Surety

The Buzz Over Bonds

Bonding requirements in the weed business are wildly inconsistent and sometimes seem biased against the industry.
By: | May 2, 2017 • 6 min read

Now that medical and/or recreational use of marijuana is legal in nearly a quarter of U.S. states, several are now requiring marijuana dispensaries and growers to obtain surety bonds to make sure the businesses are viable and upstanding.

Advertisement




But some are questioning the high bond amounts required by states like Arkansas, Florida and Connecticut, claiming it’s “cannabigotry” in a drive to stamp out the controversial businesses. Colorado last year relaxed its surety bond requirements after too many mom and pop firms went out of business due to the tightening of the surety bond market there.

Some marijuana bonds guarantee compliance with a state license, but most often the bonds guarantee payment of tax revenue on the sale of marijuana, said Victor J. Lance, president and owner of Lance Surety Bond Associates Inc. in Doylestown, Pa.

“These bonds are currently very difficult to place, and most bond companies avoid writing them for primarily two reasons — federal law still makes possession and use of marijuana illegal, and the threat of RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization] lawsuits,” Lance said.

In 2015, an anti-marijuana group sued several Colorado dispensaries and companies doing business with them, including Merchants Bonding Co., claiming they violated the federal RICO act. The surety bond firm settled and immediately exited the marijuana bonding business, and most other bond companies followed suit.

“However, there are still some bond companies willing to write these bonds for qualified applicants,” Lance said. “If federal law changes, which some think is only a matter of time, this will most certainly change as more and more bond companies re-enter the industry.”

Different Approaches

Regardless of federal law, state regulators “need to be thoughtful” in setting appropriate penal sums and determining bond language, he said. Some states like Florida and Connecticut require surety bonds for $1 million or more, but it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for most new businesses to qualify for a bond of that size.

Victor J. Lance, president and owner, Lance Surety Bond Associates Inc.

“If a state decides to require a bond that no bond company is comfortable writing, the requirement becomes unattainable for most businesses and can be detrimental to the growth of the marijuana industry in their state,” Lance said. “It’s important for state regulators to consult with the surety industry, such as the legal counsel at the Surety & Fidelity Association of America, before deciding on new bonding requirements.”

Colorado last year removed the surety bond requirements for marijuana firms. Other RICO lawsuits against marijuana firms and those that do business with them have since been dismissed by federal judges or turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission proposed surety bond requirements for marijuana businesses wishing to obtain licenses, which must be approved by the Arkansas Legislature. The state will initially award 32 dispensary licenses on a lottery basis and five cultivation facility licenses based on the firms’ merits.

To qualify for a cultivation license, applicants must provide proof of assets or a surety bond in the amount of $1 million, an initial $500,000 performance bond, and proof of at least $500,000 in liquid assets.

For dispensary licenses, applicants electing to cultivate medical marijuana on the premises must provide proof of assets or a surety bond in the amount of $200,000 and proof of at least $100,000 in liquid assets.

Keith Mansur, publisher of the Oregon Cannabis Connection’s OCC Newspaper in Grants Pass, Ore., said that the Arkansas bond requirements for dispensaries are not overly odious, but the requirements for growers are.

“I think what’s really driving this is ‘cannabigotry,’ ” Mansur said. “They are afraid of the unknown and the Feds perpetrate the myth that cannabis is bad because they still classify is as a Schedule I controlled substance. But all of that ridiculous scheduling causes fear.”

Still, he’s not sure that having no bond requirement is a good thing.

Companies need to know “that there’s more risk involved than just opening their doors,” said Mansur.

Keith Mansur, publisher, Oregon Cannabis Connection newspaper

For smaller firms, a $10,000 license and/or tax bond runs between $300 and $1,500, said Gary Eastman, president of Swiftbonds in Leawood, Kan.

To get any type of surety bond, companies need to show three years’ worth of financials or the applicant needs to have great credit, Eastman said. For small firms, Swiftbonds typically asks for a basic profit and loss statement, but also encourages a balance sheet statement. As most dispensaries do not have a lot of assets, the firm looks for strong cash flow and sometimes a letter of credit or some other type of collateral.

