As you know we are starting a month long series on the topic of factoring, liquidity on structured annuity contracts and the ethical and business issues surrounding the secondary markets.

In to the midst of this is the rather large elephant in the parlor that no one seems to want to discuss, and that is Symetra's entree' into the secondary market, and a their rather aggressive and public push to make themselves a player. As this is no doubt being debated at the NSSTA annual and in other forums, I thought I would raise an example of some of the issues that are going to arise as a result of their decision to be a player in that market.

I have attached two separate documents, one is a copy of the filings between Symetra and Rapid Settlements last month in Texas State Court, as well as the copy of the decision in the Illinois Appellate Court between Forman v Symetra that is the basis for the Texas complaint by Rapid Settlements. Each is available by clicking the high light.

Now, let me make clear, I have zero stake in these cases, have no interest in any of the parties and am not going to comment on the potential success or failure of the litigation at hand. However, I do think settlement professionals and trial lawyers will find this an instructive case study in the potential conflict of interests and business issues that are going to be raised as life markets elect to enter the secondary liquidity markets.

Also, i'm really wondering what NSSTA is going to do about this, as Symetra is clearly a long time, loyal provider of structured annuities and a market I've used and recommended with out hesitation over the years. How NSSTA and other industry organizations elect to deal with this new twist in our business is going to be fascinating to watch, and we will report on it as stories develop. I'm afraid there are going to be some long standing relationships damaged as life markets start looking at their installed book of annuitants and realize the asset value and transaction benefits of providing liquidity.