Join now!   |   Subscribe   |   Pay an Invoice   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In
Unclaimed Property Focus
Blog Home All Blogs
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FOCUS is a blog written by and for UPPO members, featuring diverse perspectives and insights from unclaimed property practitioners across the U.S. and Canada. We welcome your submissions to Unclaimed Property Focus. Please contact Tim Dressen via tim@uppo.org with any questions about submitting a blog post for consideration and refer to our editorial guidelines when writing your blog post. Disclaimer: Information and/or comments to this blog is not intended as a substitute for legal advice on compliance or reporting requirements.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: unclaimed property  Compliance  education  UPPO  audits  due diligence  Delaware  reform  Advocacy  Members  ULC  litigation  UP101  UP Laws  reporting  Uniform Law Commission  Holders Seminar  Canada  legislation  RUUPA  service providers  Gift Cards  uniform unclaimed property act  Policy  UPPO Asks  VDA  Annual Conference  FAQs  Pennsylvania  UPPO annual conference 

UPPO members play essential role in growing membership

Posted By Administration, Thursday, October 27, 2016

Whether it’s educating holders, working to ensure fair regulation or bringing unclaimed property professionals together, UPPO’s initiatives depend on a large, active membership. Growing membership helps strengthen the organization and the profession it represents, so recruiting new members is an unending task.

 

Fortunately, many potential members learn about UPPO from current members who recognize the benefits of bringing more people into the organization.

 

Mike Ryan, senior vice president at Georgeson, has recruited several UPPO members. He often speaks to industry groups about unclaimed property issues, and includes a discussion about UPPO and its resources for holders within his presentations. Individual conversations with attendees at these events also often include encouragement to join.

 

“The greatest thing about UPPO is the networking—the sharing of ideas and things that work and don’t work,” Ryan says. “The more members we have, the more experiences we can tap into.”

 

Ryan finds that potential members are often intrigued by the ability to connect with peers who share similar issues and speak the same industry jargon. He frequently shares the benefit of the industry breakout groups at the UPPO Annual Conference and the online member forum.

 

“If someone handling unclaimed property for a bank, for example, knows the annual conference will likely be attended by peers from 20 other banks who understand the issues they’re dealing with and are willing to share, they want to be there too,” Ryan says.

 

Randy Hotz, president of Choice Plus LLC, recently referred a new member to UPPO. They first met at a Michigan Senate finance committee hearing and had a series of subsequent conversations. Several times, while talking about unclaimed property issues, Hotz mentioned UPPO’s work and encouraged membership.

 

He focused on the association’s long track record of advocacy, professional reputation and positive standing among stakeholders, including holders, the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators, individual state administrators, the American Bar Association and the Uniform Law Commission. Soon, his encouragement paid off in the form of a new UPPO member.

 

“For people truly interested in getting involved, it’s not that difficult to sell them on the benefit of membership,” Hotz says. The trick is identifying those people who are a little more active and motivated.”

 

In addition to the networking, conference and advocacy benefits, some of the other benefits that often resonate with potential members include:

  • Educational webinars and events
  • Tools and resources available on the website, including the Jurisdiction Resource Guide
  • Legislative and regulatory tracking via govWATCH  

 

As a token of appreciation for members who refer new members and to encourage member references, UPPO thanks referrals with a $100 gift card. To learn more about UPPO’s Membership Referral Program, access a digital version of the UPPO member packet or request printed copies, visit UPPO’s member referral web page.

 

 

Tags:  advocacy  education  membership  networking  recruitment  UPPO 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

UPPO Weighs in on Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

Posted By Administration, Thursday, August 4, 2016

UPPO filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday, Aug. 1 asking the court to hear State of Delaware v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and State of Wisconsin, and to clarify the reach of the federal common law rules governing unclaimed property. Specifically, UPPO requests the Supreme Court clarify that the federal common law rules apply to cases involving conflicting claims among the states, and cases involving a dispute between a holder and a single state. UPPO also seeks clarification that the secondary rule protects the rights of holders against unconstitutional overreaching by states.

 

Case background
MoneyGram has been involved in a number of lawsuits involving Delaware, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The states are each claiming right to MoneyGram’s Official Checks. Delaware claims MoneyGram should escheat the property to Delaware because it’s MoneyGram’s place of corporate domicile. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania argue that the Official Checks should be remitted to the jurisdiction in which the purchase took place.  While the states battle it out, Delaware has refused to indemnify MoneyGram.

