Menu

CPS RELIABLE Advanced Markets

Shutterstock_1459387022-1

Charity Begins At Home, Not At The Carrier

Director Francis Ford Coppola leaves us with a cold and calculating Michael Corleone looking out the windows of his lake house over the water that would prove to be the River Styx for his brother. What is to be a day of relaxation and fishing for Fredo will end in the fulfillment of Michael’s directive for the execution of a sibling who he deems unfaithful to him and the family.
 
In audience time it is 16 years before we meet the Don again in the opening scene of The Godfather: Part III. In contrast to the sordid power-brokering that goes on in the initial wedding and baptism sequences of the first two films, we find an older, reflective Michael on a path for respectability, legitimacy and eventually some sort of moral absolution.
 
In a grand ceremony at St. Patrick’s Cathedral he is being inducted as a Commander in the Order of St. Sebastian and viewers soon learn that there is probably a connection between that honor and a $100 million gift to the Church from the Vito Corleone Foundation, a charity run by Michael’s daughter.

The film only serves to fuel the suspicion we often have of those who seem too charitably minded; a suspicion that is understandably shared by insurance carriers.

Back in the olden times as states began passing laws giving charities an insurable interest in the lives of donors, it wasn’t much trouble getting a significant amount of charity-owned coverage on the life of a person who intended to donate the premiums each year to the organization.
 
The problem arose when an invigorated life settlement marketplace created an attractive non-correlated asset class and groups of independent investors arranged for charities to buy coverage on donors paying the premiums and anticipating returns for all involved when the policy was sold later on in the secondary market.
 
Once everybody figured out what was going on a couple things occurred…
 
First, applications began containing questions addressing intended use of coverage, particularly regarding possible transfer of interests in the contract after the sale. And, second, the liberality of financial underwriting for charitably-owned coverage was dramatically proscribed.
 
A recent survey we conducted of major carriers revealed that the starting point, and often the finish line, for the amount of death benefit they would entertain was only ten times the annual donation pattern the insured had with the charity; i.e. if Benjamin Bear has been giving $5,000 a year to the Bruin Varsity Club, he is only good for $50,000 coverage to leverage his legacy – hardly a gold mine for some insurance advisor alumni trolling the membership list.
 
One carrier would allow twenty times. Another permitted the projected value of the pattern of giving for 75% of the donor’s life expectancy.
 
The fields are hardly white for harvest if an insurance advisor intends to get rich selling charitable-owned coverage. Nonetheless, there are circumstances where carriers may look beyond the donation-multiple standard.
 
By the way, both The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II won the Academy Award for Best Picture. The Godfather: Part III was nominated, but denied, the award going instead to the Kevin Cosner film Dances with Wolves. The American Film Institute ranks The Godfather #2 among the best motion pictures in American cinema, second only to Citizen Kane. Also, UCLA has won more NCAA championships than any other school. You can look it up!
Shutterstock_1922000300-1

Avoiding Collateral Damage

The term collateral damage was originally used during warfare when a military target was struck. Even when the attack was successful it often left behind peripheral harmful results – usually affecting nearby innocent civilians. The phrase is now more broadly used to describe negative unintended consequences of an attempt to do something beneficial.

Life insurance is often used as security on a loan, usually in a business situation.

Urgency of the circumstances (or poor advice) usually results in a creditor simply being added as beneficiary on the policy for the amount of the loan. The result is a prime opportunity for collateral damage. Parties to the loan or the policy seldom think to adjust the creditor’s beneficial interest as the loan is paid down or even paid off. So if death occurs the creditor is unjustly enriched and the remaining beneficiaries are short-changed. Or a creditor’s beneficial interest can be too easily changed or eliminated without his or her knowledge.
 
Here are the rules:
 
Rule #1 – Never secure a loan with a beneficiary designation. Always use a collateral assignment!
 
A collateral assignment (C/A) is a formally documented lien on the policy in favor of the creditor who stands first in line for the share of the death benefit described by the terms of the C/A. But there can be collateral damage from a collateral agreement if things are not done properly.
 
Rule #2 – Use the carrier’s C/A form.
 
Rule #3 – Get the carrier’s permission before making any modifications on the C/A form
 
Rule #4 – To avoid the appearance of practicing law, only modify the C/A at the specific direction of the client or the client’s attorney.
 
Rule #5 – Make sure the C/A is dated after a time the policy is in force.
 
