Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:48, 15 March 2018

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.

Fortune 100 vs Fortune 500

What's the consensus on referencing Fortune 100 vs. Fortune 500 vs. Fortune 1000? Fortune 500 is the official list, but Fortune 100 is very commonly used for the top 100 companies in the Fortune 500. Fortune 1000 has its own entry, as does the 500, but 100 links to the 500 Crimson117 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on f100 vs f500. 2*6 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History of the NYLIC article

I took a look thru some of the old versions of this article, thinking it was too short and too "press-releasish". Older versions contained some company history and, in general, had more information. I see there was a controversy relating to demutualization, but that wasn't the only information which was removed. What's wrong with including a summarized company history from 1845 to present? And it's stance on demutualization is quite unique. First it fought for passage of a New York state bill allowing for mutual holding companies, then it reversed course and chose to remain (and even flaunt) its mutuality. FTR, I'm on the other side of demutualization debate than the now-banned "PolicyOwner", but that doesn't mean I agree the topic should be ignored. It's part of their history. 2*6 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a company history would add a nice encyclopedic flavor to an otherwise press-releasey article. (Though I like the recent rewording by Delirium) Crimson117 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History restored, mostly from early versions of the article. I took time to reference a couple things, though. 2*6 00:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Income Figures

The currently stated income figures reflect fiscal year 2006. Times have quite obviously changed drastically since then, so could someone obtain 2008 figures if possible? KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Italics

Does anyone know why this entry shows up in italics under the category page of Private equity firms of the United States?--BelBivDov (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy section

I noticed today that DarylGolden and Jusdafax had restored this section. I'm not one of the ones who deleted it, but the section does seem to me to be biased, ill-researched, and possibly spammy. The references within the section are not compelling. Citing a law-firm's site that exists to seek clients so they can have someone to sue does not seem to me to be a particularly compelling argument. Blaming New York Life for the actions of one non-employee representative is misleading. Why even cite a Better Business Bureau page that merely says NYLIC failed to respond to complaints? It does not even say what those complaints were. Anyway, I thought I'd post here rather than get into some editing war on the main page. My suggestion is to either re-delete this section or rewrite it with more meaningful references. – 2*6 (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

After looking into the references deeply, including the long legal documents, some of the above criticism above may be valid. The edit I reverted was by a first-time, unregistered editor. Deletion of an article section is not the way to begin a Misplaced Pages editorship, in my view. Perhaps the editor in question would like to discuss the matter? Jusdafax 07:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Jusdafax, thank you for responding. I agree that an anonymous first-time editor deleting a non-favorable section of an article is suspicious on its face. Although I have never worked for NYLIC in any capacity, I do admit a favorable disposition toward the company. That is why I bothered to start this conversation. – 2*6 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposing article updates

Hi there! I'm here with some proposed updates to improve this article. In the last few months, I've written a full new proposed draft of the article that includes my suggested edits to address inaccuracies, omissions, and general organization issues. As disclosure, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of New York Life Insurance Company through my work at Beutler Ink, and NYL has provided feedback and input on my draft.

The full draft of the proposed article update is in my user space so editors can see exactly what I'm proposing: User:16912_Rhiannon/New York Life. You can also see a comparison of the draft to the current article, in this diff. Main differences between the current article and my draft are as follows:

• Updated the infobox and introduction
• Developed History to include subsections on Early history, 20th century, and Recent history, which includes detail on how the company fared during the financial crisis
• Added a more robust section outlining NYL's structure and its operations
• Included sections noting select rankings and corporate responsibility
• Finally, I removed the Criticism and controversy section, because it does not appear appropriately sourced. My take is that the reliance on court documents verges on original research, and the legal firm citation that connects clients to class action lawsuits is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia. I tend to agree with 2*6's note above, that these "references within the section are not compelling".

To keep things as simple as possible for reviewing editors, I will post edit requests for individual sections of this article. And to keep things really simple at first, I'll start with the infobox.

Edit request: Infobox

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at P. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

To start things off, I'm proposing a simple update of the current infobox. My draft infobox below includes:

• Proposed addition of Products
• Proposed addition of Assets under management
• Replacement of Net income with Operating income (the existing figure from 2014 is also operating income, as seen in the 2014 Annual Report, so the current infobox contains the incorrect parameter to begin with)
• Updated Number of employees

{{Infobox company
| name = New York Life Insurance Company
| logo = ]
| type = ]
| foundation = 1845
| location = ]<br>], ], ]
| key_people = Ted Mathas, ] and ]
| num_employees = 11,320 employees (2017)<ref name=Fortune500>{{cite web |url=http://fortune.com/fortune500/new-york-life-insurance/ |title=Fortune 500 |publisher=] |accessdate=27 June 2017}}</ref>
| industry = ]: ] & ]
| products = ], ], ], ]
| operating_income = US$1.95 billion (2016)<ref name=2016AnnualReport>{{cite web |url=https://www.newyorklife.com/content/dam/nyl-cms-dotcom/pdfs/financial-info/2016/2016-Annual-Report.pdf |title=2016 Annual Report |publisher=] |accessdate=31 May 2017}} p. ii</ref>
| aum = US$538 billion (2016)<ref name=2016AnnualReport/>
| homepage =

As I do have a financial COI, I do not intend to make any edits to the live article. My hope is that an uninvolved editor (or editors) are able to review my proposed updates and make edits as appropriate. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 03:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Partially implemented  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  07:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, Spintendo. I think you may have missed that the operating income (ie. operating earnings) was in the Financial highlights of the Annual Report; the figure is shown in the table as $1,954 millions, which is $1.95 billion. For the employee figure, I'm confused as to why the Fortune 500 listing isn't appropriate to support this and supporting documents are needed? Fortune is a very reliable source. According to their website they get information for the Fortune 500 from S&P Global, though I don't know if that would be publicly available anywhere. Finally, would it be possible to add the Assets Under Management? Similarly to the operating income, this is listed in the Financial highlights table at the start of the annual report. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ack! Just realized why you'd have been confused about the financials, Spintendo -- my reference says "pii" (referring to the third page of the Annual Report pdf file, which is before the numbered pages begin), not "p11"; with that clarified, can you take another look? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 03:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note: New requests go at the bottom of the page, one at a time. Kindly restate your request in that location, delineating each specific instance where a change is desired.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  21:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Operations#Overview

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at D. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

As there's just a couple of small items to figure out (hopefully!) with my request above, I thought I might go ahead and share my next proposed update for this article. This proposal is to add a new section called Operations. In my full article draft, you will see that I divided this with three subsections: Overview, Insurance operations, and Asset management. For this edit request, I'd like to focus on just seeking to add a new Overview section.

My draft provides a high-level overview of the services provided by NYL, current executive leadership, number of employees and offices, and briefly explains how as a mutual New York Life differs from other companies. I'm hoping that editors can review, share any feedback and / or move the details live if they look good. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Declined Individual reasons are given below in the overview section.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've added notes alongside yours to explain further and / or note where I've made changes based on your feedback. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New York Life Insurance Company is the largest mutual life insurance company in the U.S. and the country's third-largest life insurance company. The company is owned by its policyholders and has no outside shareholders. As a mutual, New York Life distributes a portion of its earnings to eligible policyholders as annual dividends. The company has paid a dividend every year since 1854.

•  Declined This information is already in the article.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There's no mention of company being the US's 3rd largest insurance company in the current article; nowhere in the article does it simply state how the company is owned, nor the annual dividend -- while the article mentions the company is a mutual, there is no explanation of what this means within the current text; there's no mention that the company has paid a dividend every year since 1854 up to the present. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it is not publicly traded, New York Life is able to focus on long-term financial strategies. Its conservative approach to investments has helped it operate through economic cycles, including the Great Depression and Great Recession.

•  Declined This is a subjective analysis of abilities ("able to focus on..." and of actions "..conservative approach to..."  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Point taken here. I've attempted to reword below to give attribution to the company and its former chairman, but understood if you prefer to snip this content. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New York Life offers life insurance in the U.S., and asset management operations globally. Through Seguros Monterrey New York Life, the company offers insurance in Mexico. Ted Mathas has served as CEO since 2008 and chairman since 2009. As of 2017, New York Life has 11,320 employees and a sales force of about 12,000 agents in 120 offices in the United States.

 Declined This information is already in the article.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Where some of these details are mentioned currently in the article I'm proposing we replace the content with my drafted and sourced material. As well, there is no current mention of the company's global asset management, Seguros Monterrey New York Life is not mentioned in the current article text, the employees, agents and offices details are not currently in the article. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition to its headquarters and Jersey City tech hub the company has corporate offices in Austin, Texas; White Plains, New York; and Tampa, Florida.

•  Declined Misplaced Pages is not a directory of office locations, per: WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I tend to think this is useful information but understood if it comes across as too much. Have cut this below. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It is requested that edits be made to the following semi-protected pages: P (edit · history · last · links · protection log) Please see below for additional information regarding your request. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Thanks for breaking down your feedback above, Spintendo. To clarify, some of these details are entirely new to the article. Also, I should have noted that this proposed section is intended to replace the existing Business scope and International operations sections; in the Business scope section, the material is not well sourced, lacks sourcing entirely for some details and is promotionally written ("exceeded guarantees", "distinguishing life insurance career milestone" "superior professional knowledge, experience and client service"), and for International operations, it doesn't feel necessary to have a standalone section to note operations in one country, when it could be mentioned briefly as part of an overview of all operations. My proposal is to replace these two problematic sections with one clear summary of the company's overall business model.

Below, I've included my draft again, rephrasing content as needed based on Spintendo's feedback and flagging in green which details are entirely new. Above, I've left notes alongside Spintendo's feedback to help understand what I've changed and why.

Partially implemented

1. The information on "largest" insurance company in the United states and whether this spot is occupied at the 1st or third level depending on definition of what is meant by "insurance company" is a distinction best left outside of this article. I have kept the distinction claimed by the NYTimes, and placed it in the lead.
2. My reasons for decline on the points of "ability" and "approaches to" stands.
3. The information regarding Mexico implemented.
4. The information on CEO is already present in the infobox.
5. The information on employee numbers I consider to be a grammatical error (of numbers) and as such, is a trivial matter which you are free to alter (and cite) yourself, per: WP:COIU. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  21:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New York Life Insurance Company is the largest mutual life insurance company in the U.S. and the country's third-largest life insurance company. The company is owned by its policyholders and has no outside shareholders. As a mutual, New York Life distributes a portion of its earnings to eligible policyholders as annual dividends. As of 2016, the company has paid a dividend every year since 1854.

According to the company's former chairman and CEO Seymour Sternberg, quoted in 2010, because it is not publicly traded, New York Life is able to focus on long-term financial strategies. The company states it has a conservative approach to investments, which it believes has helped it operate through economic cycles, including the Great Depression and Great Recession.

==Operations==
===Overview===
New York Life Insurance Company is the largest mutual life insurance company in the U.S.<ref name="Um17">{{cite news |title=New York Life selects new CIO |last1=Um |first1=Sage |url=https://www.ai-cio.com/news/new-york-life-selects-new-cio/ |newspaper=Chief Financial Officer |date=January 17, 2017 |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> and the country's third-largest life insurance company.<ref name=Swarns16>{{cite news |title=Insurance Policies on Slaves: New York Life’s Complicated Past |author=Rachel Swarns |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/us/insurance-policies-on-slaves-new-york-lifes-complicated-past.html?_r=0 |work=] |date=December 18, 2016 |accessdate=May 26, 2017}}</ref> The company is owned by its policyholders and has no outside shareholders.<ref name=Girouard09>{{cite news |title=A Financial Bunker For Scary Times |author=John E. Girouard |url=https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/10/mutual-life-insurance-financial-adviser-network_0210_financial_planning.html |work=] |date=February 10, 2009 |accessdate=May 11, 2017}}</ref> As a mutual, New York Life distributes a portion of its earnings to eligible policyholders as annual dividends.<ref name=InternationalDirectory>{{cite web |url=http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/new-york-life-insurance-company-history/ |title=New York Life Insurance Company History |date= |website=fundinguniverse.com |publisher=International Directory of Company Histories |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref><ref name="NerdWallet17">{{cite web |url=https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/reviews/new-york-life-insurance-review/ |title=New York Life Insurance Review 2017 |date=2017 |publisher=] |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> As of 2016, the company has paid a dividend every year since 1854.<ref>2016 Annual Report, p. 2</ref>

According to the company's former chairman and CEO ], quoted in 2010, because it is not publicly traded, New York Life is able to focus on long-term financial strategies.<ref name=trustedadvisor10>{{cite web |url=http://trustedadvisor.com/trustmatters/ny-life-ex-chairman-sy-sternberg-on-trust-in-the-life-insurance-business-trust-quotes-16 |title=NY Life ex-Chairman Sy Sternberg on Trust in the Life Insurance Business: Trust Quotes #16 |author= |date=December 8, 2010 |work=Trustedadvisor.com |publisher=Trusted Advisor |accessdate=March 26, 2017}}</ref> The company states it has a conservative approach to investments, which it believes has helped it operate through economic cycles, including the ] and ].<ref name=trustedadvisor10/><ref name=InternationalDirectory/>

Remaining infobox edit requests

This edit request to A has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Re-opening a request here re: the three parts of my infobox edit request that are still outstanding. I'm looking to add:

• Operating income for most recent financial year
• Assets under management for most recent financial year

Both are sourced to the Financial highlights on pii (the third page of the PDF, prior to the numbered pages) at the start of the Annual Report.

Also looking to add the number of employees, as sourced to New York Life's listing on the Fortune 500; as noted above there's no publicly available documentation to back up the figure provided by Fortune—the information comes from S&P Global—but I would argue that Fortune is a very reliable source for such a figure, absent any reason to question it (e.g. if there was news coverage of mass layoffs).

Here's the text and markup again, with changes sought shown in green in case it is helpful:

{{Infobox company
| name = New York Life Insurance Company
| logo = ]
| type = ]
| foundation = 1845
| location = ]<br>], ], ]
| key_people = Ted Mathas, ] and ]
| num_employees = 11,320 employees (2017)<ref name=Fortune500>{{cite web |url=http://fortune.com/fortune500/new-york-life-insurance/ |title=Fortune 500 |publisher=] |accessdate=27 June 2017}}</ref>
| industry = ]: ] & ]
| products = ], ], ], ]
| operating_income = US$1.95 billion (2016)<ref name=2016AnnualReport>{{cite web |url=https://www.newyorklife.com/content/dam/nyl-cms-dotcom/pdfs/financial-info/2016/2016-Annual-Report.pdf |title=2016 Annual Report |publisher=] |accessdate=31 May 2017}} p. ii</ref>
| aum = US$538 billion (2016)<ref name=2016AnnualReport/>
| homepage =

Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I've moved this request to the bottom of the page and updated a bit. I'd also like to note that there's currently a formatting error in the current infobox that could be fixed when making these updates, if an editor is able to look at that. Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Spintendo, appreciate you looking at this and the Operations request above. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Criticism and controversy

This edit request to A has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi again! Following my requests so far to update this article, I'd like to make a request to remove the Criticism and controversy section from the article. This entire section is rather poorly sourced, verges on original research, and consists of seemingly not notable events that were not covered in independent, third-party sources. This section was discussed a while back by 2*6 and Jusdafax, and I think it's worth revisiting since there has been no change since then in terms of improved sourcing.

