Death Care Law Blog : Kansas Death Care and Preneed Lawyer & Attorney : Stalter Legal Services Law Firm : Funeral Law, Elder Law : Kansas City

If you haven’t noticed, there has been some turnover among the associations’ preneed fund managers. With the threat of additional litigation in Wisconsin, this trend could continue. But not all of the turnover has been as publicized as what we have seen in Illinois and Wisconsin. After 20 years at the helm, Merrill Lynch recently gave notice to the Michigan Funeral Directors Association of its resignation. There are no search protocols for preneed fund managers, and so Michigan borrowed from the retirement fund community by publishing a request for proposal (RFP). While the MFDA should be commended in their effort to bring transparency to their program’s asset management, they missed (or ignored) an opportunity to shift more investment responsibilities to the financial industry. Instead of using FINRA Rule 2111 (“know your client”) to their advantage, the MFDA structured the RFP to perpetuate (and extend) the funeral director’s controlling role in investment decisions.

Hidden investment charges have been ‘part of business’ in the death care industry for decades, and this author has contemplated whether ERISA’s fee disclosure requirements could ever be incorporated into preneed trusts by the Federal Trade Commission. The Michigan RFP focused on the same ERISA fee disclosure requirements, which could lead one to assume that association’s leaders did not want to make the same mistake again. The Michigan RFP also raised another ERISA concept worthy of the preneed industry’s consideration: the 401K approach to investment by individual contract. We too have wondered why larger programs have not looked at data from individual contracts and the sponsoring funeral homes to build an investment options matrix.

But, the Michigan RFP can be faulted for cutting off the diligence requirements of FINRA Rule 2111. To insulate the Association from solicitations, the RFP provided summary information about the program and required all inquiries to go through an ERISA consultant. Prospective fund managers were required to submit investment strategies on limited facts and without direct communications to the Association. It is understandable that the Association would want to narrow the field before initiating an exchange of confidential information with prospective managers, but the screening of candidates should have preceded the request for investment strategies. Subsequent to the screening, the MFDA should then have provided detailed information pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. Under FINRA 2111, this sequence would have expanded the fund manager’s diligence responsibilities regarding investment strategy recommendations. The nature of the questions posed by the candidates would also have helped the MFDA in its assessment of the candidates. Instead, the RFP narrowed the fund manager’s diligence to an old investment strategy with a history of mixed results and challenges.

Within the context of ERISA retirement funds, RFPs may take a formula approach to finding a replacement fund manager. But the preneed industry is fragmented by 50 different state laws, and by program issues such as whether non-guaranteed contracts are sold, the association’s role as a seller versus an agent, investment restrictions, and trusting percentages. Injecting preneed asset management with a dose of ERISA could help to discourage hidden fees and improve the quality of fund managers, but the industry also needs an alternative to the strategy of offering funeral directors three investment options to choose from.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Both the Memorial Business Journal and the Funeral Service Insider commented last week on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s February 7th article regarding the former executive director of the Wisconsin Funeral Directors Association. Several issues were raised that should be included in future industry debate, and in particular, I would agree with Mr. Isard’s questions whether association executives are qualified to manage a master trust. But the following comments beg an immediate response:

“The whole situation with [the] Wisconsin Preneed Trust went off the rails when the goal shifted from trusting funds to investing funds.”

“The assumption that these trust funds are in the investment business is a mistake. We’re not. We’re in the trust business. From my view, that is a presumption of a preservation of principle. With a trust, you have an obligation to be prudent.”

Those comments suggest that trusting funds and investing funds are somehow mutually exclusive. While the comments may reflect the views of much of the death care industry, they also reflect a failure to understand the fiduciary’s duties. When entrusted with the money of another, the fiduciary has a duty to invest those funds consistent with the purposes of the trust and the interests of the trust beneficiaries. The fiduciary’s investment duties are governed by other laws, and a majority of our states have adopted the Prudent Investor Act. Wikipedia provides the following explanation of that Act:

In enacting the Uniform Prudent Investor Act, states should have repealed legal list statutes, which specified permissible investments types. (However, guardianship and conservatorship accounts generally remain limited by specific state law.) In those states which adopted part or all of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act, investments must be chosen based on their suitability for each account's beneficiaries or, as appropriate, the customer. Although specific criteria for determining "suitability" does not exist, it is generally acknowledged, that the following items should be considered as they pertain to account beneficiaries:

• financial situation;
• current investment portfolio;
• need for income;
• tax status and bracket;
• investment objective; and
• risk tolerance.

The majority of preneed trusts involve a single seller/provider and guaranteed preneed contracts. Under such circumstances, the funeral home operator has assumed the investment risk when the preneed contract is performed as written. Fiduciaries (and fund managers) have viewed the operator as the account beneficiary for purposes of the Prudent Investor Act. But depending upon state law, and whether the contract is ‘re-written’ at the time of death, the preneed purchaser may bear the investment risk. Accordingly, the fiduciary and fund manager should not completely ignore the preneed purchaser as the account beneficiary for purposes of the Prudent Investor Act.

Neither fiduciaries nor fund managers want to bring the preneed purchaser into the Prudent Investor equation for obvious reasons. But are suitability of investments for two that dissimilar? We would suggest not if the objective is to have investment performance track the prearrangement’s purchase price increases. As we noted in a March 2010 post about the IFDA master trust, the purchaser of a non-guaranteed contract was unhappy because the return on her non-guaranteed contract (1.7%) did not keep pace with the price increases of her planned funeral (4.2%).

Determining who to include as an account beneficiary in the Prudent Investor equation only gets more complicated when the preneed trust is an association master trust with dozens, or hundreds, of funeral home operators. If the master trust includes a healthy percentage of non-guaranteed contracts, the number of account beneficiaries could swell to the thousands. If the association is not the preneed seller (as is the case in Missouri, but not Illinois), what interest does the association have in the trust so as to justify being considered an account beneficiary? There are arguments in support of the association being such a beneficiary, but can those interests ever outweigh the funeral operator and the non-guaranteed contract purchaser?

One could argue that the Wisconsin Master Trust was never fully on the rails. The Association determined early on that a depository account could not keep up with rising funeral costs. Rather than seek legislation that would clarify the trust’s investment authority, the Association leadership sought regulatory permission to allow the master trust to embark on the path of investment diversification. The program derailed only after the executive director enmeshed his personal objectives with those of the association and then conspired with the fund managers to treat the association as the master trust’s primary account beneficiary.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We previously discussed how the funeral home or cemetery assumes most of a preneed trust’s investment risk when selling a guaranteed preneed contract, and therefore should be afforded a role in the trust’s investment decisions (Fund Managers: Is Your O&E Coverage Current?). But in that same post, we were careful to point out that there are no absolutes. More funeral homes are switching to non-guaranteed preneed. And, a certain percentage of guaranteed preneed contracts are also re-written at death when the family switches funeral homes or revises the prearranged funeral (or burial) arrangement. Yet, preneed fiduciaries seem to ignore these facts when relying upon uniform trust code provisions for their authority to exchange investment powers for a hold harmless agreement.

Death care fiduciaries first need to determine whether there are any conflicts between the applicable state death care law and the broader uniform trust code. Fiduciaries in states such as Missouri and Kansas are bound by statutes which require the trustee to retain investment oversight. Such conflicts will be reconciled in favor of the more specific death care law.

If the death care law is silent on investment delegation, the applicable uniform trust code may not necessarily authorize the trustee’s exculpation from investment oversight. Some states’ trust code conditions the fiduciary’s investment exculpation upon 1) the appropriateness of the trustee’s selection of the investment advisor, and 2) upon the notice given to trust beneficiaries. Illinois’ Trusts and Trustees Act is a good example of such a requirement. But too frequently, the fiduciary views the funeral home, or cemetery, as the sole beneficiary of the death care trust for purposes of both requirements.

