AIG Selling $500 Million Stake in Company; Alico Deal Coming
March 5, 2010 – Officials for taxpayer-rescued insurance giant American International Group (AIG) today announced a deal to sell its more than $500 million stake in an international holding company and likely will finalize an about $15 billion to sell an AIG subsidiary to MetLife.
AIG officials are selling the insurer’s 13.8 percent stake in Transatlantic Holdings Inc., which AIG owns via American Home Assurance Company subsidiary. The insurer’s 9.2 million shares in Transatlantic Holdings are to be sold on March 9 at yesterday’s closing stock price of $53.76, according to Reuters. AIG in June sold some 26 million shares in Transatlantic Holdings for $38 per share.
In addition to AIG’s pending $500 million stock deal, the insurer also likely will conclude its $15 billion sale of Asia-based life insurer American Life Insurance Company (Alico) to MetLife after clearing up a potential federal tax issue, Reuters reported today.
Initially planned to be concluded by the end of February, the deal for Alico was put on hold while MetLife officials look into potential federal tax issues related to how Alico conducts its business overseas. Headquartered in Delaware but primarily doing business in Asia, Alico officials routinely withhold federal taxes from life insurance distributions made to its U.S.-based customers. But because Alico does most of its business overseas, the firm does not withhold federal taxes from distributions to non-U.S. citizens living in other nations.
Concerned U.S. officials might take umbrage at Alico’s practice, officials for MetLife and AIG are seeking a clarification on the matter from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Reuters reported yesterday. Company officials say the request for a clarification from federal officials is more of a formality and likely won’t delay the potential sale occurring by the end of the month. Selling Alico for $15 billion would be the largest single transaction done by AIG as company officials attempt to repay its staggering debt to U.S. taxpayers.
Alico mostly does business overseas in 50 nations and is one of the largest life insurance companies in lucrative, emerging Asian markets. Industry analysts say $15 billion would be a large amount to pay for a company valued at about $4 billion in 2008, but Alico has a large share of lucrative emerging life insurance markets in China and other parts of Asia. If MetLife does purchase Alico from AIG, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would get about $9 billion as partial reimbursement for the taxpayer-funded bailout of the nearly bankrupted insurer in 2008. AIG would retain the remaining $6 billion.
The $9 billion would be used to buy back preferred shares of AIG stock the federal government owns as collateral for rescuing the ailing insurer in 2008. AIG officials also would allocate $16 billion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from the proceeds from the expected initial public offering of AIG’s Asian-based life insurance unit, American International Assurance (AIA), on the Hong Kong stock exchange later this year.
Formerly the world’s largest insurance company, AIG became the world’s most indebted insurer after federal officials last year agreed to extend the company an $85 billion loan in exchange for an 80 percent share of company stocks. Federal officials said allowing AIG to go bankrupt would have a devastating impact on U.S. and international financial markets and later revised lending terms, making it a $153 billion loan with a lower interest rate and longer repayment period.
Report: AIG to get $35.5 Billion for Asia-based Subsidiary
March 2, 2010 – Officials for struggling insurer American International Group (AIG) are close to securing $35.5 billion for a lucrative Asia-based life insurance company from England-based Prudential.
The board of directors for AIG on Sunday reportedly approved selling Asia-based American International Assurance (AIA), but final terms are yet to be agreed upon. A preliminary agreement has Prudential officials paying $25 billion in cash with another $10.5 billion in securities, Reuters reported on March 1.
Based in Hong Kong, AIA has been in business more than 90 years and is one of the largest insurers in Asia with more than $60 billion in assets and about 20 million policyholders. AIG officials earlier weighed an initial public offering of AIA shares on the Hong Kong stock exchange when initial interest in purchasing the company was light during tightened global credit markets. Purchasing AIG makes Prudential one of the largest insurance companies in the Asian market, and company officials plan to finance about $20 billion through agreements with JPMorgan Chase & Co., Credit Suisse and HSBC, according to Reuters.
AIG officials would pay about $16 billion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as partial restitution of the massive debt AIG owes U.S. taxpayers. AIG currently owes about $25 billion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and another $45 billion in preferred AIG shares held by the federal government as collateral. AIG also is in talks with MetLife officials to sell its Asia-based American Life Insurance Company (Alico) for about $15.5 billion, from which the federal government reportedly would be paid about $9 billion toward AIG’s debt.
Formerly the world’s largest insurance company, AIG became the world’s most indebted insurer after federal officials in September 2008 agreed to extend the company an $85 billion loan in exchange for an 80 percent share of company stocks. Federal officials said allowing AIG to go bankrupt would have a devastating impact on U.S. and international financial markets and later revised lending terms, making it a $153 billion loan with a lower interest rate and longer repayment period.