Sources This section contains eight sources.

• Reference #19 is to the New York Life entry on the Better Business Bureau website, which does not mention "allegedly unethical sales practices and refusal to remit death benefits, notably in the State of California."
• Reference #20 is a legal summary on FindLaw
• Reference #21 is a court document
• Reference #22 is Top Class Actions, whose stated goal is "connecting consumers to settlements, lawsuits & attorneys"

The section also includes a number of details lauding New York Life, the source material of which I feel are of equally poor quality. These include bestliferates.org, a New York Life press release, and a dead link to Top Work Places. The only info here with a secondary source is NYL's best-places-to-work listing in Boston, which cites Business Insider. Regardless, I propose that this information be removed, too.

My take is that important, notable events and issues belong on Misplaced Pages—whether positive or negative—if it has generated coverage in reliable, independent sources, is relevant to the subject, and given WP:DUE weight. In this case I tend to agree with 2*6 that the sources used here are not compelling, and are borderline spammy. Interested to hear others thoughts on this and whether this section might be updated or removed! Just to quickly note again, I do have a financial COI here as I'm here on behalf of NYL as part of my work with Beutler Ink, so will not make this edit myself and would like to discuss with others. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented The Criticism and Controversy section was renamed 'New Jersey investigation', as this was the only reliable reference provided in the section. I have expanded upon the New Jersey report's findings, and offered its results, in order to provide contextual understanding of the contents. The other references were for online database results, and no contextual understanding of those findings was provided, so they were removed.

Those removed "complaints" ought not to have been mentioned in passing — as they were here — since the failure to provide a deeper understanding does the reader a great disservice. If, in the future, individual pertinent lawsuits are described along with contextual understanding of what the lawsuits/complaints entailed — including the results that arose from them — the section may be expanded further. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Spintendo. Appreciate your input here and agree in general with your approach. I'll admit, I felt that without secondary sourcing the New Jersey investigation didn't seem especially noteworthy but I'll take a close look at what you've added here and think some more about it. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again! After some more thought, I still wasn't sure about the level of detail here considering the primary source, so I posted a note to WikiProject Law for some more input on this type of section. If editors are generally unconcerned, then I'll leave this be, it just seems like a lot of detail / weight given to this for something with no secondary coverage. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi yet again, Spintendo! After receiving no responses on WikiProject Law, I have posted a request for a third opinion at WP:3O. I don't feel that the New Jersey investigation should be covered in so much detail (if at all) considering the lack of secondary sources. It's clear from your original reply that you feel it should be given this detail to allow for the right level of context, but it seems unencyclopedic to focus on this one investigation out of the whole company history. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why that section exists to begin with. The cited report doesn't seem to be as much an investigation or criticism as routine review and the results, lacking comparative context as they are, look like nothing unusual. So we have two possible cases here: Either it's a routine review, which should be filed under "New Jersey State review" or "Case statistics", rather than "criticisms" or "investigation"; or it's indeed an investigation - a non-routine event based on some outside derogatory information (client complaints, media reports and the like) - in which case you should provide the context and outcomes of the investigation in addition to its conclusions. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts here, François Robere. So far as I'm aware (and based also on what my contact at NYL has been able to find out), there is no particular significance to this report/investigation other than someone at some time added it to the article and Spintendo felt that it was the one piece from the previously existing Criticism and controversy section that had sourcing good enough to expand and retain. The report/investigation was originally added to the article by an IP editor in August 2016. I have searched for secondary, reliable sources that might offer context or describe this report/investigation in further detail, but I have not uncovered anything. On this basis, and WP:DUE, does it seem reasonable to simply remove the section? (A quick note of disclosure, in case you didn't see above: I'm here on behalf of New York Life as part of my work at Beutler Ink so will not edit the article directly.) Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As a measure of caution I've done my own research, and only found two interesting items that aren't already mentioned in the article (), neither of which is related to the so-called investigation. As far as I'm concerned, unless we have new sources as per my previous remarks, the New Jersey section can be removed; whether or not it is is up to the other editors involved. François Robere (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

François Robere: I understand. I appreciate your willingness to review the issue and offer an opinion.

Pinging Spintendo: In light of the WP:3O reviewer's input, what do you think is the best way to proceed? If you're still not inclined to remove the New Jersey investigation content, would you be comfortable with me asking folks from WikiProject Companies (or similar) in order to build consensus one way or the other?

I appreciate everyone's time in this issue. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As it appears that the editors may not have fully read the report, all I can add here is what I discovered in it's stated purposes and conclusions, and address concerns according to that knowledge.

