Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 31 March 2018 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:New York Life Insurance Company/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New York Life Insurance Company article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finance & Investment Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cooperatives (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. 16912 Rhiannon (talk · contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of New York Life Insurance Company.

RfC on Policyholder service improvements section

Is the Policyholder service improvements subsection of the company History appropriate, or should it be removed or reduced in length? The current content is based on a market conduct examination report from the State of New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and there is no coverage of this from independent, secondary sources, however a mention of the report has been retained in the article for a couple of years in one form or another. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Please note: I have a conflict of interest as I am here on behalf of New York Life as part of my work with Beutler Ink. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect. While these are court documents, they are not primary source court documents, in the sense that they are not akin to trial transcipts of individuals speaking in a crowded courtroom. That kind of trial transcript would be a primary source document because the transcriptionist was sitting there, in the courtroom when the words were spoken. The court record in this case from New Jersey contains information from files kept by a first group of people, the NYLIC employees. These files contained descriptions of actions and events which occurred to a second group of people, their customers. These documents, after being handed over, were examined by a third group of people, the NJ Banking and Insurance regulators. These three groups of people only contained one immediate connection - the NYLIC employees and its customers. The report itself was written by the third group who had nothing to do with the other two. This makes the document a third-party secondary-source document, as shown in the table below highlighted in yellow.

	First party	Third party
Primary source	A NYLIC employee fills out paperwork regarding a life insurance claims process they are undergoing with a customer.	Friends and family members of that customer who were present to witness the claims process share their observations of the family member's experience of that process by publishing it on Facebook.
Secondary source	A NYLIC employee gathers documents which discuss other customer's life insurance claims processes.	NJ Banking and Insurance regulators examine these documents and write a report of findings based on conclusions drawn from their examination, publishing their findings through the NJ Courts.
Tertiary source	A NYLIC employee incorporates the findings of other non-life insurance insurance examiners outside of the company who have been asked to consult on these claims and offer their opinions.	A database on insurance claim processes with data on hundreds of different cases in all realms of insurance is set up by consumer advocates for the public to examine, which is published online through the LexisNexis database.

If you look closely, in each box you have different individuals all creating a story based on information as they receive it at their level. In the first person primary source box you have one person creating a document based on their interaction with one other person. One over in the third person primary source column you have people telling a story from their perspective, and so on and so forth. At each level, the distance from the center expands one box at a time, and the information changes slightly from box to box while remaining true to the overall narrative. So much so that when you come to the yellow highlighted box you will see the story from the position that our contested document tells it from: the third party secondary source position, as that is the exact number removed from the center that the people who are telling the story — the individuals from the New Jersey Banking and Insurance regulations office — come from. This claim that there needs to be secondary sourcing is already met. Those attorneys from the Banking and insurance committee independently checked the findings initially made by NYLIC. Using the regulators own understanding of NJ banking and insurance statutes, they came to their own conclusions regarding the closing of certain insurance policies. Just as the Hillsborough Independent Panel would do back in 2013 when it reviewed older documents for an event which occurred in 1989, in order to reach new conclusions, this government action represents sourcing which goes beyond that of primary, at least in 13% of the findings. The requirement you speak of is to have the primary documents and then the secondary analysis of those documents independent of those who first prepared the documents. This document is the analysis, while the records were provided by NYLIC and signed off by their own SVP. They're both already here, in the report and in the appendix.

Regards, Spintendo      13:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes

1. The entire 11-step process which the NJ DOBI carries out during each investigation is as follows:
   1. A company is selected for a market conduct examination. Selection factors may be based on an increase in complaint volume, an increase in the frequency of complaints on a particular issue, the findings of a prior exam, a change in the company's market presence or the length of time since the last exam.
   2. A market conduct exam "call letter" is issued to the targeted company. The letter announces the Department's intention to conduct the examination, explains what operations and types of information the examiners will review, requests data and copies of procedures and manuals to be provided prior to the exam and explains the office accommodations and additional information the examiners will need on-site.
   3. A Pre-examination conference is held with the company's exam coordinator and key personnel to clarify expectations and discuss anticipated issues.
   4. On-site fieldwork begins. Depending on the type of exam, this process can include reviews of claim and policyholder files, company systems and billing, underwriting and claim data. When the examiners find information that may not be in accordance with our laws or requires further elaboration from the company, they will issue written inquiries requesting explanations or further information about the preliminary findings or errors. This procedure assures the validity of the exam findings and provides the company an opportunity to explain and document their position.
   5. An "exit conference" with the company is held at conclusion of the on-site examination. During this meeting the examiners discuss major findings and the remaining steps to complete the examination.
   6. The post-fieldwork review includes analysis of information examined, review of files or other information taken off-site and a review of any outstanding data requests.
   7. Under the direction of the examiner-in-charge, the exam team finalizes the draft examination report. This is reviewed internally by management staff.
   8. The draft examination report is issued to company for review and comment. Companies are provided 30 days to respond.
   9. The company response is reviewed and any changes appropriately supported in the company response are made to the draft. The Assistant Commissioner then prepares a recommendation to the Commissioner to adopt the report.
   10. The Commissioner reviews and approves the adoption recommendation and the Adopted Report is issued to the Company. The report is organized in a standard format. Errors are identified along with recommendation to remediate and prevent recurring errors. The company is generally provided 30 days to implement these recommendations and report back to the Department.
   11. Enforcement issues arising from the examination findings are thereafter considered and pursued with the company, as appropriate.

References

1. "Steps in the Market Conduct Process". New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance. State of New Jersey.

Per my RfC summary, the investigation report is the only source for the investigation itself and its outcomes. There is no journalistic coverage. The question here is whether editors feel that the material is appropriate based on that source alone. Hopefully other editors can review the content and source and let us know what they think, too. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's use an example here. If there was a plane crash and the NTSB wrote a report about their investigation of it, you wouldn't accept their report because — according to you — the NTSB would be the only source. But I bet you would qualify that stance by saying something like "But in that case the news media would have also reported on the crash, and that would make it legitimate." So my question would be How is it made legitimate? The NTSB report would not have been based on input from any one of those news reports. But your requirement would seem to suggest that for the NTSB report to become legitimate, the media has to report on it as well, as if a mere mention of something by the media has some magical way of making a government source become legitimate. Is that a correct view of your stance on this issue? Please advise. Spintendo      04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not a question of "legitimacy" but whether the information is significant enough to be included in the article, and that is what WP:SECONDARY sources are for. From the policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. In any case, you had suggested building broader consensus, so let's let others weigh in to do that otherwise it's just us going back and forth on this. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That policy says Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself." You still need to describe in what way and with which passages I am taking material from a primary source and analysing it. We need to see specific passages where material from the report has been taken and used in analysis in anything I have placed into the article. Also, the policy states "Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." In which case, what is the claim that is being erroneously made here? Is the entire report "the claim"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I had to guess I'd say that's what you thought it was, the entire report is the claim. However, a secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. Describe for me how these regulators, looking at primary source documents from NYLIC — some of them covering events as many as two years prior to the report being made — are not the secondary source (the regulators)? And finally, if the regulators are the primary source, then what is the analysis they are doing? I see that they are reporting on data, the number of files which failed to be resolved. The determination of a failure in resolution—is that the analysis? If that is the analysis, then what documents are they basing this analysis on? I think what would be helpful here would be to take a quick informational survey. A survey is a great way of guaging participants levels of understanding of a particular incident, in order to make sure they are all on the same page. Otherwise, discussion would have an added sense of difficulty. Rhiannon and I will both answer these ten questions. There are six multiple choice, three true or false and one fill in the blank. Rhiannons questions are below, and mine are in the extended section below that (don't peak at my answers).

Q: What relationship to the event do these items have? NYLIC employees. Which kind of a source are they?

1. Primary
2. Secondary
3. Tertiary

Q: What relationship to the event do these items have? NYLIC customers. Which kind of a source are they?

1. Primary
2. Secondary
3. Tertiary

Q: What relationship to the event do these items have? NYLIC policyholder records. Which kind of a source is this?

1. Primary
2. Secondary
3. Tertiary

Q: What relationship to the event do these items have? NJ DOBI (division of banking and insurance) employees. Which kind of source are they?

1. Primary
2. Secondary
3. Tertiary

Q: What relationship to the event do these items have? NJ DOBI's documents (the report). Which kind of a source is this?