Assuming notice could be given to each and every preneed contract purchaser, a court would likely evaluate the sufficiency of that notice from the perspective of the elderly preneed contract beneficiary. Would the average preneed purchaser understand the implications of the investment delegation? Or, could that purchaser effectively monitor the investment decisions made pursuant to the delegation? The fiduciary’s reliance on the uniform trust code for authority for exculpation under such circumstances should be deemed unreasonable. The validity of the exculpation may also hinge on the investment advisor’s assumption of applicable death care compliance requirements. If the agency agreement does not properly incorporate a death care law’s investment restrictions (or standard), the fiduciary has not exercised ‘reasonable care, skill and caution’ in establishing the scope and terms of the delegation. Yet, I hesitate to fault the fiduciary for trying. The strategy for seeking the exculpation is often in response to the unreasonable expectations of both the industry and its regulators.

As witnessed in California, regulators often interpret archaic preneed laws so as to argue that a ‘preneed contract is the equivalent of a savings account’. Those statutes reflect the preneed transaction from a generation ago. By applying that law out of the current context, a fiction is used to establish a standard that all fiduciaries could fail. The regulator’s position seeks to make the fiduciary a guarantor of the purchaser’s deposits to trust. The reality is that every trust investment has risk, even our government’s bonds. This exposure is applicable regardless of whether the preneed contract is guaranteed or non-guaranteed.

On the other side of the table, the industry is coming to demand that the trust offset more than just the costs of performing the preneed contract. Lagging membership revenues are an issue for many state associations. The mortgage crisis hit many preneed trusts, and preneed sellers expect those losses to be recovered without additional risk. Greater trust returns are also needed to offset the cremation trend. Of course, the asset management required for higher returns comes at a greater cost to the trust.

The reality is that the industry will continue to be request better returns from the death care trust. As with other trusts, the circumstances may dictate that as expectations rise, a fiduciary may best discharge its duties by delegating the investment responsibilities to an investment advisor. As discussed in the linked law review article, the model uniform code should be used to support the delegation of investment duties. But, in contrast to the classic trust situation, the death care trust is a creature of statute, which has the consumer’s protection as its purpose. While the preneed seller may be allowed to step into the settlor’s shoes for purpose of authorizing the delegation, the seller cannot override the preneed statute by exculpating the fiduciary from investment liabilities. At a minimum, the fiduciary needs to stand ready to override investments that are unsuitable or clearly imprudent. The two largest preneed scandals involved investments which were clearly unsuitable for the death care trust. Despite what Merrill Lynch may argue, I doubt any corporate fiduciary would have found the key man insurance policy to have been suitable for investment for a preneed trust. And if R.S.Mo. Section 436.031 had been written differently, NPS’ Missouri fiduciaries would have sought more information about the insurance transactions they were directed to make.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the days that followed the Wisconsin Funeral Directors Association being placed into receivership, some of the WFDA’s sister associations were quick to point out they had ‘checks and balances’ that would protect consumers’ funds from the problems that tripped up the Wisconsin Funeral Trust. As we reported in our last post, a crucial ‘check and balance’ missing from the WFT was investment oversight. The fact that a trust has a corporate trustee does not necessarily mean that fiduciary has responsibility for monitoring the prudence of the investments. Corporate fiduciaries often look to uniform trust codes for the authority to delegate investment responsibilities. If a grantor wishes to use an outside asset manager, general trust laws will accommodate those wishes. The problem with preneed trusts (and cemetery endowment funds) is that there is more than one “grantor” to the preneed trust.

We have previously stated our support for allowing a relationship between preneed seller and a qualified fund manager. However, the fiduciary must provide a ‘check and balance’ to that relationship by maintaining responsibility for the investments. The ‘scandals’ from Missouri, Illinois, California and Wisconsin stem from a lack of investment oversight. Missouri’s regulators responded to NPS with a law that precluded any relationship between the advisor and the seller. Appropriately, the Missouri association obtained revisions to allow an agency relationship between its fund manager and the trustee. However, the Missouri law does not go far enough to require the disclosures we recommended in 2011. Funeral directors and consumers need to know that Missouri preneed fiduciaries ‘have their back’ when it comes to investment oversight.

Investment oversight is also a concern for cemetery regulators. Kansas’ cemetery regulators were dismayed to find that a corporate trustee had turned over the investment reigns to a Hutchinson cemetery operator. The operator hoped to cover declining revenues (and the failure to make trust deposits) with higher investment returns. For months, the operator attempted to hide the ball from the auditor, but eventually it was discovered that those investments had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The investment supervision issue is also a concern for Nebraska regulators. As they prep the death care industry for legislation in 2013, they raise this issue:

Seller’s Power to Direct Investments

A question has arisen regarding the seller’s ability to direct the trustee’s investment decisions. Specifically, should the seller be able to instruct the trustee to deposit or invest funds in securities that do not meet the trustee’s own investment guidelines?

If it is determined that the trustee should be free from the seller’s investment influence, section 12-1107 should be amended to reflect this fact.
 

In what may be a perfectly legal arrangement, Illinois funeral directors have handed off investment oversight to their new fund managers. The master trust instrument carefully outlines the code provisions which authorize the delegation of investment authorities. But the document goes that extra step of exculpating the trustee from responsibilities for investment oversight. Where is the check and balance in that structure? Are the industry’s expectations so high that a trustee will not accept the fund without a hold harmless? If the industry does not establish its own ‘checks and balances’ with regard to investment supervision, the authority to participate in the investment decisions could be taken away.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A short three and a half years ago, the funeral industry reeled from the collapse of National Prearranged Services and the emerging story of the Illinois Master Trust. The NFDA was slow to respond to the crisis, and when it did, this blog joined the criticism. Fast forward to September 2012, and the NFDA responds to the Wisconsin Master Trust controversy with the same guidelines.

Granted: associations are cumbersome organizations that are dependent on volunteer members.

Granted: changing the mindset of a membership that has been historically opposed to preneed will be difficult.

Granted: it is a matter of time before another state association master trust fails.

We need to augment the advice offered the NFDA in 2009: eliminate from your trust evaluation guidelines any suggestions that a guaranteed rate of return is permissible. The days of set rates of return or book/tax cost of account for distributions are over.

The fixed rate of return approach allowed the Wisconsin and Illinois programs to avoid investment transparency and individual account allocations of income and market value. But, providing investment transparency in terms of the investments held by the trust, and the rate of return, can be more complex that the NFDA guidelines suggest. It is not uncommon for three or more investment pools to be offered by a master trust program. Administrators may have different ways to provide transparency at the trust level, in terms of in investments held by the trust and their rates of returns.

Whatever procedure is followed, the end result should be a ‘mark to market’ that will allow an auditor to reconcile each individual preneed contract’s value to the individual funeral home account(s), and in the case of master trusts, each individual funeral home’s account(s) to the aggregate master trust market value.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In relation to many of its peers, Springfield’s Oak Ridge Cemetery could be labeled progressive. Oak Ridge maintains both an endowed care trust and a preneed trust. In contrast, a substantial number of the country’s cemeteries have neither. The fact that Oak Ridge Cemetery is owned and operated by the City of Springfield, Illinois, makes the cemetery even more remarkable. Few municipal cemeteries have such funds, and instead, must be subsidized by taxpayers for operating funds. Despite the foresight of Oak Ridge’s board of directors, the cemetery has had to resort to “netting” the past few years to make ends meet. They have done so to the tune of almost a million dollars, and Springfield’s Mayor is being advised that drastic action is necessary.

The Mayor’s attorney blames Oak Ridge’s board of directors for bad investments and netting deposits, and recommends that the control of the cemetery be changed. With the increase in cremations (and the decline in burials), the Oak Ridge board failed to adapt, and instead, spent the funds that should have been contributed to the trusts. To make up for the decline in trust contributions, the board took more risks with trust investments, which exposed the trusts to the market declines of 2008. The combination of netting consumer payments and investment declines put Oak Ridge in a deep hole. And now, the Mayor’s attorney thinks it’s time for a change in management, and for the cemetery to start living within its means. Sounds like sage advice, but it’s not very practical.

