(3 of 4)
I have always considered TIME as a magazine devoted to accurately informing the public on matters affecting our everyday economic, social and political life. Close reading of your publication is responsible for the impression.
Therefore, the article in your issue of May 31, entitled "Protection v. Investment" was a real shock. I can only assume that its definite inaccuracies and unfortunate implications were due to failure to make the proper research upon which to base a critical article. Certainly, it is not in character with your editorial policy, as I have sensed it, to make damaging statements about a financial institution unless those statements have a provable factual basis.
You speak of life insurance as being "foisted" on the public. You place the words "economic, moral and social values of life insurance to the individual and the nation" in quotation marks. Do you not believe in those values? Do you not recognize life insurance as being what it is to millions of Americans—a century-proved way of making adequate provision for dependents and for one's old age?
You speak of "criticism" caused by the "terrific lapse and surrender rate that followed the 1929 Crash." The life insurance companies were not responsible for the Depression nor for its consequences. On the contrary, life insurance saved many a family from distress and want during the Depression years through payments to beneficiaries and through cash and loan values which were often the only good asset remaining, when everything else had failed.
The reference to "the forfeit of near $750,000,000" is not only unsupported but incorrect, as is the comment that "the insurance companies took advantage of the 1933 bar moratorium to declare a moratorium of their own." This moratorium was in no sense "theoretical," but was actually imposed on the various regulatory authorities of the states—and was, in fact, opposed by many life insurance companies. In this connection one can scarcely question that no business in the U. S. is subjected to more rigorous inspection and regulation than the life insurance companies.
The statement that "it was not precisely true that life insurance had weathered the depression without damage" would seem to imply that a contrary claim has been made by the companies. No such claim has been made. At the same time, you fail to point out that the percentage of total life insurance which became involved was exceedingly small—nor do you call attention to the fact that in most, if not all, cases the business of companies which failed was taken over by solvent companies. . . .
THEODORE M. RIEHLE
President
The National Association of Life Underwriters
New York City
The criticisms of life insurance published in TIME, May 31, did not originate with TIME but, as indicated, were summarized from the works of David Gilbert & James P. Sullivan, two of the life insurance business' severest and most vociferous critics. TIME has no ax sharpened against the great U. S institution of life insurance; it insures itself against the death of its own executives.