1. Primary
2. Secondary
3. Tertiary

Q: Who or what was present at the event to witness it? Mark all that apply:

1. NJ DOBI's documents
2. NYLIC employees
3. NYLIC customers
4. NJ DOBI employees
5. NYLIC policyholder records

Q: What was the event, and when did it occur?
_________________________
__________________________ (fill in the blanks)

Final questions:

Q: True or false. If you were to call this individual on the day the event occurred and ask them how the event turned out, they would have no problem giving you the correct answer.

• NYLIC employees - Is this claim true or false for them?

1. True
2. False

• NYLIC customers - Is this claim true or false for them?

1. True
2. Falso

• NJ DOBI employees - Is this claim true or false for them?

1. True
2. False

We can discuss the answers when everyone is completed. Spintendo      02:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This survey is not a productive way forward. It is very apparent that you and I disagree about the inclusion of the material and have differing understandings of the guidelines. What is needed here is for others to weigh in with fresh eyes and their own understanding of the guidelines. All this does is make it far less likely anyone will choose to weigh in. Please will you collapse this section of the discussion and allow the RfC to run its course? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The way to move forward is by having a greater understanding of the particulars of this dispute. A survey is a perfectly good way to gauge prior knowledge, and I put it forward as a way of exploring the concepts that you and I continue to speak about, such as primary sources, secondary sources, etc. We can continue to mention these terms, but they wont mean anything unless we can demonstrate our understanding of what these terms actually mean. We need to show that our individual understandings of these terms are concordant with each other. If you're unwilling to answer a ten question survey, just as I did, in order for others to understand your thought processes on the subject better, then I understand. But that is not the way to attain a resolution you'll agree with. And please dont put all your eggs in the RfC basket. An RfC can never be a complete replacement for discussions on the talk page because, ultimately, you and I are the only two interested parties in this matter, and likely will ever be. I do hope you change you mind and engage on this subject in the manner indicated. Regards, Spintendo      05:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(Reworded) RfC on Policyholder service improvements section

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article contain a subsection on a 2009 market conduct examination undertaken by a New Jersey state government office, sourced entirely to the investigation report? The current section is as follows:

In 2009, examiners from the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance, in full cooperation with NYLIC, worked to identify areas where improvements could be made in policyholder services. In other areas such as complaints, replacement file review, underwriting, claims review, and advertising and forms, the Department examiners found no errors in the NYLIC reviewed files. The complete findings were as follows:

• Claims, Marketing and Sales: 0% error ratio
• Policyholder services: 13% error ratio
  • According to the report, "The examiners found four complaints where New York Life failed to provide a written response to the complainant within a reasonable period of 10 working days."
• Replacement file review: No problems
• Underwriting: 0% error ratio
• Claims review: 0% error ratio
• Advertising and forms: 0% error ratio

In addition to those areas, a review was also conducted regarding the disciplinary actions performed on agents of the company. The review found that of 11 agents disciplined, none were for "activities related to the replacement of annuities or life insurance policies". With regards to improving policyholder services, the examiners noted they were "satisfied that the Companies (NYLIC) have taken or will take corrective measures pursuant to the recommendations of the Report."

References

1. ^ Considine, Thomas B. (14 September 2010). "Market Conduct Examination of New York Life Insurance Company and New York Life Insurance and Annuities and New York Life Insurance Company of Arizona located in New York, NY" (PDF). New Jersey State Government Portal (NJ.gov). State of New Jersey, Department of Banking and Insurance, Office of Consumer Protection Services, Market Conduct Examination Unit & Anti-Fraud Compliance.

Is this appropriate? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note: I have a conflict of interest as I am here on behalf of NYL as part of my work with Beutler Ink. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. It is UNDUE. If no one else bothered to report on an audit/review - it does not merit inclusion. If there are secondary sources reporting on the review - it might be DUE - but not based on an primary review by a regulatory agency. I removed the section.Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• No. I agree with Icewhiz. On the face of it, this section could be summarized as "New Jersey investigated the company and didn't find much of anything wrong." That doesn't seem to have any lasting importance to an understanding of the article topic, and there's no attention paid to the matter by outside sources that might suggest otherwise. Toohool (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Split the baby - I don't think that there's anything particular wrong in using the source specified, but I agree that the information it would provide seems pretty trivial, and not out of the ordinary. Now, if they had found either massive problems, or excellence that was far above industry standards, that would be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Finance & Investment articles
• Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• Mid-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment