U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–450 PDF 2004

G.I. FINANCES: PROTECTING

THOSE WHO PROTECT US

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND 

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTEREPRISES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 9, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 108–109

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

DOUG OSE, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

KEN LUCAS, Kentucky 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED

ENTERPRISES

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana, Chairman

DOUG OSE, California, Vice Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

SUE W. KELLY, New York 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York, 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

KEN LUCAS, Kentucky 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

September 9, 2004 ............................................................................................ 1

Appendix: 

September 9, 2004 ............................................................................................ 65

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2004

Bullard, Mercer, President and Founder, Fund Democracy, Inc. ........................ 20

Conger, Brandon, Specialist, United States Army ................................................ 16

Dunlap, Joe W., Executive Vice President, Operations, American Amicable 

Life Insurance Company of Texas ...................................................................... 46

Jetton, Elizabeth W., Principal, Financial Planning Association ........................ 18

Keating, Hon. Frank, President, American Council of Life Insurers .................. 26

Smith, Lamar C., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, First Command 

Financial Planning, Inc. ...................................................................................... 44

Woods, David, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Insurance 

and Financial Agents ........................................................................................... 24

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Oxley, Hon. Michael G. .................................................................................... 66

Biggert, Hon. Judy ........................................................................................... 68

Emanuel, Hon. Rahm ....................................................................................... 69

Gillmor, Hon. Paul E. ....................................................................................... 70

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n ....................................................................................... 71

Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E. ................................................................................... 73

Kelly, Hon. Sue W. ........................................................................................... 75

Ney, Hon. Robert W. ........................................................................................ 77

Bullard, Mercer ................................................................................................. 78

Dunlap, Joe W. ................................................................................................. 92

Jetton, Elizabeth W. ......................................................................................... 112

Keating, Hon. Frank ........................................................................................ 120

Smith, Lamar C. ............................................................................................... 129

Woods, David .................................................................................................... 146

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Baker, Hon. Richard H.: 

Horizon Life slide presentation ....................................................................... 157

Kelly, Hon. Sue W.: 

Insurance Marketplace Standards Association, prepared statement ........... 164

Hildreth, Lt. Wayne, U.S. Navy (ret), prepared statement .................................. 168 

(1)

G.I. FINANCES: PROTECTING 

THOSE WHO PROTECT US 

Thursday, September 9, 2004

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE, AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in Room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Richard H. Baker 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Baker, Ose, Bachus, Lucas of Oklahoma, Oxley (ex officio), Kelly, Ney, Ryun, Biggert, Kennedy, 

Brown-Waite, Kanjorski, Inslee, Moore, Hinojosa, Lucas of Kentucky, Israel, Ross, Baca, Matheson, Miller of North Carolina, 

Emanuel, and Scott. 

Also present: Representative Max Burns. 

Mr. OXLEY. [Presiding.] The committee will come to order. 

Without objection, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Burns, may 

sit with the subcommittee during this hearing and participate in 

its proceedings. So ordered. The gentleman from Georgia will be 

recognized for any opening statement or questions only after all 

those members of the subcommittee have been recognized. 

The chair would indicate that Chairman Baker has been delayed. 

And I would like to begin the proceedings with an opening statement. 

I want to thank Chairman Baker for convening this important 

and timely hearing. I also appreciate the bipartisan interest among 

the members of this subcommittee in protecting our GIs. 

The men and women who protect our freedom by serving in the 

military are giving our country a precious gift. Through their dedicated service, this nation is successfully fighting terrorism and promoting democracy abroad, keeping America safe and strong into 

the future. 

But as these young men and women risk their lives for our country, we have a responsibility to ensure their financial well-being 

and protection. New military recruits brought in for basic training 

are often young and relatively inexperienced on financial matters. 

They are trained to obey commands without question and sometimes operate on little sleep. It is unconscionable, if true, that 

groups of recruits have been marched into compulsory briefings on 

veterans benefits by salesmen pretending to be financial planners 

that quick-step them into signing up for what turns out to be longterm life insurance. 

2

It is also unconscionable, if true, that firms are using retired 

military officers to make on-base sales pitches to groups of young 

recruits for mutual funds with 50 percent first-year commissions—

a product that has virtually disappeared from the civilian market. 

I have yet to hear any reason at all, let alone a good one, why these 

products are still being marketed to military personnel. 

Perhaps most troubling, these reports are not isolated incidents 

from boiler-room operations. Some of the biggest names in the mutual fund business are sponsors of these contractual plans sold primarily to military personnel. 

Problems with illegal sales practices by life insurance agents on 

military bases have been reported, studied and debated by the Pentagon going back at least to 1974 and more recently in 1997, 1999, 

2000, and 2003. I do not support a complete ban of financial product sales on base, nor do I want to tarnish the good reputation of 

independent property-casualty agents or those life agents who are 

not involved in these sales. 

But members of Congress can no longer pretend this is about a 

few bad apples. This is a systemic problem that needs to be fixed. 

I understand that NASD has been conducting a thorough investigation of contractual plans for more than a year and will have an 

announcement in the near future. The NASD is to be commended 

for its work to protect military investors. I look forward today to 

a thorough analysis of the problem and potential solutions for Congress to act on this year. 

The time of the chair has expired. I will now turn to the ranking 

member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kanjorski. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael G. Oxley can be found 

on page 66 in the appendix.] 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks for the opportunity to offer my initial thoughts about the 

marketing of certain securities and life insurance products to military personnel before we hear from our invited witnesses. I want 

to commend you for swiftly focusing our committee on this important issue. 

In recent weeks, several stories in the New York Times have 

once again raised concerns about allegedly abusive practices in the 

sale of financial products to the men and women who serve in our 

armed forces. These accounts have detailed problems with financial 

literacy, potentially overly trustful troops and business products 

and practices that have raised the concerns of many. 

For example, many financial advisers point out that rather than 

committing to long-term contractual plans with large front-load 

fees, most investors would be better off setting up automatic savings programs with smaller fees and initial sales loads. Additionally, while many in the military may have greater life insurance 

needs than average Americans, we need to ensure that the products they purchase meet their needs and best serve their long-term 

purposes. 

Without question, we need to work in Washington to protect 

those who protect us. As a result of today’s proceedings, I hope that 

we will gain a better understanding of the military financial services marketplace. 

3

We already know that our soldiers are more mobile than average 

Americans. The recent news reports have also highlighted potential 

limitations faced by financial regulators on military bases, particularly on those installations located abroad. Both of these issues deserve better exploration today. 

In recent days, we have also begun consideration of legislation 

that would ban the sale of mutual fund contractual plans. This bill 

also seeks to improve the regulation of life insurance and other financial products sold on military bases. In order to prevent unintended consequences, I must urge my colleagues to move deliberately and diligently in these matters. 

As at least one witness points out in his prepared testimony, efforts to eliminate contractual agreements might have an effect on 

variable annuity market. It could also result in problems for those 

who have already purchased these plans. 

Before we move ahead in these matters, I would therefore urge 

you, Mr. Chairman, to consult with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, the National Association of Securities Dealers, the 

National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the Department 

of Defense and other interested regulatory entities to ensure that 

any bill we craft appropriately fixes these problems before we adopt 

them into law. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we need to improve financial education 

for military personnel. We need to improve the enforcement of consumer protections for not only the men and women in our Armed 

Forces, but also for all Americans. We additionally need to have 

better supervision in the sales of financial products on military 

bases. 

I want you to know that I am committed to addressing these 

matters. These are important discussions for us to have and important matters for us to resolve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski can be found 

on page 73 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. [Presiding.] Thank the gentleman. 

Let me express my apology to members and our witnesses for my 

late arrival. I am usually very prompt about starting our committee hearings. And matters beyond my control kept me from 

being here at my usual hour. 

Our hearing today is one that is unusual from several perspectives. We are here to review the effectiveness and desirability of 

not only an insurance product, but a securities product as well. 

Both matters are clearly within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 

The products are unique. They were intentionally designed to 

serve the needs of military personnel. 

Some of the products have been designed for civilian utilization 

in years past. And as long ago as 1966, the SEC suggested really 

rather radical reform of the manner in which these products were 

marketed; for example, in one such regulatory recommendation, 

that the first year load drop from 50 percent to 5 percent. I would 

consider that radical. 

However, for whatever reasons, actions have not been taken with 

regard to those pending recommendations since initially forwarded. 

4

I think one of the reasons that we have seen these products, in all 

practical purposes, eliminated from the civilian marketplace is 

from competitive forces. 

Why is that so? Basically, when you have a product which is 

priced at a very high end of the market, which provides at the 

same time benefits on the very low end of the market, anyone who 

has a choice simply will make another choice. 

That being the case, the product has disappeared from the civilian marketplace. I have observed that when you have a choice between a no-load, a low-load or a what-a-load, you are probably not 

going to go for option 3. 

Military personnel headed to a theater of war, however, do not 

find themselves focused necessarily first on matters of finance. 

They do, however, have concerns about the wife, the spouse, the 

kids, not sure of what the fortunes of war may bring. 

In these desperate hours before being assigned, who is there to 

help them make that decision? Regrettably, it is the marketing of 

the product in this case which also causes me some significant concern. 

This is not a product marketed via the television, by mail or by 

someone knocking on the door in a three-piece suit. When you look 

across the table as an anxious young military person, you are met 

by a retired military officer, who assures you that this is the right 

decision for you personally, for your family and for your future. All 

that is required is for you to sign here, son. 

That is probably more problematic than anything else about this 

circumstance. The product worth in relation to similar products in 

the civilian market is highly dubious. But the fact that these individuals are emotionally not centered on matters of finance, fully focused on military service and being told by senior retired military 

officials that this is the right thing to do is very troublesome. 

I have spent a lot of time, as well as every member on this committee, in matters of Enron, WorldCom, dot-coms and everything 

else. At least in those instances where investors put money into 

what most members of this committee consider to be outrageous investments, those investors at least had a chance not to be swept 

up by the hype. In this case, I do not believe the victims had a 

choice. 

The first legislative response posed to the identified concerns is 

that by Congressman Max Burns with House bill 5011, which I am 

advised by Chairman Oxley that the subcommittee and full committee will review and take action in due course, as is warranted. 

And certainly, I join with my colleague, Mr. Kanjorski in welcoming the comments of all of those who have regulatory perspectives on the appropriateness of this product, the congressional response appropriate and ensuring that we take action that is in the 

best interest of all. 

It is troubling that those who have already invested, whether in 

active duty service or now retired, it may be the only remedy for 

them to date is to ensure the product remains a viable contract for 

its maturity in the hope of regaining some financial remuneration 

at the end of the contract. However, going forward, it is pretty 

clear, at least at this juncture, that these products do not offer 

what they hold out to the marketplace in the military. 

5

And we have a direct responsibility, in light of all the other hardships our military personnel face. How can we stand by and not 

take corrective action in this clearly identified, what I consider to 

be abusive, practice? 

Mr. Hinojosa? Mr. Hinojosa. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield at this time. I do 

not have a prepared statement. 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Israel? 

Mr. ISRAEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your convening this hearing. And I also want to thank my ranking member, 

Mr. Kanjorski, for his participation in this. 

Mr. Chairman, the process by which we insure our troops is simply dysfunctional. It is doing more harm than good in too many 

cases. And I want to share, in the time that I have allocated to me, 

just two cases in particular. 

One is the case of Raheen Tyson Heighter, who lived in my district; 19 years old; enlists in the Army and wants to go to Iraq and 

fight for his country. He is told he needs life insurance. 

He says, ‘‘I am 19 years old. I really do not need life insurance.’’ 

He is told, ‘‘Well, you have to have it.’’ And he says, ‘‘What is the 

cheapest policy that I can buy?’’ And they tell him a $10,000 policy. 

He goes to Iraq. He is the first Long Islander killed in action in 

Iraq. And his mother gets a call from the Army saying, ‘‘All your 

son bought was a $10,000 policy. We are sorry.’’

That is dysfunctional. That is doing more harm than good. 

The second case is a member of my own staff here in Washington 

who graduated West Point, also served in Iraq. He sat through a 

sales pitch in the officer’s club at an Army base where he was 

clearly exposed to explicit deceptive coercive marketing practices. 

Now we owe Raheen Tyson Heighter and my staff and all the 

members of our armed forces much better than that. We owe them 

the best and not the shoddiest of protections. 

And I wish that Congress would pass the bipartisan legislation 

that I have introduced as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I serve on the Armed Services Committee and the Financial 

Services Committee. 

And we have bipartisan legislation called the Raheen Tyson 

Heighter Life Insurance for America’s Troops Act that would simply say this: that if we are going as a country to send young men 

and women into battle, we will take care of their life insurance for 

them. 

We will not make them dig into their pockets in order to pay 

their premiums. We will take care of them. We ought to pass that 

bipartisan bill, sooner rather than later. 

Those who are taking care of our national security should not 

have to worry about their financial security at home. And when it 

comes to insurance sales, we should not have to protect the protectors against coercive and deceptive marketing practices. 

I appreciate the fact that we are having this hearing. And I intend to ask some questions when it is appropriate. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. Ney? 

6

Mr. NEY. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, because I know we 

have witnesses and we want to get to the subject. I have a statement for the record I would like to submit. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Robert W. Ney can be found on 

page 77 in the appendix.] 

But I just wanted to say thank you to the chairman for having 

the hearing. We have issues in predatory lending and then also 

issues obviously of predatory practices that we have to look at. 

I did want to point out that there is a young gentleman whose 

mother is in Athens, Ohio. And it is a very compelling argument 

as to why this should be looked at today. 

Bottom line, he thought he was having $100 deducted out of his 

pay, which was going to be in some type of fund. The worst part 

is not only did he get back and find that that was not in some type 

of fund, but that he had paid $100 a month, according to this article, for less than $44,000 of insurance. About a $250,000 policy, 

young person’s age, male or female, would be about $17, I think, 

or maybe $20 or so a month. So these are not good practices. 

Also, I wanted to point out too—and this might have been said 

before; I apologize if it has been—but you know, these are young 

men and women that are being trained. And they are trained to observe the military order. And all of a sudden, they are in a military 

setting. And I think that could also influence them just to do this. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

Mr. Emanuel? 

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing and for following the request I asked for this hearing. 

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is, at least about 

the contractual mutual fund instrument, is: if it is such a great 

product, why is it not marketed to the general public? And if it is 

not good enough for the general public, why are we allowing it to 

be sold to men and women in uniform and on our bases? 

The mutual fund industry is about $7 trillion; about $15 billion 

worth of contractual mutual funds, one-eighth of 1 percent. And it 

is almost all of that is held by people in uniform. 

It is not sold to the general public because of what the SEC had 

recommended in the 1960s and 1980s. And it basically fell out of 

favor in the market. And we should not encourage this—if not outright ban it—on our bases and to our men and women in uniform. 

Many of our troops are of modest financial means and do not 

need to be spending those types of resources in this type of account. 

And I do not think those in the industry should view the men and 

women in uniform as a fee machine, where they literally turn them 

on as an ATM machine to generate fees for themselves, especially 

given the—I think—high, high, high, high costs of 50 percent upfront in the first year in the sense of the fee that the agents receive. 

I also think it is important, as we deal with the life insurance 

issue, that we have adequate disclosure, so it is crystal clear to our 

servicemen and women what they are buying and what they have 

available to them. It is important that the companies give recruits 

plain English documents, telling them the U.S. government does 

7

not endorse, recommend or encourage them to buy this type of life 

insurance. 

As I think everybody in the industry agrees, informed investors 

or informed consumers is a good thing. So let’s inform them and 

give them all the information. 

The clear disclosure and informed consent are the keys here to 

success. That is why I am going to introduce legislation with the 

Virginia senator from New York. 

It would ban contractual mutual funds. And if we could not succeed in doing that, as has been tried in the past and recommended 

by the SEC, we give what is the equivalent of a surgeon general’s 

warning, an SEC warning, warning that: they are harmful to your 

financial health; there are 50 percent commissions; they are not 

sold to the civilian or general public anymore; and that the SEC 

recommended that Congress, back in the 1960s or earlier, ban 

them. 

For troops whose families feel that they need to purchase more 

than $250,000 in life insurance, my bill would allow them to buy 

up to $500,000 in insurance from the government at the same low 

cost that the government already provides at the $250,000 level. 

It also requires new disclosures, tightens the guidelines for base 

access and clarifies the role of state insurance regulators. So that 

would be the legislation I will be introducing. 

I look forward to today’s panel and appreciate the fact that the 

subcommittee and the full committee will look at legislation and 

are holding this hearing today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Rahm Emanuel can be found on 

page 69 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Ryun? 

Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the subcommittee for scheduling this hearing. The issue of protecting the 

men and women of our military from abusive sales practices is one 

that should receive our careful attention, as it is today. 

As we consider how to best govern the sales of financial service 

products to our military installations, let me be very clear about 

one thing: the first priority of this committee should be protecting 

our servicemembers from those who would prey on them for financial gain. Standing by while our servicemembers are taken advantage of is not an option. 

This goal must also be shared by those in the business of providing financial services to our men and women in uniform. 

The abuses that have been recently publicized are extremely disturbing. This committee must determine what actions are necessary to put an end to these abusive practices. 

These actions must not be a mere gesture, but must provide 

sound protection for our soldiers. It is important that the bad actors be rooted out, not only to eliminate predatory practices, but 

also to allow those doing business with integrity to better service 

our servicemembers. 

Among the practices that we must take a look are the sales of 

investment plans with large front-end fees. These plans are almost 

8

nonexistent in the civilian market, as we have already talked 

about, yet remain prevalent on the military bases. 

It is important to ask why a product that is not available to the 

general public is sold to our servicemembers. While I generally oppose federal intervention on this sort of transaction, there is 

enough concern with the structure of these plans to warrant our 

consideration. 

One word of caution though: it is important that we address the 

problematic plans without unintentionally affecting other non-offending financial products. 

We must also do what we can to preserve the authority of our 

base commanders. These commanders already have the authority 

to prohibit access to their base. And we must be cautious that our 

efforts do not compromise their authority. 

One of our base commanders’ most fundamental responsibility is 

protecting those residing on the base. If a commander deems an 

agent or a company unfit to do business on the base, their decision 

must stand. We must also help the base commanders obtain the 

knowledge necessary to go ahead and make their decisions. 

Next, it is necessary to improve interaction between state regulators and military bases. It is a significant problem when financial 

sales on military bases are not accountable to the same standards 

that govern similar sales made off the base. 

We must also protect the right of our soldiers to have access to 

a competitive financial service marketplace. Some have proposed 

prohibiting outside providers from selling financial services products on our military bases. 