Under a later revision, the Federal Reserve provided AIG $60 billion in loans and the U.S. Treasury another $40 billion so company officials could buy up preferred stock. Federal officials also approved $53 billion to purchase the company’s risky mortgage-backed assets and other debt contracts. The latest bailout adjustment boosted to nearly $183 billion the total amount available to AIG officials.
AIG is attempting to sell off its overseas life insurance units and other subsidiaries to repay its debt and has raised nearly $12 billion through sales of subsidiary units and other assets. Company officials intend to focus future business on property and casualty insurance markets and maintain a minority financial interest in some profitable overseas ventures.
Obama’s ‘Pay Czar’ Says No More AIG Bonuses after $100 Million Payout
Feb. 3, 2010 – About 200 employees at an embattled subsidiary of taxpayer-rescued American International Group (AIG) will get a total $100 million in bonus pay this month, but President Barack Obama’s Pay Czar says there will be no more bonuses afterward.
The $100 million in schedule bonus payments is less than the 200 employees of AIG Financial Products contractually were guaranteed in 2007 – before AIG nearly went bankrupt and the U.S. economy collapsed a year later. AIG Financial Products crippled AIG through exposure to more than $62 billion in mortgage-backed “collateralized debt obligations” tied to the U.S. housing market. AIG essentially insured large lenders against mortgage defaults and owed tens of billions of dollars after the U.S. housing market crashed and banks began foreclosing on defaulted mortgages in 2008.
Kenneth Feinberg, Obama’s “Pay Czar” today told ABC’s “Good Morning America” show hosts the payouts are the last of contractually guaranteed bonuses for employees remaining at AIG Financial Products. Because the bonuses contractually are guaranteed, federal officials are powerless to stop them, Feinberg said. But no more bonus pay contracts are in place.
“It ends this March with the last of these retention payments. These are the old grandfathered payments,” Feinberg said today on “Good Morning America.” “Another month or so [and] these old, guaranteed bonuses will be a thing of the past.”
The majority of employees at AIG Financial Products recently agreed to accept up to 10 percent less in retention payment bonuses if it means collecting the money sooner. About 95 percent of employees at AIG Financial Products reportedly agreed to the reduction in bonus payments, and some suggested even deeper cuts. If implemented, AIG would save about $13 million.
Company officials sought a $26 million reduction in bonus payments, particularly in light of an angry backlash by U.S. taxpayers upon first learning of the scheduled bonus payments in early 2009.
AIG officials in federal filings last year indicated the insurer would pay more than $1 billion in employee retention payments and bonuses to high-level executives and managers at various units. Company officials have defended the bonuses as necessary to retain key employees with years of institutional knowledge at subsidiary units being sold by the insurer to repay its debt to U.S. taxpayers. The bonus payments help retain key staff and make the units more attractive to potential buyers, according to AIG’s former chief executive, Edward Liddy.
Particularly infuriating to U.S. taxpayers, several federal officials became embroiled in a scandal last year over $165 million in bonus payments AIG paid its employees after U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) successfully amended legislation ensuring the retention bonuses would be paid to employees at the same unit responsible for AIG’s demise.
Dodd initially denied any role in the matter until proven otherwise. He then blamed President Barack Obama’s administration, claiming White House officials demanded the bonus payments be protected. Dodd and Obama are among the largest recipients of campaign contributions from AIG executives in recent years.
To help quell the subsequent public outrage, Obama eventually appointed Feinberg as the federal “Pay Czar” in charge of reviewing executive bonus payments at companies accepting federal assistance.
Report: AIG Employees Accept Partial Cut in Bonus Pay
Jan. 29, 2010 – Having experienced the angry backlash of American taxpayers once before, employees at the subsidiary largely responsible for crippling bailed-out insurer American International Group (AIG) agreed to a partial reduction in controversial retention pay bonuses.
The majority of employees at AIG Financial Products agreed to accept up to 10 percent less in retention payment bonuses if it means collecting the money sooner, Reuters reported yesterday. AIG Financial Products is the subsidiary unit largely responsible for crippling AIG after exposing the insurance giant to massive debt through high-risk securities tied to various mortgage markets. When people began defaulting on their mortgages, AIG’s trading partners demanded compensation through their trading agreements with the insurance giant, which essentially insured banks against defaults on risky mortgage loans.
About 95 percent of employees at AIG Financial Products reportedly agreed to the reduction in bonus payments, and some suggested even deeper cuts, according to Reuters. If implemented, AIG would save about $13 million. Company officials sought a $26 million reduction in bonus payments, particularly in light of an angry backlash by U.S. taxpayers upon learning of the scheduled bonus payments in early 2009.
AIG officials in federal filings last year indicated the insurer would pay more than $1 billion in employee retention payments and bonuses to high-level executives and managers at various units. Company officials have defended the bonuses as necessary to retain key employees with years of institutional knowledge at subsidiary units being sold by the insurer to repay its debt to U.S. taxpayers. The bonus payments help retain key staff and make the units more attractive to potential buyers, according to AIG’s former chief executive, Edward Liddy.