 

Learn more about the cases involving MoneyGram which have led up to Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

 

Arguments
UPPO Government Relations and Advocacy Committee members, John Coalson of Alston & Bird, Sara Lima of Reed Smith, Ethan Millar of Alston & Bird, and Diann Smith of McDermott Will & Emery, were joined by Michael Lurie and Matthew Setzer of Reed Smith to draft the amicus brief. They laid out a number of arguments in the brief to depict the current unclaimed property landscape and why it warrants the Supreme Court’s attention and consideration.

 

The landscape has changed since the Supreme Court announced the common law rules in Texas v. New Jersey.
“While significant change is to be expected over a half-century, the revolution in unclaimed property is ground-breaking,” the brief states. It goes on to say that the major developments include: massive increases in the unclaimed property collected by states; legislative trends increasing state unclaimed property collections; and aggressive interpretations of the secondary rule.

 

Holders are caught between conflicting and competing state laws.
The Supreme Court created the federal common law rules to resolve conflicting claims of different states with “clarity and ease of application” (Texas v. New Jersey). The intention of creating the rules have been lost, and states have interpreted the federal common law rules differently, causing issues like the one that presents itself in Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

 

Another example of conflict is how states interpret “last known address.” Texas v. New Jersey dictates that property with a “last known address” of the owner should be escheated to the state where that address is located. The problem lies in that the definition of “last known address” is different among states. The brief adds that, “For example, New Jersey regulation states that a zip code is a last known address. Connecticut and Michigan define last known address as an address sufficient for mailing.”

 

Holders face significant burdens in light of these conflicting and expansive state rules.
Multiple states can assert claim to property, yet the holder is required to obtain confirmation from a state that it is required to remit the disputed property to that state, and in addition, defend its choices to the multiple other states claiming the property. The Council on State Taxation conducted a study of its members and found that 61 percent spent more than $1 million dollars in staff time, legal fees and other expenses (excluding the actual assessment) to go through the motions of an unclaimed property audit.

 

Holders have minimal recourse.
In the past, states have argued that federal common law rules only apply to interstate disagreements, and that holders cannot raise the federal common law rules in defense. This leaves holders at risk of multiple states claiming custody of the same property.

 

Next steps
Its anticipated that Supreme Court will make a decision as to whether it’ll hear the case around early October. Check back for updates and more information.

Tags:  amicus curiae brief  Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin  unclaimed property  UPPO 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

How does the UUPA address our issues?

Posted By Administration with contribution by Karen Anderson, GRAC co-chair , Thursday, July 28, 2016

If you missed the Revising the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act: Where do we go from here? webinar, here’s a synopsis of how the Uniform Law Commission treats UPPO’s priority issues in the approved draft of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act.

Definition of holder

The definition of “holder” should make it clear that there can be only one “holder” of any item of unclaimed property, and the definition of “holder” should be revised to make that clear. UPPO believes this definition section should be accompanied by a comment that affirms that where one party has a direct legal obligation to the owner of the property, and another party has possession of the property and an obligation to pay or deliver it to the owner solely by virtue of a contractual relationship with the party who is directly obligated to the owner, it is the party who is directly obligated to the owner who is “primarily” obligated and hence is the holder for purposes of the act. Thus, the issuer of stock or bonds, and not a third party transfer agent or paying agent contracted by the issuer, would be the “holder” of the obligation and any unclaimed dividends on the stock or interest on the bonds. See, e.g., Clymer v. Summit Bancorp, 792 A.2d 396 (NJ 2002).

Current Status: Section 102 (12) the following definition of “holder” is in the draft:Holder means a person obligated to hold for the account of, or deliver or pay to, the owner property that is subject to this [act].”

Definition of owner contact/Indication of owner interest
UPPO recommends the definition of owner contact be expanded to include various activities that are commonly executed by owners.

 

Current status: Section 102 (21) The following definition of “owner” is in the draft:a person that has a legal, beneficial, or equitable interest in property subject to this [act], or the person’s legal representative when acting on behalf of the owner. The term includes a depositor, for a deposit, a beneficiary, for a trust other than a deposit in trust, and a creditor, claimant, or payee, for other property, and includes the lawful bearer of a record which may be used to obtain money, reward, or things of value.”

