We need to add these tags also to the MM logins. We can do these with the tags in the other email.
Please put this email in a document and in the documentation folder under MM >Custom Docs>Contracts and call the file “signatures”. The important comment below is how to handle the when the signature needs to be blank (the transition period when they remove the old president and get a new one).
Thanks
From: Linzer, Chaya
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Michael Cooper
Cc: Sara Davis
Subject: FW: PEII
The following general.xml tags will need to be added to all MM logins for the PEII:
<Custom_MM_PEII_Signature_President>Roger Crandall</Custom_MM_PEII_Signature_President>
<Custom_MM_PEII_Signature_Secretary>Christine Peaslee<Custom_MM_PEII_Signature_Secretary>
You might want to insert a comment as well to note that to switch the signature to blank, the text ‘blank’ must be entered in place of the name. Leaving the tag empty will not work.
Thank you.
From: Sara Davis
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:32 PM
To: Linzer, Chaya
Subject: FW: PEII
Secretary and president names – don’t you need to put this somewhere? Thanks.
From: Dow, Diane [mailto:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 2:22 PM
To: Sara Davis
Subject: RE: PEII
Oh come on, be a sport! You can't figure out the Presidents name from his signature???!!!! Shocking! lol!
Secretary is Christine Peaslee and the President is Roger Crandall. (can you believe that!! not aW anywherein his name! lol)
Yes, please add the blank signature option with just the titles so we can react to changes quickly. I have attached the signature files in case you need them. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sara Davis [mailto:
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 5:27 AM
To: Dow, Diane
Subject: RE: PEII
Hi Diane,
In looking over the document, I see that we need to add a question to all the checklists (PE-6) to collect the Secretary/President signature information. I assume we should do this as we do the Mike McKenzie signature, where the choice is either Mike McKenzie or blank signature. If so, can you please send me the names of the Secretary and President as they should appear in the checklist? (I’m not going to try to decipher the signatures!)
Thanks,
Sara
From: Dow, Diane [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:32 PM
To: Sara Davis
Cc: Michael Cooper; Marburger, Malka; Geisler, Chana
Subject: RE: PEII
Sara, I looked these over one more time. I saw where a {NOTE PLACEHOLDER}was missing so I added it to two of the checklists. I also fixed a couple of spelling errors. So, other than the notes that I owe you, I think we are ready to freeze these checklists. My lawyer is out until next week so I won't be able to get those Notesto you until I can talk to him.
Ilook forward to getting the cleaned up template from you. ;)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sara Davis [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 5:27 AM
To: Dow, Diane
Cc: Michael Cooper; Marburger, Malka; Geisler, Chana
Subject: RE: PEII
Hi Diane,
I got rid of all the track changes and cleaned up these checklists a bit. These should include all your most recent changes. Are we ready to freeze the checklists? (I still need to finish reviewing the document changes, but if we can freeze the checklists independently, then we can move forward with programming them.)
Thanks,
Sara
From: Dow, Diane [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:16 PM
To: Sara Davis
Subject: RE: PEII
Sara, I reviewed the checklists for question #3 below. I don't think there is enough to warrant any additional programming for product type, etc. There are a few places that say Use for TPA or Use for New Business or something like that but I didn't think they were solid enough to program differently. Example: Grace Period says use option B for TPA but what if they want the default option...they could select it. As I moved through the checklists most of the items were too ambiguous so I'm thinking we are good with the checklists the way they are.
It would have been really nice to have done some programming around the Services Agreements where we have a ton of "Notes" instead of dynamic programming.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sara Davis [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:30 PM
To: Dow, Diane
Subject: RE: PEII
Thanks - I figured you had missed them.
From: Dow, Diane [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Sara Davis
Cc: Michael Cooper
Subject: RE: PEII
Sorry, Sara. I didn't even see these. See my response below...
-----Original Message-----
From: Sara Davis [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 7:15 AM
To: Dow, Diane
Cc: Michael Cooper
Subject: RE: PEII
Hi Diane,
Any feedback on my comments below, especially numbers 2 and 3?
Thanks,
Sara
From: Dow, Diane [mailto:
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:02 PM
To: Sara Davis
Cc: Michael Cooper; Marburger, Malka; Linzer, Chaya; Pellerin, Diane
Subject: RE: PEII
Importance: High
Attached are my comments. I highlighted any changes I made in the same blue that you used so you could find them easily. We have asked for Admin Approval on many sections and we want to add notes who the approval should come from but I don't have them for the following sections. I am working on getting them. Can you allow a spot on these areasfor a Note: when you are building them and I'll get you the note as soon as I can.
1.03 - grace period
2.02c - restriction on transfers
4.01b - Pending Termination
5.04 - Lump Sum Payment Option
5.08 - Termination ExpenseCharge
Expense Schedule - Special Expense Charge withdrawal period change from 5 year
GIA Schedule - G1.05 - Annual Transfer Restriction
-----Original Message-----
From: Sara Davis [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:34 PM
To: Dow, Diane
Cc: Michael Cooper; Marburger, Malka; Linzer, Chaya; Pellerin, Diane
Subject: RE: PEII
Hi Diane,
The attached checklists are updated with your changes, with some additional questions highlighted. Hopefully we'll be able to freeze these soon. I haven't finished reviewing the document changes yet.
Please see below regarding the other items.
Thanks,
Sara
From: Dow, Diane [mailto:
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:52 PM
To: Sara Davis
Cc: Michael Cooper; Marburger, Malka; Pellerin, Diane
Subject: RE: PEII
Importance: High
Sara, I apologize for taking such a long time to review these documents. The redlined versions are attached. Let me know if you have questions. I have a few items or bullet pointsthat I want to list so we don't miss anything...
