime, the march of big government continues.
Now 20 years later, the ADA has been amended and the implications for workers’ compensation self-insurers are significant. At issue is that ADA 2.0 will impose several new restrictions on how return-to-work programs can be structured.
The new final regulations are expected to be released this spring, but in anticipation of this expanded regulatory reach some self-insured employers have already felt the sting.
Over the past the year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been quietly adding nearly 300 investigators to enforce ADA requirements. Most recently, they have been targeting larger companies (generally self-insured) to determine if their return-to-work programs are ADA 2.0 compliant.
This is a fundamental change in EEOC’s historical approach of investigating claims made by specific employees. In other words, the EEOC is now essentially conducting on-site “audits” to determine possible ADA 2.0 violations.
Companies are already starting to pay big fines as part of negotiated settlements as the EEOC flexes its muscles in advance of the release of final regulations – proactive enforcement, indeed.
For example, late last year Sears settled an EEOC complaint for $6 million in connection with its employee absence policy that was deemed to improperty accommodate disabled workers. United Airlines recently paid more than $600,000 for a policy that refused the allow returning workers with disabilities to work reduced hour shifts.
With the EEOC investigative staffing ramp up, it’s clear that audit and enforcement efforts will pick up significantly this year and likely entangle many workers’ compensation self-insurers with carefully structured return-to-work programs.
The good news is that there are ways that employers can make sure they are ADA 2.0 compliant and we’ll report on that in the coming months.
In the meantime, the march of big government continues.
one of the soldiers of disaster apologizes
I was 22 years old when I decided to go into mortgage sales. I was finishing an undergraduate degree in criminal justice and had decided that I didn't want to go to law school as I had originally intended. I didn't have rich parents, and had never made any significant money, so I set out to find the highest-paying job someone with my limited qualifications could find.
At the time, my
At the time, my
one of the soldiers of disaster apologizes
I was 22 years old when I decided to go into mortgage sales. I was finishing an undergraduate degree in criminal justice and had decided that I didn't want to go to law school as I had originally intended. I didn't have rich parents, and had never made any significant money, so I set out to find the highest-paying job someone with my limited qualifications could find.
At the time, my
At the time, my
Monday, January 31, 2011
Judge Heard What Healh Care Law Did Not Say
It’s ironic that the ultimate fate of the nearly 3,000 page Patient Protection and Affordable Act (PPACA) may hinge on what was not included in the legislation.
Today’s ruling by a federal appellate court judge in Florida that the law’s individual mandate provision is unconstitutional is certainly important, but even more significant is that the judge also ruled that entire law must be struck down on the basis on non-severability. In other words, if a single provision does not pass constitutional muster, then it all gets thrown out.
This is particularly interesting because shortly after the passage of PPACA, it came to light that the law did not include a severability provision, which is a pretty standard clause for most comprehensive legislation. To this day no one really knows for sure the reason for this important omission, although the most likely theory is that it was drafting error made in the rush to pass the legislation.
Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that we needed to pass the bill to know what’s in it. Apparently we also needed to pass the bill to know what was not in it.
I have written and commented about this small but important legislative detail frequently over the past year. On more than one occasion someone has challenged me that it is not realistic to think that the entre law could be thrown out even if specific provision were voided by the courts. Conventional wisdom misses the mark once again.
So it’s off to the Supreme Court we go and we’ll see if at least five justices hear what the health care law did not say.
Today’s ruling by a federal appellate court judge in Florida that the law’s individual mandate provision is unconstitutional is certainly important, but even more significant is that the judge also ruled that entire law must be struck down on the basis on non-severability. In other words, if a single provision does not pass constitutional muster, then it all gets thrown out.
This is particularly interesting because shortly after the passage of PPACA, it came to light that the law did not include a severability provision, which is a pretty standard clause for most comprehensive legislation. To this day no one really knows for sure the reason for this important omission, although the most likely theory is that it was drafting error made in the rush to pass the legislation.
Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that we needed to pass the bill to know what’s in it. Apparently we also needed to pass the bill to know what was not in it.
I have written and commented about this small but important legislative detail frequently over the past year. On more than one occasion someone has challenged me that it is not realistic to think that the entre law could be thrown out even if specific provision were voided by the courts. Conventional wisdom misses the mark once again.
So it’s off to the Supreme Court we go and we’ll see if at least five justices hear what the health care law did not say.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)