Particularly infuriating to U.S. taxpayers, several federal officials became embroiled in a scandal last year over $165 million in bonus payments AIG paid its employees after U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) successfully amended legislation ensuring the retention bonuses would be paid to employees at the same unit responsible for AIG’s demise.
Dodd initially denied any role in the matter until proven otherwise. He then blamed President Barack Obama’s administration, claiming White House officials demanded the bonus payments be protected. Dodd and Obama are among the largest recipients of campaign contributions from AIG executives in recent years.
To help quell the subsequent public outrage, Obama eventually appointed Kenneth Feinberg as the federal “compensation czar” in charge of reviewing executive bonus payments at companies accepting federal assistance.
Geithner Defends AIG Bailout Before Congressional Panel
Jan. 27, 2010 – Federal lawmakers today accused officials at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and others of misleading U.S. taxpayers into funneling money into ailing insurer American International Group (AIG) when several large banks were the actual intended beneficiaries.
The accusations were made as a Congressional panel today held its first hearing investigating why federal officials attempted to prevent U.S. taxpayers from knowing how their tax dollars truly were being allocated and why.
“In effect, the taxpayers were propping up the hollow shell of AIG by stuffing it with money, and the rest of Wall Street came by and looted the corpse,” Rep. Edolphus Towns (D – New York) said upon opening today’s Congressional hearing.
Through two special entities created to oversee the handling and distribution of some $62 billion in taxpayer “bailout” funds intended for AIG, officials for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York instead paid several banking partners in full on mortgage-backed securities agreements that crippled the insurer when the U.S. mortgage market collapsed in 2008. Because taxpayers were told their funds were intended to prop up AIG and prevent further credit ratings downgrades that would have bankrupted the insurance giant, members of Congress are investigating why the $62 billion was paid to AIG’s banking partners and why federal officials attempted to hide it from U.S. taxpayers.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time, although he says he recused himself from the matter after being appointed Treasury Secretary by President-elect Barack Obama soon after his November 2008 election win. He appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing today.
Committee members want to know why officials for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and AIG in 2008 had requested the heightened security status for an important document showing how the taxpayer funds would be allocated. Both parties sought “special security procedures” by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an important document relating to the AIG bailout. The document, entitled “Schedule A – List of Derivative Transactions,” showed which financial firms would receive how much money through the taxpayer-funded bailout.
SEC regulators complied with the request by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and treated the matter like one of national security, according to the Reuters report. Only two SEC officials reviewed the document in January 2009 and afterward locked it in a safe while considering the confidentiality request, according to the e-mail messages obtained by Reuters.
Among information federal and AIG officials sought to keep secret were the 16 banks in the United States and Europe receiving money through the AIG bailout. The banks later were identified only after AIG officials were pressured to do so by the SEC and members of Congress. Because large banks like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale received full restitution for debts owed to them by AIG, critics have said the AIG bailout in fact was designed to bailout the insurer’s banking and trading partners without letting U.S. taxpayers know. Some $70 billion of the nearly $183 billion AIG bailout went to the 16 banks.
But Geithner denies any wrongdoing by him or officials at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
“We did not act to protect the financial interests of individual institutions. We did not act to help foreign banks,” Geithner said in his prepared remarks for today’s Congressional hearing.
Geithner said he was not involved in the decision-making process regarding the bailout and claimed “thousands of factories” would have closed and “millions of Americans” would have lost their jobs, leading to the “utter collapse” of the U.S. economy had the federal government not intervened in the AIG crisis.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson also testified before the committee. Paulson was Treasury Secretary during the end of 2008 and is the former chief executive officer for Goldman Sachs.
Despite their assertion that the bailout was necessary and payments to AIG’s banking partners were fully justified, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Neil Barofsky, said a better deal could have been negotiated and saved U.S. taxpayers’ money. Instead, federal officials intentionally allowed banks to collect billions of dollars in funds intended to increase AIG’s liquid capital and prevent additional credit ratings downgrades that would have generated even greater debt for the ailing insurance giant.
Report: Federal Officials Sought National Security Status for AIG Info
Jan. 25, 2010 – Even as U.S. taxpayers involuntarily were forking over an initial $85 billion to prevent a pending bankruptcy by insurer American International Group (AIG), federal officials attempted to gain national security status on some transactions and prevent the public from knowing how their tax dollars were being allocated, according to a Jan. 24 Reuters report.
E-mails obtained by Reuters indicate officials for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and AIG in 2008 had requested the heightened security status for an important document showing how the taxpayer funds would be allocated. Both parties sought “special security procedures” by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an important document relating to the AIG bailout. The document is entitled “Schedule A – List of Derivative Transactions” and showed which financial firms would receive how much money through the taxpayer-funded bailout.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2008 but has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. Geithner says he recused himself from any discussions while awaiting his eventual confirmation as President Barack Obama’s U.S. Treasury Secretary appointee.
