A 5 year CD looks to be on average 3%. Which is near what the company is earning on her money.
I can't imagine someone going through 400,000 in less than that unless they were fucking insane, anyways.
It doesn't matter, she would have to use none of it in order to avoid pre-payment penalties. And if she were saavy enough to be staggering certificates of deposits we wouldn't be having this conversation anyhow.
You can't write checks for a new sofa on a 5 year CD, though.
That's true. But a 5 year CD has a minimum of a 5,000-10,000 deposit depending where you get it from. So, even half of her money could be tossed in one, then write checks for the other half.
Going through 200,000 is insane unless you're unemployed. If you're employed, jesus. You could toss it all in CDs.
Unfortunately, it happens all the time.
The real problem here is a complete lack of education on finances.
You can't write checks for a new sofa on a 5 year CD, though.
You can't write checks with this either, because they aren't real checks. They are more like withdrawal requests that you make to the insurance company.
You can cash it out any time with no penalty, though. Can't do that with a CD. Maybe there is an extra step (check to yourself, another check to buy the sofa), but that should be a minor inconvenience.
You can't write checks for a new sofa on a 5 year CD, though.
You can't write checks with this either, because they aren't real checks. They are more like withdrawal requests that you make to the insurance company.
That's why you take the "checks" to your actual bank and have them help you get it sorted.
This is much ado about nothing. I served in the Marine Corps for 29 years and saw several sad, but predictable, situations prior to 1999, where a survivor received a lump sum check and burned through the money in a few months. That is why the Department of Defense agreed to the "checkbook" method currently in use. It it also used by the Office of Personnel Management for civilians. If you really think it's a good idea to hand a $400,000 insurance check (and a $100,000 death gratuity check) to an 18-year old survivor (or a 52-year old grieving mother as mentioned in the story), then go ahead and support the return to a lump sum check. I understand that the insurance company is investing the money it holds and turns a profit on it. I also know that the bank where a survivor deposits a check does the same thing. So long as the Prudential doesn't default on their obligations, they have every right to keep their administrative costs down by investing the money they hold. Come on people, look at the whole picture. Casualty Assistance Officers tell every survivor that as soon as they get the "checkbook" they can cash it in. The smart ones also tell the survivors to resist the temptation to spend the money quickly. The "checkbook" method puts a little bit of a brake on the urge to spend.
You can't write checks for a new sofa on a 5 year CD, though.
That's true. But a 5 year CD has a minimum of a 5,000-10,000 deposit depending where you get it from. So, even half of her money could be tossed in one, then write checks for the other half.
Going through 200,000 is insane unless you're unemployed. If you're employed, jesus. You could toss it all in CDs.
Unfortunately, it happens all the time.
The real problem here is a complete lack of education on finances.
And an insurance company taking advantage of the lack of education to trick her into making them money.
This is much ado about nothing. I served in the Marine Corps for 29 years and saw several sad, but predictable, situations prior to 1999, where a survivor received a lump sum check and burned through the money in a few months. That is why the Department of Defense agreed to the "checkbook" method currently in use. It it also used by the Office of Personnel Management for civilians. If you really think it's a good idea to hand a $400,000 insurance check (and a $100,000 death gratuity check) to an 18-year old survivor (or a 52-year old grieving mother as mentioned in the story), then go ahead and support the return to a lump sum check. I understand that the insurance company is investing the money it holds and turns a profit on it. I also know that the bank where a survivor deposits a check does the same thing. So long as the Prudential doesn't default on their obligations, they have every right to keep their administrative costs down by investing the money they hold. Come on people, look at the whole picture. Casualty Assistance Officers tell every survivor that as soon as they get the "checkbook" they can cash it in. The smart ones also tell the survivors to resist the temptation to spend the money quickly. The "checkbook" method puts a little bit of a brake on the urge to spend.
That'd be true, but the bank is also FDIC insured. The insurance company is not, so you're not completely out on your ass if they go under with an FDIC insured entity.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
You can't write checks for a new sofa on a 5 year CD, though.
That's true. But a 5 year CD has a minimum of a 5,000-10,000 deposit depending where you get it from. So, even half of her money could be tossed in one, then write checks for the other half.