Turning Oak Ridge over to the city’s park and recreational department will only ensure a decline in the cemetery’s operations. While the cemetery’s board may be guilty of staying with their old business plan too long, those individuals are more familiar with the operation of a cemetery than those city employees who oversee Springfield’s parks.

Regarding ‘bad’ investments, the Mayor’s attorney suggests the cemetery board should have stayed conservative. The problem with that advice is that the 2008 market crash hit mortgage-backed securities the hardest, which happens to be the ‘bread and butter’ of most cemetery trust funds. The fact is that most cemetery trusts may be too heavily invested in fixed income, and the need is to diversify their investments (as opposed to ‘going conservative’). (In that the Mayor’s attorney is the same individual who defended the IFDA master trust’s investment in key man insurance, this criticism rings a little hollow.)

While Springfield needs to make the Oak Ridge board more accountable, those members should be given the opportunity to develop a new business plan for the cemetery. The decline in traditional burials is inevitable, and cemeteries must plan accordingly. While the costs of the traditional funeral and burial are a leading factor to the rise in cremations, cemeteries need to evaluate the prices charged for their interment rights and services. They also need to evaluate the need for marketing. One such opportunity is to market to the consumer who has already chosen cremation. Another opportunity is to form marketing alliances with funeral homes.

Or, the Mayor could pull in the reigns and allow the taxpayer to foot the bill.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its latest report on the state of state regulation of the death care industry.  As it did in 2003, the GAO selected a handful of states to review in depth, and Illinois was one of those states for 2011 report.  The Illinois review is set out as Appendix IV of the GAO report, and paints a bleak picture of preneed oversight in the Land of Lincoln. 

The Illinois review advises that the Office of the Comptroller has 10 staff positions and 10 field audit positions to provide supervision of preneed and crematories.  While it is the Comptroller’s intent to audit each preneed seller at least once every five years, budget constraints have limited audits to those businesses with the most preneed.  Otherwise, the Comptroller will target sellers based on annual reports that either reflects ‘abnormal fluctuations’ or the lack of a corporate trustee. 

And when the Comptroller does find problems, her staff complains that the law provides them little power to address the situation.  The GAO was advised that the disciplinary process is extremely slow and costly.  That latter comment should raise some eyebrows in Illinois.  It was the Comptroller’s office (albeit a prior officeholder) that pushed through amendments to the Funeral or Burial Funds Act just a short two years ago, and now the staff claims the law has no teeth.

The Illinois review ends with the Comptroller’s office on the defense.  Industry representatives challenged whether the Comptroller’s 2010 legislation provided any additional protections.  The Comptroller responds that “there is no way to be sure if the changes to the laws would have prevented these kinds of incidents, but that there may have been the ability them earlier”.  (Obviously someone left out a few words, but they also failed to confer across the hall with that other someone who was more honest about the law’s lack of teeth.)

The review concludes with the statement “[F]urther, state regulators in Illinois stress the importance of consumer education and whistleblower protections to help prevent and detect future problems.”  If the Comptroller lacks funding and enforcement powers under the current law, who is fooling who?  Can additional legislation be too far away?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here in the Midwest, the death care industry is just beginning to experience the increase in preneed reporting and oversight. Some funeral directors are already frustrated with the new requirements, and are biding the time to when they can vent towards the preneed regulator.

Over the past 4 years, state agencies in Illinois, Kansas and Missouri were made to account for their roles in the failures of preneed programs. The replies were very similar: an outdated law tied our hands. There was some truth to those excuses, and state legislatures responded with laws that provide the regulators greater oversight authorities, including expanded examination powers. What rankles funeral directors is that the examinations are aimed at individual operators who had nothing to do with master program collapses.

With the preneed sale originating at the funeral home or cemetery, the on-site examination is a necessary component to effective oversight. However, state regulators struggle with how to conduct an effective preneed examination program. Limited budgets are also requiring the examination process to be efficient.

Illinois stands out from the other two states in that it had audit and reporting procedures in place before its crisis arose. Illinois funeral homes have given diverging descriptions of their audit experiences. Some reported having regular audits, while others report they had never been audited. To better understand the Illinois procedures, I requested a copy of the Comptroller’s examination guidelines. That request was declined with an explanation that such a disclosure may make it easier for funeral homes to circumvent the audit process.

The Illinois audit process failed both the industry and the consumer because the trust procedures contemplate depository funding and relied too heavily upon the tax cost basis of the preneed trust fund. The examination did not incorporate procedures regarding the qualifications of the depository/trustee, the investment of the funds or the fees charged to the funds. A recent conversation with an Illinois examiner suggests that the Comptroller continues to follow the old audit procedures despite their deficiencies.

In contrast, the staff for the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has been giving a lot of thought to how the on-site audit should be conducted. Prior to the collapse of National Prearranged Services, the State Board had minimal preneed reporting and examination powers. The examinations conducted this year are the first in 20 years, and recent regulation proposals provide a clue to what concerns the State Board staff have from those initial exams (isolated insurance policies, old contracts, etc).

While the State Board tabled the staff concerns for future discussion, those issues will continue to be reflected in the procedures followed by examiners (and by the preneed seller reports submitted to the State Board). For Missouri preneed sellers, the situation may only add to their frustration. First, there is the uncertainty of what to expect when the examination is conducted. And then, there are the issues raised by the examiner regarding practices that funeral directors may have been following for years.

There is not much that can be done about the frustration that stems from the evolving examination process. The preneed transaction is changing, and regulators will have to adapt their exam procedures accordingly. But the State Board will serve an important role in keeping the examination process focused on the crucial issues. That focus will be defined by the exchange that occurs between the staff and the Board over specific audit findings. These exchanges serve to educate the staff and examiners on the business of the death care industry, which should improve the efficiency of preneed oversight.

As other Midwest states initiate new preneed examination procedures, their regulators must find different ways to ‘learn the business’. Pursuing the wrong issues will only waste precious resources and alienate funeral homes and cemeteries.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Preneed scandals in Illinois, Missouri, Texas, and California have state regulators moving to implement new audit procedures. But with new laws passed in the wake of NPS and state master trust problems, the frequency and scope of the future audit could change dramatically.  It is no secret that the scope of the preneed audit in Missouri is work in progress. When asked how the audit was being revised for its licensees, Illinois regulators politely declined to provide their written guidelines. Regulators in Kansas and Nebraska are also evaluating their audit procedures. But, the legal battle being waged in California provides a glimpse of one regulator’s intent to change the scope of the preneed audit.

The Ninth and Tenth Causes of Actions from the California Attorney General’s lawsuit against the California Master Trust allege that defendants either failed to maintain, or to produce, the preneed records required by law and regulation. California Code of Regulations, title 16, Section 1267 sets out those records that must be maintained by the funeral home. The regulation dates back 30 years, and reflects a view of the preneed transaction that is no longer consistent with the view taken by the Attorney General, and with the direction of the audit and lawsuit.

In a nutshell, the regulation asks for records which are intended to confirm whether the preneed payments were deposited to trust. The underlying principal is that the preneed contract represents a sale that the funeral home will book to its GAAP financial records. The regulation defines the funeral home’s cash receipts journal and general ledger as preneed records. The requirements contemplate that the funeral home will book these sales and payments for compliance with income tax reporting. By requiring the financial books and records, the preneed auditor can then track a consumer payment from funeral home receipt to the preneed trust. While the funeral director might not fear the preneed regulator, he is not likely to hide the income from Uncle Sam.

However, the California litigation is not about money that didn’t make it to trust, it is about the administration of the trust assets. In attempting to investigate the administration of the trust, the preneed auditor went beyond what the regulation calls for. The best evidence of the expanding scope of the audit is the defendants' response letter to the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau audit findings. The response letter indicates that one funeral home was cited for failing to have the following records:

• All correspondence with the trust administrator
• Copies of contracts that provide services to the trust
• Records of administrative costs
• Records of administrative costs allocated among the trustee and its vendors
• The portfolio of trust investments

When questioned about its authority for the requests, the Bureau reply stated that the trustee failed to make available “complete financial records for all preneed contracts and arrangements”. This answer fails to clarify what trust and financial records the funeral home must maintain on its premises.