I oppose this proposal. It would essentially remove all competition, leaving our soldier with only on-base institutions for financial 

services. Surely, protecting our servicemembers must involve giving 

them the choice of where to conduct their financial affairs. 

I do not have all the solutions to this problem that exists. However, I am pleased that this committee has recognized that there 

is a problem. And I hope that some real protection for our soldiers 

will result from our efforts here. 

I am committed to working for changes that provide critical protection and that promote the most choices for our men and women 

in uniform. We are here today to find solutions for our soldiers. I 

look forward to the panel of witnesses. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank the gentleman for his statement. 

Mr. Hinojosa, did you wish to make your statement now, sir? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Yes, thank you. 

Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, thank you for 

holding this very important and timely hearing today. As we all 

learned this week, 1,000 U.S. men and women have lost their lives 

during Operation Iraqi Freedom. And each, including several from 

the Rio Grande Valley, which I represent, should be remembered 

for their courage and valor in defending our nation and the principles for which it stands. 

Based on the information I have received in my office, it seems 

to me that more than 70 percent of the dead are soldiers in the 

Army. And more than 20 percent are marines. 

9

More than half were in the lowest-paid enlisted ranks. On average, the servicemembers who died were about age 26. The youngest 

was 18; the oldest, 59. 

About half were married, according to the death roll, which does 

not include a handful yet to be identified by the Defense Department and three civilians who worked for the military. Part-time 

soldiers, the guardsmen and reservists who once expected to tend 

to floods and hurricanes, were called to Iraq on a scale not seen 

through five decades of war. 

Increasingly, Iraq is becoming the conflict of the National Guard. 

And in growing numbers this spring and early summer, these parttime soldiers died there. 

Ten times as many of them died from April to July of this year 

as had in the war’s first 2 months. This past weekend, the Rio 

Grande Valley lost another of its soldiers while bravely serving our 

country during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

On September 6, United States Army National Guardsman 

Tomas Garces died in Iraq. Garces died when his convoy was attacked by enemy forces using an improvised explosive device. 

Garces was assigned to the National Guard’s 1836th Transportation Company from Fort Bliss, Texas. And his family resides in 

Weslaco, Texas, which is in my congressional district. 

At just 19 years of age, Tomas’ loyalty to the cause of freedom 

was steadfast and clear. A 2003 graduate of Weslaco High School, 

Tomas was a champion wrestler and took his lessons from the mat 

with him to the Guard. In July, he had been recommended for a 

Bronze Star for his actions during an ambush. 

These brave troops in our nation’s military are working every 

day to guarantee the safety, security and freedom for Americans 

and Iraqis. And Tomas was no exception. 

My thoughts and prayers are with his parents, Rafael and Sonia, 

his brothers and sister and his entire family at this difficult time. 

Garces is the tenth soldier from the Rio Grande Valley to die in 

the line of duty in Iraq since the conflict began. 

These individuals tend not to be well-versed in financial services 

issues. Some of them do not even have bank accounts. Unfortunately, this is not very uncommon in the United States in general, 

as financial literacy in this country is abysmal. 

While I must condemn any company or industry that preys upon 

these brave individuals who risk their lives for our country and our 

democracy, I realize that sometimes the negative actions and sales 

are done by a few bad apples and do not represent the industry as 

a whole. Life insurance and mutual funds, when appropriately 

crafted and appropriately marketed to our military, are just that—

very appropriate. 

In closing, I want to say that when someone goes after a financially unsophisticated, courageous youth headed into battle with a 

product that will not benefit his family if he does not return from 

his tour of duty alive, I have to draw the line. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope today’s hearing will shed light on the inappropriate sales of contractual mutual funds to our military personnel. And I would hope that all of you would pray for the families of our lost soldiers. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

10

[The prepared statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa can be found 

on page 71 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. 

Chairman Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you, Chairman Baker. And I want to commend you for holding this important hearing. And I want to commend another member, Representative Max Burns. 

Congressman Burns has taken the lead in this Congress on protecting the men and women in uniform from this practice. He was 

the first member I know of in Congress that spoke out about this 

matter. And he did so before publicity on this matter reached the 

press. 

And I am joining him as a cosponsor on legislation that he is introducing this morning. And I would ask each member of this committee to take a look at that legislation. 

It takes a reasoned approach. I am happy to say that independent property and casualty agents did not participate in this. 

And it was only a small minority of mutual funds and life agents. 

And I think Congressman Ryun mentioned that these practices 

basically disappeared from the private market some 20, 25 years 

ago because they offered very little value. And what we are talking 

about here is in the first year of premiums, which is $1,200, $600 

of that goes to commission. 

But probably the thing that shocks me the most is the Department of Defense, back in 1986, issued a directive that ought to prohibit this type of thing. This was done in direct violation of Defense 

Department regulations. 

And I will close simply by quoting that. The directive ‘‘prohibits 

solicitation of recruits, trainees and transient personnel in a mass 

or captive audience, using misleading advertising or sales literature or giving the appearance that the DOD endorses any particular company.’’

Now despite that, there is at least reports in the media that 

these recruits were brought in and that insurance agents posing as 

counselors on veterans’ benefits and independent financial advisers 

then advised them to purchase this product. They did it while they 

were on duty. They did it in their barracks, violating two more Defense Department regulations. 

And apparently—and this disappoints me—their commanding officers arranged all this, which I think, as a former enlisted man, 

sounds to me like an abuse of the chain of command and an abuse 

of the enlisted men. 

But I do think this: I am surprised that the state regulators and 

those who regulate our regulators have not stepped in and done 

something about this. It should not have gone on this long. 

I commend Congressman Burns. And I think his bill takes a reasoned approach. 

It does not blast everybody. It allows your state insurance and 

your security regulators to do their job. 

And I think the Pentagon also needs to get back involved and engaged on this issue. But I want to thank you, Congressman Burns. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

Mr. Scott? 

11

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too want to 

thank the committee for this very, very important hearing. 

What we have before us today is scandalous. It is shameful and, 

especially at a time of war, taking advantage of young, impressionable soldiers. 

What bothers me more than anything else about this is that 

there is apparent collusion going on within the military itself. It is 

shameful that these unscrupulous, shall we say, ‘‘insurance agents’’ 

are allowed to even go into barracks and to confront soldiers who 

are under pressure, the pressure of their lives being flashed before 

them, as they are being trained and prepared to go overseas to risk 

their lives. 

Eighteen-, 19-, 20-year-old kids are being swamped with very 

complex financial details of life insurance and contractual plans 

whose practices have been outlawed in the public sector many, 

many years. And yet this activity has been going on for over 30 

years. 

And to have military personnel, high-ranking generals serving on 

the boards of directors of these companies. And what is so disturbing is that these are veterans who are taking advantage of 

these young enlisted men. 

There is no more important assignment than we can be faced 

with today, ladies and gentlemen, than correcting this mess. Harry 

Truman said it right, ‘‘The buck stops here.’’

The military has got some tall walking to do today because I 

think that there are some dirty hands here. The insurance industry 

has some tall walking to do today. 

And I am looking forward to this Congress doing its rightful duty 

of oversight. There is indeed enough blame to go around to all of 

us. 

Let us make our resolve this morning in this committee to right 

this tragic wrong and to give our young men and women in uniform the dignity and respect that they need. Maybe it is regulation; 

maybe it is outright banning of some of these products. 

I think there should be free exercise of enterprise, to have competitive products being on military bases. I do not think banning 

insurance companies from going on is the right thing. 

But we can do a better job. And we have to do a better job. 

And one thing we have to do, more than anything else: we have 

to understand the importance of financial literacy. Nowhere is 

there a greater example of the need for it than in preparing and 

equipping our men and women in uniform with the information 

that they can arm themselves with. 

Chairman BAKER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. I look forward to the rest of the hearing. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Brown-Waite? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I think the title of this hearing is very appropriate, 

‘‘Protecting Those Who Protect Us.’’ And when you read through 

the material and you read the newspaper articles—and believe me, 

I am not somebody who believes everything I read in the newspaper—but when you read through both the staff research and the 

12

newspaper articles, I am ashamed that we had to hold this hearing 

today. 

You know, insurance companies should not have taken advantage of young men and women who are really fiscal neophytes. 

Most of them have never had a checking account. 

So many of them join the military right out of high school, right 

out of college, where they really have no experience. They have no 

idea of what a mutual fund really is. 

And equally important, I think that the Department of Defense 

needs to be called on the carpet as to why they have not abided 

by their own Rule 1344.7. I think the military was doing a ‘‘wink 

and nod’’ approach to this. And that is just wrong. 

Every one of us in Congress has lost young men and women in 

the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And to think that these young 

men and women who do not understand had the Department of Defense let them down by having them be captive audiences, which 

is a direct violation of the Department of Defense’s own rules. 

I think, on behalf of the young men and women, on behalf of 

their families, who are making such sacrifices, that the Department of Defense has a lot of answering to do. It is absolutely 

shameful. 

And I commend Mr. Burns and have agreed to go on his legislation. It is a measured approach and one that I am ashamed to say 

that we have to be here to even consider. Because if the Department of Defense had done its job and if some of the insurance companies had not been so damn greedy, we would not even be here 

today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Chairman Baker. And I want to thank 

you and Ranking Member Kanjorski for convening this hearing. I 

think this is very, very important. 

And I have learned a great deal already, just in hearing opening 

statements by some of my colleagues. I was not aware of Mr. 

Israel’s bill, which has been pending for some time—I guess about 

a year now—and looks to be very good. 

I also have seen Mr. Emanuel’s bill. And that looks good. And I 

have heard about Mr. Burns’ bill this morning. So I want to take 

a look at all those. 

I want to take just a slight twist on this. And it gets just a little—it is collateral to this, but I think it is very important as well. 

I was stunned when I learned that our troops, young men and 

women who might be killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, had a death 

gratuity benefit from our country of $12,000. I say ‘‘stunned’’ because to me that is almost like a slap in the face. 

We talk about how much we value our troops and the good job 

they do for us. And I think virtually everybody in Congress believes 

that. 

But to pay $12,000 to the family of a young person who has been 

killed in Iraq or Afghanistan to me was just not showing value and 

appreciation for our troops. 

I have a bill today and just started talking to my colleagues yesterday and have four Republicans and four Democrats on it right 

13

now. And it should not be partisan at all. It would provide a 

$50,000 death gratuity benefit to young people who are killed in 

Iraq or Afghanistan. 

And whether it is a financial services product, such as life insurance, that we help them out with, or whether we provide a death 

gratuity is not as important to me as the fact that we somehow 

show a greater understanding and appreciation for the situation 

our young men and women face when they are in the military 

forces and that we provide some benefit to them—again, through 

life insurance payments, maybe or a death gratuity benefit. But I 

think we need to do a better job than what we have done in the 

past. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

Ms. Kelly? 

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Baker, for holding this hearing to ensure that we are protecting the individuals who have 

made sacrifices for our nation. Since we do not teach financial literacy in our schools, we have to help our military personnel receive 

the financial shelter and guidance that they deserve and that the 

public needs to demand. 

And this includes ensuring that the servicemen and women have 

access to clear and accurate financial information and advice that 

meets both their short-term and their long-term needs. I represent 

three military installations: Camp Smith in Cortlandt Manor, the 

United States Military Academy at West Point and Stewart International Airport at Newburgh, which is a large reserve air base. 

I have been deeply troubled by the recent allegations of the abusive practices in the sale of financial products to the military personnel. In spite of a directive from the Department of Defense restricting commercial solicitations, there have been reports of agents 

selling insurance and investment products that may not be in the 

best interests of the people in uniform. 

This committee needs to learn more about the contractual plans, 

those that enable an investor to make gradual contributions to a 

mutual fund that may have steep front-end sales loads. It is my 

understanding that the contractual plans have more or less disappeared in the civilian market several decades ago because they 

are not widely marketed because of the pricey sales charges. And 

there is very little flexibility built into them. 

We need to hear about some of the other insurance products that 

are marketed to military personnel. It is my understanding some 

of these products are not well structured for the unique needs of 

our servicepeople and that some of the policies offer very little 

more than high premiums and very low benefits. 

More troubling than some of the misguided and inappropriate 

products being marketed toward our military personnel are some 

of the questionable and misleading tactics that have been reportedly used to sell these products to our military. There are reports 

of individuals posing as counselors on veterans’ benefits and independent financial advisers, sometimes when the soldiers are in 

their barracks or even on duty. 

And there are other accounts of individuals pressuring military 

personnel with the deceitful implication that their supervisors or 

14

government support products and services they are selling. While 

there are a lot of honest and helpful life agents and brokers with 

good intentions out there, our military personnel deserve better 

service. 

And I believe that the agents and brokers not only have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients, but they have a personal responsibility to our service personnel. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the financial 

products marketed to military personnel and the sales practices 

that they employ, as well as the potential solutions to try to improve protections for military personnel. The men and women of 

our armed forces make sacrifices every single day. And they exemplify the best of American spirit. 

They take care of us. We need to take care of them. We have to 

get them all the support, compensation, benefits and protections 

that they deserve. 

This hearing is important. And I am happy that you have held 

it. 

I also, Mr. Chairman, would like to insert in the record at this 

time a statement from the Insurance Marketplace Standards Association. 

Chairman BAKER. Without objection. 

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much. 

[The following information can be found on page 164 in the appendix.] 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Sue W. Kelly can be found on 

page 75 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Ross? 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a little loud this morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Kanjorski, for 

holding this hearing on our soldiers and finances and protecting 

those who protect us. 

There has been a lot said. And I will be brief so we can hear from 

our panel of witnesses this morning. 

I think we all know that one of the reasons we are here is these 

abusive practices in the sale of financial products to military personnel, which have been uncovered. I would particularly like to 

thank the 6-month examination that was done by the New York 

Times that found that several financial service companies or their 

agents are using questionable tactics on military bases to sell insurance and investments that may not fit the needs of people in 

uniform. 

I have a brother-in-law in the United States Air Force. I have a 

first cousin in the United States Army whose wife gave birth to 

their first child while he was serving our country in Iraq. 

Today, we have some 3,000 Arkansas National Guard soldiers in 

Iraq. Last month, I was in Baghdad to visit with them. 

These are people that I once taught Sunday school to, people I 

duck hunt with, people whose wives back home teach my children. 

It really puts a face on it. 

And I believe their service and the service of all men and women 

in uniform is much greater than mine or any member of Congress 

15

or any president or vice president’s could ever be. And I believe if 

they are going to go across the globe and protect America and our 

interests, the least we can do is protect them and their finances at 

home. 

And that is why I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 

member for holding this important hearing today. I want to thank 

my colleague from Long Island, Mr. Israel, and Mr. Emanuel for 

their leadership on this issue. And hopefully, we can work together 

in a bipartisan manner to try and ensure that these practices stop 

and that our men and women in uniform and their families back 

home are protected from such fraudulent and deceptive sales 

pitches. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this very important hearing today, for I believe it will send 

a clear message to our military personnel that we do care about 

their financial welfare. These men and women serve and sacrifice 

for America, and for the world, to ensure that all people dwell in 

freedom, liberty and justice. 

As you may know, financial literacy is one of my top priorities. 

And it has been brought to my attention that financial organizations have voluntarily met with servicemen and women to educate 

them about financial services. 

While I encourage bona fide financial education programs that 

are conducted in a legal and ethical fashion, I am not an advocate 

for programs that violate Defense Department regulations or that 

are a sales pitch fronting as a financial education program. I am 

disturbed to read that young and impressionable members of our 

armed forces may be fooled into believing that they are being educated about finance, but are in fact being influenced by salesmen 

who pose as instructors. 

I would encourage our witnesses today to fully disclose the accuracy of the report that ‘‘several financial services companies or 

their agents are using questionable tactics on military bases to sell 

insurance and investments that may not fit the needs of people in 

uniform.’’

Our military should know that we in Congress will not deny 

them access to the financial benefits of a free-market society, but 

we will take action, if necessary, to protect them from financial 

scam artists. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Thank you and I 

yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Judy Biggert can be found on 

page 68 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Inslee? 

Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. Miller? 

If there are no further members having opening statements, I 

would like at this time to ask unanimous consent——

Mr. OXLEY. Already granted. 

16

Chairman BAKER. Oh, then by prior agreement, at this time, I 

recognize Mr. Burns. 

Mr. BURNS. I thank the chairman and the ranking member. I appreciate the opportunity to join the committee this morning for this 

certainly important hearing. 

This past Tuesday, I was joined by colleagues—Mike Simpson, 

Charlie Norwood, Chet Edwards and Joe Wilson—in introducing 

H.R. 5011, which is the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. The purpose of this act is quite simple: it would ban 

the sale of questionable financial products and insurance policies 

on military bases, both at home and abroad. 

The bill would also provide a layer of oversight on unscrupulous 

insurance companies and their employees that have been using federal military property to evade the jurisdiction of state insurance 

commissioners and other state regulatory bodies. Those who sell 

products to our citizens, especially to our troops who sacrifice so 

much for the freedoms that we all enjoy, have a responsibility and 

a duty to be honest and clearly inform their potential customers. 

Clearly, there have been transgressions in these areas that must 

be addressed. In the past weeks, I have become aware of numerous 

servicemembers, including those residing in Georgia’s 12th congressional district—Fort Gordon, Georgia; Fort Stewart and Hunter 

Army Airfield, Georgia; the Navy Supply Corps School in Athens, 

Georgia, all of which are in the 12th—have suffered financially as 

a result of dubious financial products and questionable insurance 

policies. 

I and my colleagues will not sit by and watch innocent members 

suffer from unscrupulous sales practices in our military installations. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I look forward to working with the Financial Services Committee and congressional leadership in crafting an effective bill to deal with this 

challenging problem. 

I again thank the chairman and the ranking member for the opportunity to join you today. I yield back. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman for his good work and 

his participation here today. We now turn to our patient witnesses 

for their remarks this morning. And it is indeed an honor for me 

to introduce to the committee today Specialist Brandon Conger, 

United States Army, who has just returned from a tour of duty in 

Iraq. 

Sir, I wish to extend to you my deep appreciation for your service. And we are honored to have you here with us to give us your 

concerns. 

Please proceed as you would like. Normal practice requested by 

the committee is that all witnesses try to make their presentations 

within 5 minutes. Your full and complete statement will be made 

part of the official committee record. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SPECIALIST BRANDON CONGER, UNITED 

STATES ARMY 

Mr. CONGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, good 

morning. My name is Specialist Brandon Conger from Butler, MisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:31 Jan 07, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\97450.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
17

souri. I am infantryman with headquarters in Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify in front of the committee. I would like to give you a brief synopsis of my involvement 

with American Amicable Life Insurance. 

In August 2002, during my third week of basic training in Fort 

Benning, Georgia, my drill sergeants held a briefing for my platoon 

concerning a group of financial advisers. The drill sergeants explained to us that a group of financial advisers were coming to 

speak with us about mutual funds. 

The drill sergeants said that they were a good investment. And 

if we started now and stuck with them, that we would make lots 

of money. 

The next day, the financial advisers held a classroom briefing 

and specifically told us that by investing money in these mutual 

funds, it would only help us make money. They showed us charts 

on their laptops, showing each of us individually how much money 

we would make long term, depending on how much money we put 

in on a monthly basis. 

They then passed out paperwork to sign an order for the money 

to begin coming out of our bank accounts. Neither the financial advisers nor our drill sergeants or the paperwork said anything about 

life insurance. 

I had ACLI. I was putting in $20 a month for the insurance in 

the Army. I did not need life insurance. 

After graduating basic training airborne school, I was assigned 

to the 82nd Airborne Division in January 2003. By then, I still had 

not received a statement of any kind from American Amicable. 

In March 2003, my unit deployed to Iraq in support of Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. Late January of 2004, I redeployed back home to 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 

In February of 2004, after still receiving nothing from the company, I decided to call them. Most of my calls were never answered. 

And those that were ended up with me being put on hold until I 

hung up the phone. 

Finally, in April, a fellow paratrooper who had signed up with 

the same financial company told me that this group of financial advisers was a fraud. I then cancelled my allotment. 

In May, a reporter from the New York Times who wanted to hear 

my story, contacted me. That same month, I informed my company 

commander and we called American Amicable and requested a copy 

of my insurance policy be mailed to the unit. 

A couple of weeks later, after I still had not received the policy, 

my commander and I called and e-mailed American Amicable, requesting a policy again. Finally, on the 23rd of July, I received my 

insurance policy. 

This has been an extremely disappointing ordeal for me and for 

some of my fellow soldiers, not because I lost money, but because 

I was misrepresented by a former soldier working for American 

Amicable Life Insurance, who used his contacts to gain the trust 

and confidence of young soldiers. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee for 

allowing me the opportunity to testify today. Thank you. 

18

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, sir. And I assure you, we will take 

your testimony and review it very carefully and we will act accordingly. We appreciate your willingness to participate. 

Our next witness is Ms. Elizabeth W. Jetton, president, the Financial Planning Association. Welcome, Ms. Jetton. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH W. JETTON, PRINCIPAL, THE 

FINANCIAL PLANNING ASSOCIATION 

Ms. JETTON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Baker and Ranking Member Kanjorski 

and members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify 

today on the marketing of certain insurance and investment products to our enlisted men and women on military bases. 

My name is Elizabeth Jetton. I am a partner in an independent 

financial planning firm in Atlanta and hold the ‘‘Certified Financial 

Planner’’ designation. I appear before you today as the president of 

the Financial Planning Association. 

FPA represents more than 28,500 members who provide professional advice to individuals and their families or to those who support the financial planning process. Recently, FPA began a national 

community services program to provide pro bono financial planning 

and education, delivered by certified financial planner practitioners 

to those in need and unable to pay for professional advice. 

As part of this program, we are currently in discussions with the 

Pentagon representatives to see how we can provide pro bono advice to reservists and National Guard personnel called to active 

duty in Iraq. 

I have personally been in the financial services industry since 

1980 and have previously held an insurance producers’ license. For 

the past 14 years, I have been in the practice of comprehensive financial planning, registered with the State of Georgia Division of 

Securities as an investment adviser. I am also affiliated with a 

broker-dealer and am licensed to sell securities. 

I was personally disturbed to read about the allegations of abusive sales practices to our men and women in uniform. And I am 

particularly concerned about those who are young and starting out 

in their first career, and who consequently may not the more complicated insurance and retirement needs or knowledge of an older 

person or even know how to ask the right questions to determine 

their need. 

In providing financial planning advice to clients to help them 

achieve their goals in life, it is incumbent upon a professional adviser to review their insurance needs as part of an overall plan. 

With respect to any kind of life insurance product, there are basic 

questions that a consumer needs to ask about the product, particularly since life insurance agents are not required to comply with 

practice standards. 

Unlike on the securities side of the business, where NASD suitability rules come into play, or as an investment adviser, where 

you actually have a fiduciary duty to place the clients’ interests 

first, the insurance agent has no statutory obligation to the customer for determining the suitability of the product to the individual’s need. 

19

Some of the questions that I, as a financial planner, ask my clients: First, is there a need for insurance? Life insurance is recommended to replace the earned income of the insured for the benefit of his or her family, to provide funding for financial and life 

goals that that income would have provided for, perhaps such as 

college tuition. 

If a soldier is young and single, I am not sure a life insurance 

policy is necessary, unless he has dependents or aging parents who 

need help or is perhaps concerned about his own future declining 

health. 

Second, if it is determined that there is a need for life insurance, 

how long is the coverage needed? Again, the answer depends on the 

age of the insured and their particular concerns, goals and financial priorities. 

If there are small children, the insured probably would want to 

have coverage that would last until that child leaves home. A needs 

analysis would look at the family’s circumstances, determine its annual needs and arrive at a lump sum that is sufficient to provide 

the required annual income to support that family if the insured 

died. 

Generally, an insurance company will provide a death benefit of 

about 16 times an individual’s annual income. Let’s assume that a 

soldier is 30 years old and has been enlisted for 6 years, his income 

would be roughly around $30,000. He may already receive $250,000 

of insurance, purchased at a reasonable price from the U.S. government. 

Another $250,000 in 20-year term insurance with an A+ rated company could possibly be obtained for as little as $167 a year. 

And a $250,000 permanent universal life policy from a reputable 

company might cost $1,077 a year. In contrast, according to information provided FPA by this committee, a so-called ‘‘seven pay 

term’’ life insurance with a death benefit of just $29,949 has a premium of $900 per year. 

There is a saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything 

looks like a nail; in other words, unscrupulous insurance salesmen 

who have only life insurance to offer will try to solve every financial issue with an insurance product. 

A financial planner who must put the interests of their client 

ahead of their own considers what investment tools are most appropriate given the financial constraints and priorities of the client. 

I feel compelled briefly to talk about other investment products 

marketed on military bases. Very often, an annuity accumulation 

fund is connected to the insurance policy I described earlier that 

generates a negative return in the first 2 years and has a 5 percent 

early withdrawal penalty during the first 10 years. I wonder 

whether information is adequately disclosed about the costs and 

lack of liquidity of this annuity, as well as the fact that the funds 

are not generally available prior to age 59.5 without additional 

penalties imposed by the IRS. 

We are concerned about the marketing of contractual plans on 

military bases to less sophisticated and lower ranking members of 

the military. This type of fund has the 50 percent sales charge on 

the first-year contributions and it is seldom the best investment 

product for these members of the military. 

20

The NASD imposes limits on mutual fund sales charges to 8.5 

percent. But these charges rarely exceed 6.5 percent. And in my experience, civilians working with reputable financial advisers typically pay no more than 5 percent of the first year’s investment on 

a mutual fund purchase, including systematic investment plans. 

When our soldiers are convinced to purchase inappropriate and 

excessively expensive life insurance and investment products, it 

may mean that other financial needs go unaddressed. If these news 

reports are accurate and those who most need basic financial services to protect their loved ones and their futures are being taken 

advantage of by companies that are getting access to these men 

and women in the guise of providing financial education seminars, 

FPA believes it would be prudent for Congress to consider restricting the sale of contractual plans and granting states the authority 

to regulate insurance sales practices. 

I thank you for holding this important hearing. FPA looks forward to working with the committee on this issue. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Elizabeth W. Jetton can be found on 

page 112 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Ms. Jetton. 

Mr. Mercer Bullard, welcome again for your third time; founder 

and chief executive officer, Fund Democracy. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MERCER BULLARD, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FUND DEMOCRACY, 

INC. 

Mr. BULLARD. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Baker, Ranking 

Member Kanjorski, members of the subcommittee. It is again a 

pleasure to appear before you today to talk about these important 

issues. 

Like this subcommittee, when reports of abusive sales practices 

and unsuitable investment advice on military bases were reported 

in July, I was appalled. But I cannot say I was surprised. 

The abuses stem from a number of observable structural causes. 

And some of them are more easily addressed than others. 

I am going to briefly survey what I believe to be the main causes 

of these abuses and suggest possible solutions. I will spend most 

of time talking about the one that I believe would be easiest to address through fairly simple legislation, and that is the most shocking abuse, which I find to be the amount and the structure of sales 

loads charged on certain investment products. 

They are shocking because of the substantial losses that result 

from the excessive loads. But they are also shocking because the 

amount and structure have been expressly authorized by Congress. 

The Investment Company Act expressly permits sales loads on 

periodic payment plans of up to 9 percent. 

This means that a $100 per month investment in a 10-year peri- odic payment plan would incur a total sales load of $1,080 on total 

investments of $12,000 over the life of the plan. What is worse is 

the act expressly permits sales loads to be collected on an accelerated basis. 

These are the upfront 50 percent of the early payments that we 

have heard mentioned in this hearing already. And those are speVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:31 Jan 07, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\97450.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
21

cifically permitted under the Investment Company Act under federal law. 

The distributor can deduct, on that basis, half of every $100 payment until the entire sales load has been collected. This means 

that, for example, after 22 months and $2,200 in contributions, 

only $1,120 will have been invested. The broker will have pocketed 

$1,080, again compared to the $1,100 actually in the investment. 

If the investor cancels the plan, the broker gets to keep the entire sales load. And the investor is left with a 50 percent loss. 

The act mitigates this exploitive structure somewhat by requiring that investors may cancel the plan within 45 plans of receiving 

a notice that describes their cancellation rights. And then they receive the value of their investment plus the total commissions paid. 

If the investor cancels within the first 18 months, they have the 

right to receive the value of the investment, plus a refund of the 

commission, less 15 percent of the gross payments made. So this 

means that even if the investor cancels after 18 months, he will 

still be obligated to pay a commission of $270 on contributions of 

$1,800 to an investment plan that he did not even keep for 2 years. 

If the distributor agrees to spread the sales load deductions over 

4 years and deduct more than average of 16 percent of the contributions during that time, it does not even have to make available that 18-month cancellation option. So in this case, the investor 

would pay 16 percent in commissions, instead of 15 percent in commissions, on the 18-month investment. 

At least the investor is better off if he cancels after 22 months. 

In that case, he will have paid only $352 in commissions, as opposed to $1,080, again on only $2,200 in contributions on an 18-

month investment. 

What makes these rules particularly shocking is that the sales 

load limits for sales of mutual funds—and when I refer to mutual 

funds, I mean mutual funds not sold through periodic payment 

plans, because as you may know, mutual funds are usually the underlying investment vehicle of periodic payment plans—the sales 

load limits for mutual funds set by the securities industry is substantially lower than the standard set by Congress. Normally, the 

securities industry will argue for higher limits than legislators. But 

that is not the case in this situation. 

Under NASD rules, as Ms. Jetton described, mutual fund sales 

loads cannot exceed 8.5 percent, with that limit being reduced in 

a number of situations where, as a practical matter, you can almost 

never charge the full 8.5 percent load. In practice, mutual fund 

sales loads rarely exceed about 5.75 percent. And there are some 

occasions in which, as she mentioned, they will reach about 6.5 

percent. 

More importantly, the load is deducted from contributions as 

they are made and cannot be accelerated. This means that if the 

investor cancels the investment, commission paid does not exceed 

5.75 percent. 

Compare that with a 9 percent or 15 percent or 50 percent commission paid by investors in periodic payment plans. To put the different treatment of mutual funds and periodic payment plans in 

perspective, if a mutual fund investor invests $100 per month in 

a mutual fund with a 5 percent load—and this will be typically 

22

known, what is often offered as a systematic investment plans that 

most mutual funds offer—and they redeem the shares after 2 

years, he would have paid $120 in commissions, compared with the 

$1,080 in commissions paid by the investors in the periodic plan—

virtually the same investment. 

If the mutual fund shareholder invests in a class of shares that 

charge a 1 percent 12b1-fee instead of a front-end load—the frontend load being the 5 percent front-end load—he would pay only 

about $25 in distribution fees, again compared with $1,080 for the 

investor in the periodic payment plan. The commission paid by the 

investor in the periodic payment plan is 4,320 percent of the commission paid by the investor in the mutual fund. 

As you are well aware, the mutual fund industry has thrived, despite the lower limits imposed on sales charges. In fact, competition 

has driven down sales loads well below the limits imposed by the 

NASD. 

There is no reasonable basis for subjecting periodic payment 

plans and mutual funds, which often offer their own systematic 

plans similar to period payment plans, subject to NASD limits, to 

different standards. I strongly recommend that Congress repeal the 

statutory restrictions on sales loads on periodic payment plans and 

direct the NASD to extend its rules to such plans. 

This would be a deregulatory measure because it would shift to 

the securities industry authority for regulating sales loads on periodic payment plans. It would be more efficient because it would 

place the authority for regulating these sales loads in one place—

that is the NASD—rather than two—the NASD and the statute. 

And it would be more flexible because the NASD would be in a better position than Congress to respond to changing business practices. 

The other causes of sales abuses on military bases are also quite 

observable. But they are not nearly as susceptible to relatively easy 

solutions. 

One problem is the inadequate and inconsistent regulation of investment advice mentioned by Ms. Jetton. The unsuitable recommendations made to military personnel are characteristic of the 

lower standards that apply to brokers and the even lower standards that apply to insurance agents. 

Brokers who provide individualized investment advice often are 

not even regulated as investment advisers, pursuant to SEC positions, or subject to fiduciary standards. And insurance agents often 

are not even subject to minimal suitability standards. 

Both categories of professionals are provided individualized investment and financial advice and, accordingly, should be held to 

a fiduciary standard of care. Most of the financial services industry 

is adamant, is adamantly opposed to being held responsible for acting only in their clients’ best interests, even while they become less 

the sellers of products and more the purveyors of advice. 

Congress should conduct a bottom-up review of the regulation of 

financial advice. 

Another problem is the special vulnerability of military personnel, especially junior personnel, to abusive sales practices, 

whether such practices involve periodic payment plans, life insurance, home financing or any other retail product you can think of. 

23

The isolated command nature of military life is a double-edged 

sword. 

It creates unique opportunity for the government to protect our 

soldiers from abusive sales practices. But for salespeople, it provides the opportunity to more easily exploit unsophisticated investors. 

Ideally, the military would regulate sales practices on military 

bases. But it is not well suited for this job, which is not its primary 

mission. 

We would not ask the SEC Chairman Donaldson to direct the 

war in Iraq any more than we should seriously expect the Pentagon to be the most efficient regulator of financial services on 

bases. 

But as long as the military continues to exercise some control 

over sales activities on bases, state and federal regulators will be 

justifiably reluctant to intervene and apply what may be a different 

set of rules and a different set of procedures. Congress probably 

should encourage the military to establish a central office for the 

regulation of sales practices on military bases. And that office 

should work closely with state regulators and the SEC to come up 

with consistent standards. 

But even with such a structure, it will be difficult to enforce the 

same sales practices for the benefit of our soldiers as we do for our 

civilian population. 

The broadest and last problem is that the financial services industry is regulated in a generally dysfunctional smorgasbord of 

rules, promulgated in force by a wide variety of state and federal 

regulators, each of whom takes a different approach to regulation 

and oversees arbitrarily defined product lines. The reports on sales 

abuses on military bases illustrate how this patchwork of financial 

services regulation compromises consumer protection, increases 

costs and suppresses competition. 

Our system of financial services regulation is a drain on capital 

formation and wealth creation. Congress should begin a systemic 

review of financial services regulation with the goal of efficient, 

functional regulation of all financial services providers and products. 

These are the essential problems I see underlying the sales 

abuses documented in recent reports. Some are fairly intractable. 

And I hope only that there will be some progress in addressing 

them during my lifetime. 

But some can be effectively addressed in the short term. I would 

again recommend strongly that Congress shift regulation of sales 

loads on periodic payment plans to the NASD. This is a simple deregulatory step that would have an immediate, bottom line impact 

on our soldiers’ financial security and help them benefit from the 

free market system that they are fighting to defend. 

Thanks very much. And I would be happy to take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mercer Bullard can be found on page 

78 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. I thank you for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Mr. David Woods, chief executive officer, National Association of Insurance and Financial Agents. 

Welcome, Mr. Woods. 

24

STATEMENT OF DAVID WOODS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL 

AGENTS 

Mr. WOODS. Thank you, Chairman Baker, Ranking Member Kanjorski, members of the committee. It is our privilege this morning 

to spend a few minutes with you, sharing our view of this problem 

and some of the solutions that we think might be appropriate. 

I do represent the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers. We represent 65,000 insurance agents and financial 

advisers and another 150,000 of their employees across the United 

States. 

The Life and Health Insurance Foundation, of which I am also 

the president, is a non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the public about the essential role of life, health, disability income and long-term care insurance in their financial plans and the 

value added by qualified and professional insurance agents and financial advisers. 

NAIFA has worked closely with the Department of Defense and 

with Congress over many years to improve and to establish proper 

regulation of insurance sales on military bases, to improve financial education for these men and women, which many members of 

the committee have already established is of critical importance. 

Let me start, however, by making it very clear that in our view, 

the vast majority of life insurance agents and financial advisers adhere to the very highest professional and ethical standards. And in 

doing so, we obviously condemn those who do not. 

As our mission statement indicates, NAIFA’s reason for being is: 

to promote professional, ethical business practices. Just as an aside 

and as a moment of personal privilege, I am sure Ms. Jetton did 

not mean to imply that those who are not members of the Financial 

Planning Association or who are not registered with the NASD are 

not ethical and are unscrupulous. In fact, as she well knows and 

all of you well know, life insurance—its policies, its marketing 

practices—are well regulated by every state and by insurance commissioners across this country. 

All of us—Congress, the Department of Defense, NAIFA—we all 

have the same goal here and that is to educate military personnel 

about financial matters that are critical to them and to stop the deceptive and unfair sale of insurance products. We must be steadfast, obviously, in guarding against unethical and possibly illegal 

sales practices. And we believe that the importance of ensuring 

that military men and women have access to insurance products 

cannot be overstated. 

As I indicated, the sale of insurance of course is regulated by 

both the federal government through the Department of Defense 

and the states, which are our nation’s primary regulators of insurance. The current regulatory structure establishes a workable 

mechanism for the supervision of insurance agents on and off military bases and strikes a proper balance between guaranteeing the 

right of military personnel to have meaningful access to insurance 

products and financial education and ensuring ample protection for 

these insurance consumers from predatory sales practices. 

The problem, however, with the current structure is the lack of 

coordination and communication between the Department of DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:31 Jan 07, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\97450.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
25

fense and state regulatory authorities and the lack of adequate enforcement of existing rules. To correct these problems, in our view, 

the Department of Defense and the state insurance commissioners 

need to work together to develop a scheme to improve communication, improve coordination and improve enforcement of both Department of Defense rules and state laws. 

We are delighted and we applaud Representative Max Burns for 

your efforts, sir, to provide solutions to these problems with the introduction of your Military Personnel Financial Services Protection 

Act. We enthusiastically support the proposal’s embrace of state insurance regulatory authority by clarifying current law regarding 

state insurance regulatory authority over insurance transactions on 

military installations, which is certainly less than clear at the moment, as you have said. 

The bill supplements the authority of base commanders and improves the ability of the Department of Defense and state authorities to ensure that insurance sales are properly handled. 

We would, however, point out that there is some language in the 

bill which does cause some concern to us because it could be interpreted more broadly and lead to unintended and perhaps problematic consequences for the insurance industry and insurance consumers. And our statement gets into it in greater detail. 

We would look forward to working with you, sir, and with the 

committee to refine the language so your intent is clear and it does 

not do some harm where it should not. 

We recognize that the majority of military personnel are, like 

Special Conger, young, often have little financial background or formal financial planning education. This is true not only in the military, but in society as a whole. 

We support the framework established under the directive by 

which military personnel can and do receive critical financial education. The Life Foundation, of which I am the president, provides 

crucial insurance-based financial information directly to a broad 

spectrum of society, including high school students. 

In fact, we already provide educational programs and material to 

25 percent of high school juniors and seniors throughout the country. The Life Foundation has offered and continues to offer—and do 

so here—to provide educational programs and materials that it has 

already developed to the Department of Defense for servicemen and 

women. 

So in summary, Mr. Chairman, clarification of current law, improvements in communication, coordination in enforcement and financial education are all critical elements in ensuring that current 

laws work to provide military personnel with the consumer protections that they need. With these goals in mind, NAIFA and the 

American Council of Life Insurers developed a set of best practices, 

which we have submitted to you, for military sales and their functional regulation. And these are attached to our statement. 

And thank you again, sir, for the opportunity and the privilege 

of appearing before you today. 

[The prepared statement of David Woods can be found on page 

146 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you again, sir. 

26

Our next witness is Mr. Frank Keating, president, chief executive officer, the American Council of Life Insurers. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK KEATING, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN 

COUNCIL OF LIFE INSURERS 

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and to discuss how 

best to address unscrupulous sales of financial services, including 

insurance, to our men and women in the military service. 

You are to be congratulated on conducting this expeditious hearing. We at the ACLI are glad that the revelations of this summer 

have finally opened communications among those whose responsibility it is to solve the reported problems. 

For more than a year, the ACLI has been aware of such allegations of misbehavior. As a matter of fact, before the New York 

Times articles appeared, I personally met with senior officials of 

the Department of Defense to discuss this issue with them. 

We have sought attention at the highest levels. Today, we have 

solutions we wish to share with you. 

We believed we had achieved a breakthrough earlier this year 

when we were able to sit down with representatives of the U.S. 

Government Accounting Office to help them plan their investigation into the accusations leveled by all sides. We encouraged the 

GAO to dig deep beneath its express mandate to get to the bottom 

of things. 

But it was the stories published by The New York Times in July 

that rocked everyone out of complacency and into remedial action. 

And it is about time. 

The telling thing about the newspaper’s stories is that the news 

was old news. Many of the same allegations involving the same 

companies were reported 4 years ago in the Cuthbert Report, which 

is the unofficial name of the official Defense Department investigation into ‘‘Insurance Solicitation Practices on Department of Defense Installations.’’

While that report itself is controversial, it was clear long before 

it was published that something was amiss in the supervision of insurance sales to military personnel. It should have been clear that 

alleged insurance problems required something of state regulators 

as well as defense officials. 

Our military mobilization since September 11th accelerated personal financial planning for our newly enlisted, accelerated sales of 

insurance and perhaps accelerated incidents of coercive selling. But 

it did not accelerate communications between industry and defense 

officials and state insurance officials until now. 

The ACLI and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers—NAIFA—have shared with you for this hearing a 

dozen best practices for military insurance sales and their financial 

regulation. Our recommendations are divided into three areas. 

The first addresses military installation market conduct by insurers and insurance agents. The second area recommends improved, standardized financial literacy opportunities for our servicemen and servicewomen. The third area recommends improvements in regulatory supervision of the military market for insurance sales. 

27

Thus, we offer suggestions for improvement for both industry 

and regulators. We have more ideas to offer and we are actively soliciting suggestions from our member companies and agents. 

We want to assure that our military servicemen and women have 

the education, information, safeguards and independent sources of 

advice necessary for their individual needs. No industry can endanger its fundamental enterprise by tolerating misconduct in its core 

activities. 

We do not want our many good companies and agents unfairly 

tarred by a brush intended for a few. That is why ACLI is here 

today and anxious, on behalf of the companies, to help you sort out 

the regulation of military sales of life insurance. 

We are convinced that the reason these issues continue to come 

up is because of the lack of clarity over who has the authority to 

oversee such sales and the absence of clear procedures to ensure 

the highest standards for dealing with men and women in uniform. 

I might take a moment now to address remedial legislation drafted by Representative Max Burns of Georgia. I commend Congressman Burns for his authorship of this bill. I also commend Congressman Emanuel for what he has proposed. 

At the heart of it is the genuine solution to many of the problems 

reported in the press: state regulation. That solution involves the 

realization of genuinely functional regulation in both the technical 

and common sense terms. 

We support the overall concept of both bills. But there are a few 

ancillary provisions to which I would like to make some suggested 

improvements. 

First, the Burns bill intends, we believe, to prohibit a particular 

investment product known as contractual mutual funds. As this is 

not a life insurance product, ACLI has no opinion about the pros 

and cons of such an investment. 

However, the description of the product in the legislation goes far 

beyond contractual mutual funds to prohibit all kinds of insurance 

and annuities that have a variable element in them. ACLI has 

communicated with the committee staff on how to refine the technical description in the bill to the controversial product under your 

review. 

My second observation is that the notion of asking 50 state insurance regulators to implement new standards to protect military 

personnel from insurance sales misconduct is unnecessary and 

probably unwanted by all the regulators involved. It has been the 

absence of any kind of functional regulation of insurance sales on 

military installations that has created cracks through which misbehavior has reportedly taken root. 

Further, it is in the complete absence of effective enforcement of 

all relevant rules that has caused some of our soldiers to become 

victims of scams. Fifty new state rules in addition to existing rules 

will not better protect our servicemen and women if neither the 

states nor the Defense Department can enforce any rule. 

The military services are a unique environment. It is populated 

by highly mobile individuals who have special needs and a healthy 

respect for those in authority or who otherwise provide guidance. 

The functional regulation of insurance by the states must be reconciled with the functional regulation of our military personnel by 

28

the Defense Department. We believe that the necessary balance 

can be achieved in two ways: first, by centralizing relevant financial services information for all military services within a particular command in the Defense Department; and secondly, by 

looking to that centralized defense command to serve as the liaison 

and coordinator of financial services sales supervision, the handling 

of complaints and regulatory assistance with the financial service 

functional regulators at the state level. 

Under this approach, an infraction by a sales agent or a company 

on a military installation is not an isolated incident receiving an 

arbitrary evaluation. Rather, it becomes an incident reported to 

multiple regulators and multiple installation commanders. 

It is subjected to fair and certain adjudication. And it will result, 

in some cases, appropriately in license revocations or penalties that 

sting. 

The cracks in the system become sealed and misbehavior is rooted out, not to find fertile ground on another installation or in another state or foreign country. Ignorance breeds ignorance. If there 

is no ability for commanders to communicate or for regulators to 

communicate and to have this system put in place here in Washington to provide information, corrective action will never be taken. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for allowing me to address 

these important topics and ideas. We at ACLI are eager to help address effectively the problems under investigation by the GAO. We 

very much believe we can be part of the solution and that our recommended best practices provide a path to success. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Frank Keating can be found on 

page 120 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you for your participation. 

Specialist Conger, at the time that you were first approached by 

the sales representative for the American Amicable investment, do 

you recall whether the words ‘‘front loaded’’ were used or that there 

was any disclosure made about fees that you would pay in that 

first or second year or financial penalties that might be associated 

with any premature actions on your part? 

What can you tell me, from your memory, about the presentation, when they said, ‘‘This is a good deal. This is what we need 

from you. And here is what you get?′′ Did they tell you where your money was going to go when they 

asked you to make that check out? 

Mr. CONGER. They did not tell us exactly where it was going to 

go. They showed us on charts pretty much how much money we 

would make. And they told us the sooner we put our money into 

it and if we decided later on to take it out, that there would be a 

very big penalty, very big fine. 

And that is about all I know. 

Chairman BAKER. Do you recall did they tell you how long you 

had to leave it in to avoid paying that big penalty? Did they tell 

you that? 

Mr. CONGER. They said, at the time, we had to leave it in up to 

2 years, I believe. 

Chairman BAKER. 2 years. 

Mr. CONGER. I believe. 

29

Chairman BAKER. That is interesting. Okay. 

Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BAKER. Ms. Jetton, a contract plan with a 50 percent 

first-year commission, as American Amicable provides, starting 

with a $900 premium for a $21,000 death benefit, is that a good 

deal? 

Ms. JETTON. Well, in the civilian marketplace, just to give you 

comparison, if we are talking about term life insurance, someone 

of a young age could get $250,000 of term insurance for $200 or 

less. 

We have two different things here and I think even we are getting confused at times. On the contractual mutual fund plan, where 

you have the 50 percent sales charge on the first year’s contributions as Mr. Bullard and I commented, in the civilian marketplace 

you cannot charge more than 8.5 percent front-end load. And that 

comes out only as you invest new monies. 

And typical practice is you do not really see front loads higher 

than 6.5 percent. And truly a very reputable financial adviser who 

is, by law, putting the interests of their client first, can find good 

quality investments in a commission front load product, where the 

commission might be between 4 to 5.75 percent. 

Chairman BAKER. Well, let me state it a little different way, 

then. If you were sitting in the room with some of these young men 

and women, typically, as I understand the profile of most of the 

customers, they are about 24 median age, total annual compensation of about $30,000, very minimal net worth calculations not really any identifiable near-term financial needs because of their military obligation. 

How does someone come to the conclusion that either of these 

products are professionally appropriate for their financial next 

step? 

Ms. JETTON. Well, that is the question. I have met with young 

enlisted and officers in the course of my career and typically their 

primary concerns are living within their means, avoiding debt, having just some liquid reserves in a savings account to protect them 

from all the kind of uncertainties, such as a car breaking down or 

a child needing some medical attention. So I would in no way ever 

recommend this type of product. 

What we are always looking to do is make their dollars stretch 

as far as we can to cover all of the financial issues that they are 

facing, both what they are facing today in their lives and, if there 

is a life insurance need, finding the most economically viable, quality insurance product possible with the highest death benefit that 

would be appropriate. 

Chairman BAKER. Generally, I am just appalled that this level 

of advice was permitted to be given to frankly individuals who were 

not in a position or mental state to make judgments, in light of the 

exorbitant financial costs associated with the extraordinarily low 

benefit. I just keep looking for an explanation from somebody as to 

how this happens. 

And apparently, it has happened to a great extent over a considerable period of time because there are several companies that appear to be doing quite well selling this product. I am advised that 

30

this series of votes, commencing now, will be a series of three votes. 

I leave it to the gentleman’s discretion whether we would like to 

just recess now and go for the votes, or would you care to proceed 

with your questions? If you would like to be recognized, sir? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Sure. 

Chairman BAKER. I would recognize Mr. Kanjorski for his questions. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. The testimony poses some disturbing facts. No 

one likes to see the armed forces, their personnel being taken advantage of. But it raises the other side of the issue on consumer 

protection generally and how far government and regulation should 

get involved, really. 

It reminds me of a hearing the chairman participated with me 

several months ago in Monroe County in the purchase of homes 

and mortgaging and brokerage of homes. And the question was 

that people from the greater New York area were buying homes 

sometimes twice their value. 

And as a result, once they purchased the home and they started 

to pay on their mortgage for a year or two and they went for a refinancing, they found out the value of their home was about half 

what they paid for it. And needless to say, hundreds of people either went into foreclosure or were very disturbed with that fact. 

And it raises the question: just what should the role of government be in saving people from their own misjudgment or failure to 

exercise reasonable procedures in the marketplace? I keep thinking 

of: is Casablanca shocking, that there is gambling in the casino? 

Well, is it shocking that there is profiteering in business? 

We are really going to raise the question here: just how much do 

we hold the hands of not only military personnel, but consumers 

generally? And what the constraints of that will be on the free enterprise system. 

In an ideal world, I would like every member of the armed forces 

to have a financial planner. I would like to be certain that they do 

not get charged any greater amount than the median amount in 

cost of investments. 

But the reality and the practicality of that is we are going to 

have to block the military from having any activities with financial 

transactions while they are in the service because invariably, unless we are able to write some sort of regulatory provisions or legal 

provisions that guarantee that we will stand behind the failure to 

use good financial judgment and I do not think it is possible to do 

that. 

The question is: do you find—and maybe I should direct this 

question to Ms. Jetton and Mr. Bullard—do you find that the practices are so outlandish that the government should, in a very 

heavy-handed way, step in and restrict any participation except for 

those that are qualified to be absolutely foolproof to potential 

armed forces personnel? Or is this just the risk we take? 

Mr. BULLARD. As a general matter, we should step in only where 

there is some evidence of market failure. And sales practices on 

military bases, I think, would clearly qualify. 

It is a closed market. It is controlled by the Pentagon. It is highly 

susceptible to affinity marketing, which is another word for using 

relationships to exploit consumers. 

31

And therefore, given that some degree of market failure, I think 

it is appropriate to think about stepping in. 

But another answer to your question would be we already regulate and impose price restrictions with respect to sales practices. 

The reason we do that and not, for example, impose price limits on 

mutual funds themselves is that the potential for abuse in sales 

practices is so much greater. 

You have someone who is very difficult to regulate on the 

ground, engaged in interpersonal reactions, where it is very hard 

to prevent sales abuses from occurring. And decades ago, Congress 

decided that it was appropriate to impose limits. 

The mistake it made was that when it gave the NASD the ability 

to impose limits on mutual fund sales, it did not then also repeal 

the provisions for periodic payment plans and also send that along 

with the same package. So we have really answered the question 

as to sales loads. 

They are regulated. They are regulated by imposing very specific 

restrictions. 

But we have an archaic set of provisions that allowed accelerated 

payments that really would have gone by the wayside if the industry itself had been regulating these securities products. So I think 

the answer would be that in evidence of market failure and a long 

history of already providing those kinds of restrictions, that there 

is a very strong argument for having some more government oversight in this case. 

Ms. JETTON. And I would agree. And I would also note that we 

do have fairly heavy-handed regulation in the civilian marketplace 

through the NASD and the SEC. And the military, in some ways, 

has been carved out as a niche, when in fact, it is probably an area 

that needs at least the same level of protection because of the very 

people we are talking about, who are so very often young, who are 

coming into it with a focus on serving their country. 

And their lives are complex and chaotic as a result of that. And 

I think they need our very special care. 

There is also a problem in that anyone can call themselves a financial planner in this country without having credentials. There 

is a credential, the Certified Financial Planner. There is a meaning 

to the term ‘‘investment adviser’’ that should mean—and does 

mean—that you are registered with the SEC and have a fiduciary 

relationship. 

But unfortunately, those terms are battered around. And there 

is no statutory regulation there, so that anyone can just use the 

language and be the wolf in sheep’s clothing. 

And I am certainly not denigrating the insurance profession overall. But again, there is a difference in our regulatory standard and 

professional standard. There is not a fiduciary standard in place for 

insurance. And therefore, I think Congress has a role. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Are you suggesting a special regulatory entity 

for defense personnel, as opposed to a more broadly regulated entity? 

Ms. JETTON. I am not necessarily making that case. We have had 

so little time to really consider the issue. But we would be happy 

to consider and make more comments. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you. 

32

Gentlemen, I just want to get to you for a second. Are you full 

of scoundrels in your industry? Or is this an aberration? 

Mr. KEATING. No, our industry is not full of scoundrels. But I disagree with this nice lady. If you are selling a product, you may almost have a fiduciary relationship to the person to whom you are 

selling the product. 

But let me say this, as you know, Congressman, bad facts frequently make bad law. We have to reflect, before we take action 

or propose action, that an 18-year-old in this country is an adult. 

An 18-year-old can serve in the military. An 18-year-old can enter 

into a personal property contract. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. They do not vote very often though, governor. 

Mr. KEATING. The same thing with real estate; the same thing 

with serving on a jury and sending somebody to their execution or 

to a prison term. So what we propose is to say, look, this is an unusual environment. 

What we ought to have is a full, complete and utterly impartial 

financial services seminar for military personnel, because this is a 

family decision—their retirement, their savings, these are matters 

of real interest to them. It obviously is of real interest to the military: to not permit its people to sign unknowingly on the dotted 

line at those kinds of events. If there is a bad apple—and there are 

bad doctors; there are bad lawyers; there are bad insurance salesmen it is important to have that information provided to the Department of Defense, and shared among insurance commissioners. 

There already is a system in place that can communicate, insurance commissioner to insurance commissioner, to all the agents 

and all the companies. So to bring together the regulators in an office at Defense and give the opportunity for base commanders to 

access that information so that they are not dealing with someone 

who has been booted off another base is readily available. I think 

it is rather simply handled. 

But I think we do not need to patronize people. We need to give 

them the very best information and not permit abusive practices on 

bases. 

Mr. BALLARD. Could I respond to one comment? It is factually 

and legally incorrect to say that sellers of life insurance have a fiduciary duty. They do not, never have. And Ms. Jetton is exactly 

right. 

And the product you describe, Chairman Baker, would have been 

a violation of that seller’s fiduciary duty. But because they are not 

subject to fiduciary duty, we have this issue in front of us today. 

Mr. KEATING. That is not true. 

Mr. BALLARD. We do not need to debate that. 

Chairman BAKER. No, we do not. We are down to about 5 minutes on the vote. With everyone’s tolerance, since there are two 

pending matters, I understand the second vote may now be a 15-

minute vote, we will stand in recess until 12:30 to accommodate everyone. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman BAKER. I would like to call this meeting of the Capital 

Markets Subcommittee back to order. We will certainly have members returning, as circumstances warrant. But in order not to delay 

33

our panel any longer, I wish to proceed in recognition of members 

for questions. 

Mr. Kanjorski had been previously recognized prior to our recess. 

Mr. Lucas would now be in order. 

Mr. LUCAS OF OKLAHOMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor Keating, you testified that ACLI had sat down with the 

GAO office to help them plan their investigation into the accusations leveled by all sides concerning military insurance sales. Could 

you describe to the committee a little bit the nature of some of 

those accusations and the inappropriate practices and then what 

ACLI’s suggestions were to the GAO in regards to that? 

Mr. KEATING. Congressman Lucas, as I alluded to in my formal 

testimony, I came aboard just after the first of last year, mid-January. And one of the first letters I wrote was to the Department of 

Defense after we heard about allegations of oppressive sales practices and inappropriate products being sold, asking for a meeting 

with the Department of Defense. 

That meeting was declined. In the course of the inquiries from 

GAO, we have taken up with them these issues, as recently we did 

with the Department of Defense in a meeting with them. We have 

subsequently had a meeting with officials from the Department of 

Defense and taken the position that the answer must always be a 

regulatory scheme that works. 

And it is very difficult if a state insurance commissioner who has 

responsibility over life insurance sales does not know about an accusation. It is very difficult for that insurance commissioner to take 

action against either the company or the agent. 

It is particularly difficult for the company if they do not know 

that there is a problem on a base with a particular agent. So with 

the GAO, as well as with the Department of Defense, our position 

has consistently been a clearing house at DOD, with access to the 

computerized information of all the agents and companies in the 

country. 

Let’s say an agent acts improperly at, let’s say, Fort Sill in Oklahoma. That individual should not be able to just go on to Fort 

Lewis, Washington and begin business as usual because his name, 

the fact that he has been excluded from the base, would be in this 

national system, accessible by the Department of Defense, by state 

insurance regulators. And not only can action be taken by the department in the barring of that individual, but also the license can 

be suspended by the insurance commissioner. 

The problem has been, as I indicated, there really has been no 

communication or very little communication. And we are representing the companies involved—some 400 life companies, most 

of whom do not do business, by the way, on military bases. 

So we are very anxious and insistent that there be communication between the Department of Defense and the state insurance 

regulators, a consistent system of sharing information and taking 

action when those bad apples and actors do surface. 

Mr. LUCAS OF OKLAHOMA. Understood. And clearly, in that kind 

of a scheme, situation, regulatory regime, where the state insurance commissioners were involved in the regulatory process, if 

there was a problem with a company, with an agent, it would be 

possible for the insurance regulators surely to report to the base 

34

commanders that those entities are no longer licensed to do business in that state, I would think. 

In the long haul, governor, do you think that this is a situation 

that, granted it is a limited number of companies perhaps that specialize in this kind of a business, but is it a situation, based on 

your insights, you think, that has been a problem perhaps at a 

number of military bases across the country, as opposed to just a 

limited number of isolated incidents? 

Mr. KEATING. I only know, Congressman, anecdotally, because 

again there has not been a universal sharing of accusations and information. But certainly the information provided in the New York 

Times pieces would suggest there were more than just a few bases 

involved. 

And that is why the timeliness and the urgency of action is upon 

us. And to the extent that we can make sure that bad actors are 

identified and removed by the companies, to the extent we can 

make sure that bad actors are identified and either fined or removed by insurance commissioners, we need to do that. 

And as you well know, as long as life and casualty and medical 

insurance are state regulated, you are going to have a wide variety 

of interest in these things. But if the Department of Defense can 

collate the information and share it with the insurance commissioners and become the bully pulpit to insist that action is taken 

in a public way, I think you are going to see this problem moderate 

very dramatically and very quickly. 

Mr. LUCAS OF OKLAHOMA. Thank you. 

Specialist Conger, thinking back to the information that was 

made available to you, how much time was spent by anyone for 

that matter discussing the various options that could be available 

to you, all the way from buying savings bonds on down to not participating in things. How much time would you say, in your military experience, was actually devoted to this kind of information 

providing? Guesstimate? 

Mr. CONGER. Congressman, I would say probably about three 

hours. There was a discussion on investing money into mutual 

funds and the options. There really were not any other options that 

they gave us. 

They kind of hurried us up in this situation and never really 

gave us any options or anything. 

Mr. LUCAS OF OKLAHOMA. Thank you, Specialist. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Scott, did you have questions? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We are missing somebody at this hearing and that is the military. We have private insurance companies who are being given access to U.S. military bases, to sell young Americans in uniform expensive insurance that they do not need. And they are charging our 

soldiers high fees for investments that have been disgraced and 

outlawed in the civilian market. 

And because these insurance salesmen have been given the military’s permission to sell such products on their bases, many of our 

soldiers, like Specialist Conger, believe the products have their 

commander’s stamp of approval. And we are having this hearing to 

35

come to a way to fix this problem. And we do not have a representative of the Pentagon or the military here. 

And I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if you could share with 

us: were they invited? Is there any reason why they are not here? 

I do believe that they are an important part of getting to the core 

of this issue. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman BAKER. I am sorry, I was not listening. 

Mr. SCOTT. My question was: did we invite the military here? I 

was very concerned that we have a problem that expressly happens 

in an environment that the military controls, been happening for 

30 years, being perpetrated by agents who themselves are retired 

military and by companies on whose boards the military is highly 

represented. And here we are, trying to come to a solution to this 

and the military and the Pentagon is not here to answer questions 

before this committee. 

And I wanted to know: were they invited? And if they were, why 

did they not come? And certainly, I would certainly want to make 

the case that before we move further to try to come up with answers to a problem, we certainly need the input of the defense and 

the Pentagon here to help us with this. 

Chairman BAKER. I certainly understand the gentleman’s concerns. The military would be the second tier level of concern, at 

least from my perspective at this time. 

This is a free enterprise product, marketed through the approval 

or permission of the military administrations who allow a product 

to be brought to the attention of enlisted personnel for the enlisted 

personnel to be able to make independent financial decisions. However, it is clear to me, given the manner by which the marketing 

was conducted through retired officers to enlisted personnel in 

happy hour environments, that it was not a judgmental circumstance in which personnel could exercise independent financial 

judgments. 

Therefore, at the appropriate time, I assure the gentleman that 

we shall engage military personnel responsible for authorization to 

explain to us their review processes. Now military personnel who 

allow private vendors on to military bases can not always be held 

accountable for unprofessional conduct. 

If a private vendor was to come on to a military base with vending machines that took quarters on every occasion, that would not 

necessarily be an oversight of military personnel. However, given 

the longstanding practice, the excessive charges, the limited benefit, the reported incidences in which individuals reported their unwillingness to participate, there will be a requirement to have some 

thorough explanation as to how this practice and methodology was 

continued on such a longstanding basis. 

But to the military’s defense today, they were not extended an 

invitation to appear. We, rather, chose to focus on the financial aspects as a consumer product first. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, Mr. Chairman. I certainly look forward to an 

opportunity, at the appropriate time, that I might be able to ask 

the military and the Defense Department. 

Chairman BAKER. Oh, without question, the gentleman will reserve that right. 

36

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask Mr. Bullard, in your opinion, can you explain to me how contractual mutual fund plans are better suited 

for the military when it is almost non-existent in the civilian market? And are these insurance products commonly sold by other 

firms? 

Mr. BULLARD. The contractual plans you are talking about, I assume are the ones through which you can charge up to the 9 percent sales load and deduct the sales load, up to 50 percent of each 

contribution for the first couple of years. And those are not sold in 

the civilian marketplace simply because they cannot compete with 

other mutual fund products. 

In the civilian marketplace, you have an open marketplace. 

There is a great deal of competition and information out there. And 

it is for that reason only are periodic payments that sell mutual 

funds not sold, but even mutual funds competing for business set 

their sales loads at levels that are substantially below what is allowed by the NASD. 

So the obvious explanation is competition, which leads me to look 

at the military base environment and, not surprisingly, find a lot 

of examples of why the markets are not working efficiently. You 

have a command structure, which lends itself to officers and enlisted personnel who are vulnerable to influence by senior officers, 

senior retired officers. 

You have an environment where you have a selective group of 

persons who have access, thereby creating high barriers of entry to 

that market. So there are a lot of market reasons why this is probably a fairly inefficient market and additional regulatory scrutiny 

is needed. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. 

Governor Keating, let me ask you this. Are you familiar with 

First Command Financial Planning? 

Mr. KEATING. Only from the news reports. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Only from the news reports? 

Mr. KEATING. Yes. They are not a member of our association. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about American Amicable Life Insurance Company? 

Mr. KEATING. From the news reports as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. They are not a part of your organization? 

Mr. KEATING. They are. 

Mr. SCOTT. They are? 

Mr. KEATING. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Pioneer American Insurance Company? 

Mr. KEATING. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. A part of, I think, our task here is, as I see it from 

the enterprise standpoint and our oversight of coming up with legislation, is: how do we get at the bad actors here? And can you 

share with me your experiences with trying to get any assistance 

on this? 

And secondly, and perhaps Mr. Woods too with his organization 

that comes I with the insurance, were there any bureaucratic barriers in your way? And if you could give to me what was the genesis of the GAO investigation? 

37

Mr. KEATING. Well maybe Mr. Woods can comment about the 

GAO investigation. But I can say that when it came to my attention—and ACLI represents about 400 life insurance companies, 

most of whom do not do any sales on military bases—but this was 

a challenge to our franchise, the ethics and integrity of the institution of life insurance and life products. 

So I contacted by letter the Defense Department and asked for 

a meeting so we could discuss: what can we do to make sure that 

bad actors and bad companies do not misbehave on military bases 

and take advantage of young and frequently uninformed military 

servicemen and women? Their information back, their response 

back was, ‘‘We cannot meet with you.’’

Now as a result of the passage of some months and even before 

the New York Times article appeared and some additional efforts 

to try to have them meet with us, we did meet with them. We explained that it was very difficult for a company to know if they 

have a bad agent if the base commander and/or the Department of 

Defense do not share that information. 

And the response back was, ‘‘Well, FOIA.’’ And you know, a lot 

of things in the FOIA exchange are redacted. It is difficult to find 

out: what did go on here? Can I really fire this person? 

So that is the reason we have been insistent, Congressman, from 

the start, that there be transparency—very much like the Emanuel 

bill, quite truthfully—that there be transparency, full sharing of information and a proactive role on the part of the Department of Defense to make sure that the agents and the companies doing business—because banks, securities firms and life companies have been 

on bases for many, many years and they are, in fact, not abusing, 

and not taking advantage of servicepeople. 

This is a $3.5 trillion industry, an extraordinarily important industry to America, to our economic vitality and success. We want 

to make sure that only good men and women are in it and particularly only good men and women are on military bases. 

So I think, from my standpoint, the thing that was frustrating 

to me was on the Department of Defense’s reaction. It was not as 

urgent as it was to us. But again, we represent the industry. And 

we felt great urgency to address this problem. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you think that these companies that I mentioned, 

that throughout this whole investigation or research we have been 

doing, appear to be repeat offenders of this, like Amicable, First 

Command, those companies? Do you think companies themselves 

who engage in this should be banned from the military bases? 

Or do you see this in terms of bad actors, as rogue agents? Do 

you see them doing it on their own? I mean, it is hard to think 

that——

Mr. KEATING. Again, Congressman, all I know is anecdotal. And 

the companies or several companies are here to answer your specific questions about your specific concerns about conduct, practices 

or sales. 

But the reality is there is authority in every state to take action 

against bad companies and bad agents. And just as I indicated, we 

have bad lawyers, bad doctors, bad siding salesmen in this country. 

And you need—we need—to take action against them. 

38

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Scott, we have been quite liberal, but you 

are well over your time. 

Mr. SCOTT. And I appreciate your generosity, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Emanuel? 

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think what would be helpful is, rather than mixing up mutual 

funds or contractual mutual funds with life insurance products, we 

kind of separate the two. And even though the legislation puts the 

two together, there are actually a different set of problems and a 

different set of solutions, number one. 

And I think on the contractual plans, what I find interesting 

through—and I will make one observation, at least as I understand 

what you said, Mercer, and if I got it wrong, I apologize for the 

characterization—is that there is not enough of a marketplace, so 

you had one product driving through. 

And I think, on the insurance side, you have in a weird way too 

much competition and not enough information. And therefore, people are buying the wrong products. So they have different problems 

associated with them. That is number one. 

On the contractual mutual funds, given this product is not in the 

civilian market and given it is not part of the general public, we 

should approach and try to wean it out in the same way—not wean 

it out, either end it and eliminate it, as my legislation calls for, or 

give a clear warning to all the men and women in uniform of how 

this product is perceived by the SEC, so it is unambiguous in the 

understanding for any consumer. 

So if they want to buy it, there is what I call a surgeon general 

label on it from the SEC. ‘‘This is absolutely looked down upon, 

frowned upon. We do not think this product is good.’’

Now I think we should ban it. But if, for whatever reason, we 

cannot get ourselves, like the prior Congresses, to ban it, put a 

clear warning on it with all the red, flashing lights so everybody 

knows what that is. 

And then maybe we should deal and look at further, as people 

want to look at mutual funds or other types of investment vehicles, 

of how we can get those products out. 

But the learning lesson on the insurance side is: one, although 

the Defense Department seems to come for some criticism, I would 

like to come to at least one note of defense. We actually provide a 

product, the $250,000 life insurance product, that is a good product 

at very cost-effective basis. 

And what should be done—since nobody else will tout my legislation, I will do it—is raise that ceiling to $500,000. I do not think 

the insurance industry would have a problem if the government 

was doing that. 

And give people the option of $250,000 or whatever other 

breakpoints they want to make, but up to $500,000. Ninety-six percent of all people in uniform are in that insurance product, as I 

think I got that statistic right. 

And then allow people in the private insurance industry to sell 

different products, niche products. So obviously you would tailor 

these on a customer-by-customer basis and inform them, which 

leads me to my question to Governor Keating. 

39

What do you think is the knowledge basis—and again, you are 

not on the base knowing, but through your associated firms—the 

knowledge basis on some of the servicemen and women? If one 

product is being sold something like a savings plan, but it is really 

a life insurance policy, et cetera, what is the knowledge basis that 

they know of what they are buying and what they are purchasing? 

What is the knowledge basis of what they think they need going 

in? And what can we do? 

We have a general public problem of information, knowledge, et 

cetera. They are not there to be trained on financial literacy. That 

is not what they are there for. 

So what can we do to make this easier? They can do what they 

need to do for themselves and their family? What knowledge basis 

do they have? 

And then I have one other statement after that. 

Mr. KEATING. Congressman, many years ago, when I became an 

FBI agent, we had a session in the course of our training about retirement and savings and all those things. But we were 22 to 25, 

27 years old. And we did not care about it. 

So everybody sat and listened. But how much really was absorbed was anybody’s guess; probably not very much. Perhaps people who had children and families absorbed more than those of us 

who were single. 

I think a similar challenge exists with respect to military families and military singles. The reality is that the military is a family, just like in my service in the Bureau, it was a family. 

And they cared about us to make sure that if anything happened 

to us, our families were taken care of. And we should have listened 

more. 

And in their case, they had a very transparent, very broad, very 

open information. Here are the things you need to think about; 

here are some of the solutions out there. 

But in the FBI no one signed on the dotted line. And there was 

not a salesman who made the presentation. It was a series of professionals that did not try to sell us anything. 

And I think to take, like Specialist Conger’s example, enlisted 

men, single people, men and women with families and say, okay, 

you have so many dollars in pay. You can buy a little bit more insurance, a lot more, or another $250,000. You can buy even more 

coverage than that, a half a million dollars worth. 

But if you do not have any kids, you probably do not need that. 

If you have children, you probably need that coverage or perhaps 

more. 

Here are some thoughts that you need, with respect to mutual 

funds or retirement products or savings products to best secure you 

and your family’s security. Openness, transparency, and full information about the product. Then let adults make decisions for themselves and not be bludgeoned or coerced into a decision by a superior officer or a superior enlisted man. 

If you can do that—and I think it can be done—then I think you 

virtually solve the problem. 

Mr. EMANUEL. I think that I am sympathetic to your case as a 

27-year old young enlisted in the FBI. My wife accuses me of havVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:31 Jan 07, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\97450.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
40

ing the adult version of ADD. I am sympathetic to that attention 

and what people had. 

I do think one of the things that we can do in this legislation is 

clarify the role of the Defense Department, the commanders on the 

base, et cetera, so it does not look like they are blessing, encouraging or directing enlistees to sign up for something. So as the 

hosts, we may be sending an ambiguous if not—I do not want to 

say duplicitous, that is not exactly the right word—a message that 

should not be sent by encouraging people. 

I do think one of the solutions is allowing the government to offer more life insurance than the $250,000 cap. That would be an opportunity so those who think they need more can, purchase more. 

They do it at a very cost effective basis. 

The second thing we need to do at the Defense Department is set 

some clear guidelines so they do not write their own rules that give 

ambiguous messages to the enlistees of what they are or are not 

doing, are or are not saying. But the most important thing is to get 

to the contractual mutual funds and not allow $15 billion to exist. 

And one last thing is then on the variable, as my legislation does, 

it grandfathers those in so we do not hold people and harm them 

in the process of making a transition. 

Mr. KEATING. Congressman, looking at your proposals only of 

course in very summary form, those make a lot of sense. Congressman Burns’ bill makes a lot of sense: to provide a regulatory apparatus, a sharing of information and a role for the Department of 

Defense to make sure that servicemen and women are not taken 

advantage of. 

And particularly, I believe in your bill, where you literally sign 

a statement that there is no requirement that you buy a certain 

product or that there is no encouragement that a particular product be purchased. And I think that is sound public policy. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Just because it is sensible, we would not want 

that to get in the way. 

[Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Emanuel. 

Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the input 

from the panel. 

We have a tough challenge and a difficult problem. Let me start 

first with Specialist Conger. Thank you for your service. Thank you 

for being a part of the 82nd Airborne. I spent a little bit of time 

at Fort Bragg and crawled around those hills a bit. 

Can you give me—just a simple question—the allotment that you 

signed, how much per month did you have withdrawn? 

Mr. CONGER. Congressman, I had $100 withdrawn a month. 

Mr. BURNS. Was that fairly typical? 

Mr. CONGER. Just about everybody in my platoon that signed up 

for it had about the same amount of money. 

Mr. BURNS. Just about everybody? 

Mr. CONGER. About 45 percent of everybody in my platoon. 

Mr. BURNS. Okay. And how long was that allotment withheld? 

Mr. CONGER. I would say——

Mr. BURNS. Eighteen months? 

41

Mr. CONGER. I believe about 18 months. 

Mr. BURNS. And again, the challenge that we face is when you 

agree to have your pay reduced and diverted, you were unfortunately not aware of what that was going for. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. CONGER. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. BURNS. Okay. 

Ms. Jetton, in your testimony, one of the statements that you 

made is that contractual plans are seldom—seldom—the best investment product for these members of the military. Can you identify times when perhaps they would be? 

Ms. JETTON. I think the positive that those plans are trying to 

address can be accomplished in other ways more efficiently; and 

that is, encouraging people to invest over a long period of time, to 

save money. And that is a wonderful thing to encourage. 

But it is not necessary to encourage it at such a cost in the early 

years when folks are struggling to meet other financial demands. 

In any mutual fund you might purchase, mutual fund companies 

may at no additional cost have automatic drafts withdrawn from 

one’s checking account. 

So very often in our practice, we will encourage an individual to 

do a savings plan of $100, $200, whatever they can afford, on a regular basis. They can turn that spigot on and off at any time with 

no consequences. And again, they will pay a lower sales charge of 

typically no more five, at most 6.5, percent, only withdrawn as they 

make those contributions. 

So I really cannot think of a time when there is not a better alternative that can accomplish the goals that these are apparently 

designed to address. 

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the certified financial planner’s willingness to help in the education process, the counseling process. As an 

individual, if I were to ask you to evaluate my financial position 

and develop a plan for me, what kind of a challenge would that be? 

And how much time or how many dollars might that require? 

Ms. JETTON. Congressman, it would depend. Different financial 

planners work in different niches. And we tend to work with middle class. We have a structure where we may work on an hourly 

basis with those who are starting out and charge $100 an hour, 

just for advice. 

We have a signed engagement that every client would sign, that 

is basically outlining the scope of the relationship. In other words, 

it would say: this is how I am compensated. You do not have to buy 

anything from me. 

But if you do, this is how I might be compensated. If I am working with you hourly, we can only cover so much, so be warned that 

I may not have a chance to address these issues. 

So it is very clearly defined. And that is one of the steps of the 

financial planning process that all certified financial planners must 

abide by, is first of all outlining the scope. 

I might also work in an engagement that is an annual fee, where 

it is almost carte blanche service for an individual. Other financial 

planners may receive commission as a way to be compensated for 

their advice, but they make that very clear. 

42

I guess the point I would make here is that full advance disclosure is a requirement. And that disclosure includes specifically how 

you are compensated. 

So if it is a life insurance contract, exactly how much percentage. 

If it is a term policy, it is not unusual in the first year to be paid 

90 percent of the first year’s premium. 

But in the case of a certified financial planner, that has to be disclosed. The actual dollar amounts and how you will be compensated 

must always be disclosed in advance of any engagement. 

Mr. BURNS. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Bullard, in your testimony, you were comparing maybe the 

Investment Company Act with the statutory Section 27 requirements versus the NASD Rule 2830. Is the solution to adopt NASD 

Rule 2830? 

Mr. BULLARD. Well, I think the problem that we have with periodic payment plans is that they are periodic, it is that you can accelerate the payments, as Ms. Jetton was talking about. And it is 

the Investment Company Act that expressly authorizes that. 

And it is for that reason, if I were the NASD, I would not want 

to touch the regulation of that issue because of the obvious conflict 

with federal law. So by repealing that provision, what you would 

do is you would let the NASD step in and apply the same kind of 

analysis they apply to mutual funds and probably arrive at the 

same results, which is to have similar regulation. 

So I think it would be preferable, instead of Congress trying to 

continue to be in the business of trying to regulate with specificity 

the exact charges that can be imposed on a product, which is not 

what I think Congress is best at, instead to let the self-regulatory 

organization that knows the product well, is down there at the 

grass roots level, to take on that responsibility, which really should 

have been done back in the 1970s when it took on responsibility 

for mutual funds. 

Mr. BURNS. Should contractual plans be eliminated? 

Mr. BULLARD. No. I think that if contractual plan means the 

ability to sign a contract whereby you would have an amount deducted on a periodic basis and commit to that, that is a wonderful 

product. That is a great thing and is ideally suited for someone like 

Specialist Conger. 

The problem is if he put his $100 a month in a mutual fund that 

was under the kind of sales load I described, they take $50 out of 

that $100 and put it in the broker’s pocket. And he only gets $50 

invested. 

If he invested in a mutual fund with a 1 percent 12b1-fee, he 

would pay seven cents instead of $50. 

Mr. BURNS. Right. Specialist Conger unfortunately was not involved in a contractual plan. 

Is that correct, Specialist? You were involved with a product that 

supposedly was a mutual fund, but in reality was an insurance policy. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. CONGER. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. BURNS. And the value, the face value of the insurance policy was? For that $100 a month, you finally got a copy of it after repeated attempts. But the face value was, do you recall? 

Mr. CONGER. Around $2,000, Congressman. 

43

Mr. BURNS. Wow. Okay. Now I think we have two problems and 

we are just trying to differentiate. But if I understand, Mr. Bullard, 

correctly, you feel that the NASD Rule 2830, if it were allowed to 

be appropriately applied, could help the problem? 

Mr. BULLARD. Right. I imagine that what the NASD would do 

would be to eliminate acceleration of payments and subject the 

sales holds on period payment plans to the same 8.5 outside limit 

and the other provisions as well. 

Mr. BURNS. Okay, thank you. 

I appreciate NAIFA and ACLI’s input. And I appreciate their 

willingness to work with the committee and the Congress in helping resolve this problem because I think we all share the same 

goal. 

We want to make sure that our men and women in uniform and 

that serve our nation receive the highest quality financial products 

and the best investment advice and the best insurance advice. And 

to my good friend, Mr. Emanuel, I am delighted to know that his 

ideas are well received. And we will work together to find opportunities to craft legislation. 

This committee has been exceptionally helpful in not only providing the hearing, but in addressing the issue that has, for years, 

been unfortunately ignored. And we do have some challenges in the 

Department of Defense. And I do agree that we need some kind of 

a mechanism for the monitoring and reporting and management of 

those who might abuse their privileges on one base, to make sure 

that they do not just go to a different base or go to a foreign installation. 

So I think all of those things are challenges that we can address 

within the legislation that I have proposed or within the legislation 

that will come out of the discussions we are having today and other 

members’ input. And I thank the chairman for the opportunity to 

be here and yield back. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. There being no further 

members for questions for this panel, I want to express to each of 

you my appreciation for your patience and participation today. It 

has been most helpful. 

The hearing today is certainly not the conclusion of our work on 

this matter. But your testimony has been most helpful in taking us 

to the next step. 

The committee does reserve the right to have additional questions forwarded to each witness within an additional 5 days. Thank 

you very much. And this panel is dismissed. 

Mr. CONGER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. I would like at this time to proceed with our 

second panel. We have appearing with us today: Mr. Lamar C. 

Smith, chairman and chief executive officer, First Command Financial Planning, Incorporated; and Mr. Joe W. Dunlap, executive vice 

president, operations, American Amicable Life Insurance Company 

of Texas. 

And I do wish to extend to you my appreciation for your willingness to appear. Others were asked to come today and had scheduling conflicts. 

Under our normal committee procedures, you are encouraged to 

make your statements within a five-minute period. In light of the 

44

number of members actually participating at this time, certainly 

liberties will be given on that. But your full statement will be made 

part of the official record. 

Mr. Smith, please proceed as you wish. 

STATEMENT OF LAMAR C. SMITH, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE, FIRST COMMAND FINANCIAL PLANNING, 

INC. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Baker. I am Lamar Smith, 

chairman and chief executive officer of First Command Financial 

Planning. It is my privilege to lead this 45-year-old company, which 

is 100 percent employee-owned. I have been with the company for 

29 years and served at most levels within the company. 

We are the largest provider of financial plans to the military 

families in the leadership ranks. We currently serve 305,000 client 

families including 129,000 who are still on active duty. We only 

recommend products offered by the leading insurance and investment companies. 

I would like to address three issues in my statement today. First, 

I want to correct certain misimpressions about First Command. 

These misimpressions have been continued here this morning in 

the testimony and in the questions. 

First Command is not the company recently portrayed in the 

media. In fact, First Command has been a leading voice for reform 

and improvements within our industry. And we renew that call 

today. 

Therefore, in my second point, I would like to highlight four reform recommendations that we detail on pages five and six of our 

written statement. Several of these proposals are extensions of recommendations we presented last year at a Defense Department 

public forum. 

Third, I want to comment on the systematic investment product 

known as ‘‘contractual plans,’’ which is a subject of today’s hearing. 

Please allow me to commend the members of the committee for investigating sales practices that target junior enlisted 

servicemembers with questionable financial products. 

At the same time, let me take a moment to ensure there is no 

further misunderstanding about First Command, information 

which is outlined in greater detail on pages two and three of my 

written statement. 

Please listen carefully. 

First Command does not solicit business from junior enlisted 

servicemembers. We serve the military’s leadership ranks of senior 

sergeants and petty officers, warrant officers and commissioned officers of all grades, including the flag ranks. 

Unfortunately, the recent press reports confused this point. And 

there has been a great deal of confusion in the marketplace and 

this morning in this hearing. And I call on members of the press 

who are here present to straighten out that misunderstanding in 

any reports going forward. 

Further, First Command does not recommend life insurance for 

savings or investment purposes. First Command does not sell at 

mandatory formations. 

45

We are honored, as the market leader, with a 20 percent market 

share. Further, 90 percent of our clients recently surveyed said 

they would recommend us to their peers. 

We take our mission as a company seriously, serving those who 

serve all of us in the defense of freedom and democracy. Keeping 

faith with this goal is our highest priority. That is why, as detailed 

in my written statement, we are proposing the following four recommendations to help address some of the matters before this 

panel. 

One idea: require junior enlisted personnel to meet with a specially trained independent counselor from their installation prior to 

enrolling in a financial product affecting their pay. Secondly, create 

a centralized DOD registry of agents and the companies that they 

represent to identify trends and any unscrupulous practitioners. 

Thirdly, require companies to provide lapse rate date, which refers to the rate at which purchasers on average terminate a given 

financial product. A low lapse rate indicates the marketplace values a product and receives a benefit from it. A high lapse rate indicates the contrary. 

Concerning contractual plans, we support extending the period of 

time from 18 to 36 months in which a purchaser can terminate a 

plan and receive a substantial refund of their sales charges. Further, the portion of the refund should be increased. 

This brings me to my final point, a further word on contractual 

plans. These plans are only recommended to investors who have 

long-term goals for wealth accumulation, such as most of our clients, who will likely enjoy many years of steady employment. 

Critics have implied that contractual plan customers are somehow locked into these plans. No one is locked into them. The contractual plan purchaser can terminate his plan at any time. 

Since we are here to seek ways to protect and serve military families, I would like to read a few passages from letters we have received from our clients very recently. 

First letter, just a passage, that is written by a military wife: ‘‘I 

firmly believe in their systematic programs for making payments 

to my investments. If they had not made it so easy to do my investments through systematic monthly payments, I would not likely 

have any kind of retirement plan.’’

A passage from a second letter: ‘‘Looking back over the 11 years 

of our association with First Command, Frank and I have moved 

from being essentially newlyweds with no plan for our financial future to now. Frank is a colonel approaching retirement. And we are 

within a few years of complete financial independence.’’

‘‘It is amazing how far we have come in little more than a decade. We both consider the discipline required by our systematic investment plan as the key to that remarkable progress.’’

Another letter: ‘‘I have been so pleased with the programs that 

First Command developed for me that I referred both my sons to 

them. Both boys are in their mid-20s and have started systematic 

investment plans recommended by First Command, so they too can 

be financially prepared for retirement.’’

And lastly: ‘‘In the 12 years we have been clients, we have been 

relocated nine times.’’ That is very typical, by the way, in today’s 

military. ‘‘Always, it has been a smooth transition with First ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:31 Jan 07, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\97450.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
46

mand. And we have never been without a representative to help us 

answer questions.’’

‘‘We believe that it is a great company. And we are thankful for 

their guidance and support.’’

We believe these statements are common among our clients. I do 

look forward to answering your questions. And I want the distinguished members of this panel to know that First Command stands 

ready to work with you and to support whatever course of action 

Congress takes. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Lamar C. Smith can be found on 

page 129 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Dunlap, proceed at your leisure. 

STATEMENT OF JOE W. DUNLAP, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS, AMERICAN AMICABLE LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF TEXAS 

Mr. DUNLAP. Chairman Baker and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. My name is Joe Dunlap. And I am here on behalf of 

the American Amicable Life Insurance Company. 

I have worked at American Amicable for 26 years and have 

served as executive vice president of operations for the past 1.5 

years. Prior to that, I served as vice president of policy administration for 18 years. 

On behalf of American Amicable, I would like to commend the 

committee for holding this hearing today. We believe that our company—and, more importantly, our customers—benefit when all 

salespeople and agents from all companies selling financial and insurance products and services comply with the applicable rules and 

regulations. 

We also support all reasonable efforts that can be made to provide additional financial education opportunities to military personnel to help them make informed financial decisions for themselves and their families. 

We believe that those who have a high level of understanding 

about our products and the other financial and investment products sold within the military bases will benefit substantially. 

On behalf of American Amicable, I also want to commend Representative Burns’ and Representative Emanuel’s legislative proposal and to say that we support the insurance provisions as we 

understand them today, including a stronger role for the state regulators in regard to on-base military sales. American Amicable does 

not sell the other investment products that are addressed in the 

proposed legislation 

Our company, American Amicable Life Insurance Company of 

Texas, dates back to 1910. Today, it is part of the American Amicable Group, a nationwide company that provides benefits and protection to over 180,000 policyholders. 

We sell life insurance. We do not sell mutual funds. 

The majority of our military business today is sold off-base. And 

one-third of our Horizon Life policyholders are civilians, not military. 

47

Over the past 20 years, the group has paid more than $428 million in death benefits across the full line of business. Last year 

alone, we paid $8.2 million in death claims on policies issued in the 

military market. 

To date, we have paid nearly $1.5 million to beneficiaries of 

servicemembers who unfortunately lost their lives in Iraq. We are 

proud of the service we provide to our customers, including many 

members of the U.S. military. But we are not proud of the conduct 

of the agents who sold our products at Fort Benning and Camp 

Pendleton in a manner totally inconsistent with our compliance 

policies. 

While those agents constitute a small percentage of the nearly 

3,000 independent agents who are authorized to sell our products, 

there is no excuse for their conduct. It is inconsistent not only with 

our standards and policies, but with the certifications we require 

our agents to sign, pledging compliance with all military, state and 

local regulations. 

I want to assure you that we take these matters very seriously 

and expended a considerable amount of time, resources and effort 

to investigate these matters and take corrective action, to include 

terminating the agents that were involved, terminating their contracts, offering full refunds to all affected policyholders, developing 

new and improved compliance programs, including a new agent 

audit system that includes surprise inspections of field agent offices 

that we believe will make us an industry leader in compliance. 

And further, we are working with outside counsel today on a 

companywide investigation of agent compliance. We do not want a 

single member of our armed forces to feel taken advantage of by 

our products or by the agents who sell them. 

But I want to make clear that we believe our Horizon Life policy, 

which we market to both military and civilians, is a strong product. 

It offers benefits to our military policyholders, such as the ability 

to accumulate cash with no load whatsoever, not provided by the 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance subsidized by DOD. 

I want to emphasize that we market Horizon Life as a supplement to, not a replacement for, SGLI. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for 

your time and attention today. We at American Amicable pride 

ourselves on our integrity. We have already taken corrective action 

regarding the incidents at Fort Benning and Camp Pendleton. And 

we will take any additional action that is warranted by our continuing investigation. 

We would be pleased to work with the committee to assist in the 

development of legislative measures to strengthen the financial 

education of our customers and to improve and better regulate the 

sales practices of companies who sell mutual funds, other investment vehicles, financial products and insurance policies on military 

installations. 

I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Joe W. Dunlap can be found on page 

92 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. I thank you both, gentlemen. You do come in 

to an environment where strong opinions are already established. 

48

And in that light, I have just a brief set of slides I want to show 

you. 

[The following information can be found on page 157 in the appendix.] 

They are going to bring you, because it is on the wall behind you 

and I do not want you to have to turn around, they will present 

you with a hand copy. This is just a typical Horizon Life presentation sheet, just promotional in nature. 

It is what the young man who was here earlier would have gotten, talking about the potential return for Horizon Life. And it is 

not really very descriptive of what the product is about. 

Next slide. This gives sort of the rates of return. You focus more 

on that annuity accumulation thing, where the annuity and the life 

policy benefits kind of get cloudy. 

If you read real close up at the top, then you can see that it is 

referencing a life policy. But the big things that catch the eye of 

someone is: ‘‘You give us your money.’’ As a matter of fact, that is 

the line below the box that has the big word ‘‘opportunity’’ in it. 

‘‘You provide the time,’’ meaning you stay alive. ‘‘You give us 

your money. And then we are going to take care of you.’’

And then those numbers in those blue boxes down there are very 

important. I will come back to that with some other additional 

data. I did not have time to get the chart prepared. 

Go to the next slide. And this is just a typical demographic so 

the committee has an understanding: 24; $30,000; ranking three 

and up; typical service time, 7 years. That is important for everybody to remember. 

Next slide. Now here is the thing that is perhaps the most striking. When you look at the Horizon Plan and your premium of $900 

and the death benefit of $20,950, contrasted with the militarily 

available program of $240 annual premium for a $250,000 government benefit, this is where we begin to question the value of that 

life product. 

And although it is supplemental to the military offering, why 

would most young people with few assets, few debts, headed to 

military service, concern themselves with coverage in excess of 

$250,000? I am not sure. But this helps to frame the problem in 

my mind as to the appropriateness of it. 

Next slide. This looks at it over the 7-year term. Now the reason 

for the 7-year term, its significance, is this is the timeframe over 

which the average military term lasts. 

So the typical retiree would have $4,945 paid in within the 

earned benefit of $20,950. You would have, in term premium paid 

into the government program, $1,680, with still the $250,000 coverage for that same period. 

Next slide. And this is sort of an annuity, which most of those 

young men do not really understand very well. What is extraordinary about it is that in year 1 and 2, you note that you are actually in a negative return rate position, which as I understand, if 

someone were to choose to leave, there are significant consequences 

to that. 

You do not get back to break even until just at year 2. And you 

track it on out all the way to the end and you are at about 3.75. 

49

That is also significant because there is a guaranteed effective rate 

return of 4 percent. 

But that is exclusive of sales and commission cost. So you are actually netting about 3.75, 3.8 percent, depending on the performance of the markets. 

That is it. And the reason why I just wanted to get those facts 

into the debate, when we go to Fidelity’s—this is the prospectus of 

a November 28, 2003, so I am using Fidelity’s data—and we look 

at the annualized 5-year rate of return for Fidelity Destiny I, it had 

an annualized 5-year rate of return of—20.27 percent. 

Now that was a rough period in the market. So we chose the 

S&P 500 index as a comparable, which is available through the 

thrift savings plans, which federal employees have and now military personnel have access to. 

They would have earned a paltry 1.13 percent, had they been in 

the TSP. But that is still a 21.5 percent improvement over the Fidelity Destiny I product. 

The facts are what trouble me here. It is that no matter how I 

come at this, who is it that designs the product and recommends 

that this be marketed? 

I am not alleging you gentlemen are devising the product and intentionally going out and selling young people things that they do 

not need. From your testimony, it is clear you believe you are, in 

fact, providing a service that otherwise would not be made available. 

But in the free market, if we had base commanders in the position to allow 20 companies on the base and had an insurance seminar and let people go around and pick what they wanted, I do not 

see how you survive in the comparison. 

I will state it another way. If you had the choice to buy your life product at a monthly premium of $75, which is what it works out 

to be, with a guaranteed $20,950 life benefit, versus a military 

product at $20 a month for a $250,000 life benefit, which one would 

you buy? 

Mr. DUNLAP. If I may, Mr. Chairman, can I explain or provide 

you comparisons? 

Chairman BAKER. Please. 

Mr. DUNLAP. Okay. As I said earlier, the Horizon Life product is 

absolutely not intended to replace Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. In fact, we think that SGLI is a very good product. And 

certainly, we do not encourage any soldier to drop that coverage. 

But to compare Horizon Life to Servicemembers’ Group Life is 

very much an apples and oranges comparison. And if I may, I 

would like to give you just a few additional provisions about Horizon Life that hopefully will serve to distinguish it from SGLI. 

Horizon Life is a combination of life insurance and an accumulation fund. It has two distinct components. But it always has these 

two components. 

There is a seven-pay, 20-year term life insurance coverage in the 

product. By seven-pay, I mean that the premiums for the life insurance are fully paid up in 7 years. 

Chairman BAKER. Isn’t that because most servicemen leave the 

service in 7 years, so you make sure you get your premium? 

Mr. DUNLAP. No, sir. We do not make that correlation. 

50

Chairman BAKER. Then why would you pick a 7-year period to 

get a repayment? Why would you do that? 

Mr. DUNLAP. I do not know. 

Chairman BAKER. I was not alleging you were doing it. I am just 

saying, I am looking at it across the desk and saying, ‘‘Okay, why 

would I pay up 7 years for a product that has a 20-year life span?′′

Virtually everything else you buy, the amortization schedule fits 

with the life of the product or close to it. 

Mr. DUNLAP. Mr. Chairman, the product is sold as a long-term 

commitment. It is emphasized to the purchaser that it is a longterm commitment. 

We have a building success program that we use in the majority 

of our field offices today. And it emphasizes just that. It does a 

needs-based analysis of the ability to pay. 

And it also emphasizes the fact that this plan is a long-term commitment. That is the way that it works to the benefit of the customer. 

Chairman BAKER. Now on your point about a needs-based ability 

to pay, are you suggesting that you sit down with an individual enlisted person, you get his financial condition and then you develop 

a product that fits his particular need? I thought this was pretty 

much a standard, boilerplate, $20,950 guaranteed death benefit. 

The annuity is on top of the life benefit. 

Mr. DUNLAP. Part of the building success program does analyze 

the existing debts and payments that the applicant has. 

Chairman BAKER. And what effect does that have on the premium or the benefit? 

Mr. DUNLAP. I would assume in some cases that the agent would 

sell either a higher or lower premium, depending upon the facts 

that he determined through that analysis. 

Chairman BAKER. So that you have a higher or lower benefit? I 

am not following. I thought we were looking at sort of a fixed package here. 

Mr. DUNLAP. Certainly, you can pay a higher premium and have 

a higher death benefit or a lower premium with a lower death benefit. 

If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, with a couple of other aspects 

of the product? As I was saying, the life insurance element is fully 

paid up after 7 years. At the end of the 20-year term period, all 

of the life insurance premiums are returned to the policyholder. 

In year 2, the premium reduces by 25 percent. And in years 2 

through 7, that premium is the amount payable. After 7 years, the 

life premiums are fully paid up. 

I should add that not only does this product not have a war 

clause, none of the products that our companies offer today have 

a war clause; in other words, a clause that would prevent the payment of a death benefit in the event that death occurred in a war 

zone or due to hostile combat. In fact, this product, the Horizon 

Life product, has a benefit that, after the policy has been in force 

1 year, the face amount is increased by 50 percent in the unfortunate event that death occurs in a combat zone. 

And in fact, we have had a number of those cases in Iraq, unfortunately. 

51

Chairman BAKER. I would hope that would be the case. My goodness, if you were selling a policy to an enlisted military personnel 

about to be deployed to an active theater and you would have an 

exclusion for war, there would be a reaction in this room that 

would be—let me put it this way, that did not help your defense. 

But please proceed. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Yes. 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Emanuel says ‘‘yes.’’

Mr. DUNLAP. The other element is the accumulation fund. The 

accumulation fund does not have any loads. You deposit money into 

the accumulation fund, it goes into the accumulation fund. There 

are no loads. 

There is a 5-percent withdrawal charge in the event that money 

is taken out during the first 10 years. After 10 years, there is no 

charge for withdrawals at all. 

The current rate on the money in the accumulation fund is 6.5 

percent. The guaranteed interest rate on the fund is 4 percent. And 

in fact, the historical average of the fund, I believe as I understand 

it, is approximately 10 percent. 

Chairman BAKER. I am sorry, I did not mean to cut you off. Do 

you have further comment? 

Mr. DUNLAP. I have gone to the FirstCommand.com Web page 

and looked at—well, this is called Cardinal Cornerstones. And in 

it, we discuss the availability of seminars. And in the explanation 

of the benefit, attending the seminar, it is described as ‘‘no get rich 

quick schemes.’’

That is the first thing that I found that is probably right on target. And I have reviewed all of the marketing information associated with the First Command product line. 

I still do not have a good understanding as to how you feel that 

the rate of return for the individual involved in your product is 

being well served, given the information we have been provided. 

And I want to give you every opportunity to make us understand 

that our impressions of performance are not accurate. Can you help 

me? 

Mr. SMITH. I would be pleased to, sir. Perhaps the best thing to 

do is to give you my personal example as a starting point. 

I was a 29-year-old Air Force captain in 1976, back from Vietnam, newlywed. My wife and I were trying to get ahead. We had 

bought an annuity that did not seem to be promising too much. 

We were saving a little money. We were not overspending. 

But we were trying to get a bead on what the long term looked 

like. And I received an invitation in the mail to one of those seminars. And it was interesting to me. So my wife and I attended. 

It was off the base. It was mostly my peers were in attendance. 

They were officers from the base in those days. And it was an informational and motivational seminar that gave me some ideas 

about how to structure a blueprint for success that would make 

sense. 

I was then given an opportunity to have a personal financial plan 

developed. A representative came to our home in those days; we 

now work in offices. 

He took a lot of information. He sat with my wife and I. We clarified our goals. We answered his questions. 

52

He went away. And a plan of recommendations came back. It addressed insurance. It was very needs-based, which is a term I have 

heard here today that we subscribe to greatly. 

The purpose of insurance is peace of mind and then actual benefit to survivors if death occurs. And I got a lot of peace of mind 

from knowing that my insurance was straightened out. 

It contained savings recommendations. Savings are appropriate 

for near-term planned spending needs and emergency purpose. And 

the savings component of a plan is very important to protect the 

investment component, which fluctuates in value if it is equitybased, if you are investing in stocks or stock portfolios, which fluctuate in value. And it contained a recommendation for a Fidelity 

Destiny contractual mutual fund plan, 1976. 

We bought it, $150 per month. That year, I made $22,700 as an 

Air Force captain on flying status. So $150 a month was not insignificant. 

Today, that plan has been face changed increased. And I am investing $1,000 per month in that plan, that same plan. I have 

missed 4 months in all of those years. 

And after that brief period of income interruption was completed, 

I made up that lost time. So essentially, I have not missed any lost 

time since 1976 in investing monthly. 

I have invested $179,000 out of pocket, real money, my money, 

into that plan. I can liquidate it today for $531,000. 

Chairman BAKER. Over what period of time? I am sorry. 

Mr. SMITH. Since 1976 to about 3 days ago when these calculations were done. 

Chairman BAKER. Have you ever taken that same set of figures 

and cranked it into, say, an S&P 500 rate of return or a no-load 

mutual fund return or any other program? 

Mr. SMITH. Certainly it can be compared. And I have not specifically done that, but that is easily done. 

Interestingly, my brokerage on that account is a hair under 3 

percent at that point. And that is not the only contractual mutual 

fund account my family and I own. 

We have six accounts. We have invested $438,000 out of pocket. 

And we have a bit over $1 million in there, including my only 

daughter’s college money. 

She is an entering freshman at Wake Forest. And her $120,000 

for that experience is sitting in her contractual plan in her name, 

having invested for, guess what? 18 years. 

Chairman BAKER. That has to be the trick, the fact that you 

were able to be in control of that fund for 18 years and not have 

her elect to make an early withdrawal. It is that point that is the 

key on which your plan works. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BAKER. It is a rare set of individuals who are going 

to put money at risk and leave it in the market for 18 years. In 

this case, it was your infant child in whom you made this appropriate decision. 

Almost investing in anything for your child over 18 years is better than no investment at all. My point is that the extraordinary 

front-end costs associated with participating in these plans has led 

53

the private market to all but eliminate them from offering to traditional civilians. 

If this is such a great product, why isn’t it offered to the civilian 

marketplace? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for the question, sir. Mr. Emanuel indi- cated that the contractual plan industry is about $15 billion. We 

have a hair over $9 billion invested from our clients. So it is being 

sold. 

We understand from the plan sponsors, the big mutual fund companies that offer these, that there are 106 brokers who have sold 

these plans in the last 2 years. Now we do sell the majority of 

them. But it is sold in the civilian world. 

Chairman BAKER. By majority, that would be like X percent? 

Mr. SMITH. We understand that we represent about 70 percent 

of the sales. 

Chairman BAKER. I thought it was closer to 90, but that is okay. 

Mr. SMITH. I am giving you the information that I have from 

them. 

Chairman BAKER. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH. Also, there is some confusion, I think, based on earlier comments, about them being illegal in the civilian world. Not 

true. They are specifically authorized by the federal law. 

And there is no different set of laws—federal laws—that pertain 

to military installations and military personnel. And your comment 

was that my infant daughter, who did not have any choice and I 

did it for her, had the discipline. 

Part of the answer to your question is that this product is ideally 

suited to people who have steady income, relative insulation from 

financial catastrophe, who have the ability to understand commitment and planning and to make plans for their long term and commit. 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Emanuel? 

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman. You would agree though, Mr. 

Smith, nobody said they were illegal. They were discouraged over 

a long period of time. Pretty much of the $15 billion that exists in contractual mutual 

funds, almost 90 percent, if not all, are in the military. Correct or 

incorrect? 

Mr. SMITH. That is not my understanding, sir. And I am not here 

to speak for the entire industry. I am here to answer questions 

about our firm. 

Mr. EMANUEL. That product has been discouraged by the SEC in 

the general public; is almost nonexistent as a product being sold in 

the general public; and of the $15 billion out of $7 trillion in the 

mutual fund industry, almost all of it is held by individuals in the 

military. And so you may not know that. But given that you sold 

70 percent of it and your company sells it, I find it hard to believe 

that you do not know that information. 

And if you have information to refute it, I would be interested. 

But right now, that is what is in the public knowledge, that basis. 

Mr. SMITH. I can speak to the $9-plus billion that we have. And 

it is mostly military. It is almost all military. 

Mr. EMANUEL. I appreciate that. 

Mr. SMITH. And I am not here to refute. 

54

Mr. EMANUEL. Okay. 

Can I ask another question? 

Chairman BAKER. Oh, please proceed. I have abused the time, so 

please go ahead. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Smith, to follow up, what percentage of your 

product mix is contractual mutual funds? And I have a follow-up 

question on how you compensate your agents. 

Mr. SMITH. Of the mutual fund operation, it is about 70 percent. 

Of the company at large, the revenues from contractual plans is 

about 20 percent. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Okay. But in the mutual fund area, it represents 

70 percent. And you represent about 70 or 80 percent of that market? 

Mr. SMITH. We understand 70 percent. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Okay. And almost all of it is held in the hands 

of people that are servicemen and women. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, in the leadership ranks. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Okay. Second, in the compensation, in that area 

for your agents, do you have an open architecture? How are they 

rewarded in the selling of contractual mutual funds versus other 

products? Do they get a higher fee? 

Mr. SMITH. The reason for the contractual plan——

Mr. EMANUEL. No, no. I asked you: how do you compensate your 

agents? 

Mr. SMITH. We compensate them from the first-year commission, 

which is where the commission is, which mirrors the effort to create the sale, to create the service, to create the investor. That is 

the piece that is missing, Mr. Emanuel. 

The big problem in this country is the savings rate. People are 

overspending. Credit card debt is going up; Personal bankruptcy. 

And those same features are represented in our all-voluntary military force. 

The problem is not that they have the wrong investments; it is 

that they are not saving. It is that they are running up their debts 

and they do not have a plan for the future. 

Our representatives spend time with these precious people and 

create a financial awakening. We help them get a spending plan 

on the table. 

Oftentimes, we will help them cut up their credit cards. And we 

help them become savers and investors. That is immensely valuable. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Smith, I do appreciate that. I agree with you 

that we need to have general savings in our society better than the 

consumption that goes on. But I asked you about the compensation 

of your agents. 

But I will take that answer as is. Let me ask you this question: 

is there any scenario that you can have that you can describe, or 

any circumstance that you can describe, in which your product—

the contractual mutual fund—is less expensive than a no-load savings? 

Mr. SMITH. The no-load implies or the typical term ‘‘no-load’’ 

means that there is no brokerage. That does not mean that there 

are not fees. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Okay. 

55

Mr. SMITH. There is an expense to operate the fund. It is an expense ratio that is attached to——

Mr. EMANUEL. We have spent a lot of time here on 12b1-fees and 

associated costs, so we are okay. 

Mr. SMITH. There are no-load funds with higher expense ratios, 

which when you do a hypothetical run out or an actual experience 

over a lot of years, where the total expenses charged against the 

portfolio actually exceed the expenses and the brokerage charged 

against the contractual plan. They do exist. 

Mr. EMANUEL. I am done. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Emanuel. I am waiting——

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you very much for being here. 

Chairman BAKER. I am waiting on Mr. Burns to return. And in 

that brief moment—I will hold my questions until Mr. Burns is 

done. 

Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. I apologize for having to step out. I had some constituents here that needed just a moment of time. 

I appreciate both of you being here. I know that sometimes criticisms have been public and heated and demanding. And I appreciate the fact that you are willing to come and you are willing to 

help and you are willing to work through this process and to find 

a solution that will be in the best interests of the clients that you 

have. 

I have just a number of questions that I want to try and ensure. 

And I know that the chairman and Mr. Emanuel covered these. 

But there is always the question, as we look at insurance. 

The young man who was with us in the first panel was from Fort 

Bragg and with the 82nd. Was he advised clearly about the SGLI 

availability, Mr. Dunlap? Do you know? 

Was he informed? Did he have full disclosure? Was there transparency in this transaction? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Congressman, no, I do not know that for sure. Obviously, there were some sales malpractices that occurred at Fort 

Benning. So I certainly do not know that for sure. 

I do know there was a mention, in fact a documented SGLI coverage amount of $250,000 on the Army insurance solicitation form 

that came in with the application. But no, I do not know if he was 

advised of that. No, sir. 

Mr. BURNS. Was it common practice for agents who may have 

marketed your products to present financial planning seminars in 

a group form? Was that typical or common practice? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Congressman, we do not think so. We are very disappointed in what happened at Fort Benning. And we are trying 

to take remedial actions to guard against those things happening 

again. 

Mr. BURNS. Were senior NCOs or junior officers compensated in 

any way to promote or provide access to an agent that might market your product? In other words, was there any form of remuneration or compensation to that drill sergeant who said, ‘‘This a good 

deal, you ought to sign up?′′ Mr. DUNLAP. Congressman, I do not know. I have seen the investigative file at Fort Benning, which is heavily, heavily redacted. 

And I do not recall any reference to that in the investigative file. 

56

Mr. BURNS. I think that is a tough question, but we have to—

the reality of life is certain agents were given certain access. And 

they violated standing DOD regulations. And the question is: what 

motivated those individuals to do that? 

And again, I want to thank you for accepting the challenge of 

dealing with the problem and recognizing it. Do you sell a term life 

policy that does not include an annuity? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Yes, we do have one pure term life policy that does 

not include any accumulation element to it. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. BURNS. And again, I think part of the challenge we face is 

that as these products were marketed, they were not always clearly 

defined. In many cases—or, I should say, it appears that at least 

in some cases—individuals signed up for things they did not know 

what they were signing up for. And that is disturbing. So I think 

disclosure and the distinction between insurance and investments. 

Now in your program, you refer to ‘‘the fund.’’ Could you expand 

a little bit on the fund? You say you do not sell mutual funds, so 

this is not an instrument that you would take these dollars and 

purchase Fidelity or some other mutual fund investment, I assume. 

What is the fund? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Each Horizon Life policy has two components: the 

life insurance component and the accumulation fund component. 

The accumulation fund is a no-load fund. There are no charges, no 

deductions for deposits made to the fund. 

The current interest rate on that fund is 6.5 percent. 

Mr. BURNS. Right. And the minimum guaranteed is four. I heard 

the testimony. Now my question is: what do you do with the 

money? Where do you invest it? 

Is this something that American Amicable invests? And is it not 

put into a particular mutual fund or a particular strategy, perhaps, 

as the chairman suggested, maybe an S&P 500 index or whatever? 

Mr. DUNLAP. No, it is the funds accumulated for the benefit of 

the customer. But there are certainly no separate investment objectives for money in the accumulation fund. 

Mr. BURNS. It just sits there? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Well, obviously——

Mr. BURNS. It has to be managed. My point is it has to be managed. 

Mr. DUNLAP. Obviously, the company has an investment portfolio, as all companies do. 

Mr. BURNS. Right. 

Mr. DUNLAP. And those funds are managed. 

Mr. BURNS. But the purchaser of the product would not in any 

way have control over how those funds are invested. Those are 

pretty much the determination by your investment specialists? 

Mr. DUNLAP. That is correct. 

Mr. BURNS. Okay. As we look at contractual plans, I think I appreciate the input and the testimony. And I have tried to understand the challenges associated with those. 

And again, we have talked about contractual plans being marketed in the military environment and not being marketed to the 

general public. Is there a specific reason for that? 

Mr. SMITH. I believe so, Mr. Burns. The financial services industry—the brokers and the financial planners—have limited services 

57

available and limited attention given to the beginning investor. 

And I think that what has happened with the contractual plan 

being less available in the civilian world is really a part of a bigger 

picture of the industry moving away from those who do not already 

have sums to invest accumulated. 

The typical broker and financial planner today that is brokeragebased is looking for people who generally have $100,000 or more 

of investable income and can supplement that with on the order of 

$10,000 a year going forward. It is uneconomic, as a matter of fact, 

to spend the time necessary to do a lot of financial planning, of the 

type Ms. Jetton talked about. 

She talked about a $100 per hour fee. Our representatives spend 

between nine and 17 hours with the clients and additional time on 

the case, working up the financial plans that we provide, which are 

comprehensive. 

And that is an expensive process. And if the client is going to get 

the benefit, if the consumer is going to get the benefit, somebody 

has to pay for it. And generally, that has to be the consumer. 

There are various models and ways for that to happen. Very few 

beginning investors, however, who are debt-ridden and stressed or 

they are just really getting started, even though they are in a position to get started financially, very few understand the benefit of 

the planning process and the advice given. 

The contractual plan is a great way for us to reach our military 

customers. The reason they are still sold in the military is, I think, 

First Command. We are committed to this market. 

They are generally beginning investors. And the contractual plan 

product is a model, which is legal, authorized in the federal law 

and which has worked well and which our clients appreciate and 

find benefit from. 

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Bullard in his testimony, I had asked him the 

question about the statutory Investment Company Act versus the 

NASD limits. If we adopted—if we repeal the statutory regulations 

on contractual plans and set NASD or allowed NASD to set the 

limits on sales loads, how does that affect contractual plans? 

How does that affect the marketing of contractual plans? And 

again, civilian versus military? 

Mr. SMITH. That is for me, sir? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir. Please. 

Mr. SMITH. I would believe that if Section 27 of the Investment 

Company Act of 1940, amended in 1970, is amended in the way 

that your bill calls for, that basically the contractual plan product 

would go away. 

Mr. BURNS. What if it was an NASD as opposed to ban? 

Mr. SMITH. It is difficult for me to predict how the regulators 

would view it. But it would be my estimation that the result would 

be about the same. 

Mr. BURNS. Okay. Mr. Bullard also made a comment in his testimony—and you may not have had a full copy of it—but in his comment, he said that the level of compensation paid to brokers who 

sell the periodic payment plans—I am quoting him—′′virtually 

assures that abusive sales practices will be more egregious and frequent than for other products.’’

58

How do you respond? He suggests that because of the front load, 

that abusive sales practices would be more egregious and more frequent. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, sir, at First Command, we enjoy the client relationships that I have already described in the leadership ranks of 

the military. These include 40 percent of the general officers on active duty today, in excess of about 30 percent of the commissioned 

and warrant officers and about 16 percent of the senior NCOs. 

These are people with judgment. These are people with education. These are people who are used to decisionmaking and taking lots of data. 

If they were being ill-served, they would speak up. And yet, if 

you review our complaint history, our consumer complaint history——

Mr. BURNS. It is very nominal. 

Mr. SMITH. There is very little. The people who know us best—

our clients—enjoy the relationship and feel that they benefit from 

it. And the numbers support that. 

Mr. BURNS. Let’s shift back to the insurance world for just a moment. In the agents’ environments, these are independent agents 

that are marketing products that you would provide. Is that correct, Mr. Dunlap? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Yes, they are independent. 

Mr. BURNS. They are independent agents. One of the suggestions 

that has been made today is a registry of bad apples. And again, 

another suggestion was a disclaimer on some other products. 

But let’s talk about federal oversight and state oversight of insurance products marketed on our military bases. Your agents tend 

to be licensed within a state. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Yes. 

Mr. BURNS. They are all licensed by a state either in securities 

or insurance or both. I think the clarification—I do not see any dissension as far as clarifying the position that insurance agents 

should be under the jurisdiction of the state that the military installation resides. I do not see any dissension there. Do we agree 

on that? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Absolutely. 

Mr. BURNS. My question then becomes: how do we deal with foreign installations? How do we deal with foreign installations where 

there is not an insurance commissioner on a foreign base? And I 

am asking for input. 

Mr. DUNLAP. Well, that is a good question. And in fact, I think 

one comment that Governor Keating made earlier, which I thought 

was very good, is there needs to be increased coordination between 

the Department of Defense and the state insurance departments, 

in terms of identifying what these problems are and making sure 

that the information is communicated to the people that can take 

action on them. 

Mr. BURNS. There have been several suggestions just in casual 

dialogue. But it could be the home-based installation. 

For example, I have the 3rd Infantry Division, which is at Fort 

Stewart, Georgia. They were deployed to Iraq. They tend to receive 

multiple deployments over time. 

59

If they were marketed a product, it could be at their home-based 

installation. Some of these are permanently assigned overseas. 

They might be associated with a particular command. Or they 

may be associated with an individual’s home community. Or they 

may be associated with the agent’s home state. 

So there are any number of options. And I am just saying we 

have to address that issue. 

I think the problem that we face is we have to provide effective 

oversight and effective control and management in the sale of a 

product that is in the marketplace. And your agents, when they 

market your products off of a military installation, they certainly 

adhere to those regulations and those guidelines within a state, for 

example. 

So if they are not in Fort Stewart and they are in Savannah, 

Georgia, then they are under the insurance commissioner in Georgia, who I think has done an excellent job of managing and monitoring that. We can clarify that. I think part of the challenge is: 

how do we deal with it from an international perspective? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes? 

Mr. SMITH. May I comment? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. 

Mr. SMITH. I would suggest that the DOD develop rules or 

strengthen their rules, that any agent that is going to market in 

aforeign area must have a stateside license in some state and that 

be on file with the installation. And he has to live by those rules, 

the rules of that state. And if there is a problem, then the insurance commissioner in that state has jurisdiction. 

Further, Congress may consider in this connection encouraging 

the states, through the NAIC, through model regulations, for the 

states to adopt regulations in their states that require insurance 

agents who market to the military who are registered in their 

states to comply with the military regulations. And that gives an 

additional tooth to the state regulation if there are violations of 

military regulations. 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Burns, if I could get you to yield for a moment? Mr. Emanuel had another question before he has to leave. 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Be happy to yield. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Mr. Burns. In 2000, if I am not mistaken, military men and women were allowed to get into the thrift 

saving plan that we have access to as members of Congress. And 

my gut tells me that their involvement—and it is a good enough 

plan for members of Congress and I think it is actually not just a 

good enough plan, I think it is an excellent plan—that plan has become a competitor to the contractual mutual fund. 

And I believe that these should be banned and, if we cannot ban 

them, a clear warning be put on them. But now that we have another savings vehicle as a 401(k) plan, the type of thrift saving 

plan that we have that now the military can get in, that is that 

market opportunity and that choice that will steer them. And I 

would be interested: do you have any records of what has happened 

to your selling of your products since 2000? 

Mr. SMITH. Our sales are stronger today than they were then. 

However, Mr. Emanuel, you said that the military has the TSP 

60

that members of Congress and the other federal workers have. And 

that is not exactly true. 

They do not enjoy one of the most significant benefits; and that 

is, matching funds. It is authorized within the law. But it has not 

been budgeted yet. And we hope that it will be. 

And when it is, you are right. It is a hands-down favorite and 

should be the top recommendation. We believe that the comparison 

of the TSP to the other alternatives that are available—for instance, the Roth IRA—they are very sensitive to the assumptions 

that you make about taxation in retirement. 

Mr. EMANUEL. I understand. 

Mr. SMITH. If you plan to be successful, if you expect to be successful in a relatively higher tax bracket, the Roth IRA actually, we 

believe, offers some benefits worth considering. If you believe that 

you are not as likely to be in a high tax bracket at that time, then 

the military version of the TSP, even without the matching, is 

probably the superior product. 

We work very hard to point this out to our clients and disclose 

this information and discuss it with them. And we did a sample of 

a recent 12,000 plans. And about 17 percent of those did have TSP 

recommendations. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of points. 

Mr. Smith, are your employees, are they CFP or are they certified 

in financial planning or investing? 

Mr. SMITH. Not a large number of them are. We have several. 

But that is not a requirement. However, we are moving in that direction. 

Mr. BURNS. Finally, the New York Times mentioned a situation 

where an officer was in debt and still was encouraged by First 

Command to invest in contractual plans. Why would that be to his 

advantage? Why would that be a good recommendation? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, sir, for that question. I am very pleased 

to talk about that. I have a four-page letter from that client, talking about the experience. 

He is very pleased. I will summarize the letter briefly. He is very 

pleased with his financial progress that he has made since he became a First Command client and very pleased with our service. 

He described his situation at the time that he first was referred 

to us as ‘‘a bit less than ideal.’’ And I have his permission to give 

this information. 

He had large credit card debt. He had missed some payments, 

not due to lack of financial ability to make them, but he was disorganized and he described himself as ‘‘less mature.’’ His interest 

rate had kicked up in one case to 25 percent on one of those credit 

cards. 

He had no car insurance. And you are required to have car insurance in that state. So he was very much at risk there. 

He had set no goals and he had no savings habit. However, he 

had never been contacted by anybody else offering any help—no fee 

only planner, nobody else. He was promoted and received a pay 

61

raise. And he thought that was a grand opportunity—correctly so—

a grand opportunity for him to address his situation. 

And so he asked around among his peers. And one of our clients, 

a satisfied client, referred him to us. 

And he describes the situation, how our representative met with 

him a number of times to get to know him and to talk about the 

situation that he was in. He was impressed by the fact that it was 

not high pressure and it was focused on his best circumstance. 

Our representative tried to get him a debt consolidation loan to 

pull down those debts, the effective interest rate. But he could not 

qualify because of his blemished credit history. 

So the representative helped him understand the need to get on 

a regular habit with those payments. And he accelerated the financial payoff of the higher interest debt with a plan, which the lieutenant agreed with, that he would try again for a debt consolidation loan in about 6 months, with an expectation of a better credit 

history that he could qualify. 

We put him in a balanced financial plan involving some life insurance, a savings—as we typically do to protect the investments—

and starter investment plans. What we have found is that people 

who are in debt and who are needing to dig out, mathematically 

the case can be made without question that if someone has, for instance, 15 percent debt, any extra money that you can put against 

that 15 percent is like a guaranteed 15 percent return. 

Mr. BURNS. It certainly is. 

Mr. SMITH. However, if someone has dug himself into a hole and 

all he is going to do with every spare dollar is put it in the hole, 

put it in the hole, put it in and he does not see anything building 

up, our experience is that they typically become discouraged after 

a few months and they go back to the old habits. Or at least they 

are at risk of that. 

So a small investment and some savings to see something building up above ground, so to speak, as well as emphasis on debt payoff, has been the winning formula. And this young man today describes himself as on-track, getting better fast. He has now qualified for that debt consolidation loan. And his effective interest rate 

is way down and his debts are being liquidated very rapidly. 

Mr. BURNS. One of the biggest concerns that I have and especially among our younger adults is they are carrying an excessively 

high burden of high-interest debt. And I tell you, every dollar that 

reduces that debt is, to me, like you suggest, a very positive return. 

Again, I want a balanced, effective solution. I want markets that 

work for our military. I do not wish our servicemen or women to 

be taken advantage of in any way. And I want them to be given 

quality advice and quality products. 

If we have agents who are marketing either insurance products 

or investment products that need to be labeled as ‘‘dangerous to 

your financial health,’’ then I think that is something that this 

Congress needs to pursue. I do appreciate the panel today and the 

input that they have provided because I think that helps us focus 

on what we need to do within the legislation. 

And I am very grateful to the chairman and the ranking member 

for the opportunity to be a part of the hearing today. And I look 

forward to working with them as we pursue the legislation. 

62

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. I also want to extend 

my appreciation to you individually for appearing here. I think in 

fairness to you, I should say that you have not necessarily won me 

over to your position. But by getting your facts on the record, it 

may help you to a degree. 

Mr. Dunlap, I would really recommend that you get to the committee some explanation of how the company executives do invest 

those annuity funds. It is not a mystical process. They are taking 

dollars from military personnel, putting them in a pool——

Mr. DUNLAP. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman BAKER. Yes? 

Mr. DUNLAP. Just to make sure that I am clear on that and I 

gave the appropriate answer, any money that is accumulated for an 

individual policyholder is kept as a part of that policy. 

Chairman BAKER. Sure. No, I understand that. And there is an 

accounting. But the money is fungible. And it is used in some investment strategy. 

I am not saying the investment strategy is bad. I am not saying 

it is not working. I am saying we do not know what it is. 

We do not know what fees or costs are associated with it. If they 

are taking those funds and putting them into equities and there is 

constant turnover in mutual fund holdings, that turnover generates 

fees for the sales and transaction costs. All of that has to be paid 

by that consumer. 

And so the net rate of return from an annuity to the individual 

investor, to a great extent, is adversely impacted by managerial 

sales loads and undisclosed costs. It would be helpful for us to understand the performance of the fund by knowing more detail about 

what is going on, not within your purview, but within the investment side of the company for which you cannot speak today. 

Further, you defend the life product performance and the costs 

associated with it because of that annuity portion of the product, 

which is the reason why I brought those annuity performance factors up for discussion. But even when you take the annuity performance, as reported by company documents, and look at the premium assessed for the package as it has been developed, the appropriateness of that product being sold to young individuals who do 

not have the financial sophistication—which both of you acknowledge they do not have—and that they are counseled to wind up at 

this conclusion is troubling. 

Because if we look at options that would be available to them 

through the private market, through competitive opportunity, if we 

were to have the military go out and ask the top 20 companies to 

put together a package for military personnel across the country to 

provide an average $200,000 life benefit for some 10-and 20-year 

period, I guarantee you we could get a really good competitive 

product provided. 

What seems to have happened here is that we have had a closed 

marketplace with military personnel—not in all cases, but in the 

reported press examples—using their stature among enlisted personnel to make them feel comfortable that this investment need no 

further examination. You have acknowledged that this marketing 

practice is not appropriate. We certainly agree on that point. 

63

It is still very much a concern that once we get by those marketing practices and we look at the underlying consequence of the 

product being offered, not the manner in which it is offered, and 

the funds being collected, and the benefits potentially generated 

still do not square up in my book. But the committee is still open 

to further information, should the company choose to provide it. 

Mr. Smith, without regard to your company or its practices, just 

with regard to contractual plans, they really are inconsistent with 

the financial goal of most Americans and certainly young military 

personnel. And I say that because the vast majority of financial 

planners who would have no vested interest in any particular direction will say with neutrality that only a few Americans who are 

fully invested in all retirement options, with idle cash looking for 

a place to get a rate of return, would likely look to a contractual 

plan as an advisable investment strategy. 

As to your own company’s practices, your goal of helping unsophisticated, troubled young folks with financial difficulties by taking half their initial year’s investment out of the market is a problem from my perspective. If that were the goal, it would seem to 

either have a low annualized rate spread over the term of the product offering or at least a zero at the beginning, rising over time, 

as the assets develop in the individual’s portfolio. 

It is those early dollars in that get them out quicker. And by 

having the initial years’ contributions, when it is most difficult for 

them to juggle paying off prior existing debts, perform their military duty and have half of their investment egg spent on company 

commissions is a problem. 

I am not yet fully determined of the direction that the committee 

should take. And I regret that you gentlemen voluntarily appeared 

and that I have expressed opinions, which I know you do not appreciate. I thank you because I sense from each of you sincerity 

about your product and what you are doing. 

We just have a disagreement about the value and the inconsequence of those products. Certainly, going forward, there are 

going to be definitive and decisive actions taken. And I would 

strongly recommend that senior officials from both companies urgently communicate any other information that might be advisable 

for this committee to know. 

Chairman Oxley has indicated we need to do our due diligence. 

We need to make sure we understand. But we better get it done 

quick. 

So with that, I thank you. And our meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X

September 9, 2004

66


97450.001
67


97450.002
68


97450.003
69


97450.004
70


97450.005
71


97450.006
72


97450.007
73


97450.008
74


97450.009
75


97450.010
76


97450.011
77


97450.012
78


97450.013
79


97450.014
80


97450.015
81


97450.016
82


97450.017
83


97450.018
84


97450.019
85


97450.020
86


97450.021
87


97450.022
88


97450.023
89


97450.024
90


97450.025
91


97450.026
92


97450.027
93


97450.028
94


97450.029
95


97450.030
96


97450.031
97


97450.032
98


97450.033
99


97450.034
100


97450.035
101


97450.036
102


97450.037
103


97450.038
104


97450.039
105


97450.040
106


97450.041
107


97450.042
108


97450.043
109


97450.044
110


97450.045
111


97450.046
112


97450.047
113


97450.048
114


97450.049
115


97450.050
116


97450.051
117


97450.052
118


97450.053
119


97450.054
120


97450.055
121


97450.056
122


97450.057
123


97450.058
124


97450.059
125


97450.060
126


97450.061
127


97450.062
128


97450.063
129


97450.064
130


97450.065
131


97450.066
132


97450.067
133


97450.068
134


97450.069
135


97450.070
136


97450.071
137


97450.072
138


97450.073
139


97450.074
140


97450.075
141


97450.076
142


97450.077
143


97450.078
144


97450.079
145


97450.080
146


97450.081
147


97450.082
148


97450.083
149


97450.084
150


97450.085
151


97450.086
152


97450.087
153


97450.088
154


97450.089
155


97450.090
156


97450.091
157


97450.092
158


97450.093
159


97450.094
160


97450.095
161


97450.096
162


97450.097
163


97450.098
164


97450.099
165


97450.100
166


97450.101
167


97450.102
168


97450.103
169


97450.104
170


97450.105