Going through 200,000 is insane unless you're unemployed. If you're employed, jesus. You could toss it all in CDs.
Unfortunately, it happens all the time.
The real problem here is a complete lack of education on finances.
And an insurance company taking advantage of the lack of education to trick her into making them money.
It isn't a trick any more than the bank is a trick.*
If you don't cash your government check right away the value is also sitting in an investment somewhere earning interest.
*Save for the FDIC req. But the insurance company is completely solvant. Aren't they?
I find it really tough to be outraged at this. She had access to the money, she had the ability to remove the money in a lump sum. She didn't, because she didn't understand the situation. She didn't understand because she couldn't understand the language in the agreement, didn't read the agreement, or she didn't bother to pay someone to explain the agreement to her.
I'm a little interested in the policy itself, unless I've missed it in the article. Did she take it out on her son herself, or is this a death-benefit that he signed up for and listed his mom as the beneficiary on? If she's just the beneficiary then all she'd know about the policy is what came in that large envelope. The information, I'm sure, was all there, but she didn't read it. Fine print sucks, legalese sucks, but you need to understand it. If she couldn't understand it then she could have called a lawyer and paid him an hourly rate to give her this gist of this, she could've done the same thing with a bank or a financial advisor.
That said, I'd love to see some sort of a law stating that any "complex" (to be defined) financial transaction that requires a signature on a contract also requires the institution to provide a "plain English" copy of the agreement that lays out all relevant rates, amounts and terms. That's probably a pipe-dream, but I think it'd go a long way in helping to get more informed consumers. Even if it means having to "dumb things down" for those consumers.
You can't write checks for a new sofa on a 5 year CD, though.
That's true. But a 5 year CD has a minimum of a 5,000-10,000 deposit depending where you get it from. So, even half of her money could be tossed in one, then write checks for the other half.
Going through 200,000 is insane unless you're unemployed. If you're employed, jesus. You could toss it all in CDs.
Unfortunately, it happens all the time.
The real problem here is a complete lack of education on finances.
And an insurance company taking advantage of the lack of education to trick her into making them money.
It isn't a trick any more than the bank is a trick.*
If you don't cash your government check right away the value is also sitting in an investment somewhere earning interest.
*Save for the FDIC req. But the insurance company is completely solvant. Aren't they?
It's the fact that they presented the whole thing as a service while hiding the fact that it was only a service for the insurance company and the ramification of the whole deal in arcane small print. Really, the whole concept of small print is one of deception, as they certainly aren't trying to save on ink.
I dunno, maybe its just me, but when I am faced with something I know dick all about I find someone who does. That is a lot of money to just accept it without looking in to the particulars. And she had the option to take the lump sum. I understand she was grieving, fine print, etc... but damn. The company is not out to completely screw people over. Let me know when the companies start offing people so they can invest the payouts.
This is not a cable bill, its an insurance policy. And for those people that are bringing up banks going under, causing the insurance company to go under, causing the dependent loosing money. You may as well be talking about the person not getting a chance at their money because they were stabbed to death by a unicorn.
Except that they were paying her 1% interest, which is comparable to the best checking and savings rates offered on the market today.
You're skipping over the facts so you can be outraged.
There might be an argument if the money is riskier than a bank. But I don't know if it is, Insurance companies probably have liquidity requirments and asset requirements. But IDK.
Loklar on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I dunno, maybe its just me, but when I am faced with something I know dick all about I find someone who does. That is a lot of money to just accept it without looking in to the particulars. And she had the option to take the lump sum. I understand she was grieving, fine print, etc... but damn. The company is not out to completely screw people over. Let me know when the companies start offing people so they can invest the payouts.
This is not a cable bill, its an insurance policy. And for those people that are bringing up banks going under, causing the insurance company to go under, causing the dependent loosing money. You may as well be talking about the person not getting a chance at their money because they were stabbed to death by a unicorn.