What seems to come through from the California litigation is that original approach to the audit, ensuring the funds made it to trust, and leaving trust oversight to the independent CPA and an opinion, failed the California consumer. But, could the Bureau have better protected the consumer if the financial records have been kept at the individual funeral homes? (No, not without additional guidelines on the management of master trusts and pooled accounts.) And even if such regulations existed, it would be expecting too much from the auditor whose duties entail visits to hundreds of the funeral homes.

While the field auditor is an important element of the preneed compliance program, the program has to include the administration of preneed trust. Does this mean the funeral director must maintain correspondence and records related to the trust’s administration? The best course of action would be to establish a file for all trust related documents and correspondence. With the increase of preneed portability and the sale of non-guaranteed contracts, the funeral director's reliance on the ‘guaranteed contract defense’ becomes more tenuous. In a limited sense, the funeral director is becoming a fund manager on behalf of the consumer.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported previously in the blog, the State of Nebraska began to implement a preneed contract database in 2010 when master trusts were requested to provide individual contract data in an electronic format. The request was expanded to all preneed sellers in 2011.

Kansas Secretary of State sought legislation in 2010 for the authority to seek individual preneed data from its cemeteries selling preneed. While the KSOS initial effort fell short, a second effort passed the legislature a few weeks ago. Under this new bill, cemeteries will be required to trust preneed sales at 50% of the sales price and to report those sales (together with deposits and distributions) on a quarterly basis.

Illinois has now joined the preneed database club with an amendment made to SB0675. The bill will require preneed contracts to be entered into a database maintained by the Comptroller within 45days of the contract date.

As opposed to the paper report of individual contracts, the preneed database provides the regulator more flexibility in reviewing information and creating contract listings from which to begin audits and examinations at the funeral home or cemetery.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For a brief period, the Illinois Comptroller posted a notice that sidestepped the inquiries made by funeral directors about the application of their Merrill Lynch settlements. The OIC website has since be revised.

One of the inquiries to the OIC may have involved whether the settlement funds could be applied to the litigation costs for pending lawsuits against Merrill Lynch. But for the litigation brought against Merrill Lynch, the funeral homes would not have received the settlements paid by the Department of Insurance. However, the settlement funds fall far short of the actual damages suffered by the funeral homes and consumers, and the argument may be that a portion of the funds could be used to continue the litigation.

Specifically, the Comptroller’s answered as follows:

It is the position of the OIC that we do not have the authority to instruct industry members on the proper disbursement of the funds.

In the following paragraph, the Comptroller warns:

During the review of future annual reports and audits, we will examine the method in which the funds are handled to assure that industry members acted in a good faith manner and in the best interest of consumers when determining the disposition of the funds.

While the litigation argument has merit, the Comptroller probably had concerns about the other uses funeral homes may have for the settlement funds. The notice may seem evasive to the industry, but it did not necessarily foreclose the application of funds to litigation that may benefit the consumer. But, funeral homes should pay heed to the warning that they will be held accountable for how settlement funds for active contracts are applied.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Microsoft’s early efforts to force regular program updates were a nightmare. Like a gremlin that visited at night, the update often changed default settings that you never completely understood in the first place. Sometimes the update would impact the compatibility of other critical programs. To avoid the hassle of these updates, I toggled off the Microsoft updates for several years. And then when a drive failed, dozens and dozens of MS patches and updates had to be downloaded and installed, costing me time and expense.

The preneed regulatory systems set up by various state legislatures in the 1980’s have begun to crash for the same reason: a failure to update. Preneed has changed since the days when bonds paid double digit returns and preneed programs were the fad. California was no different from most states where preneed opponents outnumbered preneed proponents. Legislative compromises favored the traditional operators who opposed preneed, and the resulting law was disjunctive and confusing.

As time passed, more and more California funeral homes began to offer preneed. In most cases, it started as an accommodation to the consumer who sought to put funds aside. Eventually, competition not only drove all funeral homes to offer some form of preneed, it also drove them to factor preneed into their business plan. The investment markets also became more complex.

But, the California funeral industry left the preneed law update toggled off, and instead, stretched the law’s ambiguities the best it could to “authorize” new business practices. And, the preneed regulators (first the State Board, and now the Bureau) often played the same game. The Bureau and the CFDA are now locked in a lawsuit (over an antiquated law) that will leave both sides bruised and defensive. The posture taken by the AG suggests the fight could be nasty. But the facts suggest, the State should look to make prospective changes.

NPS exploited the weaknesses of Missouri’s 1986 law, and that company’s collapse gave Missouri regulators the ammunition required to force a new preneed operating system on its funeral industry. The 2009 law has its flaws, and needs changes (other than those in SB340), but preneed life continues in Missouri. Missouri regulators would like to go back in time to change some of the prior law’s flaws, but the push to make retroactive changes has been measured.

In Illinois, the IFDA put together a master trust and an insurance program that pushed the envelope beyond the Comptroller’s tolerance. The Comptroller’s responded much in the same vein as the California regulators did. While entrenched in a lawsuit, the Comptroller pushed his legislative agenda through the legislature. But, Illinois got more of a preneed system patch than a new operating system. Eventually, Illinois is due for a significant preneed system upgrade.

Nebraska is another state that may be due for some form of a preneed update. With a reporting system based on tax cost basis, preneed regulators want to introduce market value into the computation for income distributions. The objective has merit, but the 1987 law can only be stretched so far.

Getting a preneed law that works for both operators and regulators will never be a “one and done” project. Occasional updates will be required.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For most Illinois funeral homes, March 15th is the due date for the filing of their preneed data with the Comptroller’s office. For those funeral homes that bolted from the IFDA after the master trust melt down, this has been an extremely frustrating process. The majority of funeral homes must file on line, with supporting documentation to be mailed no later than March 16th. Those funeral home operators of Irish descent will have reason to hoist an extra brew come St. Patty’s day: the Comptroller’s office has ample reason to change the contract reporting requirements yet again.

The 2010 reporting forms were changed to reflect SB1682’s elimination of depository accounts. However, the annual reports are still premised on the old IFDA master trust structure that credited consumer accounts with an amount of fixed interest. For each consumer preneed contract the funeral home is required to report beginning principal and interest, additions of principal and interest, withdrawals of principal and interest, and ending totals of principal and interest. In essence, the annual report views each consumer account as a passbook saving account.

No need to beat a dead horse, but the IFDA master trust was wrestled away from the association because the Comptroller determined the trust could not sustain itself. Contracts were being credited with interest rates greater than the trust’s investment return.

In response to the situation, the IFDA selected Fiduciary Partners to succeed Merrill Lynch as the master trust fiduciary. The switch to Fiduciary Partners includes a needed change in the investment strategy of the IFDA master trust: diversification through pooled funds.

To determine whether the IFDA master trust (or score of master trusts spawned in the mass exodus) will be self sustaining, the Comptroller’s office will need to revamp its annual report to track such contract issues as sales price, deposits to trust, and market value allocations. In light of the IFDA’s past use of insurance vehicles, Illinois fiduciaries should anticipate providing detail of their trusts’ investments and transactions.

Other states’ preneed regulators are also drilling down to the individual contract with new reporting requirements. Most notably, Nebraska revised its 2010 annual report to include new disclosures regarding market values, with all preneed sellers to provide individual contract data in an Excel format. The data must also be backed up with trust asset listings and transaction reports. Missouri has also implemented individual contract reporting, and Kansas has legislation pending that will impose similar requirements on cemeteries that sell preneed.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Maybe it’s a response to shrinking state budgets, or the fact that the tracking of preneed funds is becoming more effective, but state and local prosecutors are assuming an expanding role in the enforcement of preneed laws.