 

Section 210 states: “(b) Under this [act], an indication of an apparent owner’s interest in property includes:

(1) a record communicated by the apparent owner to the holder or agent of the holder concerning the property or the account in which the property is held;

(2) an oral communication by the apparent owner to the holder or agent of the holder concerning the property or the account in which the property is held, if the holder or its agent contemporaneously makes and preserves a record of the fact of the owner’s communication;

(3) presentment of a check or other instrument of payment of a dividend, interest payment, or other distribution, or evidence of a receipt of a distribution made by electronic or similar means, with respect to an:

            (A) account;

            (B) underlying security; or

            (C) interest in a business association;

(4) activity directed by an apparent owner in the account in which the property is held, including accessing the account or information concerning the account, or a direction by the apparent owner to increase, decrease, or otherwise change the amount or type of property held in the account;

(5) making a deposit into or withdrawal from an account at a financial organization, including an automatic deposit or withdrawal previously authorized by the owner other than an automatic reinvestment of dividends or interest;

(6) subject to subsection (e), payment of a premium on an insurance policy; and

(7) any other action by the apparent owner which reasonably demonstrates to the holder that the owner is aware that the property exists."

Electronic owner contact

To make the owner contact trigger requirement more consistent with how holders and customers communicate with each other today, UPPO supports the acceptance of expanding owner contact to include electronic means, such as email, text messaging, automatic reinvestments of dividends or interest, electronic account access, etc.

Current status: Section 210(b)(1) states that an “indication of interest” is (among a list of other things), “a record communicated by the apparent owner to the holder or agent of the holder concerning the property or the account in which the property is held”. Section 102 (26) states a “record means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.”

Due diligence timelines
UPPO advocates that the UUPA require that holders complete due diligence at least 60 days prior to the reporting deadline. This more open-ended due diligence timeline will provide a better chance for reunification of the property -- forestalling escheatment. Further, this time frame encourages greater outreach efforts by the holder and allows the holder to incorporate due diligence efforts sensibly into its processes.

Current status: Section 501 (a) - No change in the standard timing in the approved UUPA (not more than 180 days nor less than 60 days….) but a different schedule for securities and IRAs . For securities, if the owner does not receive communications from the holder by First-Class United States mail, the holder is required to send a notice by electronic mail not more than two years after the owner’s last indication of an interest in the property to attempt to re-establish contact with the owner and the owner’s continued interest in the property. If the holder receives notice that the electronic mail communication was not received, or if the owner does not respond to the electronic communication within 30 days, the holder is required to send a letter by First-Class United States mail seeking to re-establish contact with the owner. If that letter is returned undelivered (and a second communication if sent by First-Class United States mail within 30 days of return of the first mailing is also returned undelivered), then the three-year dormancy period runs from the return of the second consecutive mailing. At the end of the dormancy period, the holder is required to again attempt to contact the owner by electronic mail prior to reporting the property. 

Electronic due diligence

As long as the owner’s email address is verified by the owner as accurate, UPPO supports including a provision which allows holders to conduct due diligence via email and to collect responses to letters via web-based certification, email or call center activity.

Current status: Section 501 (b) – Holders are required to send owners that have consented to receive electronic-mail delivery, a notice by first-class United States mail and electronic mail.

Aggregate limits

UPPO recommends that reporting using aggregate limits be an option for items valued under $50 and that state administrators shall not be permitted to request or demand that the holder provide the name and address of the apparent owner of items property reported in the aggregate.

Current status: Section 501(a)(2) - While the amount is in brackets (indicating the dollar value is elective in the draft), Section 402 (b) states, “A report under Section 401 may include in the aggregate items valued under $[50] each. If the report includes items in the aggregate valued under $[50] each, the administrator may not require the holder to provide the name and address of an apparent owner of an item unless the information is necessary to verify or process a claim in progress by the owner.”

Election to make payment early

A provision should be included in the UUPA that would permit the holder to deliver property before it is presumed abandoned so long as the holder discloses to the state that the dormancy period for the property remitted has not expired. Under UPPO’s recommendation, prior approval by the administrator of such a remittance would not be required and the property would not be presumed abandoned until it would otherwise be presumed abandoned under the Act. Coupled with this recommendation is one to relieve the holder of all liability for any and all claims regarding the property upon remittance of the property to the state.