SEC regulators complied with the request by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and treated the matter like one of national security, according to the Reuters report. Only two SEC officials reviewed the document in January 2009 and afterward locked it in a safe while considering the confidentiality request, according to the e-mail messages obtained by Reuters.
Among information federal and AIG officials sought to keep secret were the 16 banks in the United States and Europe receiving money through the AIG bailout. The banks later were identified only after AIG officials were pressured to do so by the SEC and members of Congress. Because large banks like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale received full restitution for debts owed to them by AIG, critics have said the AIG bailout in fact was designed to bailout the insurer’s banking and trading partners without letting U.S. taxpayers know. Some $70 billion of the nearly $183 billion AIG bailout went to the 16 banks.
Geithner is scheduled to testify before a Congressional committee on Jan. 27 as to whether or not he had any knowledge of or played a role in negotiating a full settlement amount for AIG’s banking partners and then hiding the details from U.S. taxpayers. Several lawmakers recently have accused Geithner of orchestrating full payments for AIG’s banking partners during the fall and winter of 2008 when he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-California) recently released copies of e-mails indicating Federal Reserve officials actively sought to keep U.S. taxpayers from knowing about efforts to fully reimburse banks with contractual business ties to AIG. But a Jan. 8 letter to Issa from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s general counsel, Thomas Baxter, suggests lower-level employees kept Geithner out of the loop regarding negotiations and settlement amounts.
Issa suggested the letter from Baxter confirms Federal Reserve Bank officials already knew Geithner’s position on the matter and carried out his will.
AIG fully reimbursed the Goldman Sachs Group and other banking partners on high-risk credit default swaps tied to various mortgage markets after receiving its initial $85 billion taxpayer bailout. But instead of revealing the extent of payments to banks, Federal Reserve officials sought to keep them hidden from the public, Issa contends.
New York Federal Reserve officials negotiated the payments to banks, which was some $13 billion more than the settlement AIG officials attempted to negotiate. Issa suggested Geithner used the AIG bailout as a “backdoor” bailout for banks without taxpayers knowing.
Formerly the world’s largest insurance company, AIG became the world’s most indebted insurer after federal officials in September 2008 agreed to extend the company an $85 billion loan in exchange for an 80 percent share of company stocks. Federal officials said allowing AIG to go bankrupt would have a devastating impact on U.S. and international financial markets and later revised lending terms, making it a $153 billion loan with a lower interest rate and longer repayment period.
AIG Subsidiary Auctioning Jet that Crash-Landed in the Hudson River
Jan. 22, 2010 – The large jet aircraft that crash-landed in the Hudson River on Jan. 15, 2009, with 155 passengers and crew members on board is being auctioned off by a subsidiary of recently bailed out insurer American International Group (AIG).
US Airways Flight 1549 was bound for Charlotte, North Carolina, from New York’s La Guardia Airport last January when it struck a flock of geese about three minutes into the flight. The birds caused the two engines to fail on the Airbus 320 jet aircraft, forcing its pilots to ditch in the nearby Hudson River. All 155 people aboard the aircraft survived the ordeal with no major injuries.
The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators later awarded Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and the aircraft’s other four crew members with its “Master’s Medal.” The citation accompanying the award states: “This emergency ditching and evacuation, with the loss of no lives, is a heroic and unique aviation achievement.”
Several of the aircraft’s surviving occupants reportedly said they would like a small piece of the plane as a souvenir, but officials for AIG subsidiary Chartis Insurance this week announced they are selling the remains of the historic aircraft in its entirety. The plane’s remains are scheduled to be auctioned off to the general public on March 27. The winning bidder will be responsible for removing the plane from the Kearny, New Jersey, warehouse in which it is stored. The plane is being sold as “salvage.”
Formerly known as AIU Holdings, AIG officials changed the name of the wholly owned commercial insurance subsidiary to Chartis Insurance in July. Some reports indicate the name change was designed to distance the firm from bad press surrounding parent AIG after accepting its multi-billion, taxpayer-funded bailout in 2008. AIG officials have said they might sell shares of the wholly owned subsidiary through an initial public offering.
The planned auction of the Flight 1549 aircraft is the first high-profile move made by Chartis officials since the firm was rebranded last year.
Formerly the world’s largest insurance company, AIG became the world’s most indebted insurer after federal officials in September 2008 agreed to extend the company an $85 billion loan in exchange for an 80 percent share of company stocks. Federal officials said allowing AIG to go bankrupt would have a devastating impact on U.S. and international financial markets and later revised lending terms, making it a $153 billion loan with a lower interest rate and longer repayment period.
Consejos de Seguro #3
El uso de su teléfono celular, puede incrementar su tarifa en su seguro de Auto.(Car insurance)
La mayoría de los americanos aman su teléfono celular, y mas de 260 millones están subscritos a este servicio.