Not to mention that FDIC wouldn't cover the sum of deposits for a 400k policy.
mrt144 on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
This is much ado about nothing. I served in the Marine Corps for 29 years and saw several sad, but predictable, situations prior to 1999, where a survivor received a lump sum check and burned through the money in a few months. That is why the Department of Defense agreed to the "checkbook" method currently in use. It it also used by the Office of Personnel Management for civilians. If you really think it's a good idea to hand a $400,000 insurance check (and a $100,000 death gratuity check) to an 18-year old survivor (or a 52-year old grieving mother as mentioned in the story), then go ahead and support the return to a lump sum check. I understand that the insurance company is investing the money it holds and turns a profit on it. I also know that the bank where a survivor deposits a check does the same thing. So long as the Prudential doesn't default on their obligations, they have every right to keep their administrative costs down by investing the money they hold. Come on people, look at the whole picture. Casualty Assistance Officers tell every survivor that as soon as they get the "checkbook" they can cash it in. The smart ones also tell the survivors to resist the temptation to spend the money quickly. The "checkbook" method puts a little bit of a brake on the urge to spend.
A "death gratuity"? Do they really call it that? "You're dead, thanks!" Yikes.
This is much ado about nothing. I served in the Marine Corps for 29 years and saw several sad, but predictable, situations prior to 1999, where a survivor received a lump sum check and burned through the money in a few months. That is why the Department of Defense agreed to the "checkbook" method currently in use. It it also used by the Office of Personnel Management for civilians. If you really think it's a good idea to hand a $400,000 insurance check (and a $100,000 death gratuity check) to an 18-year old survivor (or a 52-year old grieving mother as mentioned in the story), then go ahead and support the return to a lump sum check. I understand that the insurance company is investing the money it holds and turns a profit on it. I also know that the bank where a survivor deposits a check does the same thing. So long as the Prudential doesn't default on their obligations, they have every right to keep their administrative costs down by investing the money they hold. Come on people, look at the whole picture. Casualty Assistance Officers tell every survivor that as soon as they get the "checkbook" they can cash it in. The smart ones also tell the survivors to resist the temptation to spend the money quickly. The "checkbook" method puts a little bit of a brake on the urge to spend.
Except what seems to be actually happening is people refusing to use the money at all.
Which is worse.
And the insurance company profits by not actually paying out it's policies.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Except that they were paying her 1% interest, which is comparable to the best checking and savings rates offered on the market today.
You're skipping over the facts so you can be outraged.
And you're skipping over the facts to defend a corporation. They have been doing this for a couple of decades now. You think they will up the interest rates when things improve in the financial sector? Let's also not forget that they conveniently forgot to tell her about changes to Roth IRAs that would have benefited her...but not Prudential.
It's funny how so many people can defend the abuse of unequal information.
Did the insurance company ever state that it was holding the money in the account? It looks like it told her that it had placed her money in an account for her and then held on to the money and put it in its own savings account, which would be like a bank saying that it was wiring the money to another bank while it really lent the money to the the other bank and collected the interest.
Except that they were paying her 1% interest, which is comparable to the best checking and savings rates offered on the market today.
You're skipping over the facts so you can be outraged.
And you're skipping over the facts to defend a corporation. They have been doing this for a couple of decades now. You think they will up the interest rates when things improve in the financial sector? Let's also not forget that they conveniently forgot to tell her about changes to Roth IRAs that would have benefited her...but not Prudential.
It's funny how so many people can defend the abuse of unequal information.
You're postulating future hypothetical situations that nobody can divine the answers to. The facts of the current situation are that she was not- in any way- ripped off.
Except that they were paying her 1% interest, which is comparable to the best checking and savings rates offered on the market today.
You're skipping over the facts so you can be outraged.
And you're skipping over the facts to defend a corporation. They have been doing this for a couple of decades now. You think they will up the interest rates when things improve in the financial sector? Let's also not forget that they conveniently forgot to tell her about changes to Roth IRAs that would have benefited her...but not Prudential.
It's funny how so many people can defend the abuse of unequal information.
You're postulating future hypothetical situations that nobody can divine the answers to. The facts of the current situation are that she was not- in any way- ripped off.
Actually, you're the one stating that she profited because her money collected a higher rate than money in a bank account would have at a different time. Why don't you check rates at the time that actually matters then get back to us.
Except that they were paying her 1% interest, which is comparable to the best checking and savings rates offered on the market today.
You're skipping over the facts so you can be outraged.
And you're skipping over the facts to defend a corporation. They have been doing this for a couple of decades now. You think they will up the interest rates when things improve in the financial sector? Let's also not forget that they conveniently forgot to tell her about changes to Roth IRAs that would have benefited her...but not Prudential.
It's funny how so many people can defend the abuse of unequal information.
Why is it their job to tell her about changes to Roth IRAs? And if they've been doing it for 20 years, as you claim, why the outrage now?
Actually, you're the one stating that she profited because her money collected a higher rate than money in a bank account would have at a different time. Why don't you check rates at the time that actually matters then get back to us.
Federal funds rate has been nearly constant since October 2008. It's impossible as far as I know to find historical data of consumer checking and savings rates.
Edit- 1 month CDs have been under 1% since December 2008. 4 week T-Bills have been under 1% since September 2008.
So, was she locked out of her 400,000 + 1% interest rate money? Or even just the $400,000?
If not, I really don't see an issue. It's risky, but, seems to be an okay risk at that. If she can't take her money out, or, whatever, then there's a huge issue here.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Prudential is NOT A BANK, people. They don't have to act like one.
Yes, they hold money that belongs to other people. Yes, they use that for their own monetary gain.
But this is an insurance payout, and the sort of voodoo that goes on behind the scenes of insurance companies to make the concept of modern insurance feasible would never be compatible with regular banking, because combining the two creates blatant conflicts of interest (see Group, American International)
I'm not sure I really have much of an issue with how they were holding her money as long as she has access to all of it.
That she wasn't able to use the checks is a little concerning, but the article wasn't very clear on what happened. Maybe the store just didn't take checks, or those types of checks or something?
That she wasn't able to use the checks is a little concerning, but the article wasn't very clear on what happened. Maybe the store just didn't take checks, or those types of checks or something?
I'm interested in this too. It seems REALLY weird that the article takes the time to point this out, but doesn't bother explaining why the checks were turned down. Or, rather than "weird," it makes me suspicious that the article's trying to leave the reason unclear for a purpose.
It could have been as simple as a cashier or manager not liking the way the checks looked. If it looks slightly off ( as compared to a regular format check ) then you know a store probably would not take it. I wouldn't.
SkannerJAT on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Except that they were paying her 1% interest, which is comparable to the best checking and savings rates offered on the market today.
You're skipping over the facts so you can be outraged.
And you're skipping over the facts to defend a corporation. They have been doing this for a couple of decades now. You think they will up the interest rates when things improve in the financial sector? Let's also not forget that they conveniently forgot to tell her about changes to Roth IRAs that would have benefited her...but not Prudential.
It's funny how so many people can defend the abuse of unequal information.
The case you're making is very weak and disjointed. It doesn't matter if the interest rates stay flat while the economy improves or that Prudential didn't tell her about the changes in Roth IRAs. Prudential fulfilled their role in providing the death benefit. This woman took little interest in her financial affairs and wasn't even really harmed in the process.
If they did step in with all sorts of financial advice, people would be jumping on them for disturbing greiving family members.
I mean seriously, life insurance is a pretty douchey industry, but this isn't all that appalling.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
That she wasn't able to use the checks is a little concerning, but the article wasn't very clear on what happened. Maybe the store just didn't take checks, or those types of checks or something?
I'm interested in this too. It seems REALLY weird that the article takes the time to point this out, but doesn't bother explaining why the checks were turned down. Or, rather than "weird," it makes me suspicious that the article's trying to leave the reason unclear for a purpose.
They weren't checks, they were drafts. She thought they were checks. She was supposed to bring them to an actual bank, but didn't understand the print.
That she wasn't able to use the checks is a little concerning, but the article wasn't very clear on what happened. Maybe the store just didn't take checks, or those types of checks or something?
I'm interested in this too. It seems REALLY weird that the article takes the time to point this out, but doesn't bother explaining why the checks were turned down. Or, rather than "weird," it makes me suspicious that the article's trying to leave the reason unclear for a purpose.
They weren't checks, they were drafts. She thought they were checks. She was supposed to bring them to an actual bank, but didn't understand the print.
ahahahahaha, that's just great. I wonder if she takes the "checks" she gets in the mail about the $10,000 she's won* to the bank to deposit.
* Someone's going to win $10,000 in our grand-prize drawing on August 6th, to go toward buying a new Ford from the Somethingsomething Ford Lincoln Mercury dealer!