Current status: Sections 608 & 609 - Prior approval by the administrator is required, but if the administrator doesn't respond within 30 calendar days after the holder's request, the holder can submit the property. A condition of early reporting is that due diligence be performed. Property reported early is presumed abandoned and is considered reported in good faith triggering indemnification by the state.

Record retention requirements 
The following requirements should be added to the UUPA about record retention:

  • Changing the record retention requirement from 10 years to seven years
  • Records should be retrievable
  • A threshold for available sufficient records required during an audit should be added to provide some level of protection to holders (i.e. holders are required to produce 80 percent of sufficient records requested by auditors)

Current status: Section 404 of the draft provides that a holder required to file a report must retain for 10 years after the later of the date the report was filed or the last date a timely report was due to be filed the records containing: the information required to be included in the report, the date, place and nature of the circumstances that gave rise to the property right, the amount or value of the property and the last address of the owner if known to the holder, and if the holder sells, issues or provides to others for sale or issue in this state traveler’s checks, money orders, or similar instruments, other than third-party bank checks, on which the holder is directly liable a record of the instruments while they remain outstanding indicating the state and date of issue.

Estimation/Records
UPPO’s positions regarding estimations are listed below:

  • Insufficient records trigger - Estimations only be used in audits when holders cannot produce sufficient records.
  • Clear and consistent procedures - If estimations are to be used in state enforcement, creating clear procedures and standards for the use of estimations is a must.
  • Sampling method - After an independent study of the MTC statistical sampling method (which is the method NAUPA recommends using) UPPO supports the use of this model and a statement in the UUPA which adopts it.

Current status: Section 1003 (a) requires the administrator to promulgate rules governing the procedures and standards for examination including the use of estimation, extrapolation and statistical sampling. Further, in Section 1006 it states that if a holder being examined does not have records, “the administrator may determine the amount of property due using a reasonable method of estimation based on all information available to the administrator, including extrapolation and the use of statistical sampling….”.

Administrative appeals
Grounded in fairness is the willingness to grant an elective administrative appeals process for holders to pursue if it disagrees with the audit results produced by the state. Further, the arbiter of the appeal should be an independent party chosen through a fair process involving both the state administrator and the holder. Not only will this increase holders’ trust in the state enforcement policies but it provides a less burdensome and costly option to litigation.

Current status: Section 1008 and 1012 - Section 1008 permits a holder to request a meeting with the administrator during the pendency of the audit. Further, in Section 1101 – 1104 detail the options and procedure for post audit issue/liability resolution in the form of administrative review, judicial review and an informal conference.

 

Foreign addressed property

UPPO has continually advocated for the exclusion of all foreign address property from the UUPA,

as supported by the principles of comity and the Supremacy Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Foreign Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Current status: Section 103 - The Drafting Committee decided to not change the status quo and to retain the language in the 1995 Act:  “This [act] does not apply to property held, due, and owing in a foreign country if the transaction involving the property was a wholly foreign transaction.” However, Section 303 of the UUPA continues to permit the state of domicile to take custody of property arising from a domestic transaction if the last known address of the owner of the property is in a foreign country. 

Business to business exemption

UPPO supports the inclusion of specific language in the UUPA exempting business to business transactions from the UUPA.

Current status: The UUPA committee decided not to include a business to business exemption in the draft but will include a note that some states do have such exemptions/exclusions currently.

Securities definition

To enhance comprehensiveness and clarity, UPPO advocates for a definition of securities to be added to the UUPA. In addition, the Act must include a specific reference to an owner’s interest in a brokerage account held by a broker-dealer.

 

Current status: Section 102 (27) "(A) a security as defined in [cite to appropriate section of Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code; or (B) a security entitlement as defined in [cite to appropriate section of Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code], including a customer security account held by a registered broker-dealer to the extent that the financial assets held in the security account are neither registered on the books of the issuer in the name of, nor are payable to the order of nor specifically endorsed to, the person for which the broker-dealer holds the assets."

Securities liquidation

Liquidation of securities has proved to be detrimental to owners and holders. Therefore it’s recommended that the sale or liquidation of securities escheated to the state occur no sooner than three years from the date of receipt. In addition, state administrators should be required to send proper notice to owners regarding its custody of their property, and if a sale of the securities should happen the property should be sold at the current market value.

