November/December 2016

 

 


OFFICERS

President:
Aaron Forbes
 

President Elect:
Patrick J. Cannon

Vice President:
Jerod Cook

Secretary/Treasurer:
Jay Randall

Immediate Past President:
I. David Cohen, CLU, ChFC, LUTCF

National Committee-Person:
Duane Borcherding, CLU, ChFC

Executive Director

Renae Davies
NAIFA-Columbus
P.O. Box 448
Lewis Center, Ohio 43035
Phone: 740.879.4456
Fax: 888.525.7645

Our Mission
The mission of the Columbus Chapter of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors is to provide leadership in sustaining and improving the business environment for those engaged in life underwriting and to enhance further the professional skills of those providing life and health insurance and other closely related financial products and services which foster greater financial independence for the public.

SPONSORS

Platinum Sponsors



Silver Sponsors

                  



Bronze Sponsors

      

2016 - 2017 Calendar of Events - NAIFA Columbus


Saturday, December 10, 2016

SALVATION ARMY BELL RINGING

10:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Location: 1177 Polaris Pkwy, Columbus, OH 43240

 

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

MEMBERSHIP BREAKFAST MEETING

8:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.
Cost: FREE for NAIFA-Columbus Members / $25 for Guests or Non-Members

CE SEMINAR (offering 2 hours of CE credit)

9:15 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.
Cost: FREE for NAIFA-Columbus Members / $35 for Guests or Non-Members

Location: J. Liu Restaurant, 6880 N. High Street, Worthington 43085

 

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

MEMBERSHIP BREAKFAST MEETING

8:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.
Cost: FREE for NAIFA-Columbus Members / $25 for Guests or Non-Members

CE SEMINAR (offering 2 hours of CE credit)

9:15 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.
Cost: FREE for NAIFA-Columbus Members / $35 for Guests or Non-Members

Location: J. Liu Restaurant, 6880 N. High Street, Worthington 43085

 

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

CE SEMINAR (offering 2 hours of CE credit)

9:15 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.
Cost: FREE for NAIFA-Columbus Members / $35 for Guests or Non-Members

23rd Annual I. David Cohen Lifetime Achievement Award Luncheon

11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Cost: FREE for NAIFA-Columbus Members / $25 for Guests or Non-Members

Location: J. Liu Restaurant, 6880 N. High Street, Worthington 43085

Welcome New Members

 

 

Meghan Humphreys
State Farm Insurance

Tricia Katzenmoyer
New York Life

 

APG Alert - Estate Planning (Proposed Reg. 2704)

 


presented by Duane Borcherding, National Committee Person


This material reflects New York Life's understanding of generally applicable rules and is provided for informational purposes only. It does not set forth solutions to individual situations. New York Life Insurance Company, its agents and employees do not provide legal, tax or accounting advice. Consult your own professional advisors before taking any action in regard to this material. This material includes a discussion of one or more tax-related topics prepared to assist in the promotion or marketing of the transactions or matters addressed. It is not intended (and cannot be used by any taxpayer) for the purpose of avoiding any IRS penalties that may be imposed upon the taxpayer.

 

IRS Proposes Sweeping Changes to Estate and Gift Taxes for Family Controlled Entities

On August 2, 2016, the IRS issued proposed treasury regulations that would significantly impact many estate tax reduction techniques used by family-controlled entities. If the regulations are finalized in their current form, most valuation discounts formerly used to reduce or eliminate estate and gift taxes for intra-family transfers of family limited partnerships (FLP), limited liability partnerships (LLP), and limited liability corporations (LLC), and similar business interests will no longer be granted. These rules may also affect valuations for grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs), intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGTs), beneficiary defective inheritor's trusts (BDITs), and other techniques. If approved as currently written, the regulations will have a major impact on estate tax planning.