While a recent report released by the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors reflects a drop in the number of preneed complaints that it handled in 2010 (44 complaints after a spike in 187 complaints in 2008 and 127 complaints in 2009), the Missouri Attorney General’s Office reports having handled 887 preneed complaints in 2010. One of those complaints ended with a former Butler, Missouri funeral operator being sentenced to seven years in prison.

As previously reported in this blog, the new Illinois Comptroller responded very quickly to a preneed complaint by referring a funeral home to the State Attorney’s office for prosecution. In 2009, the Kansas cemetery regulator worked with local prosecutors when a Hutchinson cemetery acknowledged that funds were missing from both a preneed trust and a permanent maintenance trust.

Here in the Midwest, a death care operator could go years without an audit. While some states required some form of preneed reporting, there was little evidence those reports were being reviewed. Consequently, the operator who may have had trouble making payroll had little fear of prosecution so long as the preneed contracts were being serviced. That is changing.

Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska have implemented (or will implement) new reporting requirements (and in some cases, audits). If trusts are found to be deficient or empty, regulators seem to be more willing to turn the matter over to a prosecutor who has a vested interest in protecting voters with an empty preneed account.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This blog commented a few weeks ago on Dan Hynes’ failure to follow through on his own legislation. Since that post, the new Comptroller revised the Annual Report to eliminate references to self-trusted funds. However, funeral homes that transferred out of the IFDA master trust will still find the report difficult to complete.

The Comptroller’s Annual Report includes a schedule called the Annual Statement of Funeral or Burial Trust Funds, which requires the trust fund to be accounted for as though it were a depository account. The schedule seeks contributions, interest and withdrawals. The schedule doesn’t contemplate the losses suffered by the trust when Merrill Lynch liquidated the fund’s insurance investments.

For transferred accounts, the IFDA made those entries to the schedule required to ‘zero out’ the account. The ‘withdrawals’ reported by the IFDA will not reconcile to what the successor trustees received.

Ms. Topinka’s staff will find audit trail from Merrill Lynch to the new fiduciaries difficult to follow when relying upon the Annual Reports due March 15th.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many Illinois funeral homes were surprised when they opened their mail this past week. The Illinois Department of Insurance wrote to each funeral home that was determined to have a claim in the $18,000,000 Fund established by Merrill Lynch for IFDA master trust participants. The letter included a check and a spreadsheet allocating the check amount by individual consumer contracts.

Each funeral home will need to review the spreadsheet and identify those contracts that were serviced or terminated, and those contracts that remain active.

The funeral home will be entitled to keep the amounts allocated to guaranteed contracts that have been serviced according to the terms of the contract. If the goods and services were changed from what was described in the contract, the funeral home may owe the consumer a refund.

For non-guaranteed contracts that were serviced, the funeral home must compare the credit provided the family to the total amounts received for the contract. The funeral home will have to add the ML funds to the amount received from trust when the contract was serviced. If the credit given the consumer on the contract is less than the sum of the trust distribution and the ML funds, a refund is due the consumer.

If the preneed contract was terminated, the funeral home will need to review the contract and the amount originally refunded. In most cases, the settlement amount will be owed to the consumer.

For the active preneed contracts described on the spreadsheet, the funeral home will be obligated to apply the ML funds to the trust (or insurance) that funds the contract. Funeral homes must anticipate that the Comptroller’s Office will hold them accountable for these funds. (Funeral homes tempted to retain the entire settlement check should see the preceding blog entry.)

If the funeral home is entitled to a portion of the ML fund check, the check could be deposited to an operating account. The funeral home should then promptly write a check to the trust for the active contracts. If all of the contracts on the spreadsheet are active, the funeral home may want to endorse the check over to the trustee. The trustee will need a copy of the spreadsheet for purposes of crediting the accounts with the proper amounts.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A few years ago, a past president of the NFDA wrote in The Director that funeral directors should begin blowing the whistle on industry cheaters. This blog raised a concern over whether funeral directors understood applicable preneed laws well enough to become whistleblowers. A recent news article in the Morris Daily Herald contains facts to suggest an industry member decided to become a whistleblower. The results may have gone further than what the whistleblower expected.

The story comes out of Wilmington, Illinois, where preneed regulation is in a period of transition. At the center of the Illinois storm is the IFDA, Merrill Lynch and the Illinois Comptroller’s Office. From statements provided by a Comptroller spokesman, readers can connect the dots to conclude the funeral home under investigation had participated in the IFDA, and may have failed to deposit to trust the funds received on 8 preneed contracts. With the turmoil surrounding the IFDA, many funeral homes were reluctant to continue making trust deposits.

The Comptroller statements also reference a Freedom of Information request and a complaint. The chances are that someone with connections to a funeral home competitor made the FOI request, and filed a complaint. The Comptroller’s office responded with an examination, but then quickly referred the matter to the State Attorney’s office.

With SB1682 being less than a year old, many Illinois funeral directors remain confused about the law’s requirements. If the Wilmington situation proves to involve a funeral home that erroneously made deposits to a custodial arrangement, the new Comptroller may be sending a stern warning to Illinois funeral directors: get right with the law or face the prospect of criminal proceedings. It seems drastic, but it is also consistent with a trend where regulators are turning to local prosecutors. This is also the response of a newly elected Comptroller who may like nothing better than to have preneed oversight transferred to someone else, even if its piecemeal to a State Attorney’s office.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While the Comptroller succeeded in getting SB1682 passed, and into law this past February, the office hasn’t revised its annual preneed reporting form to reflect the law’s changes. The report contemplates depository accounts and self-trusted accounts, which were eliminated by SB1682.

Funeral directors, accustom to the IFDA’s assistance, may also find the trust report section confusing. The annual trust statement requests a break-down of trust funds by principal and interest. With diversified portfolios, the report would make more sense if it sought deposit balances, income and account values.

With transition at the Comptroller’s office, funeral homes will be forced to muddle through the upcoming report. The Comptroller’s office will need to be lenient with funeral homes attempting to comply. Eventually, the Comptroller’s office needs to step back from the old forms and procedures, and seek input on how to revise the annual report for easier compliance by the Illinois industry.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The earliest form of preneed consisted of a depository account at the local bank. Often, the paperwork included a statement of goods and services describing the individual’s preferences. The account was set up so that the funeral director could access the account upon the consumer’s death. The statement of goods and services would then be followed for the funeral. This arrangement was convenient to both the consumer and the funeral director. But, a recent news report out of Louisiana serves as a reminder of how the depository account has been too convenient, forcing states to take it away.

As preneed proliferated, state legislatures imposed safeguards to protect the funds paid by consumers. With the exception of New Mexico, all states now have trusting requirements. When those trusting requirements were initially imposed, a few states made exceptions to allow small funeral homes to continue to use the depository account. Abuses now threaten to eliminate the depository account as a form of preneed funding.

Illinois was the most recent to eliminate the depository account. In response to IFDA abuses, SB1682 now requires Illinois funeral homes to move their depository accounts to a corporate fiduciary and to revise their preneed contracts. Some Illinois funeral directors are painfully learning that the new law precludes them from using their local bank and familiar contract forms.

Missouri’s 2009 law preserved the depository account, but with substantial reporting requirements. Funeral homes dependent upon the depository account were required to report those contracts this past October 31st. Those reports will be used for on-site exams to begin in 2011. The future of depository accounts in Missouri will depend on how well funeral directors have complied with both the old and new requirements.

As discussed in a prior post, funeral directors who have been forced from depository accounts, or who must meet new requirements, need to seek legal assistance when revising their preneed contract form. The old practice of preparing a statement of goods and services is not enough for compliance with the new (and most old) preneed laws.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That’s the question a member of the Missouri State Board asked of his staff last Wednesday during a discussion of controversial examination procedures. Prior to the NPS fiasco, the answer to that question would have been “the Board is”. While SB1 (appropriately) continued to vest preneed supervision in the State Board, the new law also vests concurrent authorities in other state bodies.

From state to state, preneed supervision is assigned to either elected politicians, appointed agency directors or industry boards/commissions. As the Missouri Board was reminded this past week, the criticism made of vesting preneed supervision in an industry board often includes the characterization of having “put the fox in charge of the chicken coop”. But the advantage of having an industry board as the preneed supervisor is the experience those industry members bring to a complicated transaction.

If the Missouri funeral industry looks east to Illinois, it will find peers regulated by an office with a Tuesday election. The Comptroller candidates who would rather transfer preneed to another state agency than wade into a crisis that offers few answers. If Missouri funeral directors then look to the west, they will see that the fate of Kansas cemetery regulation is also dependent upon Tuesday’s elections. But after a year of meetings and warnings that changes are coming, the Kansas Secretary of State election could mean a new direction (or no direction at all).

Death care operators are often frustrated when regulators take actions that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the business (or worse yet, a misunderstanding of applicable laws). The risk to both the death care operator and consumer is when the elected preneed regulator allows politics to influence the reform process. Elected regulators may pose the greatest challenge to developing effective preneed supervision, and then maintaining that system.

While Missouri funeral homes may be frustrated by the past year’s changes, the Missouri reform process has been slow and measured in part because the Division of Professional Registration is contemplating its role when someone asks “Who’s the Boss?” In the future, effective preneed supervision must be a shared responsibility.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the past several years, most preneed sellers were more likely to have been audited by the IRS than their state funeral or cemetery regulator. That will likely change in the next year or two for operators in a Midwest state.

The common response to an IRS audit would be to throw the relevant records into a box the weekend prior to the scheduled trip to the examiner’s office. But since the point of sale for preneed is at the funeral home, most states begin the examination process at the funeral home. In some states, the historical approach was to initiate the exam with little or no advance warning. Under such circumstances, it would behoove the preneed seller to organize and maintain his preneed records so as to expedite the examination.

While the duty to prove compliance is upon the licensee, few state death care regulators have issued any guidance regarding preneed record requirements. One challenge to providing such guidance is that a different set of rules is required for each method of preneed funding. Generally speaking, cemeteries are confined to trust funding because deliveries are made prior to death (thus eliminating insurance for much of what the cemetery sells). However, funeral homes often use both trust and insurance, and often multiple insurance companies and multiple trusts (Pre-88, Post-88, New Law, Old Law, my trust, state association trust, etc). And then some states also allow for depository accounts.

Sellers should set up different ‘boxes’ (or file drawers) for each method of funding. If the seller has offered insurance, trust and depository accounts, then plan on three drawers of documents. And if the seller has used Forethought, Homesteaders and NGL, three dividers will be needed for the insurance drawer. Similarly, the trust-funded drawer should have a Pre-88 folder, a Post-88 folder, and a new law folder. A folder for each bank used to fund a preneed contract should divide the depository drawer.

For the funeral home that approached the different sources of funding as diversification, this benefit comes at the cost of time to organize and maintain the necessary paperwork. Those operators that take the time to prepare and organize their records will minimize the examination’s disruption to their business, and the potential for citations for non-compliance.

In upcoming posts, the content of those folders will be addressed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It seems paradoxical to see preneed regulators ramping up audit programs while state budgets are being slashed to the bone. Yet, several I-70 corridor states will soon implement new preneed audit programs.

Missouri’s preneed funeral audits will be funded out of a combination of license fees and preneed contract fees. Missouri’s new cemetery law did not provide for any additional fees to offset the expense of a new reporting system and audits, and so, one most anticipate the state will look to recover from its expenses from non-compliant cemeteries.

Colorado had a modest, but significant, law change: the preneed regulator was granted authority to assess fees against preneed sellers to fund examinations. With a source for funding, new audit procedures have been submitted for approval.

With regard to cemeteries, Kansas quietly promulgated a regulation authorizing a $20 per preneed contract fee. Kansas would like to use a portion of those fees to implement a preneed contract database that would provide data that would be used in cemetery audits.

Nebraska also has plans to implement a new preneed database for auditing master trusts. In the absence of funding legislation, the Department of Insurance must use a carrot and stick approach with the state’s larger preneed sellers. Similar to the Illinois approach, the Nebraska stick would be the assessment of audit expenses against the non-compliant preneed seller. Illinois’ recent preneed law change (SB1682) raised the possible assessment from $7,500 to $20,000. For the preneed seller found to have issues of material non-compliance, the costs of a full audit could cost tens of thousands of dollars. And then there’s the issue of funding up deficiencies. As the Illinois law spells out, the audit penalty cannot be paid out of the preneed trust.

For preneed sellers from Illinois to Colorado, it isn’t a matter of whether there will be exams or audits, but when. For some states, those exams will come sooner than others. Missouri is currently training new examiners, and could well release them on those sellers who miss the October 31st renewal deadline.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The financial fallout from the failures of NPS and IFDA regarding compliance with state and federal laws has accelerated the decision of many funeral directors to switch to the non-guaranteed preneed contract. That non-guaranteed contract represents a fundamental change in the relationship that is established between the consumer, the funeral home and the preneed fiduciary.

The trust-funded preneed contract establishes a fiduciary account that has two beneficiaries: the funeral home and the consumer. It is quite common for fiduciaries to administer trusts with beneficiaries with competing interests. With competing beneficiary interests, the fiduciary must look to the trust provisions, and applicable state law, to determine who may exercise discretionary authorities regarding the trust.

State preneed laws are written in response to existing practices, and historically, the guaranteed contract defined preneed practices. When the funeral home sells a guaranteed contract it is the funeral home that assumes the risk of the trust’s investment performance. With that risk, preneed statutes typically vest in the funeral home the authority to establish the trust, to hire and replace the fiduciary, and to participate in decisions such as investments. State preneed laws have generally been vague or silent about administrative and accounting issues, and fiduciaries have turned to the funeral home for instructions regarding accounting and income reporting.

With the non-guaranteed contract, the funeral home has both deferred the sale of the funeral (until death) and transferred the risk of investment performance to the consumer. Appropriately, the consumer may have questions to put to the funeral home, the fiduciary and the preneed regulator:

• Must the fiduciary follow a different investment policy with regard to funds held for guaranteed contracts versus non-guaranteed contracts?
• How is trust asset value allocated to the contracts?
• How is income and expenses allocated among the types of contracts?
• How will income and expenses be reported?

For many funeral homes, the latter issue (the reporting of trust income) drove both investment policies and accounting procedures. No one likes to get a tax statement on a preneed contract, and so many funeral homes went to tax exempt bonds in belief this relieved the trust from reporting income to the consumer. But, the IRS requires tax-exempt income to be reported because it impacts the taxability of social security benefits. If the consumer hasn’t received an accurate statement of income and expenses, his account has exposure for a $50 penalty if the trust isn’t being reported pursuant to a Form 1041QFT. (This accuracy reporting penalty more than likely led the IFDA corporate fiduciary to effect a Section 685 election for all master trust accounts.)
 

For the upcoming wave of non-guaranteed contracts, there are only two permissible methods of reporting income: grantor statements to the consumer or a Section 1041qft. Regardless of which income reporting method is used, the funeral home and fiduciary can not simply park the consumer’s funds in a tax-exempt fund. The preneed trust’s allocation of income and expenses for tax reporting will be similar for both approaches, thus making the trust’s tax return a tool for regulators when evaluating the fiduciary’s administration and accounting.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Regulators in California, Missouri and Kansas have already implemented strategies that are intended to make preneed fiduciaries more accountable to the consumer. Over the past few weeks, this blog has covered new reporting requirements in Missouri and the audit drama playing out in California. In Kansas, the fiduciary for a failed cemetery has been sued for various breaches of state law. Because the pool of experienced preneed fiduciaries is relatively small, the events transpiring west of the Mississippi River will influence many Illinois fiduciaries to spend some time with SB1682.

One SB1682 requirement that has already caused a rift between funeral homes and preneed fiduciaries is the annual statement requirement. Illinois law now requires the trustee to report to the preneed purchaser receipts, disbursements, and “an inventory of the trust” (including expenses).