“We tell companies that even if they can’t get a bond today, continue to work with the surety company, sending updates and financial statements,” he said. “If the company shows continuous progress and that they’re taking all the right steps — instead of trying to grow too aggressively, cutting costs so they can’t service customers — then they can ultimately get a bond.”

Some states, like Washington, don’t require surety bonds, but they do require dispensaries and growers to have commercial general liability insurance or commercial umbrella insurance, with limits of not less than a million dollars, said Susan Coakley, insurance specialist at New Growth Insurance in Alameda, Calif.

“Marijuana firms typically are cash-only businesses, so if they ever had an insurance claim, the insurer could not pay them $5,000 in cash to resolve the claim,” Coakley said. They’d need to use lawyers as intermediaries.

There are some brokers who are selling GL policies to marijuana firms so they can meet the regulatory requirements, but if the firms ever had a claim they wouldn’t be covered, she said. The red flag to watch for is verbiage in the policy that excludes the cannabis business.

Advertisement




T.J. Frost, commercial and surety insurance adviser at HUB International in Seattle, said that in Washington, local utilities sometimes require marijuana firms to put money upfront, just in case they ever miss a utility payment. That amount could be in the range of $150,000, or around $8,000 for a startup. The fee for such a bond is 20 percent.

HUB’s risk services team also inspects properties and helps clients seeking insurance prepare by discussing potential fire hazards, sprinkler systems, light wire exposure, exit requirements and the need for cameras, safes and vaults.

“One thing we pride ourselves [on] is that we can help companies with risk mitigation, because there were companies that started out in people’s houses that were catching fire because they were doing it indoors,” Frost said.

HUB also brings in attorneys knowledgeable about the marijuana industry to work with clients on accounting, taxes and other issues.

“We want our clients to be successful; we want them to pave the way for others,” Frost said. “We try to be an advocate for them, not just their insurance broker.” &

Katie Kuehner-Hebert is a freelance writer based in California. She has more than two decades of journalism experience and expertise in financial writing. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Exclusive | Hank Greenberg on China Trade, Starr’s Rapid Growth and 100th, Spitzer, Schneiderman and More

In a robust and frank conversation, the insurance legend provides unique insights into global trade, his past battles and what the future holds for the industry and his company.
By: | October 12, 2018 • 12 min read

In 1960, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg was hired as a vice president of C.V. Starr & Co. At age 35, he had already accomplished a great deal.

He served his country as part of the Allied Forces that stormed the beaches at Normandy and liberated the Nazi death camps. He fought again during the Korean War, earning a Bronze Star. He held a law degree from New York Law School.

Advertisement




Now he was ready to make his mark on the business world.

Even C.V. Starr himself — who hired Mr. Greenberg and later hand-picked him as the successor to the company he founded in Shanghai in 1919 — could not have imagined what a mark it would be.

Mr. Greenberg began to build AIG as a Starr subsidiary, then in 1969, he took it public. The company would, at its peak, achieve a market cap of some $180 billion and cement its place as the largest insurance and financial services company in history.

This month, Mr. Greenberg travels to China to celebrate the 100th anniversary of C.V. Starr & Co. That visit occurs at a prickly time in U.S.-Sino relations, as the Trump administration levies tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods and China retaliates.

In September, Risk & Insurance® sat down with Mr. Greenberg in his Park Avenue office to hear his thoughts on the centennial of C.V. Starr, the dynamics of U.S. trade relationships with China and the future of the U.S. insurance industry as it faces the challenges of technology development and talent recruitment and retention, among many others. What follows is an edited transcript of that discussion.


R&I: One hundred years is quite an impressive milestone for any company. Celebrating the anniversary in China signifies the importance and longevity of that relationship. Can you tell us more about C.V. Starr’s history with China?

Hank Greenberg: We have a long history in China. I first went there in 1975. There was little there, but I had business throughout Asia, and I stopped there all the time. I’d stop there a couple of times a year and build relationships.

When I first started visiting China, there was only one state-owned insurance company there, PICC (the People’s Insurance Company of China); it was tiny at the time. We helped them to grow.

I also received the first foreign life insurance license in China, for AIA (The American International Assurance Co.). To date, there has been no other foreign life insurance company in China. It took me 20 years of hard work to get that license.