Background

For many years, valuation discounts have been used to reduce the gift and estate taxes on transfers of assets to younger family members. The two principal discounts that older family members claim when gifting limited shares to younger family members include the "lack of control" discount (also referred to as minority interest discount) and the "lack of marketability" discount.

In 1990, Congress enacted Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §§2701-2704 which aimed to limit the valuation discounts for gift and estate tax purposes applicable in the case of intra-family transfers of interests in family-owned, or "closely held," corporations and partnerships. IRC §§ 2701-2704 have been effective at limiting valuation discounts for intra-family transfers of corporate interests, but for technical reasons not addressed in this paper, the rules were not as effective against valuation discounts for partnership interests.

For many years, the IRS had maintained that a minority interest discount was not available in valuing an interest in an entity that was controlled by family members, but the IRS lost on this issue in several federal court cases. Eventually, the IRS changed its position in 1993 (Revenue Ruling 93-12) and permitted certain discounts for gifts of family controlled shares. This IRS revenue ruling prompted a flood of valuation discounts to be claimed in family transfers, and the IRS reacted by challenging discounts under several different legal theories and by seeking legislative change to IRC §2704. Estate planners have been expecting a change to IRC § 2704 regulations for years .

How the Regulations Diminish Discounts

The proposed regulations have many moving parts, and the full ramifications are difficult to predict. However, at least two key components of the regulations provide the primary means to block valuation discounts for family controlled entities:

First, the proposed regulations change the valuation of interests that restrict or limit the owner in requiring the family­controlled entity or other owners to redeem or buy out his or her shares, i.e., restrictions on redemption or liquidation. The proposed regulations state that these "disregarded restrictions" are ignored for purposes of valuing an interest for gift or estate tax purposes when that interest is transferred to a family member.

EXAMPLE 1: Assume a single Parent (P) owns 100% of the shares (ten voting general shares and ninety non­voting limited shares) of a family limited partnership worth $10,000,000. P gives the ninety limited shares (90%) to children A and B. But because of "valuation discounts" for lack of control (the children have no voting rights) and lack of marketability (few want to buy non-voting, limited shares), P claims that the gift tax value of the shares is only $5,000,000 and not $9,000,000. The proposed regulations would disregard the valuation discount, and P's gift would be valued at $9,000,000, more or less. Although children A and B have no voting rights and cannot require redemption of their shares or liquidation of the partnership, the new regulations treat them as if they have those rights for gift tax purposes. Therefore, no valuation discount is permitted when P gifts the shares to them.

If a restriction on an interest in an entity limits the ability of the family member holder of that interest to compel liquidation or redemption of that interest for cash or property equal at least to the pro rata share of the net fair market value of the assets of the family controlled entity, then the restriction is disregarded. The regulations use the term "minimum value" to describe the fair market value of the entity assets reduced by the debts of the entity, multiplied by the share of the entity represented by that interest.

Promissory notes given for liquidation are regulated. Under the proposed regulations, a note must be issued by an active trade or business entity that "is adequately secured, requires periodic payments on a non-deferred basis, is issued at market interest rates, and has a fair market value on the date of liquidation or redemption equal to the liquidation proceeds."

Second, under the proposed regulations, a transfer that results in the restriction or elimination of any of the rights or powers associated with the transferred interest (an assignee interest) is treated as a lapse. These changes treat as an additional transfer the lapse of voting and liquidation rights for transfers made within three years of death of interests in a family-controlled entity, thereby eliminating or substantially limiting the lack of control and minority discounts for these transfers.

EXAMPLE 2: Assume Downs 84 percent of the stock in Y Corporation whose by-laws require at least a 70 percent vote in order to liquidate. In this example, the proposed regulations state: "More than three years before D's death, D transfers one-half of D's stock in equal shares to D's three children (14 percent each). (Note: after D transfers the shares to the children, he no longer has the voting power to liquidate the stock). Section 2704(a) does not apply to the loss of D's ability to liquidate Y because the voting rights with respect to the transferred shares are not restricted or eliminated by reason of the transfer, and the transfer occurs more than three years before D's death. However, had the transfers occurred within three years of D's death, the transfers would have been treated as the lapse of D's liquidation right occurring at D's death." In other words, if the transfer had occurred within three years of D's death, then D's stock would have had greater value in his estate than if the liquidation right had not been included. Note that this example involves an estate tax valuation discount, and not a gift tax valuation discount.