That she wasn't able to use the checks is a little concerning, but the article wasn't very clear on what happened. Maybe the store just didn't take checks, or those types of checks or something?
I'm interested in this too. It seems REALLY weird that the article takes the time to point this out, but doesn't bother explaining why the checks were turned down. Or, rather than "weird," it makes me suspicious that the article's trying to leave the reason unclear for a purpose.
They weren't checks, they were drafts. She thought they were checks. She was supposed to bring them to an actual bank, but didn't understand the print.
ahahahahaha, that's just great. I wonder if she takes the "checks" she gets in the mail about the $10,000 she's won* to the bank to deposit.
* Someone's going to win $10,000 in our grand-prize drawing on August 6th, to go toward buying a new Ford from the Somethingsomething Ford Lincoln Mercury dealer!
The fact that the insurance company didn't make even that clear isn't any sort of indication of how disingenuous they were being toward her?
That she wasn't able to use the checks is a little concerning, but the article wasn't very clear on what happened. Maybe the store just didn't take checks, or those types of checks or something?
I'm interested in this too. It seems REALLY weird that the article takes the time to point this out, but doesn't bother explaining why the checks were turned down. Or, rather than "weird," it makes me suspicious that the article's trying to leave the reason unclear for a purpose.
They weren't checks, they were drafts. She thought they were checks. She was supposed to bring them to an actual bank, but didn't understand the print.
ahahahahaha, that's just great. I wonder if she takes the "checks" she gets in the mail about the $10,000 she's won* to the bank to deposit.
* Someone's going to win $10,000 in our grand-prize drawing on August 6th, to go toward buying a new Ford from the Somethingsomething Ford Lincoln Mercury dealer!
The fact that the insurance company didn't make even that clear isn't any sort of indication of how disingenuous they were being toward her?
Her failing to understand doesn't mean that the insurance company failed to communicate.
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
From quick browsing on random life insurance websites, they're called "checkbooks"
edit: in my mind, this should legally imply they are books, containing checks.
Wait, that's a fact? I missed that. Could you point out where you were found that?
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
Would I be able to tell the difference between a bank draft and a check?
Hint: Pretend that I don't know the difference between a bank draft and a check.
Edit: Not necessarily in direct response to you, Scalfin.
Posts
It doesn't matter, she would have to use none of it in order to avoid pre-payment penalties. And if she were saavy enough to be staggering certificates of deposits we wouldn't be having this conversation anyhow.
Unfortunately, it happens all the time.
The real problem here is a complete lack of education on finances.
I knew someone who won $60,000 in a settlement with an insurance company for whiplash. She spent it in 4 days.
You can cash it out any time with no penalty, though. Can't do that with a CD. Maybe there is an extra step (check to yourself, another check to buy the sofa), but that should be a minor inconvenience.
How much for treatment? Pretty much the whole reason people think vets are expensive is that they don't have insurance reducing the price to free.
That's why you take the "checks" to your actual bank and have them help you get it sorted.
And an insurance company taking advantage of the lack of education to trick her into making them money.
That'd be true, but the bank is also FDIC insured. The insurance company is not, so you're not completely out on your ass if they go under with an FDIC insured entity.
It isn't a trick any more than the bank is a trick.*
If you don't cash your government check right away the value is also sitting in an investment somewhere earning interest.
*Save for the FDIC req. But the insurance company is completely solvant. Aren't they?
I'm a little interested in the policy itself, unless I've missed it in the article. Did she take it out on her son herself, or is this a death-benefit that he signed up for and listed his mom as the beneficiary on? If she's just the beneficiary then all she'd know about the policy is what came in that large envelope. The information, I'm sure, was all there, but she didn't read it. Fine print sucks, legalese sucks, but you need to understand it. If she couldn't understand it then she could have called a lawyer and paid him an hourly rate to give her this gist of this, she could've done the same thing with a bank or a financial advisor.
That said, I'd love to see some sort of a law stating that any "complex" (to be defined) financial transaction that requires a signature on a contract also requires the institution to provide a "plain English" copy of the agreement that lays out all relevant rates, amounts and terms. That's probably a pipe-dream, but I think it'd go a long way in helping to get more informed consumers. Even if it means having to "dumb things down" for those consumers.
