User talk:Jhickey94

Your submission at Articles for creation: Private credit (October 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CaptainEek was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Private credit and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Private credit, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Private_credit Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaptainEek&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Private_credit reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Private credit has been accepted
 Private credit, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Private_credit help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Brad Eden moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Brad Eden, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brad Eden (February 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brad Eden and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Brad Eden, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Brad_Eden Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curb_Safe_Charmer&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Brad_Eden reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Brad Eden


A tag has been placed on Draft:Brad Eden, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Draft:Brad Eden, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Real Assets


Hello, Jhickey94. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Real Assets".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —[[User:Nnadigoodluck|'''Nnadigoodluck ''']] █ █ █ 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Viatical settlement have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Viatical settlement was changed by Jhickey94 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.96046 on 2021-05-25T15:50:59+00:00

Industry Challenges
Hello, Jhickey94. The Industry challenges section has been removed from Life settlement. Please refer to the article's talk page for more information. Recent editing suggests a potentially undisclosed conflict of interest, so I have to ask, are you in any way affiliated with a life or viatical settlement company, or have you been paid by anyone for your editing? Thank you, Heartmusic678 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This is literally the OPPOSITE of promotion. Yes - I work in the industry - which is why I am knowledgeable. Below is what this individual keeps deleting. I don't understand why someone would want to remove this information. This industry is marred by scandal, and it's important to address it. These were HUGE scandals that landed on the front page of major publications like WSJ.

I am not getting paid for this. Now, I would put the question back on the person asking - as it is VERY weird they pushing this agenda of redacting important information. Are you getting paid? Why are you so focused on the suppression of information? While the life settlement industry has dramatically cleaned up, there were multiple controversies in the early days. Most notably was the bankruptcy of Life Partners in 2015. Life Partners effectively bought policies off a long life expectancy and re-sold fractional shares to individual retail investors, using a much shorter internally generated life expectancy to justify the significant mark-up.[11] As a result, over 80% of the insured lived past the life expectancy - generating shareholder lawsuits and regulator attention - especially since they were selling to retail investors.[12] However, they were not the only fraudulent life settlement fund. another notable fraudulent fund was A&O Life Policies, which defrauded life settlement investors of over $100M.[20]
 * Heartmusic678, thank you for your note on the talk page. Jhickey, if you make one more such accusation, a personal attack that displays such bad faith, I will block you. You may seek the talk page where you can argue for the content--but there also, you must refrain from personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Drmies. I apologize if my tone was harsh. However, if I am asked if I have a conflict of interest, is it not fair to ask back the same question? I will say, the writer is extremely knowledgeable about the esoteric industry - which is what caught my attention. People do not randomly know details about this industry. Also, the deletions were just weird. For example, why delete info about a $2B scandal (Life Partners) which got headlines on the WSJ for years?
 * Jhickey, thanks, but I'm not the one you attacked. Heartmusic provided an explanation--I assume you're talking about this edit? They addressed that on the talk page, and I'll just note that only the first paragraph had a citation; subsequent paragraphs did not have secondary sourcing, there were numbers for non-existing footnotes, the term STOLI is thrown in as if the audience would know, etc. Again, talk page please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * JHickey94. Thanks for the feedback. Is this the right page to discuss? How would you edit this? I just noticed the legacy footnotes had gotten deleted in the back and forth editing.0 Should I go back and add the original footnotes or just drop this?
 * The talk page of the article. Please sign your posts, and please address the user who posted there. No, there were no footnotes, just numbers. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The second major scandal was STOLI. STOLI is any act, practice, or arrangement, at or prior to policy issuance, to initiate or facilitate the issuance of a life insurance policy for the intended benefit of a person who, at the time of policy origination, does not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured under the laws of the applicable state.[13] This includes an arrangement or other agreement to transfer the ownership of the policy or the policy benefits to another person.[13] The main characteristic of a STOLI arrangement is that insurance is purchased as an investment vehicle, rather than to provide for the insured's beneficiaries.[14] STOLI arrangements also may be called "zero premium life insurance", "no cost to the insured plans", "new issue life settlements", "high-net-worth settlements", or "non-recourse premium finance transactions".[14]

Prior to 2008, STOLI was popular because investor demand dramatically exceeded supply, and this was a way to manufacture product (albeit illegal) to meet demand. In many ways, it was effectively a victimless crime because everybody benefited in the short term. The investor got to deploy capital, the insured/policy owner made money from selling the policy, the insurance agent got a commission, and the insurance company grew their business. However, this all collapsed in 2008 when funding dried up and regulators took a closer look at the practice. Additionally, STOLI policies turned out to be poor investments, so long-term investor demand dried up.

The third major challenge has been self-dealing by life settlement providers and brokers - to the detriment of policy owners and investors. Most notably, Coventry was fined $12M by the state of New York for deceptive business practices.[15] Coventry also settled a lawsuit with AIG (a large life settlement investor at the time), where Coventry would use multiple shell companies to disguise policy ownership when reselling to AIG to obtain a higher profit.[16] However, these activities are not just limited to Coventry, as other life settlement brokers and providers have engaged in similar activity, albeit on a much smaller scale.Although it has dramatically improved, the life settlement industry faced challenges early on. One challenge is aggressive and deceptive marketing motivated by high sales commissions for providers and brokers. As the market for policies grew more competitive, these intermediaries gained the potential to earn as much as 30 percent of the sale price of a life settlement. This incentivized intermediaries to push life settlement sales in the secondary market, despite policyholders' level of interest in selling, surrendering or lapsing their policies.[21]

In addition, the industry has struggled with false life expectancy evaluations, poor premium reserves that increase investor costs, false promises of high profits with low risk, clean-sheeting (not disclosing a life-threatening illness in a policy application), dirty-sheeting (falsely claiming a life-threatening illness in a policy application).

Life settlement regulations have been adopted across the Unites States to prevent fraud and promote fair practices. As of 2010, 44 U.S. states adopted a form of the model uniform law developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Federal level regulations were developed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). [21]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This is literally the OPPOSITE of promotion. Yes - I work in the industry - which is why I am knowledgeable. Below is what this individual keeps deleting. I don't understand why someone would want to remove this information. This industry is marred by scandal, and it's important to address it. These were HUGE scandals that landed on the front page of major publications like WSJ.

I am not getting paid for this. Now, I would put the question back on the person asking - as it is VERY weird they pushing this agenda of redacting important information. Are you getting paid? Why are you so focused on the suppression of information?

While the life settlement industry has dramatically cleaned up, there were multiple controversies in the early days. Most notably was the bankruptcy of Life Partners in 2015. Life Partners effectively bought policies off a long life expectancy and re-sold fractional shares to individual retail investors, using a much shorter internally generated life expectancy to justify the significant mark-up.[11] As a result, over 80% of the insured lived past the life expectancy - generating shareholder lawsuits and regulator attention - especially since they were selling to retail investors.[12] However, they were not the only fraudulent life settlement fund. another notable fraudulent fund was A&O Life Policies, which defrauded life settlement investors of over $100M.[20]

The second major scandal was STOLI. STOLI is any act, practice, or arrangement, at or prior to policy issuance, to initiate or facilitate the issuance of a life insurance policy for the intended benefit of a person who, at the time of policy origination, does not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured under the laws of the applicable state.[13] This includes an arrangement or other agreement to transfer the ownership of the policy or the policy benefits to another person.[13] The main characteristic of a STOLI arrangement is that insurance is purchased as an investment vehicle, rather than to provide for the insured's beneficiaries.[14] STOLI arrangements also may be called "zero premium life insurance", "no cost to the insured plans", "new issue life settlements", "high-net-worth settlements", or "non-recourse premium finance transactions".[14]

Prior to 2008, STOLI was popular because investor demand dramatically exceeded supply, and this was a way to manufacture product (albeit illegal) to meet demand. In many ways, it was effectively a victimless crime because everybody benefited in the short term. The investor got to deploy capital, the insured/policy owner made money from selling the policy, the insurance agent got a commission, and the insurance company grew their business. However, this all collapsed in 2008 when funding dried up and regulators took a closer look at the practice. Additionally, STOLI policies turned out to be poor investments, so long-term investor demand dried up.

The third major challenge has been self-dealing by life settlement providers and brokers - to the detriment of policy owners and investors. Most notably, Coventry was fined $12M by the state of New York for deceptive business practices.[15] Coventry also settled a lawsuit with AIG (a large life settlement investor at the time), where Coventry would use multiple shell companies to disguise policy ownership when reselling to AIG to obtain a higher profit.[16] However, these activities are not just limited to Coventry, as other life settlement brokers and providers have engaged in similar activity, albeit on a much smaller scale.Although it has dramatically improved, the life settlement industry faced challenges early on. One challenge is aggressive and deceptive marketing motivated by high sales commissions for providers and brokers. As the market for policies grew more competitive, these intermediaries gained the potential to earn as much as 30 percent of the sale price of a life settlement. This incentivized intermediaries to push life settlement sales in the secondary market, despite policyholders' level of interest in selling, surrendering or lapsing their policies.[21]

In addition, the industry has struggled with false life expectancy evaluations, poor premium reserves that increase investor costs, false promises of high profits with low risk, clean-sheeting (not disclosing a life-threatening illness in a policy application), dirty-sheeting (falsely claiming a life-threatening illness in a policy application).

Life settlement regulations have been adopted across the Unites States to prevent fraud and promote fair practices. As of 2010, 44 U.S. states adopted a form of the model uniform law developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Federal level regulations were developed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). [21]

September 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)