Some observers are concerned that the lapse sections of the regulations may result in catching some transfers made before the regulations are finalized .

Other Important Provisions of the Regulations

The new regulations other key elements that help make the provisions effective.

  • Covered Entities. The proposed regulations apply to any business entity or arrangement, not just corporations and partnerships.
  • Passive versus Active Businesses. Family owned passive holding companies have been a primary target in the past, but the proposed regulations would apply to any business based upon family ownership and control0No distinction is made between family owned businesses engaged in active, operating businesses and those primarily holding passive investmts.
  • Six month or Less on Liquidation Notice. The proposed regulations disregard any restriction for discount purposes if the restriction delays the full liquidation payment for more than six months after the family member owner gives notice of liquidation.
  • State Law Exceptions. The proposed regulations disregard a liquidation restriction imposed by federal/state law if the restriction (1) is a provision that family owners could agree to modify their agreement or could avoid entirely by organizing under other statutes of the chosen state, or (2) applies only to entities that would otherwise be subject to IRC §2704. Consequently, most state law restrictions will be irrelevant for valuation purposes under the proposed regulations.
  • Effective Date. The proposed regulations will probably not take effect until 2017, sometime after the 30 day period following the public hearing set for December 1, 2016.

Planning Considerations

  1. Estate planners may want to contact their clients soon to inform them of this recent development. The proposed regulations will probably not be finalized until 2017; therefore, a window of opportunity may currently be open for taking discounts before the end of 2016. Keep in mind, transfers with valuation discounts often take months to finalize and the services of both a qualified attorney and a professional valuation expert must be coordinated.

  2. Estate planners use tax reduction techniques that generally employ one or both of two broad strategies: (1) transferring assets to remove future appreciation out of the owner's estate, and/or (2) taking valuation discounts on transferred interests to younger family members. The proposed regulations primarily target the second strategy of valuation discounts. However, since the elimination of valuation discounts means fewer assets may be moved out of the estate without incurring gift tax, less future appreciation will be removed from the owner's estate when transfers without discounts are made. Therefore, the proposed regulations may also have an indirect effect upon the first strategy above, removal of future appreciation.

    EXAMPLE 3: John and Diane have a $31,000,000 estate. $20,000,000 of the estate consists of real estate in a family limited partnership (FLP). In 2016, they gift 54% of their FLP limited shares ($10,800,000) to their children. They claim a 40% valuation discount on the gift. If they both died in 2017, their estates would pay about $5,638,720 in estate taxes if the valuation discount had been permitted. Without the valuation discount, the estate tax would increase to about $8,868,200. Here we see that the valuation discount would save over $3 million in estate taxes. The effect on the removal of appreciation from their estates is negligible because they both died one year after the transfer.

    EXAMPLE 4: Let's assume the same facts example 3, except that John and Diane both die in the year 2031. Assume their estate has grown at 5% for the last 15 years. In 2031, their estates would pay about $11,148,362 in estate taxes if the valuation discount in 2016 had been permitted. Without the valuation discount, the estate tax would increase to about $17,597,628. Here we see that the valuation discount would have saved almost $6.5 million in estate taxes in 2031 with almost $3.5 million of the savings being attributable to the removal of extra appreciation from the estate via the valuation discount. Because the valuation discount permitted a larger amount to be removed from the estate without incurring gift tax, the valuation discount's effect on the removal of appreciation from the estates is significant.

  3. FLPs, LLPs, and LLCs will continue to be viable estate planning devices. They permit the original owner to control the assets while excluding future asset appreciation from his or her estate. However, the IUT may be a preferable technique in many situations as discussed below.

  4. Without valuation discounts, the income tax effects of gifting shares in family-controlled entities may present significant income tax disadvantages. A younger generation recipient of a lifetime gift receives the adjusted basis of the donor in the gifted property. The gift may have the disadvantage of eliminating the potential stepped-up basis that the younger generation recipient might have received in the property had the older owner passed the assets at death. Frequently, the adjusted basis of an asset in the hands of an owner is significantly lower than the stepped up basis (the fair market value of the asset at the owner's death) that might be available to heirs if the asset passed at owner's death. The gain (sales proceeds at current fair market value minus the donor's adjusted basis) from the sale of the gifted property could produce a significant capital gain.


    EXAMPLE 5. Assume parents, Pl and P2, have an estate of $20,000,000. They own real estate with a fair market value of $5,000,000 and a cost basis of $1,000,000. At the end of 2017, they place this real estate into a FLP and gift the shares to their two children, Cl and C2. No valuation discount is permitted. They die in early 2018, and no appreciation has occurred in the property between the dates of the gift and their deaths. Assume the unified credit stays a constant $5,450,000 for each spouse.

    Had Pl and P2 not made the gift, the estate tax in 2018 would have been about $3,640,000. However, even if Pl and P2 did make the gift in 2017, the estate taxes under these facts would remain $3,640,000 in 2018. This is because they used up $5,000,000 of their unified credit exemption in the gift, and the assets did not appreciate in the short time between the gift and the death. Therefore, the gift achieved no estate tax savings.

    However, the gift does produce a large INCOME TAX DETRIMENT. Had Pl and P2 NOT made the gift of the real estate, Cl and C2 would have received a stepped-up income tax basis to the FMV at the parent's deaths, $5,000,000. If Cl and C2 sell the property in 2018 for $5,000,000, they have no capital gain. However, because the real estate was gifted, Cl and C2 receive the $1,000,000 basis of the parents in the real estate and forgo a stepped-up basis. Therefore if the children sell the real estate for $5,000,000 they will have a $4,000,000 capital gain. Let's assume they are subject to 20% capital gain, 3.8% NIil, and an effective 6.2% state capital gains tax rate (after FIT deduction). This would mean they would owe about $1,200,000 of capital gain taxes on the sale. These taxes would have been avoided if the gift had not been made.

  5. Some IDGT or GRAT transactions may not be viable without discounts. For example, the sale to a grantor trust of a limited partnership interest valued with a 45 percent discount could possibly make the debt low enough to permit distributions from the partnership to the trust sufficient to pay debt service on the note. Without the discount, the distribution from the cash flow may not be enough to cover the note payments. Most rolling GRATs may also lose viability under the new rules.

  6. The need for life insurance inside irrevocable life insurance trusts (ILIT) will increase for many people with taxable estates. The ultimate effect of the proposed regulations will be to increase the estate tax. Life insurance in an ILIT is an estate liquidity and wealth transfer technique that is not directly affected by the new regulations.

© 2016 New York Life Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

YAT Committee

 

 

by Logan Philipps & Christopher Watson

The Struggle is Real…

Alessandro Malito provides advice to young advisors so they don’t become dropouts.

Highlights from the article include:

• There is light for the young advisor. “The low backfill means the number of advisers in the profession keeps falling as more baby-boomer advisers retire each year. The industry saw its fifth consecutive year of decline in 2014, to about 285,000 advisers, from a peak of 325,000 in 2008, according to Cerulli. The research firm estimates there will be a gap of about 10,000 advisers in 2020, in terms of the supply of advisers versus the industry's potential growth.”

• The young advisor needs to relate to clients who older. “Mr. Seiderman worked in the industry throughout college and, after graduating, received his certified financial planner designation. But he agreed his biggest issue was comfortably communicating with clients.”

