Talk:USAA/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 8 Dec 2005 and 31 Dec 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:USAA/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Movementarian 08:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Edits
First, I apologise to RobertJKoenig for removing the above text in an edit I made to this page. It was accidental.

The above text was inserted over the current text numerous times and has been reverted each time by multiple persons. If there is validity to the above accusation please present it in a neutral way and without deleting the company information. Movementarian 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the differences between a URIE vs Mutual as it is beyond my knowlege base. There have no problem with your information being included in the artilce as long it does not express a point of view. The information that is currently in the article is taken from information provided by the company. USAA is not just an insurance company they also provide the following services: USAA also boasts the following awards, etc:
 * USAA property and casualty insurance group of companies
 * USAA Life Insurance Company and USAA Life Insurance Company of New York
 * USAA Investment Management Company
 * USAA Federal Savings Bank
 * USAA Savings Bank
 * USAA Financial Planning Services
 * USAA Alliance Services Company
 * J.D. Power and Associates — From 1999-2004, USAA received numerous recognitions for customer satisfaction. In 2002, USAA was awarded the "Chairman's Award" for Excellence in Customer

Service; the first financial services company to ever receive the prestigious award.
 * Fortune — Most Admired Companies (1999-2004)
 * GI Jobs — Top 10 Military-Friendly Employers (2003-2004)
 * Working Mother —100 Best Companies for Working Mothers (1998-2004)
 * Latina Style — 50 Best Employers for Hispanic Females (2001-2004)
 * Computerworld — 100 Best Places to Work in IT (1999-2004)
 * Forrester Research — USAA named best company for customer advocacy in "What Satisfies Financial Customers" study (2004)
 * A.M. Best Company: A++ (Superior)
 * Moody's Investors Service: Aaa (Exceptional)
 * Standard & Poor's: AAA (Extremely Strong)  Movementarian 04:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased Statements
I have attempted to include the information you want in the article. If future edits please try not to use POV statements such as "case involving a guy who got screwed". Movementarian 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I found this on the web 1. I think Bob is a bitter guy. He consistently messes with the page.--Looper5920 23:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It does indeed look like a case of sour grapes. Movementarian 00:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased, maybe, but not incorrect
I'd prefer to be biased than wrong. But: this is an absolutely incredible experience. It's as if I'd picked up paint brushes for the first time. So, I smear the canvas a little? So what - come on guys. The basic points are being subsumed and incorporated into the lead article. It's a dialectic - and it will work itself towards the truth of the matter. As it now progresses it is already far far better than it ever could have been, otherwise. I am very very impressed. So, why don't we cut out the ad hominem and get on with it. USAA has a staff of spam commenters who assiduously populate other chat sites. I'm sorry if I thought that I had run up against them once again. They will be here soon, trust me. Where I go, they follow. If you'd like to have your hair curled, call up Tanji Patton in San Antonio and ask her how it feels to have USAA on your tail. Now tell me [please, my muses]: how do I upload a pdf to the Wikipedia server so I can incorporate it by reference? And, why is this article not searchable, yet?

raskolnikov 20:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a chat site. It is an encyclopaedia and should be factual and neutral. I realise that you are a new user and you have good information to add, but please try and keep it to a neutral point of view.  Check out What Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view, and Verifiablity.  You will have to go to an admin for your technical questions.  I am not sure why you artilce has not shown up or if it is possible to upload a pdf file.  Your best bet there is probably to post it on the net and link it here.  It can only be used as a source if it is not original research (see Verifiablity).  Movementarian 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with USAA based on that article. If the company can get the info on who in their company is leaking info then good on them. If the reporter wins then good for her. Each party has a right to look after their own interests. The courts will decide. I have invested with USAA in the past and have had absolutely no problems with them. No need to vilify either based on outsourcing. They're only the 4 trillionth company to do it. I won't even comment on the "smearing the canvas" a bit but some of your edits are just way over the top. Help us out a little--Looper5920 03:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is a personal message at the top of this page?
It looks like User:Robertjkoenig has put a lengthy unsigned message (which has evolved and grown over time) at the top of this page. This goes against the axiom that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is the sort of thing that belongs on a personal site or something. I'm moving it and giving it a Signature template. --Mr. Billion 07:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good--Looper5920 07:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That was a copy of the text he wrote in the main article. He is a new user and has yet to find his way in Wikipedia. He was attempting to put forth his arguement for inclusion of certain "facts' about USAA in the main article. Movementarian 08:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Defense of the alternative view
In my humble defense, I submit that what I am writing is based on original research; which I have made every effort to verify. If I have made an error or questionable statement - please point me to it.

The material submitted in the main body of the USAA page is "pasted in" from USAA PR material, and has not been verified in any meaningful way. Now, let's start with "a fact or two".

USAA would have us believe that it is a member-owned corporation. To do business in America, you only have to do one very simple thing. All you need do is go to the Secretary of State in any state, and file papers which cost about $150: and presto, you are a corporation.

Lunkhill, movementarian, and now Looper5920 have agreed that this main article lead off passes muster: and all three accept this premise, unquestioningly.

'USAA Group is a financial services company headquartered. . . .'

OK! Now, here's your assignment, please. Go to the various Secretary of States of the 50 states and the possessions and territories, and of course DC: and find the state where USAA has filed its "articles of incorporation" or its "articles of association" to be a "financial services company".

I can find you Merrill Lynch's filings: I can find you Citibank or Wells Fargo. But I can't find you USAA - because it does not exist. USAA has never filed anywhere to be a financial services company. Nowhere. Nada.

USAA's purported right to exist is based entirely on a deus ex machina supposition that the AIF has a right to run USAA without any authority from any Secretary of State.

Let's start with that one: and the answer is embedded in my paper above. But let's hold the "holier than thou" until we have afew facts to chew on. OK?

What is the legal basis for USAA's existence: the real answer will astound you, and frighten you if you are a subscriber.

Robertjkoenig 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the problem as I see it. You have one mission and that is to convince everyone that USAA is an illegal, immoral corporation and you would like Wikipedia to refelct that.  We are attempting to keep the artilce neutral and factual.  I have no personal stake in USAA, they are just one of 499 other Fortune 500 companies.  Please read What Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view, and Verifiablity.  You will discover that original research is not allowed and that Wikipedia is not a blog or personal webspace.  If you would like to post your original research somewhere then go to livejournal or myspace and get yourself a blog or website.  We are more than happy to have you contruibute Wikipedia, but you have to by established policies.  Movementarian 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Movementarian - you've got to be kidding me!
Movementarian: please repeat what you wrote so I can be certain that I &quot;heard you&quot; correctly. Did you say that there was no place for original research on Wikipedia? Is that what you really said? (Gasp!). Ah. . . ah, well gee, gosh, aw shucks Movementarian:  I'm so sorry that what Chapter 942 of the Texas Insurance Code has to say about the URIE USAA is not good enough for you. I may not like what you have to say about USAA, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. But Movementarian - the ad hominem argument has to stop. I'm not attacking you. I'm not even attacking the URIE USAA. I'm trying to describe USAA: this is an encyclopedia! The way USAA describes itself is simply unsatisfactory to me. AIF Davis has not obtained a charter to operate a  financial services company, and AIF Davis has failed to make a filing of &quot;articles of association&quot; with any Secretary of State, anywhere in the United States. Period! Fact stated! Now, Movementarian: that is not a POV. As comedian Chris Rock would say: that be a statement. Now, if am wrong, and if Robert G. Davis has indeed obtained the  requisite authority to operate a financial services company, then why doesn't he produce the evidence? Let him speak: let Davis speak. Immorality? I don't make USAA, the URIE, and its AIFs McDermott, Herres, and Davis  immoral even if I cite them as such: they are what they are. Put directly, the questions I raise about AIF Davis have elicited no civilized and reasoned response: the only response I get from Davis is the strenuous efforts he makes to have me but in jail. Literally - in jail. he also harasses members of my family and uses private investigators to chase them around. In October, the Texas Department of Insurance [TDI] sent me all the salary information for Davis, his top ten executives, and each of member of his purported board of directors: this is public information - and each of the 2.2 million subscribers to the URIE is absolutely 100% entitled to know exactly, to the penny, what AIF Davis earning. Now - Movementarian - am I missing something here? Is Davis, after the full-page gutter-bleed photos of him in the Annual Report, Duty, Honor, Country and all that stuff: is Davis entitled to &quot;privacy&quot; about his salary? You don't want to know how much AIF Davis knows about  your  finances: he knows everything! I ask you: why is Davis suing me in Bexar County District Court in San Antonio to suppress the salary information I was given in due course by the TDI? You figure it out: and then tell me. Please. But simply posting and reiterating what Robert G. Davis asks you to post is not exactly the thinking man's approach. Now: I have asked you or any other reader to cite for me where, when, and how the URIE USAA has filed its articles of association to be a financial services company. I can show you exactly where and when the Automobile Club of Southern California filed its articles of incorporation to be an &quot;automobile club&quot;. The Automobile Club of Southern California operates one the biggest unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchanges in America. The auto club has a highly professional  corporate attorney in fact which runs that URIE without converting one penny of the subscribers funds. And if you discontinue your insurance, you're still a member of the auto club. The minute you discontinue your USAA insurance, you are no longer a &quot;member&quot; of USAA. Have you read the by-laws? Yes or no! Have you read them?

raskolnikov 23:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright mate, this is getting old. Clearly and concisely articulate your problems with the USAA article and we will address them one by one, keeping in mind Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  For example:
 * 1. USAA is...
 * 2. The article needs... Movementarian 21:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
It is apparent that Robertjkoenig has personal bias against USAA [1. I have tried to reason with him and get him to present a neutral article, but it seems to be an excercise in futility.  I have placed the NPOV tag in place so that someone from outside of the dispute, perhaps someone with more knowlege on the subject of financial corporations, can remove the POV statements or provide refences that do not require passwords (see the Critical Documents of USAA section).  [[User:Movementarian|Movementarian]] 04:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the problem as I see it. Most people have lives that encompass many aspects. Mr Koenig seems to spend every waking hour of his life consumed by USAA and the fact they are out to get him. (Don't turn around Bob, that may be them at the door.) Maybe they are and maybe they aren't but I could give a shit. I do not have the time to read 300 pages of documents on USAA just so I can go point for point with this guy. The original page was fine. If I was looking up USAA on Wikipedia I would like to get some background, key players, general info, etc... Now the page is a collection of rambling bullshit about some lunatic's legal problems. No one cares buddy. Get a fucking hobby. Even if they are a URIE or sell illegal urine on the black market no one should care this much. Applebee's restuarants make a "Philly Cheesesteak" that I think is an abomination and disgrace to all real cheesesteaks. That doesn't mean I clutter their page with rambling bullshit about what a real authentic cheesesteak is. No other company on wikipedia has a page that looks like this. I say we take it to an administrator so we can be done with this.--Looper5920 04:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I considered taking it to an administrator, but I though that we should exhaust other options first. Movementarian 06:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal Tactics
Robertjkoenig recently expanded the USAA article to cover his recent arrest. I have removed the information as it is a baseless allegation against the company. Furthermore, if such NPOV and unverifiable edits continue by Robertjkoenig I will take this to an admistrator as was suggested by Looper5920. Movementarian 15:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Last ditch effort
Robertjkoenig, we have discussed appropriate content in this article many times. I have pointed out the different policies that Wikipedia uses to maintain factual, neutral articles. Other users have tried to reason with you, but you have largely ignored everyone. The information that you have placed in the article regarding your recent arrest is a baseless allegation. You have provided no third party information that the CEO of USAA had you arrested, and even if you did the encyclopaedic value is questionable at best. I am going to remove the information one last time. If it is readded I am going to take this dispute to RfC to get the opinion of an outside party. Please discuss any future edits you wish to make, especially those which are inflamitory. I welcome your comments and I am fully willing to discuss this matter with you at length, should you chose to do so. As I have said before, I am willing to add your information to the article, as long is it can be verified and it is neutral. Movementarian 18:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Said much nicer than I ever could. Not much else can be done.--Looper5920 20:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary Rendition
Koenig is a New York USAA member who is also a vocal critic of USAA's Capital Structure. Robert G. Davis of USAA obtained a Texas order compelling Koenig to pay Robert G. Davis $40,000 for writing ascerbic commentary about the $5 billion USAA holds in "unassigned surplus". This is the story of how Davis enforced his order.

On Wednesday, December 14, 2005, at about 10 AM, 4 deputies in two cars from NY's Nassau County Sheriff's department, operating on instructions from Robert G. Davis, swooped down on Robert J. Koenig at 9 Tiffany Road, Oyster Bay, NY.

"From a town known as Oyster Bay, Long Island...Came a boy with a 6-pack in his hand" Bob is that you that Billy Joel was singing about so many years ago? Why bother? This is getting old. Save the diatribe for somewhere that people actually care.--Looper5920 13:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)



Nassau County Sheriff's Lieutenant Bill Miritello was in charge of the detail which detained Koenig. Here is his business card and telephone number. These facts can be verified with LT. Miritello; and he can describe the order arresting Koenig.

Koenig was transported in shackles to the Nassau County Correction Center, placed in solitary confinement and held incommunicado for 6 days in a windowless, 24-hour brightly-lit 6' x 8' cell, with no clock. Koenig was fed in his cell. Koenig was denied any sort of writing implement, paper, and any means to contact a lawyer. Koenig was stripped of his watch and all personal possessions, and provided with only an orange shirt, orange prison trousers, and orange thin-soled sandals, a half-bar of soap, and a roll of toilet-paper; Koenig was provided no underwear and no socks. Koenig was provided with no out-doors exercise. Koenig was let out of his cell twice daily for a short period. On the evening of the 6th day (Monday, December 19th), Koenig was cross-arm shackled to another prisoner (a delightful fellow who had just shot and killed a drug dealer), transported by closed windowless truck to an unidentified satellite facility of the jail, and released into the general population - in a cell-block of about 50 prisoners. 7 days after his detention, on Tuesday, December 20th, at about 3 PM, Koenig was taken before and ordered released by Judge Robert Roberto of the Nassau Supreme Court. Upon Judge Roberto's written order that he was a "free man", Koenig was re-shackled by Sheriff's Deputies, taken to another local holding facility in a separate court house, held there for one hour, cross-arm re-shackled to another prisoner, transported back to the satellite facility, ordered to change back into prison uniform, strip-searched, taken to another local holding room for 90 minutes, cross-arm shackled to another prisoner (a rapist this time), transported to the main prison, strip searched, ordered to change into his civilian clothes, re-fingerprinted to show that he was the same person incarcerated 7 days earlier, paid back only $3 of the $17 he had when he arrived, and shoved out onto the street in 23 degree temperature at 9PM. Koenig walked 17 miles back to his home, getting in at about 11PM.

Koenig is back at work on his book: a biography with the working title - "Grand Theft - Insurance". Several of the correction officers at the Nassau County Correction Center volunteered to be in the film: so did lots of the prisoners. Since Koenig was raised in Europe and speaks French fluently, many of the aspiring actors are very tall and sort of bulky Haitian drug-runners who also think this is all great fun. Koenig made a lot of friends in prison: and they all thank Robert G. Davis for his act of extraordinary rendition in sending Koenig to jail for writing his book about USAA.

Responses to Extraordinary Rendition

 * I resent the fact that you would suggest that I have anything but polite to you. Nowhere in the above text did I ever make a personal attack.  The closest I came to being rude was when I said "this is getting old".  I hear the same thing everyday when people get arrested.  "John Doe had me arrested by the police".  Well sir, as a police officer, I can only say one thing:  Bollocks.  If, in fact, the CEO of USAA swore a complaint against you and you were arrested there was a charge.  What was that charge?  Did you violate a restraining order?  Have you made threats against his personal safety?  People don't get arrested for writing books, Bob.  They get arrested for breaking the law.  There are occasions where the police get it wrong due to a variety of reasons, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
 * I have told you numerous times that your comments are welcome as long as they meet the citeria laid down. It has been placed on your user talk page by an admin.  I have mentioned it numerous times throughout this discussion.  You just continue to ignore it.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a blog, or personal webspace.  This is an encyclopaedia.  Please try and remember that.  Take a look at some of the other corporate articles like GEICO or Progressive.  Do you see details of someone's arrest or a laundry  list of litigation against them?  No.
 * I am not going to give you my real name or details, despite the fact that I live around 8,000 miles away from you because I think you are a tad unstable. I choose not to use my real name on this site because I value my privacy and I am not bothered about the copyright status of my contributions.  And finally, I have no personal stake in USAA and this just highlights the lengths to which you will go to discredit another person.  If you would like to get this to RfC I am more than happy to do so.  And Bob, one last thing.  Do not delete or change the content of other users statements above.  Movementarian 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record Bob and to clear up any confusion, that was me making the personal attacks and I did sign my name. Since I am not as eloquent as Movmentarian just imagine me behind him noding my head in total agreement with what he just said.  Please give us a break--Looper5920 10:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Koenig replies:


 * OK: I trust I am responding to your comments in the positive spirit evidenced by your collective responses.  Since my adversaries all use "screen names", maybe I confuse who says what.  And it is still unclear who is "working for USAA".  The over-arching concern is the personal attack(s) made as to motivation and factual correctness.  That is called "argument ad hominem":  you attack the speaker and not the issue.   The underlying issue revolves around the unsettled matter of what wikipedia.org is supposed to be.  I propose that unlike a printed encyclopedia, wikipedia can be anything we "want it to be".


 * The documentary/legal background underpinning my arrest and detention are matters of public record: and can be ascertained over the inernet in very short order.  Call LT. Miritello:  you have his number.  To say that it either didn't happen, that I am making it up, or unfairly embellishing the facts, is just plain puerile.  What happened happened:  it was actually a very interesting experience.  I now completely understand how the writers who came out of the Eastern European Gulags came to acquire their writing style and their views.  I will now go back and re-read Kafka and Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon.  Mr. Davis at USAA has never reached out explain why he did what he did:  but just like in Koestler's Darkness at Noon, he evidently feels very aggrieved at the way I go for him - and feels that jailing me is the best way to shut me up.  That is Robert G. Davis' style:  that's just the way he is.  And I am the way I am - and you are the way you are.  Evidently, movementarian and looper5920 would like to see the wikipedia USAA page read like a brochure printed by USAA.  That is your absolute right in the matter.


 * This leaves the fairness issue: am I being fair to USAA by proposing the explanations and interpretations I do?  Is USAA offered a chance to defend itself in this forum: or has it been offered the chance to defend itself in the other internet forums which have hosted this debate?


 * Have I been offered to chance to express my views in the numerous court battles that USAA has chosen to express itself?


 * What we all want - in the final analysis - is to be able "to speak": that is what underpins the notion of "free speech".  Its more "speech" than "free".  And we don't necessarily even care if we are listened to.  We just want to know that what we said was heard and noted.  If people tore up the streets and revolted every time their candidate lost - there'd be no civil order at all.  It's the fact that we have spoken which matters:  not that we have either won or lost.


 * Bottomline: I have repeatedly offered USAA the priviledge to pre-read and offer corrections and changes to every chapter in my book which bears on USAA.  Robert G. Davis has never responded to that offer.


 * Question: what do you say to the fact that Robert G. Davis refuses my offer to have an advance look at the book - chapter by chapter.  There's more of Cervantes' Don Quixote in my book than St. George slaying the dragon.  It's not really an Erin Brokovich sort of thing.


 * raskolnikov 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am going to try this again.
 * Wikipedia is not....
 * Wikipedia neutral point of view.
 * Information must be verifiable.


 * Your inability to follow these rules is what I have issue with, not you personally. You are the one that brought up the subject of your arrest claiming that you were arrested on the orders of the CEO of USAA.  I notice in your response that you did not tell us the charges and neatly sidestepped any questions regarding your copability.  My issue, and I will bold it so it stands out from the rest of the text, is the information that you are attempting to insert into this article is not appropriate to the artlce and does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.  My use of a screen name as opposed to my given name has no impact on this discussion.  I fail to understand how Movementarian and Looper5920 can be confused any eaiser than Jack and Bob.  I am asking questions here and you do everything but answer them.  I have told you what problems I have with your contributions and none of it is the actual content.  It is the way it is presented.  Perhaps you should take Dknights411 suggestion ans start a new article.  None of the other corporate sites have a laundry list of litigation and complaints in the main artilce and I am sure they have just as many people unhappy with thier service.  The absolute best recourse for you would be to start your own webpage, or organise a class action lawsuit.  You are obviously an intelligent person, which is why your refusal to adhere to established guideines is so frustrating.  And lastly, please heed my warning below.  I am tired of coming here to read your response, only to have my comments deleted by you.  Happy Christmas, Bob.  Movementarian 07:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The source(s) of funds for the "unassigned surplus"
Where does the USAA $5 billion unassigned surplus come from? A material portion may be derived from close-out of the insurance reserves; the settlement of USAA's litigation portfolio. The litigation portfolio is shown on USAA financial documents as a line item in "current liabilities" called "losses".

USAA forestalls payment of $2 billion in claims by litigation. That $2 billion litigation portfolio becomes USAA's largest source of working capital: it is "borrowing" $2 billion from the counter-parties to litigation by setting aside a reserve. As the litigation reserves are likely over-stated, when the claims are eventually settled, there is a profit. In a shareholder-owned insurance company, the profit (or loss) on the close-out of litigation is returned to the shareholders. At USAA, those funds should pehaps and more appropriately be returned to the subscribers and credited to their SSA accounts.

The USAA "members" own the litigation portfolio at all times: and curiously this is true even when USAA is litigating against and denying the claims of its own members.

Does USAA return the surplus from successful litigation to its "members": this is a very knotty question.

Instead, it appears that the profit/loss on close out of litigation at USAA is declared as "corporate income" and as that income is not credited to the subscriber SSA accounts, USAA then pays unnecessary taxes on that income. Since USAA's inception in 1922, it has paid about $1 billion of largely unnecessary Federal taxes: $1,124,279,252 as of December 31, 2004, to be exact.

As USAA is a mutual - and taxed as a cooperative - there should be no income taxes. (That of course is not always true as the IRS has its own views and does assess taxes on cooperatives but sometimes permits recapture of those taxes and payback to subscribers when the money is actually returned to the subscribers.)

The after-tax income is then put into "unasigned surplus". In True v USAA, USAA has argued that the "unassigned surplus" does not truly belong to the members. Well - I'm inclined to agree with that. But, that conclusion also begs the question: to whom does the $5 billion belong?  And that question should be answered below by somebody else - a person on Robert G. Davis' staff. Who does the extra $5 billion belong to? Should Robert J. Koenig go to jail again for simply asking that question?

In that fashion, USAA's litigation department becomes the URIE's 2nd largest source of operating capital - right after the Federal Savings Bank's deposits. The problem with this sort of working capital is that if you're going to grow, you need an ever expanding base of litigation to provide the requisite working capital. And that may evidently be a motivation/explanation for why USAA litigates against so many of its members.

Who owns the unassigned surplus? That is what is being decided in True v USAA, a class action law suit against USAA in St. Clare County, IL.

A Workable Solution

Why doesn't Robert G. Davis simply capitalize a new "corporate attorney in fact" and make a registered stock offering. The $5 billion in unassigned surplus could be returned to its rightful owners, and each past and current subscriber could be given the option of applying his/her refund to USAA's new capital stock issue.

That affirmative course of action would leave USAA as a truly world-class and legitimately capitalized financial services holding company: and would obviate the need for Robert G. Davis (and Robert F. McDermott and Robert T. Herres before him) to tip-toe around the margins of the issue (not to mention putting the occasional critic in jail).

Hey, it kept you from editing this page for a few days. Could not have been all that bad. Hope you did not drop that 1/2 bar of soap that they gave you.--Looper5920 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting New York residents in jail with orders from Texas judges hardly sounds like a long-term solution to the intrinsically problematic capital structure at USAA. Wisdom received is that Robert J. Koenig is prepared to spend whatever time it takes in maximum security lock-up to get this issue resolved.

Responses to Unassigned Surplus

 * I'm sorry about all this, but don't you think that Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to get this across. I mean these accusations are pretty outragous to the average reader, and it goes against what Wikipedia is here for.  Why don't you take it up with your local television station or something? Dknights411 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Koenig reponds:


 * Again: this is not an accusation.  This is an interpretation of my reading of the financial documents provided by Robert G. Davis at USAA.  As is true in the case of all P&C Insurance Companies, at USAA there is a huge cash reserve set aside to pay claims which are in litigation.  As is exactly analogous in the case of businesses which borrow from the suppliers by "slo-pay", the "litigation reserves" (the "litigation book") may in fact be any insurance company's most important asset.  The stocks of P&C insurers are traded largely on the basis of their litigation book.  If you know that an insurer is indemnifying a cigarette manufacturer in a $10 billion law suit, if you believe that the insurer will win, you may then be prepared to buy the insurer's stock.  That's business.  The problem here is that most USAA subscribers do not understand that they own the USAA litigation book!  Thus, when a big law suit is settled to USAA's advantage, the subscribers don't watch for when the settlement hits their SSA.  Do you get that?  The Texas Department of Insurance [TDI] has sent me all the financials which suggest this interpretation. The TDI has also sent me the salary information on all of the senior USAA "officers" and directors.  In fact, I paid the TDI $24 under Texas' Freedom of Information Laws for the information.  Now it may be that I am the only person in the world who knows exactly what Robert G. Davis makes.  And he wants that information back:  he doesn't want you to know how much he makes.

To put this all in persective, it's a little like learning that McDonalds makes its money off of the soft drinks - while losing money on the hamburgers. Once you figure that out, it all gets a little boring.


 * Questions: what do you think of all that.  Please - stay on point!


 * Question # 1: should I got to jail again for asking who owns the $5 billion?  Yeah - it'san awkward question.  I'd like to hear some answers.


 * Question # 2: are the mechanisms for deciding which profits go into the SSAs and which go into the "unassigned surplus" well explained to the members?  There are good arguments for both sides: and what are those arguments.  The way USAA splits up its money between the members and itself is perhaps the most important special characteristic of USAA - making it completely different from GEICO or Progressive.  No encyclopedia article about USAA could be complete with describing this very special mechanism for allocating profits at USAA.


 * Question # 3: how much of the $1,124,279,252 paid by USAA in Federal taxes can be recaptured and paid out to the members?  That's about $500 per subscriber.


 * Question # 4: what percentage of USAA's litigation book is against members"  and what percentage is against non-members?


 * To be quite honest, I think you should take this up with a newspaper or another news outlet, or better yet, put it on a seperate page on Wikipedia. It is obviously clear you do know a lot about this topic but dude, chill out.  It's not healthy to obsess yourself over one topic.  Moreover, any talk about a conspiracy, even if it's true, does not belong on the main page.  If anything, create your own page about this and take it up on there.  This article is supposed to be just general information about the USAA itself, not its litigation practices et al.  THAT'S what everyone here is miffed about.Dknights411 03:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete comments
robertjkoenig this is the last time I will ask you to stop deleting comment from this page. It is vandalism and is not tolerated. I have posted this on your talk page as well. If it occurs again I will report it to an administrator. Movementarian 07:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Essential Organizational Structure of USAA
Is USAA a corporation or an unincorporated entity?

Two documents conclusively define and describe USAA's essential organizational structure.

The first sentence of "Note # 1" to the auditor's statement defines any company's essential nature. KPMG's notes to the 2003 audited statements state that USAA is a "reciprocal inter-insurance exchange". KPMG, after 40 years of service, has resigned from the USAA account under circunstances which remain unexplained. It is believed that USAA's new auditors, Ernst & Young, make the same statement in Note # 1. As USAA does not make its full financials freely available, E&Y's statement can not be cited with full certainty.

The other document confirming USAA's organizational structure is its statement to the Texas Insurance Department, which begins with the company actuary's description of the enterprise. USAA's actuary in her 2004 statement to the TDI begins by saying that USAA is a "reciprocal inter-insurance exchange".

A third source of information about USAA's essential organizational structure comes from the "description of the party" section of lawsuits to which USAA is a party. Again and again, USAA refers to itself in its own briefs as an "unincorporated" "reciprocal inter-insurance exchange".

Reciprocal inter-insurance exchanges are unincorporated, by definition: thus the term URIE, or.

In essence, USAA is a "partnership" of 2.2 million individuals who have each personally entered into an agreement to personally indemnify each of the other 2.2 million subscribers. That liability is limited by Chapter 942 of the Texas Insurance Code in a manner which gives some of the limited liability benefits of a corporation. Subscribers to any URIE might wish to check with their own lawyer about the suitability of such a contract wherein 2.2 million other persons are being personally indemnified by each individual subscriber. Some subscribers and their attorneys might find that global personal liability unsettling.

Capital Structure
USAA is completely different from every other Fortune 500 Company in that it has no subscribed capital stock: that is to say that USAA has never raised any capital through conventional means.

All capital at USAA, about $10 billion, is supplied by the "members":  about half, or $5 billion, meets the test of IRS regulations as to "cooperatives, and is held in accounts identified with each individual current subscriber.  These are called the SSA's.  The other $5 billion is held in an "unassigned surplus" account, and is claimed "loosely" to be the property of the "current members"

The mechanism by which the Directors and AIF re-identify funds once owned by the "individual subscriber" to funds owned by "all the subscribers" is unclear.

Taxation
USAA is taxed as a corporation; except that a substantial portion of USAA's income is qualified for tax-advantaged treatment as a "cooperative". It is not known which IRS form USAA uses to file taxes.

By-Laws as the source of Governance
The relationship between each subscriber (partner) to the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange and the other 2.2 million subscribers is governed by the current subscriber agreement and the by-laws. These two documents are core to the purpose of the exchange, which is that each subscriber personally indemnifies all the other 2.2 million subscribers. Neither the current subscriber agreement nor the by-laws available to the members on the USAA web site. It is unclear when the current by-laws were mailed to the "members". It is also unclear when and how the most recent subscriber agreement is attached to the policies.
 * The subscribers agreement/LPOA is available on usaa.com by going to https://www.usaa.com/inet/gas_pc/StaticPages?PAGEID=pc_poa after you have logged in. You may also opt to have the SA mailed to you to sign and return or alternatively use the automated telephone voice response system to have the subscribers agreement read to you and you may sign it electronically over the phone. - User:24.160.136.10 (Jan 1,2006)

Compensation of Directors and Senior Employees of the unincorporated entity
USAA believes that its directors and senior employees are entitled to privacy as to their compensation. Compensation information is filed with the Texas Department of Insurance: but the TDI has agreed to not release the compensation information.

Don't edit the statements of others
Bob, this goes along with deleting the statements of others. Do not edit the statements of others when it changes the content. This includes adding statements in the middle of another's comment. If you would like to respond, start your own comment. This, of course, does not include spelling or other changes that leave the content as it is. Thank you. Movementarian 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Evening Bob
Bob, Good Evening. Good to see you are still on the soapbox. We'll wait till you are finished and then clean everything up. Have a good one Addressed to the former User:Robertjkoenig or User:raskolnikov--Looper5920 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)