1. The cited report doesn't seem to be as much an investigation or criticism as routine review. The report was conducted by the Commissioner for Banking and Insurance of the state of New Jersey, officially called a "Market Conduct Examination", as authorized by N.J.S.A. 17B:30-13.2 (Complaint handling procedures) and N.J.A.C. 11:2-17.6 (Rules for replying to pertinent communications). These were not part of any type of regular or routine examination, and were triggered by reports from consumers.
2. Lacking comparative context as they are, look(s) like nothing unusual. The examination revealed certain instances where company practices did not accord fully with various provisions of New Jersey insurance statutes and regulations. On the contrary, these are unusual occurances.
3. So we have two possible cases here: Either it's a routine review, which should be filed under "New Jersey State review" or "Case statistics", rather than "criticisms" or "investigation"; or it's indeed an investigation - a non-routine event based on some outside derogatory information (client complaints, media reports and the like) This was not outside information. According to the report, these findings were based on information provided by the New York Life Insurance Company itself (e.g., "Based on the documentation and information submitted by the Companies").
4. in which case you should provide the context and outcomes of the investigation in addition to its conclusions. Notwithstanding the fact that outcomes and conclusions are often the same thing, both are to be found in the report under "Examiner's findings". A summary of those findings is what I placed in the Misplaced Pages article in place of the poorly formed claim statements which were originally placed there. As these "outcomes/conclusions" exist in two locations for editors to read on their own, I wont expound upon them further. Suffice it to say, they do not speak poorly of NY life Ins. Indeed, the findings exonerated the company in the majority of areas where complaints were filed, with the majority of errors being committed in policyholder services.
5. As far as the need for additional context, the report has been made a part of the official state of New Jersey record, and its conclusions were signed off by both the Commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance as well as the SVP and Chief Compliance Officer of NYLife. I'm not sure what additional coverage is needed here. Not wishing to make a WP:POINT of the matter, it goes without saying that the policy repeated here (WP:DUE) does not take into consideration the other references already existing in the article which, as they originate from only one source, would certainly fail that requirement. If anything, removing it would seem to violate WP:BALASP and WP:PROPORTION. Regards, Spintendo      17:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

The section in question has been rewritten:

Policyholder service improvements
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:

1. Claims, Marketing and Sales: 0% error ratio
2. Policyholder services: 13% error ratio
   1. 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."
3. Replacement file review: No problems
4. Underwriting: 0% error ratio
5. Claims review: 0% error ratio
6. 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.

All of the information remains the same. Its presentation is the only thing altered. Let me know if this works.Spintendo      18:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, thanks for your patience while I mulled this over. To start with, I want to say I see and appreciate the time and attention that you've given this section. What I'm struggling with is the "why". Both from a Misplaced Pages perspective (bearing in mind NPOV, and WP:PRIMARY, as well as thinking about what information is considered of encyclopedic importance), and from your individual perspective, I'm at a loss as to why this particular report is so important that it deserves its own section in the article, despite there being only the primary source document and no secondary coverage. It's not that I'm opposed to any mention of it and it's not even negative to NYL, but I'm puzzled why this report that has no secondary coverage needs this much detail and its own standalone section. Typically you've tended to be opposed to including a lot of "minutiae" in company articles, so I've been surprised at your take on this. Can you explain so I can understand the "why" from your perspective? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the individual who first added the information, so I cannot speak to their motivations. What I can speak to is how the editor community has treated this information since it was first appended in August 2016.

1. 23-AUG-2016 First appearance of the information
2. 14-JAN-2017 First attempted removal of the information
3. 14-JAN-2017 The information is restored by Darylgolden whose edit summary states "Revert removal of well-sourced criticism"
4. 14-JAN-2017 Second attempted removal of the information.
5. 14-JAN-2017 Second restoration by Jusdafax whose edit summary states "Revert removal of correctly sourced content please do not edit war."
6. 16-MAY-2017 A qualification is added stating that the information critical to the company ought to be viewed with suspicion.
7. 22-DEC-2017 The beginning of my edits which altered the allegations to be based off of the complaint language as it was shown in the report, basing it upon the page numbers which I included. I also included for the first time the actual numbers used in the findings (percentage-wise) which the original wording did not use. I also removed the spurious references to unreliable sources which the claim had included, narrowing the source to be only the report itself.

All of this time since August 2016 the main bulk of the information from the New Jersey report has described either the report's intentions (from AUG 2016 to DEC 2017) or its actual findings (from DEC 2017 to the present) and attempts at removing it have failed. Based on this history it appears that the information has community consensus to remain in one form or another. Regards, Spintendo      20:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if I'm understanding right, since the information has been in the article for eighteen months and a couple of attempted removals have been reversed, your view is it has community consensus to remain. I don't agree with that. The reasons given by the two editors who reverted weren't specific to this detail (since both were reverting wholesale removal of the Criticism and controversy section. This material isn't well sourced, as both of the editors reverting the edits said in their summaries, it's just the one primary source, the report itself. Per the 3O editor above, "unless we have new sources as per my previous remarks, the New Jersey section can be removed"; given there's no secondary sourcing will you remove it? (As a side note: even if there was consensus for a mention of this report, it doesn't necessarily relate to it having its own section of the article.16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I've re-emplaced it under the "Recent history" subheading. I will not remove it without a broader consensus. The report was signed off by, and contains the signatures of, both Commissioner Considine and Barbara McInerney, Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer of New York Life Insurance Company, and the document itself resides on New Jersey government servers (nj.gov) so I'm not sure which part is supposed to be unreliable here.Spintendo      21:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not saying it isn't reliable, what I am saying is that it's a primary source with no secondary coverage that would show this is a key fact we should know about NYL as part of an encyclopedic overview of the company. Anyway, I'll leave this here for today and see if the editors who'd reverted removals previously chime in. If not, I'll consider how we might get some other folks to offer their 2c here to form broader consensus. open to your thoughts on that too, if you have any suggestions for good venues to get input as the relevant WikiProjects can be very quiet. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

With no-one else weighing in here, I think the best bet to form broad consensus is to open an RfC. I'm not very experienced with them, but I've had a go at writing up what I hope is a neutral description of the situation and hope editors can offer some informed thoughts. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, WP:PRIMARY includes this definition (my bold): "Duke University, Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."

As well, I would say that a government report like this could be a secondary source, say if we were using it to support say, the number of claims made on New York Life policies in a certain year. But that's not how it's being used: it's being used to support inclusion of details that 1. a market conduct investigation was undertaken, 2. the findings of that investigation. Your rubric above supposes that the report is being used to include details about the company, that were provided by NYL and summarized by the government commission. But it is not. It is being used to summarize the investigation itself. In that way, as well as in terms of a straightforward reading of WP:PRIMARY, it is a primary source. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New York Life Insurance Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517111932/http://www.idfpr.com/DOI/Consumer/SlaveryInformation/SlaverySummaryReport.asp to http://www.idfpr.com/doi/Consumer/SlaveryInformation/SlaverySummaryReport.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061225004011/http://www.rochester.edu/SBA/PDFs/SBA%20Bio%20-%201945.pdf to http://www.rochester.edu/SBA/PDFs/SBA%20Bio%20-%201945.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: History

This edit request to A has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi again! I'd like to make a request to update the article's History section, for a few reasons:

• The current section is under-sourced, lacking sourcing for most of the information in the first subsection
• Over 100 years of the company's history are squashed into the first half of the section, while the last ten years are given almost as much space again
• Some of the details in the existing section are reliant upon New York Life's own reports and press releases, rather than independent coverage

The new draft of History I'm proposing streamlines existing detail (for example: I trimmed the quote from a company press release), while adding new content. I have divided the company's history into three sections—Early history, 20th Century, and Recent history—and every sentence carries an inline citation. Here's what I'm suggesting for review:

New York Life Insurance Company first opened in Manhattan's Financial District as Nautilus Mutual Life in 1845, 10 years after the first life insurance charter was granted in the United States. Originally chartered in 1841, the company also sold fire and marine insurance. The company's first president, James De Peyster Ogden, was appointed in 1845. Nautilus renamed itself New York Life Insurance Company in 1849 to concentrate on its life insurance business.

As with other early insurance companies in the U.S., in its early years (1846–1848), at the behest of its Southern agents, the company insured the lives of slaves for their owners. The board of trustees voted to end the sale of insurance policies on slaves in 1848. The company has been open about the sales and these details have been included in books about the company as far back as 1895, including its Semi-Centennial History of the New-York Life Insurance Company.

In its early years, New York Life sold policies to soldiers and civilians involved in combat during the American Civil War and paid claims under a flag of truce during that time. In the late 1800s, the company began employing female agents.

In 1896, New York Life became the first company to insure people with disabilities.

New York Life continued to grow throughout its first 100 years as the national population and the market for life insurance increased. New York Life's growth was in part fueled by its introduction of a system by which the company used agents to find new business. In 1892, company President John A. McCall introduced the branch office system: offices that served as liaisons between New York and field agents.

The New York Life Building at 51 Madison Avenue in Manhattan, designed by American architect Cass Gilbert, opened in December 1928. The company moved into the 34-story skyscraper in 1929. Later that year, New York Life's assets survived the stock market crash; state regulation and company investing policy had led New York Life to invest in government bonds and real estate, not common stocks.

Following World War II, New York Life further diversified; it invested in real estate development in the late 1940s and launched a mortgage-loan program for veterans in 1946. In 1957, New York Life hired one of the industry's first black agents, Cirilo McSween. In the 1970s, New York Life began selling annuities and mutual funds. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, as other mutual life insurance companies became publicly traded corporations, New York Life remained a mutual company. New York Life entered the Mexican market in 1999 when it acquired Seguros Monterrey from Aetna.

New York Life was among the insurers who relaxed their claims process for missing persons in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Fearful of the stability of the market during the two years prior to the financial crisis of 2007–2008, New York Life moved its cash into safer investments such as treasury bonds. In the ensuing financial crisis, New York Life Insurance Company rejected assistance from the U.S. Treasury Department. New York Life credited its diversification and conservative investments to withstanding a hit from the crisis; company CEO Ted Mathas has been quoted as saying, "We were built for times like these".

Following the 2013 acquisition of Dexia Asset Management, later renamed Candriam Investors Group, New York Life Investments became one of the largest asset managers worldwide, with access to markets in Europe, Asia and Australia, in addition to the United States. As of May 2017, it was ranked No. 26 on Pensions & Investments list of largest money managers.

In 2016, New York Life opened an office in Jersey City, New Jersey, to serve as a tech hub for the company.

==History==
===Early history===
New York Life Insurance Company first opened in ]'s ] as '''Nautilus Mutual Life''' in 1845, 10 years after the first ] was granted in the United States.<ref name=Swarns16>{{cite news |title=Insurance Policies on Slaves: New York Life’s Complicated Past |author=Rachel Swarns |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/us/insurance-policies-on-slaves-new-york-lifes-complicated-past.html?_r=0 |work=] |date=December 18, 2016 |accessdate=May 26, 2017}}</ref><ref name=LOC12>{{cite web |url=https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2012/08/an-early-history-of-life-insurance/ |title=An early history of life insurance |date=15 August 2012 |publisher=] |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> Originally chartered in 1841, the company also sold ] and ].<ref name=LandmarksCommission87>{{cite web |url=http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/1512.pdf |title=Landmarks Preservation Commission February 10, 1987; Designation List 187 LP-1512 |date=10 February 1987 |publisher=New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> The company's first president, James De Peyster Ogden, was appointed in 1845.<ref name=Hudnut1906P2>{{cite book |last=Hudnut |first=James Monroe |date=1906 |title=History of the New York Life Insurance Company, 1895-1905 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=szJAAQAAMAAJ&dq=new%20york%20life%20civil%20war&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20life%20civil%20war&f=false |dead-url= |location=New York |page=2 |publisher=New York Life Insurance Company |isbn= |archive-url= |archive-date=}}</ref> Nautilus renamed itself New York Life Insurance Company in 1849 to concentrate on its life insurance business.<ref name=Swarns16/><ref name=LandmarksCommission87/>

As with other early insurance companies in the U.S., in its early years (1846–1848), at the behest of its Southern agents, the company insured the lives of slaves for their owners.<ref name=Swarns16/> The ] voted to end the sale of insurance policies on slaves in 1848.<ref name=Swarns16/> The company has been open about the sales and these details have been included in books about the company as far back as 1895, including its ''Semi-Centennial History of the New-York Life Insurance Company''.<ref name=Hudnut1906P22>{{cite book |last=Hudnut |first=James Monroe |date=1906 |title=History of the New York Life Insurance Company, 1895-1905 |page=22 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=szJAAQAAMAAJ&dq=new%20york%20life%20civil%20war&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20life%20civil%20war&f=false |dead-url= |location=New York |publisher=New York Life Insurance Company |isbn= |archive-url= |archive-date=}}</ref>

In its early years, New York Life sold policies to soldiers and civilians involved in combat during the ] and paid claims under a flag of truce during that time.<ref name=Hudnut1906P169>{{cite book |last=Hudnut |first=James Monroe |date=1906 |title=History of the New York Life Insurance Company, 1895-1905 |page=169 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=szJAAQAAMAAJ&dq=new%20york%20life%20civil%20war&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20life%20civil%20war&f=false |dead-url= |location=New York |publisher=New York Life Insurance Company |isbn= |archive-url= |archive-date=}}</ref><ref name=trustedadvisor10/> In the late 1800s, the company began employing female agents.<ref name="Niccolls">{{cite news |title=A woman agent in the '90's |last1=Niccolls |first1=J. Fremont |newspaper=NYLIC Review |date=July 1937 |accessdate=27 June 2017}}</ref>

In 1896, New York Life became the first company to insure people with disabilities.<ref name="Vault">{{cite book |title=Vault Guide to the Top Insurance Employers |editor=Tyya N. Turner |year=2005 |publisher=Vault, Inc. |location= |isbn=9781581313208 |page=103 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yju0gYTwntMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref>

New York Life continued to grow throughout its first 100 years as the national population and the market for life insurance increased.<ref name=InternationalDirectory>{{cite web |url=http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/new-york-life-insurance-company-history/ |title=New York Life Insurance Company History |date= |website=fundinguniverse.com |publisher=International Directory of Company Histories |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> New York Life's growth was in part fueled by its introduction of a system by which the company used ] to find new business.<ref name=InternationalDirectory/> In 1892, company President John A. McCall introduced the branch office system: offices that served as liaisons between New York and field agents.<ref name=InternationalDirectory/>

===20th Century===
]]]
The New York Life Building at 51 Madison Avenue in Manhattan, designed by American ] ], opened in December 1928.<ref name="CassGilbert">{{cite web |url=http://www.cassgilbertsociety.org/works/nyc-newyorklife/ |title=New York Life Building |publisher=Cass Gilbert Society |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> The company moved into the 34-story skyscraper in 1929.<ref name=InternationalDirectory/> Later that year, New York Life's assets survived the ]; state regulation and company investing policy had led New York Life to invest in government bonds and real estate, not common stocks.<ref name=InternationalDirectory/>

Following ], New York Life further diversified; it invested in ] in the late 1940s and launched a mortgage-loan program for ] in 1946.<ref name=InternationalDirectory/> In 1957, New York Life hired one of the industry's first black agents, Cirilo McSween.<ref name=Swarns16/><ref name=Deppe17>{{cite book |title=Operation Breadbasket: An Untold Story of Civil Rights in Chicago, 1966–1971 |author=Martin L. Deppe |year=2017 |publisher=] |location=] |isbn=9780820350455 |page=69 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5UhaDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> In the 1970s, New York Life began selling annuities and mutual funds.<ref name=InternationalDirectory/> In the late 1990s and early 2000s, as other mutual life insurance companies became publicly traded corporations, New York Life remained a mutual company.<ref name=InternationalDirectory/> New York Life entered the Mexican market in 1999 when it acquired Seguros Monterrey from ].<ref name=Lohse99>{{cite news |title=New York Life Insurance to buy Mexican insurer for $570 million |last1=Lohse |first1=Deborah |last2=Millman |first2=Joel |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB94448744554858708 |newspaper=] |date=7 December 1999 |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref>

===Recent history===
New York Life was among the insurers who relaxed their claims process for missing persons in the wake of the ].<ref name=InternationalDirectory/> Fearful of the stability of the market during the two years prior to the ], New York Life moved its cash into safer investments such as ].<ref name=trustedadvisor10>{{cite web |url=http://trustedadvisor.com/trustmatters/ny-life-ex-chairman-sy-sternberg-on-trust-in-the-life-insurance-business-trust-quotes-16 |title=NY Life ex-Chairman Sy Sternberg on Trust in the Life Insurance Business: Trust Quotes #16 |author=t |date=December 8, 2010 |work=Trustedadvisor.com |publisher=Trusted Advisor |accessdate=March 26, 2017}}</ref> In the ensuing financial crisis, New York Life Insurance Company rejected assistance from the ].<ref name="NBCNews08">{{cite news |title=Two insurers reject government bailout help |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27631025/ns/business-us_business/t/two-insurers-reject-government-bailout-help/#.WS212hPysWo |newspaper=] |date=9 November 2008 |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> New York Life credited its diversification and conservative investments to withstanding a hit from the crisis; company CEO Ted Mathas has been quoted as saying, "We were built for times like these".<ref name="NYLOffices">{{cite web |url=http://www.albany.nyloffices.com/files/4375/Built%20for%20times%20like%20these.pdf |title=Built for Times Like These |publisher=New York Life Insurance Company |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref><ref name="Goffee15">{{cite book |title=Why Should Anyone Work Here?: What It Takes to Create an Authentic Organization |author=Robert Goffee and Gareth Jones |year=2015 |publisher=] |isbn=9781625275097 |page=104 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=68OPCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref>

Following the 2013 acquisition of Dexia Asset Management, later renamed Candriam Investors Group, New York Life Investments became one of the largest asset managers worldwide, with access to markets in ], ] and ], in addition to the United States.<ref name="Orzeck13">{{cite news |title=New York Life buys Dexia Asset Management arm for $512M |last1=Orzeck |first1=Kurt |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/475464/new-york-life-buys-dexia-asset-management-arm-for-512m |newspaper=] |date=24 September 2013 |accessdate=30 May 2017}}</ref> As of May 2017, it was ranked No. 26 on ''Pensions & Investments'' list of largest money managers.<ref name="P&I17">{{cite news |title=The largest money managers |url=http://www.pionline.com/specialreports/money-managers/20170529 |newspaper=Pensions & Investments |date=29 May 2017 |accessdate=27 June 2017}}</ref>

In 2016, New York Life opened an office in ], to serve as a tech hub for the company.<ref name=Strauss16>{{cite news |title=New York Life shuffling, eliminating jobs as it plans tech hub in Jersey City |author=Eric Strauss |url=http://www.njbiz.com/article/20160209/NJBIZ01/160209780/new-york-life-shuffling-eliminating-jobs-as-it-plans-tech-hub-in-jersey-city |work=NJBiz |date=February 9, 2016 |accessdate=May 26, 2017}}</ref>

Because of my conflict of interest, I'm hoping that editors can review, share any feedback and / or move the details live if they look good. Pinging @Keithbob and Guy Macon: since you both have worked on company History sections on WP:GA, I wondered if either or both of you would be interested to take a look at this one, given the company's long and interesting history! Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply 26-JAN-2018

Y Proposal added to article.

1. The history section as it was shown in the draft version has been reviewed.
2. The information from it which was acceptable was placed into the article's History section.
3. The older text, which the newer text replaced, was deleted.

Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

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)

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 coloumn you have people telling a story from their perspective, and so on and so forth. At each level, the distance from the center if you will 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.

Regards, Spintendo      13:48, 15 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 semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment