Secrets of Bonding #124: Underwriting Challenge – What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Years ago when I was just a cub reporter for the Daily Planet, I mean surety underwriter, I ran into a strange situation that was recently repeated.  In this article we will present the scenario and ask you to use your underwriting judgement. The question is… “What’s wrong with this picture?”

Scenario #1

Originally this came up on a Lost Instrument Bond.  These are needed when requesting the issuance of a duplicate cashier’s check, security, or other financial instruments.  The applicant claimed a negotiable instrument (anyone holding it could potentially cash it in) had been inadvertently destroyed. He was a young adult in his 20’s who had inherited the asset.  His financial statement showed little other than the asset in question, which was a problem because the underwriters do not want to feel that the person has a reason to fraudulently convert the “lost” asset and it’s replacement.

We wrote back and expressed the underwriting concern, that the applicants financial position was inadequate.  In response we received a novel proposal: When the replacement instrument is issued, it will be conveyed directly to the surety who can hold it as full collateral against their exposure, until the bond is released (years!) “There will be no risk to the surety.”  Sounds pretty good? 

In my infantile underwriting mind I thought this sounded intriguing, but it also made me uncomfortable. Why had I never heard of doing this before? Maybe I was on the verge of creating an entirely new underwriting procedure.  Will they name it after me?

What was wrong with this picture?

Scenario #2Whats_wrong

In the more recent situation, the surety was being asked to support a multi-million dollar purchase transaction.  The applicant (a person) was a foreigner, an accomplished business person, who was not familiar with surety underwriting requirements.  They were not accustomed to providing personal financial info or involving the spouse in business obligations.

As a way of supporting the transaction, and maybe dodging the indemnity requirements, it was suggested that title to the purchased property would be conveyed directly to the surety (sound familiar?).  After the financial transaction (which was the subject of the surety guarantee) is completed, the surety will be released, the title will be transferred to the buyer, and “the surety will never be in a position of risk.” Boom!  Let’s do it!

What’s wrong with this picture?

The Answer

Here is good advice.  If your underwriting brain feels like something is wrong, it probably is!  The problem with both these scenarios is the timing.  

Bonding companies ALWAYS secure their position before assuming an obligation. It is incumbent on the underwriters to protect their company assets and its owners by doing so. 

Think about bank lending practices, which are not unlike surety underwriting.  Would a bank make a building loan relying solely on the future value of the project? No, they require being secured with sufficient assets in advance such as the company and personal net worth of the applicant and possibly other collateral.

Financial obligations always require that the credit grantor be secured in advance. Prudent decision making requires this.

So the next time you see something that doesn’t feel right, trust your gut.

FIA Surety is a NJ based bonding company (carrier) that has specialized in Site, Subdivision and Contract Surety Bonds since 1979 – we’re good at it!  Call us with your next one.

Steve Golia, Marketing Mgr.: 856-304-7348

First Indemnity of America Ins. Co.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s