• Experience, including failures, are the key to learning. “Depending on the firm they join, new advisers who survive usually receive sound training and form groups with peers or find mentors. Those who become familiar with the industry and all it has to offer, and who get as involved as possible with clients and coworkers, are more likely to succeed.”

• Mentors are valuable. “Those who make it also usually have peers and mentors who are willing to give them the unvarnished truth. Ms. Williams said her mentor told her not to expect to be profitable for five years. This put her compensation model into perspective, and convinced her to set up a monthly retainer for clients as opposed to a commission or fee-only model.”

• There is hope. “For any new adviser, there is more than one way to make it work,” … “You have the ability to create the type of working environment you want, so if you stay committed to that vision, eventually you're going to get there.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

DOL Issues First Round of FAQs

By Diane R. Boyle
NAIFA National Senior Vice President - Government Relations            

As you’ve probably seen, the DOL issued its  first round of FAQs today.  There are 34 FAQs in this guidance. EBSA says more FAQs are coming "shortly." Following is summary of the NAIFA-relevant FAQs. We’ll have a more thorough analysis soon, but thought you might enjoy an early peak.

FAQ 1 states that from 4/10/17, the "applicability date" of the new fiduciary rule, until 1/1/18 there will be a "transition period" during which "fewer conditions" will apply to those seeking to rely on one or more of the rule's prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs).

During the transition period, financial institutions & advisors will have to comply with the impartial conduct standards, and will have to provide notice to retirement savers that fiduciary status is acknowledged and describing any conflicts of interest. Financial institutions will also have to monitor advisors for adherence to impartial conduct standards. However, the contract required by between the financial institution and retirement savers will not be required until 1/1/18.

FAQ 2 states that most preexisting exemptions compliance rules take effect 4/1/17 (there's an exception for PTE 86-128, the independent fiduciary requirement, which won't take full effect until 1/1/18)

FAQ 3 covers the BIC and notes it is available in the retail market and for advice on rolling assets into an IRA or for hiring an advisor.

FAQ 4 notes the BIC doesn't apply if no advice is being rendered.

FAQ 5 clarifies when BIC applies to compensation based on a fixed percentage of assets (e.g., when there is a potential conflict of interest as when the rollover investment generates fees based on assets being managed but those fees would not apply to the fund from which the rollover was taken). The FAQ offers a "streamlined" BIC compliance structure for these "level fee fiduciaries."

FAQ 6 explains that BIC is available to advisors who both advise the retirement plan and to plan participants rolling over assets from the plan into an IRA.

FAQ 7 states that the BIC is available for advice regarding rolling over assets to an IRA when those assets will be managed on a going-forward basis by a discretionary investment manager.

FAQ 8 makes clear that the BIC will not exempt a discretionary manager of assets (in a plan or an IRA) from fiduciary responsibilityt where that advisor has or exercises any discretionary authority or control over the transaction.

FAQ 9 covers compensation--it says financial institutions can use payment structures that include bonuses, contests, awards or other differential compensation so long as those structures "are not intended or reasonably expected to cause advisors to make recommendations that are not in the best interest of retirement investors and they do not cause advisors to violate the reasonable compensation standard." This FAQ goes on to discuss a range of compensation factors and circumstances.

FAQ 10 says BIC does not cover advice provided solely through robo-advice. But, it can cover robo-advice providers that are "level fee fiduciaries."

FAQ 11 notes that certain discounts (such as those available based on the size of a client or transaction, or to build a practice or attract a new client) are permissible, but goes through the factors needed to make such discounts permissible (i.e., no violation of the reasonable compensation standard).

FAQ 12 discusses use of recruitment bonuses/awards and whether they are related to the achievement of sales targets.

FAQ 13 covers level fee fiduciaries.