Recent statements reflected substantial account decreases, and that has strained the relationship between the funeral home and some of its consumers. While funeral homes would rather avoid inflaming consumers with news about deteriorating accounts, the fiduciary is bound by law to provide the consumer an annual accounting.

IFDA members can deflect some consumer complaints, but eventually, the buck will stop with the funeral director. To regain consumer confidence, funeral directors should be prepared to show they have a plan for the funds entrusted with them.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The next round of legislative proposals have been posted to the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors website. At the top of the list is whether the trusting requirement should be raised from 85% to 100%. The proponent believes this will enhance consumer protections. He is not alone.

The Illinois Legislature heard the same from Rep. Dan Brady last year. And, the Funeral Consumers Alliance has been advocating the same position for years. But, does this requirement truly enhance consumer protection?

Competition dictates the type of preneed program a funeral home maintains. Metropolitan funeral homes often have no choice but to maintain proactive programs that require training, marketing, management and dedicated staffing. To offset program costs, the funeral home must receive revenue from the preneed sale. Setting the trusting requirement at 100% forces the funeral home towards insurance products, and their commissions. A legislative agenda that forecloses the trusting option makes little sense when insurance played a major factor in both the NPS and IFDA failures.

For the consumer’s perspective, a major weakness in the old Missouri law was the preneed seller’s right to withdraw income from the preneed trust. Without the accrual of income, the preneed contract became less portable as it aged. While SB1 may have other trust issues to address, it did fix the income accrual issue.

Some have argued that SB1 did not go far enough in providing the consumer refund rights to the income earned by a trust. The seller of the guaranteed contract is afforded the right to retain the income on cancellation because he takes the risks associated with the price guaranties. But prior to SB1, there was little authority for the non-guaranteed contract. If the preneed purchaser places a premium on refund rights, then the non-guaranteed contract authorized by SB1 is the better option.

With regard to Illinois law, the glaring weakness regarded the self-trusting provision and the lack of fiduciary oversight. With trusting already set at 95%, many larger funeral homes were already dependent on insurance funding. Deprived of revenues to maintain a trust program, funeral homes relied upon the IFDA. The lack of oversight and transparency lead to abuses by past IFDA leadership.

SB1682 took the crucial steps of requiring corporate fiduciaries, and imposing the prudent investor rule. But a question remains about who should provide oversight to the preneed fiduciary.

So, how does 100% trusting further enhance consumer protections in either Missouri or Illinois?

The debate over insurance versus trust has been waging for twenty years. While each has its strengths and weaknesses, the death care industry has done little to offer the consumer meaningful options for funding and price guarantees. Establishing barriers to either form of funding (or to non-guaranteed contracts) will do little to enhance consumer protections.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Springfield Journal-Register recently reported that Illinois' Cemetery Oversight Task Force made a recommendation to restrict preneed trusts to investing in government-backed securities.   While its difficult to actually find that recommendation in the Task Force's report, it is not a bad idea for the consumers who purchased a non-guaranteed preneed contract.  However, that type of restriction would hinder funeral homes that offer guaranteed contracts.

The safety provided by government-backed securities comes at a premium: a lower investment return.  Funeral homes and cemeteries are encountering cost increases that recently have outpaced the returns seen from insurance and trusts.  With regard to preneed trusts, investment return has often lagged behind cost increases because tax issues have been allowed to dictate investment policies.  

In the case of the IFDA, the trust resorted to insurance.  It is also very common to find preneed trusts invested exclusively in tax exempt bonds.  

If funeral homes and cemeteries are to offer guaranteed preneed contracts, applicable law should require trusts to adhere to the prudent investor rule.  While these trusts will always favor an asset allocation heavy with fixed income securities, a diversification is needed to provide protection and reasonable returns.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Regulators in Missouri and Kansas will be pursuing legislation this spring for more authority in providing oversight to cemeteries. With its Burr Oak problems, Illinois can’t be too far behind.

Whether it is the economy or the unscrupulous owner, regulators are finding they lack both the expertise and authority to properly protect the cemetery consumer.

The media loves a story like the one that broke on Friday about the Maryland cemetery owner that was arrested in Texas. In 2008, Mr. Deffenbaugh was charged with felony theft, and allowed to avoid prison time with an arrangement that was to provide restitution of $1,000,000. When it came time to pay the piper in 2009, the owner staged his own death by “falling off his boat” in the Chesapeake Bay.

In contrast, brief news reports were offered about a Barrett, Missouri cemetery that faces bankruptcy after its owner died, leaving no one to continue its operation.

When regulators seek reform legislation, they have both situations in mind, but it is the “Deffenbaugh card” that wins legislative votes. Cemetery owners rail when the card is played, but it is the troubled cemetery operator that consumes the regulators’ time and resources. With regard to the ‘other’ situation, there are few solutions for failing cemeteries, other than passing the responsibility for upkeep to cities or counties (and their taxpayers).

Finding effective answers to both situations will require greater interaction between the regulator and the cemetery industry. If they are to become more effective at providing oversight, cemetery regulators must gain crucial experience that can only be derived from reputable operators. And until the regulator has a firmer grip on the industry’s better business practices, legislation will often represent a give and take exchange that may span years until a workable solution is reached.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

1. Losing 20 pounds
2. Quit smoking
3. Spend more time with the family
4. Find an independent trustee

And so goes the list of New Year resolutions for the Illinois funeral director, with the last being forced on the industry by SB 1682.

Funeral directors and consumers can learn more about the new independent trustee requirements by visiting the Comptroller's website for SB 1682 information and  SB1682 FAQ issues .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the upcoming new year, Illinois smaller funeral homes will begin searching for a corporate trustee for their preneed funds.  With the Legislature's approval of the Governor's Amendatory Veto of SB1682, funeral directors lose the authority to serve as fiduciary of their own preneed funds. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The old axiom was that it would take three consecutive legislative sessions to get a preneed bill passed. If Missouri and Illinois are indicators of the current preneed reform movement, the charm may be based not on attempts but actual bills passed by the legislature.

The Illinois Comptroller’s proposal for preneed reform, SB1682, is progressing quickly towards approval of the Governor’s amendatory veto. While the bill fails to address most of the recommendations made by the Governor’s task force, SB1682 will tighten the trusting requirements of preneed funds until comprehensive legislation is passed. Consequently, Illinois’ preneed sellers face the dual task of complying with SB1682 and negotiating the future of the preneed transaction. With the various pending lawsuits, the question is whether the Illinois death care industry has the capacity to work with regulators towards a consensus bill.

Missouri preneed funeral regulators have been slow to communicate the new requirements of that state’s new preneed law, Senate Bill No. 1. That bill was written without much cooperation from either the funeral industry or the cemetery industry, and the result is an ambiguous law that imposes requirements without sufficient consideration of practical compliance by the funeral industry. The law has been the source of tremendous confusion, and many funeral directors would rather ‘opt out’ completely. Against a backdrop of the NPS failure, regulators and funeral homes would be best served to reconcile their differences in an attempt to address SB1’s flaws.

Missouri’s cemetery industry also faces a similar legislative task. With a strategy based on the old axiom, one constituency of the Missouri cemetery industry pursued legislation that included provisions intended to provide preneed sellers an option out of SB1. That legislation included provisions objectionable to cemeteries with preneed programs, and most of the bill was scuttled at the 11th hour. The resulting bill opened the door for Missouri cemeteries to establish Chapter 214 preneed programs, but does not provide any regulatory oversight for consumer protections. The bill also leaves the Missouri cemetery industry with the prospect of being regulated under SB1.

Historically, it was the internal industry disputes that made preneed legislation so difficult to pass. Legislators would send the squabbling parties home until they could resolve their disputes. What has changed in the dynamics of preneed legislation is the role of the regulator. Frauds measured by the millions are forcing regulators to share in the accountability of preneed failures. The regulator’s agenda is now trumping the industry’s internal disputes in Illinois and Missouri.