It's the fact that they presented the whole thing as a service while hiding the fact that it was only a service for the insurance company and the ramification of the whole deal in arcane small print. Really, the whole concept of small print is one of deception, as they certainly aren't trying to save on ink.
You're skipping over the facts so you can be outraged.
This is not a cable bill, its an insurance policy. And for those people that are bringing up banks going under, causing the insurance company to go under, causing the dependent loosing money. You may as well be talking about the person not getting a chance at their money because they were stabbed to death by a unicorn.
There might be an argument if the money is riskier than a bank. But I don't know if it is, Insurance companies probably have liquidity requirments and asset requirements. But IDK.
Not to mention that FDIC wouldn't cover the sum of deposits for a 400k policy.
A "death gratuity"? Do they really call it that? "You're dead, thanks!" Yikes.
Isn't this story getting all kinds of nominations for stuff?
Except what seems to be actually happening is people refusing to use the money at all.
Which is worse.
And the insurance company profits by not actually paying out it's policies.
And you're skipping over the facts to defend a corporation. They have been doing this for a couple of decades now. You think they will up the interest rates when things improve in the financial sector? Let's also not forget that they conveniently forgot to tell her about changes to Roth IRAs that would have benefited her...but not Prudential.
It's funny how so many people can defend the abuse of unequal information.
You're postulating future hypothetical situations that nobody can divine the answers to. The facts of the current situation are that she was not- in any way- ripped off.
Actually, you're the one stating that she profited because her money collected a higher rate than money in a bank account would have at a different time. Why don't you check rates at the time that actually matters then get back to us.
Why is it their job to tell her about changes to Roth IRAs? And if they've been doing it for 20 years, as you claim, why the outrage now?
Federal funds rate has been nearly constant since October 2008. It's impossible as far as I know to find historical data of consumer checking and savings rates.
Edit- 1 month CDs have been under 1% since December 2008. 4 week T-Bills have been under 1% since September 2008.
If not, I really don't see an issue. It's risky, but, seems to be an okay risk at that. If she can't take her money out, or, whatever, then there's a huge issue here.
Yes, they hold money that belongs to other people. Yes, they use that for their own monetary gain.
But this is an insurance payout, and the sort of voodoo that goes on behind the scenes of insurance companies to make the concept of modern insurance feasible would never be compatible with regular banking, because combining the two creates blatant conflicts of interest (see Group, American International)
That she wasn't able to use the checks is a little concerning, but the article wasn't very clear on what happened. Maybe the store just didn't take checks, or those types of checks or something?
The case you're making is very weak and disjointed. It doesn't matter if the interest rates stay flat while the economy improves or that Prudential didn't tell her about the changes in Roth IRAs. Prudential fulfilled their role in providing the death benefit. This woman took little interest in her financial affairs and wasn't even really harmed in the process.
If they did step in with all sorts of financial advice, people would be jumping on them for disturbing greiving family members.
I mean seriously, life insurance is a pretty douchey industry, but this isn't all that appalling.
They weren't checks, they were drafts. She thought they were checks. She was supposed to bring them to an actual bank, but didn't understand the print.
* Someone's going to win $10,000 in our grand-prize drawing on August 6th, to go toward buying a new Ford from the Somethingsomething Ford Lincoln Mercury dealer!
The fact that the insurance company didn't make even that clear isn't any sort of indication of how disingenuous they were being toward her?
Her failing to understand doesn't mean that the insurance company failed to communicate.
I bet the insurance company did make it clear, or at the very least wrote it out. I'm going to bet that the paperwork that she was given didn't say "here's some checks, spend 'em like you would checks for your personal checking account! 400 grand, baby, woooooo!"
[ed] Sentence construction hard.
They probably never said what they were in plain English, only making the distinction in fine print so small, dense, and garbled that the average person couldn't gather that they weren't actually checks.
From quick browsing on random life insurance websites, they're called "checkbooks"
edit: in my mind, this should legally imply they are books, containing checks.
Would I be able to tell the difference between a bank draft and a check?
Hint: Pretend that I don't know the difference between a bank draft and a check.
Edit: Not necessarily in direct response to you, Scalfin.