Talk:USAA/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 8 Dec 2005 and 31 Dec 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:USAA/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Movementarian 08:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

message: First, I apologise to RobertJKoenig for removing the above text in an edit I made to this page. It was accidental.
The above text was inserted over the current text numerous times and has been reverted each time by multiple persons.  If there is validity to the above accusation please present it in a neutral way and without deleting the company information. Movementarian 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Edits 

message: I have attempted to include the information you want in the article.  If future edits please try not to use POV statements such as "case involving a guy who got screwed".  Movementarian 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does indeed look like a case of sour grapes.  Movementarian 00:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Statements

message: I'd prefer to be biased than wrong.  But: this is an absolutely incredible experience.  It's as if I'd picked up paint brushes for the first time.  So, I smear the canvas a little?  So what - come on guys.  The basic points are being subsumed and incorporated into the lead article.  It's a dialectic - and it will work itself towards the truth of the matter.  As it now progresses it is already far far better than it ever could have been, otherwise.  I am very very impressed.  So, why don't we cut out the ad hominem and get on with it.  USAA has a staff of spam commenters who assiduously populate other chat sites.  I'm sorry if I thought that I had run up against them once again.  They will be here soon, trust me.  Where I go, they follow.  If you'd like to have your hair curled, call up  Tanji Patton in San Antonio and ask her how it feels to have USAA on your tail. Now tell me [please, my muses]:  how do I upload a pdf to the Wikipedia server so I can incorporate it by reference?
And, why is this article not searchable, yet?
raskolnikov 20:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a chat site.  It is an encyclopaedia and should be factual and neutral. I realise that you are a new user and you have good information to add, but please try and keep it to a neutral point of view.  Check out What Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view, and Verifiablity.  You will have to go to an admin for your technical questions.  I am not sure why you artilce has not shown up or if it is possible to upload a pdf file.  Your best bet there is probably to post it on the net and link it here.  It can only be used as a source if it is not original research (see Verifiablity).  Movementarian 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased, maybe, but not incorrect

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

message: In my humble defense, I submit that what I am writing is based on original research;  which I have made every effort to verify.  If I have made an error or questionable statement - please point me to it. 
The material submitted in the main body of the USAA page is "pasted in" from USAA PR material, and has not been verified in any meaningful way.  Now, let's start with "a fact or two".
USAA would have us believe that it is a member-owned corporation.  To do business in America, you only have to do one very simple thing.  All you need do is go to the Secretary of State in any state, and file papers which cost about $150:  and presto, you are a corporation.
Lunkhill, movementarian, and now Looper5920 have agreed that this main article lead off passes muster: and all three accept this premise, unquestioningly.
USAA Group is a financial services company headquartered . . . .
OK!  Now, here's your assignment, please.  Go to the various Secretary of States of the 50 states and the possessions and territories, and of course DC: and find the state where USAA has filed its "articles of incorporation" or its "articles of association" to be a "financial services company".
I can find you Merrill Lynch's filings:  I can find you Citibank or Wells Fargo.  But I can't find you USAA - because it does not exist.  USAA has never filed anywhere to be a financial services company.  Nowhere. Nada.
USAA's purported right to exist is based entirely on a deus ex machina supposition that the AIF has a right to run USAA without any authority from any Secretary of State.
Let's start with that one:  and the answer is embedded in my paper above.  But let's hold the "holier than thou"  until we have afew facts to chew on.  OK?
What is the legal basis for USAA's existence: the real answer will astound you, and frighten you if you are a subscriber.
Robertjkoenig 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the problem as I see it.  You have one mission and that is to convince everyone that USAA is an illegal, immoral corporation and you would like Wikipedia to refelct that.  We are attempting to keep the artilce neutral and factual.  I have no personal stake in USAA, they are just one of 499 other Fortune 500 companies.  Please read What Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view, and Verifiablity.  You will discover that original research is not allowed and that Wikipedia is not a blog or personal webspace.  If you would like to post your original research somewhere then go to livejournal or myspace and get yourself a blog or website.  We are more than happy to have you contruibute Wikipedia, but you have to by established policies.  Movementarian 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense of the alternative view 

message: It is apparent that Robertjkoenig has personal bias against USAA [1.  I have tried to reason with him and get him to present a neutral article, but it seems to be an excercise in futility.  I have placed the NPOV tag in place so that someone from outside of the dispute, perhaps someone with more knowlege on the subject of financial corporations, can remove the POV statements or provide refences that do not require passwords (see the Critical Documents of USAA section).  Movementarian 04:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered taking it to an administrator, but I though that we should exhaust other options first.  Movementarian 06:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag 

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

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

message: Koenig is a New York USAA member who is also a vocal critic of USAA's Capital Structure.  Robert G. Davis of USAA obtained a Texas order compelling Koenig to pay Robert G. Davis $40,000 for writing ascerbic commentary about the $5 billion USAA holds in "unassigned surplus".  This is the story of how Davis enforced his order.
On Wednesday, December 14, 2005, at about 10 AM, 4 deputies in two cars from NY's Nassau County Sheriff's department, operating on instructions from Robert G. Davis, swooped down on Robert J. Koenig at 9 Tiffany Road, Oyster Bay, NY.
"From a town known as Oyster Bay, Long Island...Came a boy with a 6-pack in his hand"  Bob is that you that Billy Joel was singing about so many years ago?  Why bother?  This is getting old.  Save the diatribe for somewhere that people actually care.--Looper5920 13:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraordinary Rendition 

message: Where does the USAA $5 billion unassigned surplus come from?  A material portion may be derived from close-out of the insurance reserves; the settlement of USAA's litigation portfolio.  The litigation portfolio is shown on USAA financial documents as a line item in "current liabilities" called "losses".
USAA forestalls payment of $2 billion in claims by litigation.  That $2 billion litigation portfolio becomes USAA's largest source of working capital:  it is "borrowing" $2 billion from the counter-parties to litigation by setting aside a reserve.  As the litigation reserves are likely over-stated, when the claims are eventually settled, there is a profit.  In a shareholder-owned insurance company, the profit (or loss) on the close-out of litigation is returned to the shareholders.  At USAA, those funds should pehaps and more appropriately be returned to the subscribers and credited to their SSA accounts.
The USAA "members" own the litigation portfolio at all times:  and curiously this is true even when USAA is litigating against and denying the claims of its own members.
Does USAA return the surplus from successful litigation to its "members":  this is a very knotty question.
Instead, it appears that the profit/loss on close out of litigation at USAA is declared as "corporate income" and as that income is not credited to the subscriber SSA accounts, USAA then pays unnecessary taxes on that income.  Since USAA's inception in 1922, it has paid about $1 billion of largely unnecessary Federal taxes:  $1,124,279,252 as of December 31, 2004, to be exact.
As USAA is a mutual - and taxed as a cooperative - there should be no income taxes.  (That of course is not always true as the IRS has its own views and does assess taxes on cooperatives but sometimes permits recapture of those taxes and payback to subscribers when the money is actually returned to the subscribers.)
The after-tax income is then put into "unasigned surplus".  In True v USAA, USAA has argued that the "unassigned surplus" does not truly belong to the members.  Well - I'm inclined to agree with that.  But, that conclusion also begs the question:  to whom does the $5 billion belong?  And that question should be answered below by somebody else - a person on Robert G. Davis' staff.  Who does the extra $5 billion belong to?  Should Robert J. Koenig go to jail again for simply asking that question?
In that fashion, USAA's litigation department becomes the URIE's 2nd largest source of operating capital - right after the Federal Savings Bank's deposits.  The problem with this sort of working capital is that if you're going to grow, you need an ever expanding base of litigation to provide the requisite working capital.  And that may evidently be a motivation/explanation for why USAA litigates against so many of its members.
Who owns the unassigned surplus?  That is what is being decided in True v USAA, a class action law suit against USAA in St. Clare County, IL.
A Workable Solution
Why doesn't Robert G. Davis simply capitalize a new "corporate attorney in fact" and make a registered stock offering.  The $5 billion in unassigned surplus could be returned to its rightful owners, and each past and current subscriber could be given the option of applying his/her refund to USAA's new capital stock issue.
That affirmative course of action would leave USAA as a truly world-class and legitimately capitalized financial services holding company:  and would obviate the need for Robert G. Davis (and Robert F. McDermott and Robert T. Herres before him) to tip-toe around the margins of the issue (not to mention putting the occasional critic in jail).
Hey, it kept you from editing this page for a few days.  Could not have been all that bad.  Hope you did not drop that 1/2 bar of soap that they gave you.--Looper5920 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The source(s) of funds for the "unassigned surplus" 

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

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

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

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