En todo Estados Unidos desafortunadamente demasiadas personas continúan sus conversaciones telefónicas
mientras conducen, los pasajeros y otros conductores están en riesgo de incrementar el costo de su seguro de auto.
Una resiente encuesta revelo que el 1200 conductores en el 2007 el 73% hablaban por su teléfono celular
mientras conducían en acuerdo con el National Mutual Insurance Company
En el 2005 un estudio en Australia indico que conductores que utilizan su teléfono celular mientras conducen
son cuatro veces mas propensos a tener un accidente con grandes niveles de daño
en acuerdo con el Insurance Institute For Highway Safety.
Desafortunadamente no parece importar que existan aparatos de manos libres “hands free”
que se pueden utilizar, y aun con estos aparatos es también peligroso el conducir,
tanto como el conducir ebrio, en acuerdo con un estudio realizado en el 2006 por la universidad de Utah.
Debido a que la gran mayoría de accidentes de auto se debe a conductores distraídos,
los teléfonos celulares han sido catalogados como una significante causa de accidentes
casi el 80% de accidentes ocurren por conductores distraídos con solo 3 segundos de diferencia del accidente
en acuerdo con el National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
la mayor causa de distracción para los conductores son los teléfonos celulares
La mayoría de los estudios afirman que el uso de un teléfono celular mientras conduce
puede ser una distracción y puede ser causa de un grave accidente.
Muchos estados tienen leyes que limitan el uso de teléfono celulares mientras se conduce
muchos países están considerando aplicar esta ley de uso de teléfonos celulares mientras conducen
pero los sabidos efectos y subsecuentes reclamos de seguro de auto han tenido gran impacto
y como los reclamos de seguro de auto han aumentado, los precios y tarifas también se incrementa.
Si es o no un usuario de teléfono celular, o tan solo trata de encontrar el mejor trato, tarifa para auto
Insurance-Website ofrece el mejor trato y la mas completa información en compañías líder en seguros para auto.
Solo toma unos cuantos minutos con un poco de información básica
para poner a trabajar a profesionales de seguros y darle el mejor trato posible,
todas las tarifas son gratis y usted no tiene absolutamente ninguna obligación de comprar.
Mechanical Breakdown Insurance
Similar to an automobile manufacturer’s warranty, many insurance companies offer mechanical breakdown coverage for new and low-mileage late-model vehicles. Also called “vehicle service contracts,” policies typically cover mechanical components not subject to wear and tear or considered standard maintenance, but some companies do offer additional protection for tires damaged by road hazards. Wear and tear items usually include brakes, wheel bearings, tires, shocks, head gaskets, seals and other items that wear out over time.
Components covered typically include engines, transmissions, drive axles, electrical systems, air conditioning, steering and others. Plans often include limited payments for rental cars while vehicles are in for covered repairs. Owners must properly maintain vehicles for mechanical breakdown coverage to stay in effect. If no proof of regular maintenance is available, many policies will not pay for vehicle repairs.
Depending on the extent and cost of manufacturer warranties, it can be more affordable to purchase mechanical breakdown coverage instead of warranty protection. Some warranties limit repairs to dealership-only facilities whereas insurance companies often cover repairs at any licensed facility and sometimes offer discounts for using company-approved repair centers. Some warranties last only a year and up to specific mileage amounts but can be renewed at higher cost.
As a vehicle ages and mileage grows, rates often increase for mechanical breakdown coverage, which might only pay amounts above what manufacturer warranties cover. Some policies can be bought for newly purchased used vehicles with limitations on vehicle age and mileage. In some cases, coverage can be transferred when selling vehicles to others or a pro-rated cost refunded when trading in or selling a vehicle with mechanical breakdown coverage.
Examples of companies offering mechanical breakdown insurance include AAA, which provides coverage for newly purchased vehicles with less than 100,000 miles on their odometers. A $100 deductible is required if repairs are made at shops outside of AAA-preferred facilities and a $50 deductible if done at a preferred repair shop.
GEICO also offers mechanical breakdown coverage on new and leased vehicles less than 15 months old and with fewer than 15,000 miles on their odometers. Policies can be renewed annually for up to seven years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, and require a $250 deductible.
Other major companies offering various forms of mechanical breakdown coverage include Allstate, Farmers, Farm Bureau, GMAC and Mercury. Smaller insurers such as MBA Direct and Warranty Direct provide mechanical breakdown insurance and extended warranty coverage. Many financial institutions also offer mechanical breakdown coverage and extended warranties at extra cost when financing vehicles.
Costly Insurance Mistakes by Consumers
Jan. 19, 2010 – With home values and family incomes generally on the decline during the past year, many consumers looking to reduce costs are apt to make critical errors with their insurance coverage that could cost them thousands of dollars or more later on.
The Insurance Information Institute recently identified several common mistakes insurance consumers make when adjusting their coverages that could cost them far more than anticipated.