But, the regulator’s trump card does not necessarily guaranty a law that best serves the consumers’ interests.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Governor Quinn's Cemetery Oversight Task Force worked overtime to get their report done early, and Illinois' death care industry now faces new questions about reform legislation.  It would appear that SB1682 will not be the last shot fired in the battle for death care reform for Illinois.

The full report is available on the Governor's website. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Reform in Illinois inched closer to reality with Governor Quinn's "amendatory veto" of SB1682.  If accepted by the Illinois legislature, the reform bill will become law on January 31, 2010.

However, the Governor is seeking a 30 day window between the deadline for the report due from the Funeral Burial Task Force and SB1682's effective date.  It is doubtful much could be done to change SB1682 during that 30 day period.  Accordingly, the Governor's action adds confusion for the Illinois death care industry.  

If the amendatory veto is approved, Illinois funeral homes and cemeteries should plan for the January 31, 2010 effective date.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What transpired over the years at Burr Oak Cemetery is an atrocity. Hundreds of grave spaces have been desecrated, causing extreme emotional distress to all families having a loved one buried at the cemetery.

The demand for action has been intense, and Illinois politicians have responded with legislative proposals to improve oversight of cemeteries. The Comptroller’s proposal would require cemeteries to be licensed. Governor Quinn has countered with a proposal to establish a commission. Some in the press assert there are enough laws on the books to take action. To an extent, the latter point of view is accurate. There are laws on the books to protect against what happened at Burr Oak. The issue is who has the responsibility (and resources) to enforce those laws? (Hint: It’s not the Comptroller.)

If the public sides with the politicians seeking to create a new state agency for cemetery oversight, there will be a cost to all cemeteries subject to that law. Those costs will eventually be passed on to the consumer and the cemetery industry will struggle with the issue of whether that law should cover the cemeteries owned by municipalities, counties and churches? Such costs will also impact funeral homes when families want a traditional funeral, but have limited resources.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

NPS' sister corporation, Forever Illinois, used the Illinois self trusting provisions to administer preneed funds.  As with funeral operators, Senate Bill 1682 will force Illinois cemeteries to seek corporate fiduciaries to administer their preneed and endowed care funds. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Federal and state regulators can not quite agree on how to define the preneed transaction.  Federal regulators tend to view the preneed transaction as a current sale of goods and services (where the delivery is deferred until a future date).  In contrast, state regulators are increasingly defining the transaction in terms that defer consummation of the sale until the beneficiary's death.   This is reflected in a bill (SB1682) passed recently by the Illinois Legislature.

Through a deletion to 225 ILCS 45/1b (b), the preneed seller will no longer be allowed to retain a finance charge from the purchaser payments.  While not all preneed sellers include a finance charge on their installment sales, some do in order to offset the earnings lost when the purchase is paid over time.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Like the Swine Flu, a preneed virus has been spreading across the Midwest.   Looking for a cure, state legislators and regulators have been forming research teams.  It all started last summer, with Missouri’s Chapter 436 (funeral) working group and Chapter 214 (cemetery) working group.  Now, Illinois is establishing a preneed task force, and Kansas is forming a cemetery committee.  But, in contrast to the Missouri Chapter 436 working group, the forthcoming preneed research teams are limiting the industry’s involvement in the proceedings.  It’s not that the patient has a terminal condition that is contagious, but rather a reflection that organizing industry participation can be akin to herding cats.

Take the May edition of the American Funeral Director as an example. There are no less than six articles addressing preneed. As Mr. Creedy points out, everyone in the industry has an opinion and some can’t help but apply a general prescription for the preneed transaction. But, preneed is governed by more than 50 different state laws, making the transaction impervious to such generalizations. Boiling the issues down for the sake of an editor’s guidelines only contributes to the confusion of our industry members. While these types of articles often quote experts with opposing (and often, valid) opinions, death care operators tend to remember only the opinions that support their preneed program (or, supports their opposition to another form of preneed).

The preneed problem involves complex issues that require an in-depth analysis by our respective state legislators and regulators. For the sake of our consumers, we need to provide legislators and regulators objective and unbiased information about all aspects of preneed.

This patient is very ill, but not terminal. There are no easy cures or solutions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Illinois and Missouri have more in common than they may realize. Consumers and funeral directors are blaming state regulators for their current preneed problems. Looking to avoid that hot seat, regulators have been stating their excuses/defenses. If legislators are to correct the flaws in their state’s preneed oversight, they need to put partisan politics aside and objectively assess those excuses.

In response to criticism about the IFDA master trust, the Illinois Comptroller’s office states: we don’t regulate trusts. With regard to preneed audits, the Comptroller follows the money from the consumer to the funeral home and into the IFDA trust. Once there, the Comptroller did not provide an extensive review of the trust’s activities. (Summary, it’s not my job to provide oversight once the funds make it to trust.)

The chink in the Comptroller’s IFDA armor is that the consumer funds never made it into a corporate trustee’s hands. The Comptroller’s excuse (we thought they had a corporate fiduciary) has funeral directors boiling. Rightfully so. While news reports and funeral homes have garbled the legal issues, the Comptroller’s function was to license preneed sellers, and for the IFDA, that meant the responsibility to ensure the organization had an appropriate fiduciary.

Missouri’s Division of Professional Registration and State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors have received the same type of criticism with regard to the NPS collapse. Those regulators have appropriately countered with explanations about how Chapter 436 tied their hands. Legislators and state agencies sponsored meetings last summer to obtain recommendations for improving Missouri’s preneed oversight. Those recommendations included the decision to continue the State Board’s jurisdiction over the preneed and to provide that entity greater licensing and oversight authorities.

Preneed regulation should begin with the licensing/registration of who may sell preneed. (I beg to differ with Ill. State Rep. Dan Brady, and those who assert preneed should only be sold by licensed funeral directors.) But that issue aside, who should provide oversight once the consumer’s funds are deposited to trust? I tend to agree with the Comptroller’s office that a state’s financial regulator is better suited for this job. However, there are ‘gaps’ to that recommendation. (State banking regulators do not have express jurisdiction over fiduciary institutions that derive their powers from a charter granted by the Office of Thrift Supervision or the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.)

While preneed licensing and payment administration oversight should be placed with a state’s agency charged with establishing minimum competency standards, oversight of the preneed trust should be with the state’s banking regulator. Federal preemption issues could be eliminated by statutory provisions that require the seller’s trustee to consent to limited jurisdiction as a condition to accepting the account. Preneed is too complex, too big, for a single state agency.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When its Halloween, the media is naturally attracted to a story that involves horror and a cemetery.  The Belleville News-Democrat found a new type of horror for its seasonal article involving a cemetery: Missing Trust Funds!

For added suspense, the newspaper reports there are two cemeteries, and both were (or are?) owned and operated by Forever Illinois, a sister corporation of National Prearranged Services.  Determining who owns and operates the cemeteries seems to be an issue of confusion for the Illinois regulators.  The cemeteries have turned into a hot potato.

Concerns over the Forever Missouri cemeteries had to have influenced Missouri regulators' efforts to seek new enforcement authorities in Chapter 214.  Unlike their Illinois counterparts, Missouri regulators lack clear authority to involve either the attorney general's office or local prosecutors. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The IFDA master trust turned a new page today, and for participating funeral homes, the first step in a long recovery process.  With the appointment of Merrill Lynch Bank & Trust as a temporary trustee, the association begins the process of looking for a permanent trustee.  The appointment also coincides with the trust's accounts being put on a mark-to-market basis. 

The mark-to-market approach taken by the IFDA master trust will mean that the trust's value will be allocated among the preneed contracts each month. Until the benefits of key man insurance purchased by the master trust are realized, funeral directors will be servicing contracts for far less than they were promised.  It was not clear from the Q&A circulated to funeral directors whether insurance proceeds will be allocated to preneed contracts serviced while the actuary study is being performed. 

Funeral directors who left the IFDA master trust for NPS must feel whipsawed by these circumstances.  

Missouri funeral directors questioning reporting requirements being considered by the legislature should note that the IFDA reports its preneed contract values to consumers annually. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks