Episode Details

In part 2 of 2 Michelle lays out her proposal for revamping the web of state and federals rules and laws to make in-plan annuities a vibrant market in the future. Here's the full text of her discussion: Heads up to SOA, NAIFA, IRI, any other industry group- mark this moment as the point where contacts you have at these organizations should start listening. Big bold assertion #1: Non-codification of verb sales in insurance means that intellectual property (inventions) can't have value in insurance Why is this true? Assertion 2. The above-mentioned fact (Ip can't have value in insurance) is true because of the intersection between how products sell and how trademark law works. I will explain further in a moment. Assertion 3. IP having value is fundamental to the functioning of capitalism. Assertion 4. In a demutualized world where insurance manufacturing is now entirely vertically disintegrated from distribution, IP can only come to have value by codifying insurance advisement as a scalable, oversee-able, nationally regulated discipline So we are proving assertion 1- IP has no value in my domain- by proving assertions 2-4 So let's start with assertion 2 part 1: how do products sell. To understand this, we need first to define both the word "product" and then the word "sell." Products are nouns. In the context of insurance and financial services, products are issuable containers, and their distribution is highly regulated. Products are issuable legal contracts within which IP can be embedded, and in exchange for the distribution of which compensation can be paid to an FP in respect of either, but never concurrently, a or b. A is from inside the noun in direct respect to sale thereof (this refers to agency and brokerage) whereas b is charged upon the AUA/AUM thereformed following a product's intro into an advised portfolio (b refers to RIA channel). Now that we know what product means, we move on to sell. Sell means the exchange of remuneration in direct respect to [x- x is a verb in the RIA channel and it's a noun in the agent/broker channels]. Wholesalers are people who so routinely sell wholes that we can describe their identity by putting an r at the end of the verb that they routinely perform. (By analogy, runners routinely run, we don't call someone a runner who once ran across the street) All wholes are nouns. The human mind cannot conceive of a whole verb. So wholesalers sell nouns, and nouns sell when they have wholesalers selling them. Wholesalers work for either a noun manufacturer, or a noun seller. An organization that sells nouns will not switch which noun it has its wholesalers focused on selling unless the new noun is more profitable than is the incumbent noun portfolio. A product concept thus cannot have value, because what is valuable about the product/noun is the seller's prior investment in manufacturing and/or wholesaling infrastructure., not clever IP that does not have higher profit margins than does the incumbent product set. Now we define the second half of assertion 2, which is about trademarking. Trademark (the application of which differs for IP protection relative to much easier to defend in court brand/name protection)- in this case I'm talking IP protection- requires that the IP be noun-embeddable, whereas servicemarked requires the IP to be verb embedable. If you google "trademark definition", when applied to IP defense as opposed to brand defense, you too will become aware that the definition of this word requires the IP owner to be able to either manufacture or to sell (remember what sell means from above!) the noun. Insurance provides for minimization of liabilities (or contra-assets). Insurance advisor is not a defined term. Financial advisor is defined, and it means person who holds the authority to sell verbs (person who has an RIA affiliation, which means they can sell verbs. RIAs sell verbs only. Agents and brokers sell nouns only.) Financial advisors provide ongoing asset maximization advis