“Money is tight right now and many people are looking for ways to cut costs,” said Jeanne M. Salvatore, senior vice president and consumer spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute. “However, there are smart ways that savvy consumers can save on their home and auto insurance, and there are mistakes that can result in being dangerously underinsured.”
One of the biggest mistakes common among homeowners is to reduce the level of insurance coverage on their homes after their retail value declines due to falling housing values. When homeowners insure their homes based on current retail values rather than rebuilding costs, they can find themselves without the funds necessary to rebuild after a fire or other tragic event.
Because homeowners insurance is intended to rebuild homes and replace personal belongings rather than protect resale value, Insurance Information Institute officials advise homeowners to increase their deductibles rather than reduce coverage amounts to save money on homeowners insurance premiums. Increasing the deductible from $500 to $1,000 on a homeowners insurance policy could reduce monthly insurance premiums by up to 25 percent, according to the Insurance Information Institute.
Many homeowners also make the mistake of canceling their flood insurance policies. Standard homeowners insurance and renters insurance policies typically don’t cover damages from external flooding. Instead, flood insurance protection for homes typically is purchased through the federal National Flood Insurance Program as well as some private insurers. Homes located in designated flood areas are required to have flood insurance coverage, but the Insurance Information Institute indicates about 25 percent of losses due to flooding occur in low-risk areas.
Although they don’t own their homes, renters often neglect to purchase renters insurance coverage to help replace personal belongings and provide money for additional living expenses if forced to evacuate a rented home for a covered mishap. Renters insurance also protects renters from potential liability if someone is injured in their rented home and wins a court judgment.
Another critical error consumers often make when cutting insurance costs is buying only state-mandated legal limits for auto insurance coverage. Buying only the minimum required amounts can leave motorists on the hook for thousands of dollars in legal liability costs if they are at fault in an accident. Instead of reducing liability coverage, the Insurance Information Institute advises motorists with older vehicles worth less than $1,000 to cancel their comprehensive and collision coverages while maintaining a more suitable level of liability coverage, such as $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident.
But even when purchasing suitable levels of insurance coverage, many consumers make the mistake of not checking insurance company ratings and other assessments to ensure they are going to get the best possible service and value for their insurance dollars. The Insurance Information Institute advises checking various insurer ratings as provided by independent ratings services, such as A.M. Best. And most states compile information on consumer complaints against insurance companies to help residents better assess where they should spend their critical insurance dollars.
Consejos de Seguro #2
Incremento en costos por reclamo. (Home insurance)
Aun cuando el numero de reclamos en pólizas de auto ha disminuido, el costo de cada reclamo se ha incrementado,
y esto pudiera causar que las compañías aseguradoras aumenten sus tarifas si la tendencia cambia,
de acuerdo con reporte de Insurance Research Council,
La investigación ha observado tres diferentes aspectos de los reclamos desde el 2000 hasta el 2006
y encontró que el numero de reclamos por daños a propiedad, por cada 100 vehículos se redujo en un 11%,
Lastimaduras en un 19% y reclamos de daños personales se redujo a un 14%
durante el periodo de tiempo examinado.
Las disminuciones en reclamos de póliza de auto tubo similar disminución en fatalidades y lastimaduras
puede ser atribuido a mejoras en los vehículos, seguridad en carreteras y caminos
según el estudio mientras el viaje por los caminos puede ser mas seguro y los niveles de lesiones y muertes mas bajos,
el promedio de costo por reclamo se ha incrementado al mismo tiempo, desde el 2000 hasta el 2006
Los costos de daños a propiedad de pólizas de autos se incremento 18%
mientras lesiones personales al casi 22% y los reclamos de protección personal de lesiones un 19%
incremento en las reparaciones de vehículos y costos de cuidado medico son mayormente responsables
por los aumentos de los reclamos de póliza de auto,
de acuerdo al estudio la disminución del numero anual de reclamos a pólizas de autos
hasta ahora a compensado el incremento de costo por reclamo por cada póliza.
Pero si los reclamos son mas frecuentes, hay aumento y posibles reclamos denegados,
los conductores se encuentran pagando más por sus pólizas
para compensar los incrementos de los costos de las compañías de seguros
Usted puede estar seguro que esta pagando las tarifas mas bajas posibles usando Insurance-Website
para comprar y comparar precios nuestro sitio seguro le ofrece acceso a las mejores compañías de seguros
para auto de el país y los ponemos en competencia directa para ofrecerle las más bajas tarifas posibles.
Solo unos minutos aquí, usted puede ahorrar mucho en su póliza de auto y otras necesidades de seguros.
Consejos de Seguro #1
Es probable que usted sepa que su estado requiere que usted lleve un seguro para automóvil en caso de un accidente.:
Pero los gobiernos estatales y federales aumentan otras formas de seguro obligatorias.
En 2007, El estado de Massachusetts aprobó una ley que requiere obtener una póliza que incluya
cobertura Medica, y otros estados y sus respectivos congresos están considerando medidas similares.
La ley de Massachusetts tiene una provisión de “obligación individual”
que requiere que los residentes de ese estado deben hacerse responsables de obtener seguro medico.
Aquellos que están por debajo de ciertos niveles de ingreso se les ofrece coberturas a bajo costo o gratis
a través de programas subsidiados por el estado
Oficiales de Massachusetts usaran la declaración de impuestos para determinar elegibilidad y
penalizaran a aquellos que la puedan pagar una póliza de seguro medico y no lo hicieron y se les
cargara hasta $219.00 de impuestos en su declaración anual de impuestos.
La legislatura de Massachusetts esta considerando una medida para incrementar la pena hasta $900.00
para forzar un mayor cumplimiento de la ley.
Los legisladores de California recientemente consideraron una ley similar, que no ha sido aprobada.
La Candidata a la presidencia Hilary Clinton se ha apegado a un mandato de cobertura para adultos
y Barak Obama para niños solamente.
Una coalición bipartidista de senadores de los estados unidos recientemente apoyaron una propuesta para “Healthy American Act”
ordenando a cada individuo a obtener cobertura medica con penalidad por no cumplirla.
Aunque sus seguidores no esperaban que la ley fuese aprobada,
indica la dirección en que el gobierno hará que las coberturas sean obligatorias.
Mientras las coberturas medicas se hacen una idea popular entre los gobiernos estatales y federal,
las pólizas de inundación han sido ley desde hace un cuarto de siglo
Si Usted tiene un préstamo hipotecario a través de un prestamista regulado o asegurado por el gobierno federal
o ha comprado una casa ubicada en una zona de alto riesgo de inundación,
el gobierno federal requiere una póliza con cobertura para inundación
en acuerdo con la ley de 1973 Flood Disaster Protection Act.
El congreso paso la ley después de que estudios indicaran que la mayoría de la gente,
de aquellos que sufrieron de daños por inundación no estaban protegidos con un seguro contra inundación.
Una nueva ley requiere a los propietarios de casa, que viven en áreas identificadas como zonas de inundación,
y que han recibido ayuda por desastres, compren y mantengan una póliza contra inundaciones.
Si ellos no lo hacen no serán elegibles para futura ayuda para desastres del gobierno.
El gobierno local puede terminar si la casa esta ubicada en zona de inundaciones
entre automóviles e inundaciones algo mas nuevas tendencias en coberturas de cuidado medico,
nuestro gobierno estatal y federal, gradualmente hacen a los americanos
comprar barias formas de protección para sus familias y propiedades.
Insurance Website, tiene los medios necesarios para ayudarle a encontrar la póliza
que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades y mantenerlo en cumplimiento con las leyes vigentesy las nuevas propuestas de cobertura mandatorías.
Insurer Financial Ratings: What They Mean
Several companies assess financial ratings for insurance providers in America. With a little additional knowledge about how ratings work and what they mean, consumers can use insurer ratings to better determine which companies are best for their needs.
The A.M. Best Company is one of the most recognized insurer ratings providers in the world and one of nine Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations as designated by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. Founded in New York City in 1899 by Alfred M. Best, the company assesses insurers’ financial strengths to better gauge their ability to pay claims and provides one of the most respected independent, third-party evaluations of insurers.
The company published its first insurance report in 1900, evaluating 850 property/casualty insurance companies in the United States and followed up with a life/health edition evaluating 96 insurers in 1906. In 2007, A.M. Best’s reports evaluated 3,100 property and casualty insurance companies in the United States and Canada and 2,000 life and health providers.
The company bases its assessments on each insurance provider’s annual and quarterly financial statements, but quarterly statements are not always available. Insurance companies prepare their statements in accordance with legally mandated accounting requirements and file them with state and federal insurance regulators. A.M. Best corroborates the filings with insurance company information available through the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Best’s financial strength ratings are not a guarantee of insurer performance. The ratings are opinions about insurers’ financial strengths and abilities to meet obligations to policyholders. An insurance company’s balance sheet strength, business performance and profile are evaluated to provide a rating.
A.M. Best’s financial strength ratings are placed into 10 categories with three “secure” groups of “superior,” “excellent” and “good.” A superior rating is represented by an A+ or A++ and is given to companies with a “superior ability to meet ongoing obligations” to policyholders, according to A.M. Best.
An A to A- rating is considered “excellent” and refers to a company with an “excellent” ability to meet its policyholder obligations. Ratings of B++ and B+ refer to a company’s “good” ability to meet its obligations.
Companies not receiving the three top-tiered ratings fall into the “vulnerable” category and are considered vulnerable to adverse economic and company changes and are not deemed strong candidates for meeting their obligations to policyholders. Ratings in the vulnerable category range from a B to B- “fair” down to F rating for companies placed in liquidation.