Rule #6 – Make sure the completed C/A is filled with the carrier, or the carrier won’t know to protect the rights of the creditor if benefits are paid.
 
Rule #7 – MEC Alert! Make sure the client understands that if a C/A is filed on a modified endowment contract the amount secured by the C/A is reportable taxable income to the extent of gain in the contract (like a LIFO distribution).
 
For all its conceptual simplicity, the execution of a collateral assignment usually has many problems as different circumstances pop up with each case. Call with any questions or for assistance with the drafting, approval and implementation of a collateral assignment at 706-614-3796 or tom@cpsadvancedmarkets.com.
Shutterstock_271089677

Show Me The Money!

There’s the old story about the hungry chicken and the hungry pig who agreed to both contribute to a mutual breakfast. The chicken suggested they have ham and eggs, to which the pig replied, “That’s a contribution for you, but it’s total commitment for me!”

When proposing life insurance we would manage client expectations better if we took time to explain the disproportionate obligations that exist once coverage is put in force.

It would also help them understand the purpose behind those often annoying requests and requirements made by the carrier – particularly in the area of financial underwriting.
 
Consider This:
 
Clients often think that a carrier ought to be inclined to sell them as much life insurance as they want. They assume that because the local grocer would sell them his whole stock of fresh radishes, an insurance company ought to respond in the same manner and get frustrated when it does not. The difference, again, is the disproportionate obligations and the economic exposure that remain after the transaction. Except for a change in the type of asset you and your grocer are in the same position before and after the sale.
 
When a life contract goes into force the buyer is only under a non-binding obligation for periodic premium to keep the coverage going. If paid the carrier is on the hook for a death benefit exponentially greater than the premium if the insured dies. And that exponent is even more extreme when the client takes advantage of low term rates. To use an example from experience with my own offspring: a healthy 21-year-old female can purchase $350,000 for $185 a year. The carrier is at risk for a payment that constitutes just 1/20 of 1% of their exposure.
 
We can argue that the disproportion is mitigated or eliminated when we look at the big picture. If the carrier has underwritten correctly over a large pool of policyholders it all shakes out in the wash over time; does it not?
 
The key here is “if the carrier has underwritten correctly”
 
And part of correct underwriting is not issuing an amount of coverage that makes an insured worth more dead than he or she is when alive (or as we say in the trade, not increasing the likelihood that insureds will fall down a flight of stairs before their time). The carrier wants to know why you need the coverage and the financial circumstances that justify both the need and the amount, usually in the form of a simple, easy-to-complete financial supplement that must be signed by a qualified third-party advisor for larger cases. Resistance on this will only delay the case and maybe raise the suspicions of the underwriter. Alert your client in advance and respond quickly to request that are made.
 
We turn over financial information for everything nowadays: loan applications, refinancing a mortgage, getting a new credit, or opening a PayPal account. Don’t let your clients develop a mindset that applying for life insurance is any different.
 
We specialize in alerting you up front regarding potential underwriting requirements on your case, estimating how much coverage a carrier will allow given your client’s financial circumstances, and helping with bumps in the road if financial justification issues occur. Give us a call.
Shutterstock_2090116765-1

162 Executive Bonus – The Biggest Drawback Solved?

What’s the best way to attract and retain key people in the face of a government that does, and continues to do, all it can to proscribe or eliminate the advantages of selective benefits? The non-discrimination and other limitations on qualified plans often make them ineffective for the purpose.

Deferred compensation (or SERPs) and split dollar plans have become too regulation-laden and require too much administration, record-keeping and reporting to jingle any bells amongst most prospects.

What to do?
 
Among other things, because of its simplicity and its potential flexibility throughout the life of the benefit plan, the section 162 executive bonus arrangement is deservedly getting new levels of attention. It’s design might be an almost a one-size-fits-all answer to executive benefit needs, but for one concern: How do the employers truly “handcuff” an executive if they can’t maintain control over and retrieve employer funds paid into the plan?
 
In its most basic form, an executive bonus plan involves the employee buying and owning a policy on his or her life. The employer pays the premium, takes a deduction, and reports it to the executive as income, but if the employee walks the policy then the employer investment goes out the door as well.
 
