Death Care Law Blog

Dig Deeper: the price of Merrill Lynch's divorce from the IFDA

Bill Stalter — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:34:47 -0600

In rejecting the $18 million settlement forced upon IFDA members, an Illinois Circuit Court is telling Merrill Lynch Life Agency to dig deeper into its pocket to compensate funeral homes. As reported by the Springfield Journal-Register, the $18 million represents the revenues the insurance broker received from the sale of key man insurance to the IFDA master trust. Apparently, Merrill Lynch convinced the Illinois Department of Insurance (DOI) that the funeral homes’ damages should be measured in terms of the benefit that Merrill Lynch received. But as the editor of the Memorial Business Journal* suggests, the Circuit Court seems more inclined to consider a ‘deeper’ measure of damages, and that will require the parties to the litigation to assess the master trust’s true loss.

The master trust collapse is framed by a ‘value’ that was set by a fixed return (2%) on consumer deposits. Based on that ‘value’, the loss is reported to be close to $100 million. But, one question funeral directors may be forced to answer will be whether the trust could have attained that value with the investment restrictions imposed by the members and the expenses taken by the IFDA. Another issue that may be raised is whether the IFDA’s past executives and attorneys bear some of the responsibilities for either selecting the investments or approving them. If so, comparative negligence may force the IFDA to shoulder responsibility for a portion of the damages.

The situation begs for a negotiated settlement, and it is unfortunate that time and expense was wasted on an end run with a regulator that had little, if any, authority over the IFDA master trust.

*"Reprinted with permission from the March 4, 2010 issue of the Memorial Business Journal. To subscribe please call 609-815-8145."

March Madness: Kansas cemetery legislation

Bill Stalter — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:07:56 -0600

With two of the nation’s top ten college basketball teams, Kansans are exhibiting clear symptoms of March Madness. With Topeka located between Lawrence and Manhattan, bipartisanship may be tested as tensions mount this week with the Big 12 tournament and the NCAA seedings announcement on Sunday. When Kansas legislators resume their meetings the week of March 15th, they may hear from a third constituency that has a different ‘madness’ in mind: the Secretary of State’s cemetery legislation.

When the Secretary of State’s staff began holding hearings last June, HB 2712 and HB 2713 may not have been what they had in mind. With the intent to encourage industry input, the Secretary of State formed a committee of cemetery operators and state representatives that was to meet for an afternoon every two weeks. With an aggressive agenda in hand, the first meeting included a handful of ‘spectators’. After that initial meeting, attendance dropped and fewer cemetery operators participated in the process.

Undaunted, the Secretary of State staff held its meetings over the course of the summer and fall of 2009, and outlined the problems with enforcing Kansas’ cemetery laws: funding for audits, wholesale trusting requirements, ambivalent and uninformed fiduciaries, and underfunded cemetery trusts. At the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Secretary of State requested assistance from Kansas’ cemetery industry. When nothing concrete was offered by the industry, the Secretary of State offered options between a state-mandated trust or revisions to fix the current law. That portion of the cemetery industry that attended the meeting choose a fix of the current law.

Among the changes proposed by the legislation, the following may prove the most controversial to some cemetery operators:

The filing of monthly reports to the Secretary of State
A new fee based on the reported transactions
A switch of preneed merchandise trusting from wholesale costs to 50% of retail
A new fiduciary definition that will limit the institutions that may serve as trustee
An expansion of the fiduciary’s duties

While these bills do not reflect what the Kansas Secretary of State had hoped to accomplish when the process began last summer, the legislation reflects the realities of the current environment: growing political pressure to provide consumers greater protections and a fragmented and diverse cemetery industry. Despite how some operators may respond, the Secretary of State could have gone much further (and may in future years).

Missouri Cemetery Preneed Law: zero to eighty while blindfolded

Bill Stalter — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:09:00 -0600

The fear of SB1 drove the Missouri cemetery industry to push for Chapter 214 legislation in 2009, only to have the wheels come off at the stroke of midnight last May. While legislation was passed, the original bill was gutted, and the resulting changes were incoherent and confusing. It was no surprise that the industry would pursue a bill to correct what was done in 2009.