An S rating represents a “suspended rating” and is assigned to companies experiencing sudden events with strong impacts on their financial standing and no timely or relevant information is available to provide a rating.
Because it is the nation’s premiere insurance company ratings service, whenever possible, Insurance Website provides A.M. Best’s ratings for insurance companies listed on our site.
AIG, Other Insurers Among Firms to Pay Proposed $90 Billion Tax
Jan. 18, 2010 – President Barack Obama last week announced a plan to implement a federal tax on large financial firms with at least $50 billion in assets and who accepted federal funding to survive the recent financial crisis – although some who declined taxpayer dollars would pay, too.
Corporations responsible for paying the proposed tax would include the American International Group (AIG), the Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. The tax would be levied over a 10-year period beginning June 30 and accrue an estimated $90 billion over a decade.
President Obama calls the proposed tax the “financial crisis responsibility fee,” which is designed to recoup much of an estimated $117 billion U.S. taxpayers have lost through the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which is a $700 billion fund created in 2008 to relieve ailing corporations like AIG of toxic assets mostly tied to various mortgage markets and largely blamed for the global economic meltdown over the past year. Federal law requires the President to recoup any TARP program funding losses by 2013.
Obama says the proposed tax would recoup lost taxpayer dollars by making only those firms most responsible for the recent downturn and who were primary recipients of taxpayer dollars repay the funds instead of adding to the federal deficit. The tax would levy a 0.15 percent fee on corporate assets while exempting “high-quality capital,” such as common shares, and retained and disclosed corporate earnings. If approved by Congress and signed into law, the Internal Revenue Service would collect the fee over a 10-year period beginning June 30. Only those firms with assets topping $50 billion and who own federally insured depository institutions would be levied.
While AIG was among firms cited as being liable for the proposed federal tax, several other insurance companies also would qualify for the additional levy. Allstate, Ameriprise Financial, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Lincoln National, MetLife, the Principal Financial Group and Prudential Financial all would be eligible for the proposed tax based on each firm’s adjusted assets even though many declined federal assistance, according to a report issued by Credit Suisse on Friday.
Of insurers that accepted federal TARP funds, AIG could owe up to $389 million if the tax is levied. The Hartford would owe about $28.2 million and Lincoln National $29.4 million, according to Credit Suisse.
But firms that declined federal assistance would pay large amounts as well. MetLife would be assessed up to $97 million, Prudential about $85 million and Allstate some $34 million despite none of the insurers having accepted taxpayer assistance, according to Credit Suisse and Citigroup analysts.
Haiti Death Toll Estimated at More Than 50,000; Relief Efforts Hampered
Jan. 15, 2010 – An estimated 50,000 or more Haitians have died as a result of the Jan. 12 earthquake that devastated Haiti, officials for the Pan American Health Organization announced today.
“A variety of sources are estimating the numbers between 50,000 and 100,000,” Jon Andrus of the Pan American Health Organization told reporters.
The magnitude 7.0 earthquake has been followed by dozens of smaller aftershocks, and relief efforts have been hampered by damaged port facilities, blocked roadways and general chaos. News reports have indicated gangs of young men roaming the streets of Port-au-Prince armed with machetes and looting buildings.
The U.S. military is sending service members to help relief efforts, and United Nations officials today issued an “emergency appeal” to raise $550 million for Haitian relief efforts. Advanced forces already have arrived to assess the situation and advise on how best to assist relief efforts.
As many as 3,500 members of the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division are scheduled to arrive by Sunday, and about 2,200 Marines from the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit also will be deployed to Haiti for at least 90 days. The Navy has dispatched the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, which was to arrive today with three operating rooms and up to 5,000 sailors aboard. It also can produce its own fresh water supply, which is in extreme shortage in Haiti.
A slow-moving U.S. Navy hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, also has been dispatched but isn’t expected to arrive at Haiti until Jan. 22. The hospital ship has 12 operating rooms and 250 beds but will take a week to arrive at Haiti, according to U.S. Navy officials.
A magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti at 4:53 p.m. EST Jan. 12, lasting for up to 60 seconds, devastating the island nation and killing tens of thousands of residents in what has been called Haiti’s strongest earthquake in more than 200 years.
The initial 7.0 earthquake was centered about 10 miles southwest of Haiti’s capital city, Port-au-Prince, which has about 2 million residents. Haiti occupies the western half of Hispaniola Island in the Caribbean Sea. The Dominican Republic takes up the eastern half of the island. The U.S. Geological Survey says the earthquake is the strongest to hit Haiti since 1770.
Haitian officials initially estimated the death toll could top 100,000. The nation’s Presidential Palace and Parliament buildings were destroyed along with many schools and hospitals, and French officials said they fear everyone died in the United Nations’ Haitian headquarters when the structure housing it collapsed during the earthquake. Several nations also have reported their respective embassy buildings were severely damaged or destroyed.