FAQ 14 discusses the BIC's level fee provisions in relation to investment advice for a rollover from a plan to an IRA when the advisor has no "reliable information" about the plan's expenses and features.(Generally, the BIC requires both the advisor and the financial institution to make "diligent and prudent efforts" to obtain information on the plan. How to get that information is discussed in the FAQ.

FAQ 15 makes clear that financial institutions can use both level fee fiduciaries and other advisor arrangements (i.e., use of the level fee fiduciary construct does not preclude other arrangements).

FAQ 16 states the BIC can be used in a rollover-to-an-IRA situation even where the advisor will become a discretionary manager of the IRA assets after the rollover.

FAQ 17, similarly, ok's use of the BIC for advice to transfer from a commission-based account to a level fee account.

FAQ 18 notes that 12b-1 and other third party fees are not "level fees" for purposes of the level fee fiduciary rules.

FAQ 19, EBSA notes that proprietary product commissions are not level fee fiduciary situations.

FAQ 20 covers bank networking arrangements.

FAQ 21 deals with PTE 84-24 (annuities) and states that both BIC and 84-24 cover insurance-only agents who sell fixed rate and fixed indexed annuities to retirement investors. The FAQ notes that impartial conduct standards apply to both PTEs (84-24 and BIC).

FAQ 22 says insurance companies can rely on independent insurance agents to sell fixed rate and fixed indexed annuities, subject to the impartial conduct standards and, where applicable, the BIC exemption.

FAQ 23 deals with the role of IMOs in the sale of annuities -- generally, an "insurance intermediary" like an IMO is not a "financial institution" and so can't enter into the BIC-required contract. So, an insurance company will have to be "responsible for" an IMO. The FAQ goes on to state that companies and advisors can work with IMOs, though, and notes that there is  process by which IMOs can become "financial institutions" for purposes of using the BIC.

FAQ 24 discusses the BIC's requirement that financial institutions need to maintain an executed contract on the financial institution's website. It states the best practice is to make the executed contract available to the retirement investor on the website, but notes a model contract that does not vary for a class of customers may be used. But this FAQ urges caution in using the model contract authority.

FAQ 25 goes on to describe how to meet this requirement in the context of "negative consent" (i.e., when a client does not object).

FAQ 26 clarifies that the BIC is not needed in "hold/sell" situation--it says it applies to situations involving a purchase.

FAQ 27 specifies that investor-requested cost/fee/compensation disclosure must be provided prior to the transaction, or if the request is made after the transaction, within 30 days of the request. It discusses when date of recommendation or date of request is the controlling date.

FAQ 28 states that dividend reinvestment programs are eligible for the rule's grandfathering rules.

FAQ 29 notes that while new investment in a grandfathered investment is subject to the new rules, a new investment does not defeat the grandfathering of the "old" money in the grandfathered investment.

FAQs 30 and 31 deal with getting a principal transactions exemption.

FAQ 32 makes clear that PTE 84-24 (covering insurance and fixed rate annuities) covers rollovers into annuities.

FAQ 33 states that DOL intends to interpret (apply/enforce) the "reasonable compensation standard" language in PTE-84-24 and the BIC in the same way, despite some differing language in the two PTEs.

FAQ 34 states that although DOL has authority to investigate/audi plans and plan fiduciaries, it considers compliance assistance a "high priority" as financial institutions and advisors come into compliance with the new rules. "The Department's general approach to implementation," the FAQ states, "will be marked by an emphasis on assisting (rather than citing violations and imposing penalties on) plans, plan fiduciaries, financial institutions and other who are working diligently and in good faith to understand and come into compliance with the new rule and exemptions."

Public Relations

by Leena Rosile,
Public Relations Committee

Financial Institutions Poised for Deregulation under Trump

Experts and observers on Wall Street and in Washington, D.C., say President-elect Donald Trump will press for broad, deep reductions in regulations for banking, energy and health care. Such efforts are likely to get solid support from the Republicans who continue to control Congress, observers say. READ MORE

NAIFA's New Career Center

NAIFA has launched a new online feature -- The Career Center. NAIFA's Career Center is a source for companies seeking qualified and relevant candidates as well as an easy way for job seekers to apply for a specific job they may be interested in. For questions, please contact Teri Shaw, Director of Business Development and Strategic Partnerships, at 703-770-8225 or tshaw@naifa.org.

Highlights of A Day with MRDT - 2016

 

On October 17th, NAIFA-Columbus held their fifth annual “A Day with MDRT” Event at the Nationwide Hotel and Conference Center in Lewis Center Ohio. This event, presented by New York Life, was filled with inspirational and motivational speakers. More than 300 attendees listened to presentations from many well-renowned motivational and inspirational speakers.

Also during this year’s event, Major Josh Lyle with the Salvation Army provided an Invocation and Jon Cross with Northwestern Mutual sang a powerful rendition of the National Anthem to kick off this year’s event. In addition, the MDRT Foundation presented the Cornerstone of Hope with a contribution check for $1,000 for their work in the community.

A special presentation was made to Ryan Smith, NAIFA-Columbus Past President who created this event several years ago. Current Event Chairman Duane Borcherding and Past Event Chairman John Barber presented Ryan with a plaque which included the program cover from the inaugural event in October 2012.

Thank You to our Presenters who made this event such a successful one:

Speaker: Paul Dougherty
Speaker: Van E. Mueller, LUTCF
Speaker: Terry K. Headley, LUTCF, LIC, FSS
Speaker: Simon Reilly
Speaker: Tom Hegna

Thank You to our Title Sponsor:

New York Life

Thank You to our Event Sponsor:

National Life Group

Thank You to our Exhibitor Sponsors:

APPS Paramedical Services
Ash Brokerage
Business Underwriters Association
Camelot Portfolios
Fast Fingerprints
Hondros College of Business
Indiana Wesleyan University
J. Hilburn Men’s Luxury Clothier
Mass Mutual Financial Group
Mass Mutual Financial Group Ohio
Morton-Barber Learning Center
NAIFA-Columbus
Nationwide
One More You
Oppenheimer Funds
Phoenix Bats
Principal Financial Group

Thank You to our Program Sponsors:

21st Century Financial / Penn Mutual
Alteration Station
Buckeye Automotive Family
Buren Insurance Group
CareWorksComp
ExamOne
Grange Life Insurance
Highland Capital Brokerage
Integrity Plans, LLC
Motorists Life Insurance Company
Secured Retirement Strategies Group, LLC
Signature Financial Group

 

NAIFA National President Paul Dougherty
NAIFA National President Paul Dougherty
 

 

Thank You to the following Companies/Sponsors:

Duane Borcherding, CLU, ChFC, CLTC, NAIFA-Columbus Past President and MDRT Event Chairman – For sponsoring the Welcome Reception
Karen Shepherd with Kabob Images and Design – For taking photos during the event

Thank You to the following NAIFA-Columbus Members for their support:

I. David Cohen, CLU, ChFC, LUTCF – Independent Agent
Christian E. Laver, RFC – Christian Laver & Associates
Lowell T. Mackenzie, CLU – AXA Advisors, LLC
Robert M. Roach, CLU, ChFC, AEP – Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company

Thank You to our MDRT Committee Members who made this event possible:

Duane A. Borcherding, CLU, ChFC, CLTC, Chairman – New York Life
Jonathan E. Berniger – 21st Century Financial
Cort R. Bradbury, CLU, CLF – Heritage Wealth Partners
Christopher D. Campbell, CLU, ChFC – Highland Capital Brokerage
Stephen P. Childers – NAIFA-Columbus
Renae C. Davies – NAIFA-Columbus
Aaron Forbes – The Buren Insurance Group Inc.
Logan Philipps, J.D. – Resch & Root, LLC
Jay C. Randall – Principal Financial Group
Robert M. Roach, CLU, ChFC, AEP – Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company