1.) For SAGIC's - we received approval for MN so I fixed the requirements for that. However, that issue changed our requirements for MT and IL. Neither state will allow the sale of SAGIC's at the moment but our compliance dept feels that it is very close to getting the IL approval. They actually expect it next week. With that in mind, I have changed the references around some of the IL language. MT, on the other hand, can not have a SAGIC and there is no hint as to how long that might take.
The document changes should be fine but it doesn't seem wise to validate items in the checklist based on state. Any validation change will require an upgrade so will not necessarily have a quick turnaround, and an incorrect validation error may cause a draft watermark when you don't want it. We would like to deal with these state approval changes on the document level only. In this case, the SAGIC Amendment will only appear for MT and IL, and if that changes and the amendment no longer applies to IL, the checklist will remain the same (at least temporarily) but the information will no longer pull into the document. [Dow, Diane] This sounds like a good solution.
2.) I remember we had some discussion around the SIA Schedule fund objectives. We add funds quite often and with the file feed for the fund collection it has been seamless but the Contracts are different. Every time we add funds, we need to add the objectives to the SIA Schedule. At first I thought we had some discussions around a utility for me to use but then I think that was thought better of. Wondering if we need some discussion around that piece.
Yes, we do need to revisit this. We thought of two options: a) add information to the fund file feed. This would simply be a new field in the table called SIA fund objective, which would be used for SIA funds only. Then, if any SIA fund is included in the fund lineup, the text entered in this SIA fund objective field would automatically be pulled into the SIA Schedule. b) Create a separate utility where you would select each SIA fund and enter an objective. MassMutual would be responsible for maintaining data (adding and updating fund objectives) via this utility. Here too, for any SIA fund in the lineup, the objective would be pulled automatically from this utility into the SIA.[Dow, Diane] If you add this to the file feed wouldn't you have to update it every day when you get the new file feed? Either solution is fine with me. Whatever works the best. My only question on b would be that the utility would be administrative and once I have entered an objective it would be used for that fund forever or until I change it. If that is true, then that is fine. It could operate similar to the fund approval utility where we can filter for funds that do not have objectives. And as the fund approval utility, it would only be for SIA's. No OF's or MR's.
Questions: The SIA schedule includes headings. Is there a field in the fund feed that indicates which heading a fund belongs to? If so, which field? If not, we would need to add a second field "SIA heading" to the fund feed (option a) or the utility (option b).[Dow, Diane] Noit is not in the file feed so we would need anotherfield
Currently, the only state-specific SIA text is for NY/not for NY. Will this change? I.e., do we need to allow for other states adding state-specific fund objectives? If this is not necessary or seems very unlikely, we'd prefer not to do this. [Dow, Diane] This should only be for NY. We don't anticipate any other state requiringspecial language.
3.) We also discussed doing some dynamic programming instead of Notes on the checklists. Example: a section that is marked Do Not Use for TPA shouldn't even appear if the platform isTPA. Looking for input on this.
Can you specify all sections where you would want this done so we can evaluate?[Dow, Diane] Yes, I will send you a redline version later today.I don't think there is a lot of this. Most of it is around TPA and Registered. It will take me just a little bit to review the checklists again.
4.) We are curious as to how you are going to handle state approvals
State approvals will be handled by the template and database. Any change will require a data entry change in the database. Some changes will also require template changes. For example, if there is new language that is not yet approved by a specific state, and that state then approves the new language in its entirety, we will handle this change (approval by specific state) as a simple data entry item (ie, adding the state to the approved list). However, if the state approves with state-specific language, we will also need to make a template change, which will obviously take somewhat longer.
5.) Restatements - any discussion needed
I think we're ok with this. Restatements within the same document type should work as a regular DGEM restatement. Across document types is what we actually call a conversion, and this will require tag mapping.
6.) Amendments - need times for meeting
I understand that the contract amendments are completely separate from the actual contracts, not like the existing substitute clause amendments for the Services Agreement. If there is no connection between the amendments and the PEII, we can freeze PEII requirements before addressing the amendments. [Dow, Diane] Yes, that is true. They are a completely separate document and do not work the same as your substitute clause would.
7.) PE I - Not sure if you have thought of this or if we need some discussion around it
I don't think we need to discuss this at this point.
Thank you!
-----Original Message-----
From: Sara Davis [mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 6:36 PM
To: Dow, Diane
Cc: Michael Cooper; Marburger, Malka
Subject: PEII checklists
Hi Diane,
Attached are the PEII checklists. Most of the questions are as you sent them, but we needed to re-work several questions so they integrate well within the system.
These attached checklists specify all validations and any other checklist requirements. Please review carefully and let us know if you have any corrections before we go ahead with the programming. Also, I highlighted in yellow any questions for which we need a response. In the GIA and WOG checklists, anything marked "same as SAGIC" or "same as GIA and SAGIC" will be programmed with identical validations, etc. (If anything needs to be done differently for the different checklists, we will need to remove the "same as SAGIC" notation.)
Should we combine the General Information questions with the Contract Information (for face page) into one page, since both will be part of the document checklist?
I still need to send you the template and the rest of the requirements so we can finalize those as well - I hope to send those next week.
Thanks,
Sara
------
This e-mail transmission may contain information that is
proprietary, privileged and/or confidential and is
intended exclusively for the person(s) to whom it is
addressed. Any use, copying, retention or disclosure by
any person other than the intended recipient or the
intended recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient or their designee,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and
delete all copies.
------