An industry bill was introduced in the 2010 session as SB754. However, that bill was quickly replaced by a Senate Committee Substitute. The substitute bill incorporates changes sought by the State, the speed in which the bill was produced signals regulators’ recognition that Chapter 214 reform is needed.

Over the next several weeks, the death care industry and consumers need to take a close look at SCS SB754. Legislators will only provide the parties so many attempts to ‘get it right’. And while this bill contains several needed changes, it also has provisions that beg for questions, and answers. Take preneed for an example.

Section 214.387 will govern how the cemetery industry is to sell preneed in Missouri. Prior to last year’s legislation, Chapter 214 provided minimal oversight of preneed sales of markers and services. If a cemetery wanted to sell a vault on a preneed basis, it had to comply with Chapter 436. Chapter 214 did not contemplate trust funded preneed.

Section 214.387 takes a page from the ‘old’ version of Chapter 436 by requiring Missouri cemeteries to deposit 80% of a consumer’s payments to an escrow account or a trust if the preneed contract defers delivery. Last year’s model of 214.387 first established the new trusting requirement, but did so with confusing language. So in a sense, Missouri cemeteries went from zero to eighty last year without guidelines.

SCS SB754 attempts to provide some of those guidelines, but it misses a few beats.

The 80% trusting requirement will be one of the highest in the country. Many states’ cemetery laws trust on the wholesale costs of merchandise. This poses an audit nightmare (ask the Kansas Secretary of State). The wholesale threshold is crossed somewhere around 40 to 50% of retail. Consequently, the cemetery laws generally have lower trusting requirements than that imposed on funeral homes. But the second piece of the puzzle for cemetery trusting is the income accrual provisions.

Cemeteries have cash flow requirements that differ from that of a funeral home. States’ cemetery laws reflect this by permitting the disbursement of preneed trust income. Typically, the higher the trusting percentage, the more likely income disbursements will be allowed. But, there are exceptions (Iowa for example).

So, it’s no surprise that 214.387 contemplates income distributions. However, the bill only authorizes income disbursements from escrow accounts. The bill does not include a corresponding authority for preneed trusts.

Another glitch in 214.387 would provide consumers a refund that would include half of the income earned on the account. If escrow accounts are distributing income to cemeteries, then someone would have to ‘come out of pocket’ for refunds to the consumer.

The quick solution to these 214.387 issues would be to allow both types of accounts to distribute half the annual income, leaving the balance of income in the account until the contract is canceled or performed. As such, the Missouri law would provide higher trusting safeguards than most other states.

Preneed Salesmen: How high a bar?

Bill Stalter — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:44:30 -0600

NPS salesmen had quite a reputation. Commission driven, some were reported to have earned a healthy six-figure salary. And, some had no prior experience in the funeral industry.

To curb the excesses committed by NPS salesmen, Missouri preneed reform bill requires preneed salesmen to be licensed, with a condition that they “have successfully passed the Missouri law examination as designated by the board”.

Since the effective date of the law (August 28th), preneed agents have been required to take the same law examination required of funeral directors. That examination has proved difficult for many preneed agent applicants, and issues were presented to the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors at their February 4th meeting. The State Board held an open meeting by conference call on February 11th to facilitate further discussion of preneed agent licensing and the Missouri Law Test.

Two basic positions emerged during the February 11th conference call. The funeral directors’ camp views the preneed contract as the sale of a funeral, which should require the licensed funeral director. The proactive preneed seller views the preneed contract as a funding vehicle to pay for the goods and services described in the contract, which would require the salesman to be knowledgeable about the requirements of Chapter 436.

Historically, most Missouri preneed contracts were of the guaranteed variety. If the preneed contract was performed with little or no variation to the prearranged funeral, then the contract represents the purchase of a funeral. But, some families change the terms of their preneed contracts, and under such circumstances, the contract represents a funding vehicle. As more non-guaranteed contracts and final expense products become more common, fewer preneed contracts will represent the “sale of a funeral”.

For the time being, the State Board will continue to require the same law examination given to applicants for a funeral director’s license. But, is the funeral industry best served by restricting preneed agent licensing to legal testing imposed on funeral directors?

Cemetery Legislation in the Heartland

Bill Stalter — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:00:08 -0600

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.

First Things First: is the money there?

Bill Stalter — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:28:59 -0600

Implementing new regulatory requirements is a difficult and thankless job. Businesses hate change when it comes to government interference, and (most) regulators understand this. Accordingly, regulators typically prefer to implement incremental changes. In contrast to other industries, regulatory changes have been less frequent within the death care industry because legislators and regulators don’t understand the business. This came to an end for Missouri when NPS galvanized a legislature into re-writing the book on preneed, and then saddling the State Board with the task of implementing new mandates for licensure, oversight and enforcement.

There was no question what the State Board’s first priority under SB1 had to be: emergency rules to satisfy the new preneed licensure requirements. Until the law went into effect on August 28, 2009, the State Board lacked the authority to issue preneed licenses. But once the law went into effect, funeral homes were prohibited from selling preneed without a license. Licensing an entire industry at the stroke of midnight was beyond the Board’s limited resources.

As of February 4th, the State Board was five months into the mission, and faced a growing list of SB1 issues. Having addressed the immediate licensure issues (more or less), the Board took a step back to frame a preliminary approach to what may prove to be its top priority: financial examinations.

The State Board approved a plan that would involve an internal unit of 4 to 5 employees that would gather and monitor preneed transactions. The plan would include a period of training to develop the expertise needed to reduce the reliance on independent auditors, and thereby reduce the fees being charged to the industry. The Board's decision is consistent with Scenario 2 of the Small Business Impact Statement filed with its emergency fees rule.

Determining that “the money is there” has been the priority in Nebraska and Iowa, and now, has also become the priority for Kansas’ cemetery regulator. The challenge for the Missouri and Kansas regulators will be the implementation of an effective, but efficient, system of providing financial oversight to a diverse and fragmented industry.

Show Me your books and records: Missouri's new preneed exams

Bill Stalter — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:32:02 -0600

The future of Missouri’s examination of preneed books and records will begin to take shape on February 4th. The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has put this issue at the top of its agenda for Thursday’s meeting.

Regulatory review of Missouri’s preneed industry has been dormant for almost 15 years, and SB1 now imposes a regular examination of preneed sellers’ records. The scope, and the procedures, of the review process may take months to determine, but Missouri funeral directors should anticipate reporting requirements that impact all preneed contracts subject to Chapter 436.

Annual Investment Reviews: the need to diversify

Bill Stalter — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:08:47 -0600

The ICCFA’s November Magazine included an article by Craig Martin that provides good advice for all death care trusts. Death care trusts are notoriously bad performers, and if operators are to improve investment performance they need to work more closely with their fiduciaries and portfolio managers. Mr. Martin offers 5 tips that are equally applicable to preneed trusts and endowment care trusts:

Know your investment guidelines (and statutory limitations)
Communicate with the investment manager on a regular basis
Use a professional fund manager
Include growth in the asset allocation
Explore the availability of a master trust

Preneed: down but not dead?

Bill Stalter — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:59:00 -0600

With some industry members having already declared the preneed transaction dead, a recent AARP bulletin reports that the patient is not only alive, but it is regaining its strength. But, the reason for increasing preneed sales will only bedevil many death care operators: the rising costs of funerals.

Operators who face preneed competition will have difficulty swearing off the guaranteed contract if consumer advocates such as the AARP begin to recommend the transaction as a way for seniors to control future costs.

While the AARP’s stance on preneed may be moderating, the bulletin offers advice that consumers should heed:

Visit at least three funeral homes and ask lots of questions.
Ask for a detailed price list of products and services.
Examine the insurance policy or trust documents that fund the preneed contract (even have a lawyer review them).
Make family members aware of the funeral plans, and keep all documents and receipts in an accessible place.

When is the Spend Down preneed?

Bill Stalter — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:42:16 -0600

A “Spend Down” is the transaction where a person seeking public assistance transfers money or insurance to a funeral home to avoid having the “asset” count as a resource. It is a commonly held perception that the Spend Down accounts for many preneed contract purchases. But should all Spend Downs trigger the state preneed law intended to protect the consumer? That question has been the source of disagreement and confusion for Missouri funeral directors since last July when the State Board first began to implement SB1.

The Missouri controversy swirls around the Spend Down that involves an existing insurance policy. It is a fairly common occurrence for a family to approach the funeral director with a small life policy ($10,000 or less) with a request that the policy be held until welfare applicant’s death (when it is to be applied to funeral expenses). Missouri’s public assistance policies are interpreted at the county level, and the result has been widely diverging requirements. Some Missouri counties require the funeral director to provide a contract to the family to evidence the assignment was not made as a gift. The contract requirement also serves to protect the funeral director by setting out the terms and conditions underlying the assignment. For example, the funeral director may not necessarily promise the insurance policy is being accepted as the sole consideration for the future costs. If the policy proves worthless, the family will still be obligated to pay for the funeral.

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has grappled with whether this transaction should be subject to the requirements of SB1. During it’s initial SB1 meetings, the State Board leaned towards excluding the Spend Down from SB1, but in subsequent meetings expressed an intent to include the transaction if a contract were involved.

When the family approaches the funeral director with an existing insurance policy or certificate deposit, and the funeral director receives no compensation in the form of a commission, the Spend Down represents an accommodation to the consumer. Under such circumstances, a regulator should consider whether the licensing requirements are sufficient to protect the consumer. Imposing the requirements of SB1, or any preneed statute with additional fees or costs, on an accommodation transaction burdens both the consumer and the funeral home.

2010 and New Year Resolutions: an independent trustee

Bill Stalter — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:15:24 -0600

Losing 20 pounds
Quit smoking
Spend more time with the family
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 .

Pre Sale Disclosures and Post Sale Counseling: educating the preneed consumer

Bill Stalter — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:07:29 -0600

It is an all but too familiar news report about 60 Michigan preneed contract purchasers having lost all their money, the industry response described the protections afforded by state law.

The MFDA statement drew some rebuke on an industry chat page, including one post recommending that state FD associations take a greater role in educating the public. However, consumer advocate groups will readily acknowledge that “educating the public’ on the risks of the preneed transaction is a difficult task that often occurs after the fact.

The MFDA offers good advice regarding the protections provided by Michigan law, but consumer advocates would be more impressed if the association offered that same advice on their website, and through printed disclosures at member funeral homes.

Once the preneed contract is sold, the industry has long felt it was best to limit communications with the consumer. This ‘perception’ was reflected in the following assertion made in one of the lawsuits filed against the Illinois Funeral Directors Association:

One of the benefits of the Preneed Trust Tax-Exempt Fund was to avoid reminding the preneed customers of their own mortality with an annual mailing of an interest reporting form (Form 1099). The mortality concept has always been critical to the satisfaction of preneed customers insofar as it allowed choices to be made by the customers while sparing their survivors the emotional and financial obligations associated with a funeral. The tax-exempt option was and remains the preferred choice for approximately 75% of preneed customers.

But as the MFDA statement suggests, consumers are better protected when annual statements are provided. In contrast to the old perception, regular contact between the funeral home and the consumer could be used to strengthen the consumer’s loyalty with the funeral home. Such contact could also help reduce another age-old preneed problem: but Mom said her preneed contract took care of everything.

Bad Paper: Missouri's looming audit dilemma

Bill Stalter — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:39:36 -0600

The Missouri Funeral Director and Embalmer Association provided crucial support to the passage of Senate Bill No. 1, but the heart of the association’s membership, the mom and pop operators, may now be second-guessing that decision.

SB1 provides regulators the authority to audit or examine preneed trusts and joint accounts, including those established prior to August 28, 2009. Missouri funeral directors are now hearing that the State Board will enforce provisions of the law against their old preneed business in such a way so to put their funeral establishment licenses at risk.

The State Board’s authority to audit preneed sellers under the old law was vague. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the State Board conducted ‘random’ audits. In reality, the audits were not random, but weighted by the number of contracts sold. Using independent CPA firms, audits were made of the same small group of sellers. The practice was challenged in the mid-1990s, and audits were discontinued.

While the vast majority of Missouri sellers have never been audited, their preneed contracts have been reviewed periodically by State Board inspectors. Funeral directors are now troubled by the prospect of those contracts failing to pass muster when reviewed by an independent CPA firm.

The licensees’ worries are well founded. Few funeral homes engaged legal counsel for the purpose of preparing preneed contracts or trust agreements. Instead, funeral homes shared or borrowed documents, often without regard to such specifics as how the contract was to be funded. Consequently, funeral homes have used trust-funded contracts for joint accounts.

Some funeral directors are bound to take a defiant position with the State Board’s enforcement of SB1 against their preneed paperwork. While it is predictable that the State Board may assert the licensee’s failure to engage legal counsel is no defense, licensees represented by counsel also have reason to be indignant with the Board.

Regulating out of context: Missouri and investment advisors

Bill Stalter — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:33:39 -0600

Over the next year, Missouri will examine the various flaws of SB1. One of those flaws concerns the independent investment advisor and the ‘fix’ meant to preclude conflicts of interest.

Preneed trusts have a poor track record in terms of investment performance. Trustees often fail to appreciate the key factors that impact investment strategies for preneed. Those factors can vary substantially from trust to trust, making the fund manager’s job more difficult.

Consequently, it is not uncommon to see large trusts delegate investment authority to an independent fund manager. Missouri’s old preneed law took the practice an ill-advised step too far by relieving the trustee of liability for the advisor’s decisions. NPS exploited that provision by appointing investment advisors who handed the keys to the vault to Lincoln Memorial. Believing themselves to be exculpated from investment liabilities, the NPS fiduciaries became bystanders to the largest preneed fraud in history.

Section 436.445 of SB1 appropriately requires the fiduciary to remain responsible for the investment advisor’s actions. However, the statute goes too far in attempting to preclude any relationship between the advisor and the seller. The provision was lifted from Missouri’s Uniform Trust Code without adequate consideration of the relationships of the seller, fiduciary and fund manager.

In contrast to SB1, the Uniform Trust Code does not prohibit relations between the trustor/seller and the investment advisor (or any service provider to the trust). Missouri’s preneed industry would be better served if such relations were allowed if fully disclosed and subjected to a higher level of scrutiny.

But for the veterans

Bill Stalter — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:19:04 -0600

Veterans Day invariably results in a few newspaper articles similar to the one written about the Pittston City Cemetery. Out of respect for veterans’ graves, this small Pennsylvania town is seeking volunteers to provide care to its cemetery. Budget cuts and personnel cuts have left Pittston without the resources to provide maintenance to the cemetery.

The Pittston cemetery plight provides a context to one funeral director’s assertion that municipal cemeteries represent a ‘true value’ to consumers. The funeral director fails to grasp that the grave at a municipal cemetery is priced artificially low. Most municipal cemeteries are exempt from contributing to endowed care funds intended to provide care to the graves. Instead, taxpayers must subsidize the cemetery’s care. In lean times, the cemetery must go without care.

But for the veterans, would Pittston be seeking volunteers to cut the weeds and clean up the cemetery? Even in death, these veterans continue to serve their community.

Before purchasing a grave space, consumers should ask the cemetery how its maintenance will be funded in future years. If the cemetery maintains a care fund, determine whether it complies with state laws, and request information about the fund’s trustee.

Start Preparing a Plan

Bill Stalter — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:30:14 -0600

In May 2009, the American Funeral Director editorial advised that fixing preneed has to be a cooperative effort, and that the industry needs to agree upon a plan before attempting to legislate a fix. In that same month, the Missouri legislature passed a ‘fix’ to the NPS abuses that incorporated provisions from a mixed bag of industry recommendations. The Missouri funeral industry is now learning that their recommendations don’t amount to much of a plan.

With rumblings that Chapter 436 would have to be reopened this year to fix SB1’s flaws, the State Board took two important steps towards a plan: suspending any legislative efforts by state regulators for at least a year, and establishing a forum for industry attorneys to provide input regarding SB1. So now, in who’s court is the ball?

Mr. Defort suggests that state associations must take the lead in developing the “plan”. Perhaps, but that would depend upon the strength of the particular association’s membership. The Missouri Funeral Director and Embalmer Association played a crucial role in passing SB1, but the Missouri preneed industry is large and diverse. Consequently, the MFDEA cannot be expected to shoulder the plan-building task alone.

Some might suggest the ‘big’ sellers should step up, but the national companies have preneed programs that already comply with more stringent requirements than those imposed by SB1. The big sellers are waiting for the regulators to clarify SB1’s ambiguities and conflicts.

Rather, the ball would seem to be in the regulator’s court, and more specifically, the court of the Division of Professional Registration.

If the Division needs some starting points for a plan, here are four:

Develop an annual reporting system that operators can use to demonstrate compliance with the 80% funding requirements of existing trusts (so as to minimize audit expenses and lower the $36 contract fee)
Develop an alternative to the broken joint account contract
Establish a voluntary compliance program to fix the technical violations that have accumulated over the past 27 years (when there were no guidelines or oversight)
Establish a “no action letter” procedure that will allow more sophisticated sellers to determine the boundaries of compliance.

Sound Bite Advice

Bill Stalter — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:26:25 -0600

The question isn’t whether preneed needs to change, but how to change it.

The November 2nd edition of the Funeral Insider highlights a new industry survey by Citrin Cooperman, a highly regarded accounting firm. The newsletter includes a section on preneed, and experts’ take on the survey. Their consensus is that preneed is broken. (Tell us something we didn’t already know!) But for the sake of giving sound bite advice, the experts compromise valid advice by resorting to generalities and false alarms.

The Citrin Cooperman survey is available for $295, a bit too rich for curiosity purposes. The accuracy of any survey is dependent upon sampling an appropriate representation of the population (in this case, the death care industry). What is lost by the FI critique of the guaranteed contract, is that applicable state law is the single greatest determinant of the structure of the preneed transaction.

Most of the country’s laws were written in response to the guaranteed contract, and do not contemplate any other form of preneed. If applicable law does not specifically authorize non-guaranteed preneed, most funeral directors will be reluctant to offer it. The availability of an alternative to the guaranteed contract is state specific, and therefore a survey limited to four states is of limited use to the remaining 92% of the nation.

With regard to the four survey states, it is worth noting that 8% of the respondents stopped offering the guaranteed contract during the past year. But does that mean 67% of the respondents are following the “wrong” strategy because they continue to offer a guarantee? Beyond state law, consumer expectations and/or competition dictate that a funeral home offer preneed, and then what form of preneed to offer. Most funeral homes are forced to respond to an evolving market, and the preneed resources available. It’s a business decision with many unique factors.

As the FI experts recommend, funeral homes need to pay more attention to their preneed program. But preneed isn’t an addictive drug, it is an option that consumers have come to expect. The problem with preneed is how the guarantee has been used to define the consumer’s expectations. But as funeral homes begin to limit their use of the guarantee and realign consumer’s expectations, preneed will become more complicated (and require more of the funeral director’s attention).

Consumers will still want to address the future costs of the funeral. If they are allowed to fund, but not purchase, how is the transaction to be regulated? Contrary to what one FI expert suggests, regulation of preneed has been based on a transaction involving the purchase of goods and services. Accordingly, many preneed sellers deem the payments as theirs upon receipt, even though those payments may be sitting in a trust, a bank account, or an insurance policy. This view of the transaction is supported by a series of position letters issued by the Securities Exchange Commission’ similar to the one issued to an Iowa preneed seller. The SEC wanted no part of regulating preneed.

As the industry moves to non-guaranteed preneed, or even partially guaranteed preneed, there will be a debate over who owns the trust funds, bank account or insurance policy: the consumer or the preneed seller. The answers will be more complicated, requiring more from our laws, regulators and the documents.

Too complicated for sound bite advice.

Illinois Preneed Fund Migration: SB1682

Bill Stalter — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:06:59 -0600

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.

SB1 and Missouri's Show Me Year

Bill Stalter — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:52:11 -0600

The anxiety over Missouri’s new preneed law will temporarily peak this Friday with the passing of the due dates for annual reports and license applications. To give the industry a breather, and to assess SB1’s flaws, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors reached an informal agreement on October 20th to table any corrective SB1 legislation for one year. While their emergency rules continue on the path to approval, the State Board will begin exploring ways to identify SB1’s problems, and to prioritize issues for permanent regulations.

To view the Board’s emergency rules click here.

But, I was going to pay it back..

Bill Stalter — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:16:14 -0600

Death care regulators seem to believe that the majority of funeral home and cemetery operators are honest and well intended. But, the regulators must contend with the occasional operator who views trust funds as their own. Before taking offense with the regulator's skepticism, operators need to reflect on the arrogance of operators such as those reflected in a recent Kansas news article.