We also introduced an agency system in China. They had none. Their life company employees would get a salary whether they sold something or not. With the agency system of course you get paid a commission if you sell something. Once that agency system was installed, it went on to create more than a million jobs.

R&I: So Starr’s success has meant success for the Chinese insurance industry as well.

Hank Greenberg: That’s partly why we’re going to be celebrating that anniversary there next month. That celebration will occur alongside that of IBLAC (International Business Leaders’ Advisory Council), an international business advisory group that was put together when Zhu Rongji was the mayor of Shanghai [Zhu is since retired from public life]. He asked me to start that to attract foreign companies to invest in Shanghai.

“It turns out that it is harder [for China] to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

Shanghai and China in general were just coming out of the doldrums then; there was a lack of foreign investment. Zhu asked me to chair IBLAC and to help get it started, which I did. I served as chairman of that group for a couple of terms. I am still a part of that board, and it will be celebrating its 30th anniversary along with our 100th anniversary.

Advertisement




We have a good relationship with China, and we’re candid as you can tell from the op-ed I published in the Wall Street Journal. I’m told that my op-ed was received quite well in China, by both Chinese companies and foreign companies doing business there.

On August 29, Mr. Greenberg published an opinion piece in the WSJ reminding Chinese leaders of the productive history of U.S.-Sino relations and suggesting that Chinese leaders take pragmatic steps to ease trade tensions with the U.S.

R&I: What’s your outlook on current trade relations between the U.S. and China?

Hank Greenberg: As to the current environment, when you are in negotiations, every leader negotiates differently.

President Trump is negotiating based on his well-known approach. What’s different now is that President Xi (Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China) made himself the emperor. All the past presidents in China before the revolution had two terms. He’s there for life, which makes things much more difficult.

R&I: Sure does. You’ve got a one- or two-term president talking to somebody who can wait it out. It’s definitely unique.

Hank Greenberg: So, clearly a lot of change is going on in China. Some of it is good. But as I said in the op-ed, China needs to be treated like the second largest economy in the world, which it is. And it will be the number one economy in the world in not too many years. That means that you can’t use the same terms of trade that you did 25 or 30 years ago.

They want to have access to our market and other markets. Fine, but you have to have reciprocity, and they have not been very good at that.

R&I: What stands in the way of that happening?

Hank Greenberg: I think there are several substantial challenges. One, their structure makes it very difficult. They have a senior official, a regulator, who runs a division within the government for insurance. He keeps that job as long as he does what leadership wants him to do. He may not be sure what they want him to do.

For example, the president made a speech many months ago saying they are going to open up banking, insurance and a couple of additional sectors to foreign investment; nothing happened.

The reason was that the head of that division got changed. A new administrator came in who was not sure what the president wanted so he did nothing. Time went on and the international community said, “Wait a minute, you promised that you were going to do that and you didn’t do that.”

So the structure is such that it is very difficult. China can’t react as fast as it should. That will change, but it is going to take time.

R&I: That’s interesting, because during the financial crisis in 2008 there was talk that China, given their more centralized authority, could react more quickly, not less quickly.

Hank Greenberg: It turns out that it is harder to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.

R&I: Obviously, you have a very unique perspective and experience in China. For American companies coming to China, what are some of the current challenges?

Advertisement




Hank Greenberg: Well, they very much want to do business in China. That’s due to the sheer size of the country, at 1.4 billion people. It’s a very big market and not just for insurance companies. It’s a whole range of companies that would like to have access to China as easily as Chinese companies have access to the United States. As I said previously, that has to be resolved.

It’s not going to be easy, because China has a history of not being treated well by other countries. The U.S. has been pretty good in that way. We haven’t taken advantage of China.

R&I: Your op-ed was very enlightening on that topic.

Hank Greenberg: President Xi wants to rebuild the “middle kingdom,” to what China was, a great country. Part of that was his takeover of the South China Sea rock islands during the Obama Administration; we did nothing. It’s a little late now to try and do something. They promised they would never militarize those islands. Then they did. That’s a real problem in Southern Asia. The other countries in that region are not happy about that.

R&I: One thing that has differentiated your company is that it is not a public company, and it is not a mutual company. We think you’re the only large insurance company with that structure at that scale. What advantages does that give you?

Hank Greenberg: Two things. First of all, we’re more than an insurance company. We have the traditional investment unit with the insurance company. Then we have a separate investment unit that we started, which is very successful. So we have a source of income that is diverse. We don’t have to underwrite business that is going to lose a lot of money. Not knowingly anyway.

R&I: And that’s because you are a private company?

Hank Greenberg: Yes. We attract a different type of person in a private company.

R&I: Do you think that enables you to react more quickly?

Hank Greenberg: Absolutely. When we left AIG there were three of us. Myself, Howie Smith and Ed Matthews. Howie used to run the internal financials and Ed Matthews was the investment guy coming out of Morgan Stanley when I was putting AIG together. We started with three people and now we have 3,500 and growing.

“I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

R&I:  You being forced to leave AIG in 2005 really was an injustice, by the way. AIG wouldn’t have been in the position it was in 2008 if you had still been there.

Advertisement




Hank Greenberg: Absolutely not. We had all the right things in place. We met with the financial services division once a day every day to make sure they stuck to what they were supposed to do. Even Hank Paulson, the Secretary of Treasury, sat on the stand during my trial and said that if I’d been at the company, it would not have imploded the way it did.

R&I: And that fateful decision the AIG board made really affected the course of the country.

Hank Greenberg: So many people lost all of their net worth. The new management was taking on billions of dollars’ worth of risk with no collateral. They had decimated the internal risk management controls. And the government takeover of the company when the financial crisis blew up was grossly unfair.

From the time it went public, AIG’s value had increased from $300 million to $180 billion. Thanks to Eliot Spitzer, it’s now worth a fraction of that. His was a gross misuse of the Martin Act. It gives the Attorney General the power to investigate without probable cause and bring fraud charges without having to prove intent. Only in New York does the law grant the AG that much power.

R&I: It’s especially frustrating when you consider the quality of his own character, and the scandal he was involved in.

In early 2008, Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap arranging a meeting with a prostitute at a Washington Hotel and resigned shortly thereafter.

Hank Greenberg: Yes. And it’s been successive. Look at Eric Schneiderman. He resigned earlier this year when it came out that he had abused several women. And this was after he came out so strongly against other men accused of the same thing. To me it demonstrates hypocrisy and abuse of power.

Schneiderman followed in Spitzer’s footsteps in leveraging the Martin Act against numerous corporations to generate multi-billion dollar settlements.

R&I: Starr, however, continues to thrive. You said you’re at 3,500 people and still growing. As you continue to expand, how do you deal with the challenge of attracting talent?

Hank Greenberg: We did something last week.

On September 16th, St. John’s University announced the largest gift in its 148-year history. The Starr Foundation donated $15 million to the school, establishing the Maurice R. Greenberg Leadership Initiative at St. John’s School of Risk Management, Insurance and Actuarial Science.

Hank Greenberg: We have recruited from St. John’s for many, many years. These are young people who want to be in the insurance industry. They don’t get into it by accident. They study to become proficient in this and we have recruited some very qualified individuals from that school. But we also recruit from many other universities. On the investment side, outside of the insurance industry, we also recruit from Wall Street.

R&I: We’re very interested in how you and other leaders in this industry view technology and how they’re going to use it.

Hank Greenberg: I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.

R&I: So as the pre-eminent leader of the insurance industry, what do you see in terms of where insurance is now an where it’s going?

Hank Greenberg: The country and the world will always need insurance. That doesn’t mean that what we have today is what we’re going to have 25 years from now.

How quickly the change comes and how far it will go will depend on individual companies and individual countries. Some will be more brave than others. But change will take place, there is no doubt about it.

Advertisement




More will go on in space, there is no question about that. We’re involved in it right now as an insurance company, and it will get broader.

One of the things you have to worry about is it’s now a nuclear world. It’s a more dangerous world. And again, we have to find some way to deal with that.

So, change is inevitable. You need people who can deal with change.

R&I:  Is there anything else, Mr. Greenberg, you want to comment on?

Hank Greenberg: I think I’ve covered it. &

The R&I Editorial Team can be reached at [email protected]