The “loss of control” problem can be mitigated, if not eliminated, by appending two simple features to the plan:
 
First, the agreement can include a repayment obligation on the part of the key person under terms spelled out. The obligation is often phased out over time, giving the arrangement a vesting-like feel to the deal. This is similar to the conditions often applied to moving expenses paid on behalf of a re-located executive. Because the employer doesn’t have an interest in the policy, the plan does not unintentionally wander into split dollar territory. Furthermore, because there is no delayed income being paid, the deferred compensation regulations do not apply.
 
Second, a simple restriction on policy owner’s rights to policy access can be filed with the carrier. For the agreed upon period of time, the key person cannot alter, change or benefit from the policy without the permission of the employer – except for the designated beneficiary. Again, without giving the employer an ownership interest in the policy, it locks down the policy and allows an employer time to exercise the legally enforceable right to recover premiums, if needed.
 
If this method satisfies a business prospect’s concern for the security of an investment that’s desired under a benefit plan, then an executive bonus arrangement could be the easy answer to attract and keep select employees.
 
We provide sales and advisor support, documentation, product design, and we can answer your questions related to the presentation and implementation of executive bonus plans. Give me a call at 706-614-3796 or email me at tom@cpsadvancedmarkets.com to discuss the full width and breadth of the often overlooked advantages of this concept. I’ll even send you a free Overlooked Advantages Summary!
Shutterstock_1153862602-2

Is Your Buy-Sell Jury-Rigged & Jerry-Built?

Back in the days before the development of things like the NiMH or lithium-ion battery, stand-up comedian Don Adams (who later became Maxwell, the original Get Smart secret agent) used to joke that electric cars were unpopular because of the high cost of the extension cord.
 
Many insurance advisors face a similar hurdle when advising clients to properly set up a buy-sell arrangement using term insurance to fund the plan.

The cost of getting with the attorney to draft and implement a written agreement, to say nothing of the time and effort required, is discouragingly disproportionate to the amount of premiums for the coverage.

Consequently, just to get things done the policies are often jointly-owned as a “no-fuss” method of assuring that proceeds will get to the surviving owners to buy out a deceased owner’s estate, without a formal agreement.
 
It works like this:
 
Joint owners and beneficiaries (some states add “with right of survivorship”) share equally in the possession of the policy and the right to proceeds, so long as they survive the insured. If not, only the survivors share equally. So if equal business owners A, B, and C agree to fund a buy-sell then, e.g., A and B jointly own the policy on C. When C dies A and B have funds to buy C’s business interest. But more important, C’s joint interest in the policies on A and B ends. A and B are now the sole owner and beneficiary of the policy on each other for use at the second death.
 
Something is said to be “jury-rigged” when it is simply constructed with the materials at hand. That same thing is “jerry-built” when it is done in a shoddy or inferior fashion. Buy-sell plans built solely on joint policy ownership are both. The only thing assured is that the money gets to the prospective buyers. After that it’s all up for grabs.
 
Consider:
  • The surviving owners are under no legal obligation to buy, leaving the estate of the deceased (probably the surviving spouse) in a lurch.
  • The deceased’s estate is under no obligation to sell, leaving the deceased’s heirs as a new owner in the business.
  • There is no fixed price for the business for estate or for income tax purposes should the IRS get involved.
  • Re-arrangement of interests in the remaining policies could constitute a transfer-for-value.
Of course the worst that could happen is for someone to die with no coverage in force. So if clients are resolute in their refusal to take proper steps to implement a written plan, the advisor should at least get coverage issued with the most advisable ownership arrangement. But in addition the file should contain a cover-your-backside letter from the advisor to the clients spelling out the need to discuss the possible problems with their tax and legal advisor.
 
Call for help in drafting the letter and, just maybe, we might even talk the clients into going to their attorney and doing it right. Try 706-614-3796 or tom@cpsadvancedmarkets.com.
 
Join, jury, jerry – there are a lot of J’s flying around this article. And it just so happens that James and John are the first and second most common male names in the United States. And sure enough there have been six presidents named James and five named John.
Shutterstock_1629569

Making Heads Or Tails Of Executive Benefits

A simple coin toss is the most popular form of settling disputes or making decisions. Subterfuge is often used to improve a participant’s odds. If the caller sees through the “heads-I-win/tails-you-lose” ploy then the flipper can introduce a GMO known as a two-headed coin, usually a Washington quarter, available for a few bucks at any novelty store.
 
All this to illustrate that, for all the similarity of circumstances that the obverse and the reverse have on the dime, they can dictate significantly diverse patterns of events. We use the phrase two sides of the same coin to describe the different, but closely related features, of an idea or course of action. And so it is with certain non-qualified executive benefits.

All employers want economical ways to keep their key people. You make your coin by helping them decide which side of the opportunities available best meet their needs and goals.

An Executive Bonus plan (EB) is the most common selective benefit format in the business marketplace, and a Death-Benefit-Only Plan (DBO) is the most overlooked. Both have as their primary purpose to keep a key person with the company by providing life insurance protection.
 
Their primary difference is the amount of control the employer has – should the executive choose to leave. Both are easy to explain, implement and administer.
 
With an EB plan, simply put, the employer pays for the executive’s personal insurance coverage. In a DBO plan the employer promises to pay a benefit to a named beneficiary if the executive dies while employed, then buys a company-owned policy to fund against the contingency. In either case the vehicle can be a permanent or term product.
 
Often with a DBO the employer chooses to roll the policy out to the executive at the time of retirement. Even with term coverage the conversion privileges can make the transfer attractive if the executive has had health issues.
 
Consider the different sides of this coin:
 
 
Call to talk about executive benefits in particular and business planning issues in general that you should be discussing with every business client and prospect you have.
 
For what it’s worth – the simplest of all Super Bowl wagers made by bettors is on the outcome of the opening coin toss. Those who prefer the NFC did well around and after the turn of the century. The senior conference won the toss from 1999-2012 defying the odds (going in) of 16,384:1.
 
Tom Virkler, JD, Director of Advanced Markets
706-614-3796
Shutterstock_1434872825

Irrevocable Trusts: Pay The Trustee

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away I remember reading an IRS Private Letter Ruling that had about it the worst method an insured/grantor could use to pay premiums on a policy inside an irrevocable trust.
 
He was the sole owner of a business that each year cut a check directly to the carrier for the total amount due. The taxpayer was asking for a determination as to whether this quick-and-easy A-to-B transaction for maintaining a policy outside of his taxable estate would be deemed an incident-of-ownership resulting in the inclusion of the benefit in his taxable estate at death.

I’ve searched half-heartedly and unsuccessfully for the ruling. But if memory serves me well, which it well may not, the Service did some “deeming”, but not in the unfavorable direction of finding an incident-of-ownership anywhere in the works.

It treated the taxpayer’s monetary circumlocution as: first, deemed income to the taxpayer from the company that must be reported as income; second, a deemed gift from the taxpayer to the trust that must be reported as such; then third, a deemed premium payment by the trustee to the carrier – all without giving rise to any incident-of-ownership in the grantor/insured. Well, how about that?
 
It’s tempting to jump on such reasoning when it becomes bothersome to set up a trust checking account, or go through the multi-step process of actually gifting money to the trust and hoping that the godparent of the beneficiaries (who graciously offered to serve as trustee) doesn’t forget to pay premiums in the years following his or her retirement to the beach. But there are some serious concerns created by the convoluted route taken by the premium in the illusive PLR mentioned.
 
If avoiding gift taxation is dependent on use of available annual exclusions then two things are necessary to qualify for protection. The beneficiaries must receive notice of their right to withdraw contributions made on their behalf, usually accomplished through timely “Crummey letters”. More important, the trustee should be in a position to actually fulfill requests from beneficiaries should they choose to exercise their Crummey withdrawal privilege.
 
If the only asset in the trust is the policy and the cash for premiums that constitute the annual gift merely flies over the trust each year, the Service is in a strong position to argue that the present interest necessary to qualify for the exclusion is only an illusion.
 
In addition, a properly drafted irrevocable trust implemented to keep death benefits free of estate taxation will only allow and not require a trustee to purchase life insurance on the grantor’s life. This avoids any argument of grantor control over the policy. However, if each year, premiums are paid directly to the carrier the grantor has, in effect, forced the trustee to purchase coverage. So, how do you spell a-u-d-i-t?
 
Too often shortcuts are taken in the establishment of irrevocable trusts and too often insufficient attention is given to their ongoing administration. While it is not the legal responsibility of the insurance advisor to see that all is done according to Hoyle, it should be his or her annual practice to make sure that the proper parties are fulfilling theirs.
 
Contact our Advanced Markets Team with questions you have concerning your casework that involves trust planning or estate and gift tax concerns, at 706-614-3796 or tom@cpsadvancedmarkets.com.
Shutterstock_390229210

LTC Planning – What’s The States Got To Do With It?

In 1984 the Grammy Award for Best-Record-of-the-Year was given to a singer whose sobriquet within the industry was The Queen of Rock ‘n’ Roll.  It was Tina Turner’s first and only #1 Billboard hit and, at age 44, she became and remains the oldest female artist to ever achieve the honor.  Turner’s winning song, What’s Love Got to Do with It?, offers some sobering advice in its opening lyrics:

You must understand/ though the touch of your hand/ makes my pulse react/

That it’s only the thrill/ . . . You must try to ignore/ that it means more than that.

Lately it seems that all that talk about state-mandated long-term care programs is making a lot of pulses react.  But maybe, like Ms. Turner suggests, it shouldn’t amount to much and is not the important thing to which attention should be paid.

First, a few observations about what is going on in many statehouses across the fruited plain:
  • To date only Washington has enacted a government-provided long-term care. California has completed its LTC program feasibility report.  Fourteen more are giving serious consideration to their own LTC initiatives.
  • The trend suggests that the plans will be funded by a mandatory payroll tax. The one plan in force takes .58% of W-2 income with no cap.  The feasibility in the other may charge a progressive tax ranging from 1.5% to 2.5% on all earned income.
  • The Washington plan allowed a waiver period during which a taxpayer could initiate his or her own private coverage under a qualifying plan and avoid the tax levy. There is no certainty that any future legislation in any state will provide waivers for those with either existing coverage or policies purchased in anticipation state plan implementation.
So, what’s the bottom line regarding what we should be telling clients concerning all these state rumblings?  Simply this, to modify Tina Turner a bit:  What’s the state’s got to do with it? 
  • Motivation to consider private long-term coverage shouldn’t be to achieve a possible waiver and avoid the risk of a mandated levy against salary if a state plan is implemented.
  • Concern should, as always, be about the greater risk of a possible long-term care event that 1) becomes more likely and 2) more expensive to insure against with increased age.
  • At best state plans, like Washington’s, would most likely serve primarily as revenue-raising devices to shore up rapidly shrinking funding bases for current Medicaid plans. Any benefits they provide would, again, most likely prove inadequate for the level of care most clients would prefer.

It’s good that the activity of states is causing many to re-focus on the too-often overlooked need for long-term care protection.  Our job is to use this window-of-opportunity to demonstrate how a client’s future can be made truly more secure with the various forms and features of coverage available in the current marketplace. 

Contact us to discuss more!

Shutterstock_1268926417

Policy Valuation: How Much Are You Worth?

A bidder at an auction purchased a Stradivarius and a Rembrandt for what he felt was an unbelievably low price. He took them to an appraiser to see if they were authentic. The appraiser informed him, “Yes, they are authentic. It’s just a shame that Stradivarius couldn’t paint and that Rembrandt didn’t know beans about making a violin.”

The common legal definition for fair market value of an asset is the price on which a seller and a buyer can agree, neither being under any constraint and both being aware of all the circumstances. Simple enough. So why is there so much confusion with regard to valuation of an inforce life insurance policy?

The need for a reliable value occurs often in the business, estate and financial planning process.

And by “reliable” we mean one that the IRS will find acceptable, because usually the value is needed to calculate the tax consequences at the time of an ownership change.
 
The reason the IRS takes such an interest with life policies is, probably, because most transactions don’t involve parties whose opposing interests are characterized by a level of dynamic tension that will necessarily result in a fair and final value.
 
Consider This:
  • An employer distributing a business-owned contract to an employee-insured (e.g. distribution of a key person policy at retirement) may appreciate the corresponding business deduction, but probably would be happy to undervalue it to augment the benefit to a long-time employee by decreasing the amount he or she must recognize as income.
  • When a policy is distributed from a qualified plan, the stated value matters not at all to the plan trustee. But to the participant who must recognize the value as income (perhaps even with a 10% tax penalty) the lower the valuation, unrealistically or not, the better.
  • In a gifting situation the transferor of a policy is of a donative mindset anyway, so a lower value doesn’t reduce anything he or she might have received in return, except the size of a gift tax bill. So the lower the better, again realistically or not.
The difficulty is that neither Congress nor the IRS nor the courts have put together a reliable set of laws, regulations and rulings that allow for easy or certain valuation of a policy. Taxpayers must deal with a hodge-podge of criteria that vary with circumstances and with interpretation of the facts.
 
The good news for the insurance advisor is – it is not your responsibility to determine value, nor should you try. Rendering an opinion is outside the scope of your legitimate professional activity. The best you can, and should, do is offer to request from the carrier their “Form 712” valuations used by an executor in determining a policy’s value in an owner’s estate. You will get back one or more numbers.
 
The most common is the interpolated terminal reserve, but many will also include: accumulated cash value, PERC value, premiums paid, cash surrender value, tax reserve, statutory reserve, etc. Provide it to the attorney, CPA or appraiser to assist in their valuation. You’ve done all you can and more than most would.
 
There is another story of an auctioneer who was interrupted when his clerk handed him a note. Reading it the auctioneer announced, “A gentleman has lost a wallet containing $500 in cash. If it is returned, he will pay a reward of $100.” After a moment someone in the audience shouted, “$150!”
 
Call with any questions concerning policy valuation. We will make it worth your while.
Shutterstock_657509683

Having Your (Wedding) Cake and Eating It, Too?

As the years go by, America is slowly raising a generation that knew not Johnny Carson.  Fewer now remember when in 1992 the “King of Late-Night Television” broadcast his last episode on The Tonight Show to a viewing audience of over 50,000,000!

Carson wasn’t doing quite so well years before when an attempt to shore up his floundering career involved hosting a daytime gameshow entitled Do You Trust Your Wife.  Much smaller audiences tuned in as Johnny gave the category of an upcoming question to a husband-contestant, who then decided whether to try to answer it himself or “trust” his offstage wife to take a shot at it.

Married high-net-worth clients often ask if there is a way they can get property out of their taxable estate, but still benefit from its use.  The answer is, “Yes,” but before moving forward the client would be well-advised to watch a few episodes of Carson’s early gameshow.

The concept is a common and time-tested planning device most-often referred to as the Spousal Lifetime Access Trust (SLAT).  Its implementation and use will require that the work be done by the client’s legal and tax advisors. 

It works like this:
  1. The married taxpayer sets up an irrevocable grantor trust with his/her intended heirs (usually the kids) as beneficiaries.
  1. An additional feature is that the taxpayer’s spouse is made a lifetime beneficiary of the trust – that is what makes it a
  1. So long as the rights and privileges granted to the spousal beneficiary are not too extensive and they end it death, none of the assets still in the trust will be included in the taxable estate of either spouse.
The extent to which the beneficiary spouse can benefit is significant, including:
  1. The right to withdraw all income generated in the trust each year.
  1. The right to withdraw each year the greater of $5,000 or 5% of the trust corpus.
  1. The power of the SLAT trustee to make discretionary distributions to the spousal beneficiary so long as it is for health, education, maintenance, or support (HEMS!). This is pretty open-ended!  Most agree that if your trustee can’t justify a distribution for one of these reasons, someone should be appointed who has a better imagination!
  1. The spousal beneficiary can even be the SLAT trustee who has the power to make the discretionary distributions discussed in #6!

So, the high-net-worth client can now make full use of the current high lifetime exemption (currently $12,920,000) by transferring that amount of property to a SLAT for the other spouse and still maintain access to the benefits of the property gifted (for a brief discussion of the current use of the high exemptions, see the entertaining and finely crafted article at Time, Tide, and TAXES Wait for No One. 

Of course, it is only vicarious access because the conduit for enjoyment is the beneficiary spouse.  As an acknowledgement to Johnny Carson, we could call it the Do-You-Trust-Your-Spouse Trust, but SLAT is a much more manageable acronym than DYTYST, is it not?

When the Tonight Show was still performed in New York, Johnny liked to joke, “Anytime four people in this city get into a cab without arguing, a bank robbery has just taken place.”

Get in touch with any questions you have concerning this or other advanced planning matters that come up in your CPS casework at tom@cpsadvancedmarkets.com or 706-614-3796.

Load More

Back To Top

Excellence, Passion, Integrity, Collaboration and Creativity – our core values since 1974

The EPICC Center is the online source for financial professionals, designed to provide them with the essential elements they need to run their practice and increase their bottom line including breaking news, carrier / product information, market trends, sales ideas, marketing tools & resources and more.

Subscribe to our newsletter

* indicates required

Copyright © CPS Insurance Services, Inc. All Rights Reserved EPICC | Designed by Apis Productions