 

Current status: Section 702 - the administrator is prohibited from liquidating a security until three years after the administrator has received the security and given the owner notice. Under Section 703, if the administrator sells the security before six years after the security was delivered to the administrator and a claim is made before the end of the six year period and the administrator determines the claim is valid, the claimant of the security must be put in the same position as if the shares had not been sold – either by providing the claimant with the shares or cash equivalent plus any splits, dividends, etc. that would have accrued. Section 702 (b) requires that if the administrator sells a security listed on an established stock exchange they cannot sell it for less than the prevailing price on the exchange at the time of sale.

Securities – Non-transferable, Restricted and Worthless
Stock which cannot be sold or transferred, including restricted securities should be expressly exempted from the UUPA, as escheating it will provide no benefit to the owner or the state.

Current status: Section 102 (20) – Non-freely transferable securities and worthless securities are included under the Act. The act defines non-freely transferable security as “a security that cannot be delivered to the administrator by the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation or a similar custodian of securities providing a post-trade clearing and settlement services to financial markets or cannot be delivered because there is no agent to effect transfer. The term includes a worthless security.”  It defines (Section 102(33)) worthless security as, “a security whose cost of liquidation and delivery would exceed the value of the security on the date a report is due under this [act].”

Worthless and restricted securities are excluded from the definition of property. Non-freely transferable securities must be reported with an explanation but are not required to be delivered to the administrator until they become transferable.

Further, definitions of restricted security and worthless security were added to Section 102 as follows: Restricted: “Property does not include a security that is subject to a lien, legal hold, or restriction evidenced on the records of the holder or imposed by operation of law which restricts the holder’s or owner’s ability lawfully to receive, transfer, sell or otherwise negotiate the security.” Worthless: “a security for which the cost of liquidation and delivery would exceed the value of the security on the date a report is due under this act.”

In Section 402 (a)(9) it is stated that a “non-freely transferable security” must be identified in the holder’s unclaimed property report along with an explanation of why it is such a security.

Electronic reporting
For the convenience of state unclaimed property departments and holders, holders should not be required to submit paper reports. It’s recommended that modern technology should be used to make the reporting process more efficient and secure.

Current status: Section 401 (a) – “…the administrator may not require the holder to submit a paper report.” Also, in Section 402 (2) the draft language now states that the report must be in a “secure electronic format” approved by the administrator.


Reporting deadlines

To achieve consistency among the states, UPPO advocates for creating a common reporting deadline of November 1 for all non-life insurance companies and May 1 for life insurance companies.

Current status:  Section 403 (a) and (b) - The reporting deadlines are as follows:

1. All holders except insurance companies – Before 11/1

2.  Life insurance companies – Before May 1

De minimis

UPPO recommends that property valued under $50 not be required to be reported and remitted.

 

Current status: The Drafting Committee did not include a de minimis amount exclusion in the draft.

 



About the contributor

Karen Anderson, Deputy Chief Compliance Officer at Keane and UPPO Government Relations and Advocacy Committee co-chair has been working in unclaimed property since 1988. She assists Keane’s clients in maintain compliance-related data. Karen has contributed her immense knowledge of the industry, deep understanding of legislative trends and the legislative process to UPPO’s ULC advocacy initiative and other UPPO advocacy projects. She holds a J.D. from Loyola University of Chicago.


 

More information
Here's an issues matrix which compares the approved UUPA to a number of UPPO's positions
What are UPPO members saying about the UUPA?

What’s next for the UUPA? 


Tags:  reform  ULC  unclaimed property  UPPO  UUPA 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Meet UPPO’s New President

Posted By Administration, Thursday, April 14, 2016

Nearly 15 years ago, when Heela Popal began her career in unclaimed property, she never imagined she would one day become president of her profession’s trade organization. However, as her experience, expertise and passion for the profession grew, she was soon on the track to hold UPPO’s highest leadership position. At the UPPO Annual Conference in March, she was installed as the association’s president.

 

“As an associate, I looked up to people who had so many more years of experience in unclaimed property than I did and were very active in this organization,” Popal says. “So it’s really rewarding, fulfilling and surreal to move into the president role. I never thought it would happen, and I feel like it’s a major accomplishment.”

 

Popal began her career with Deloitte in 2001 as an associate in the firm’s state and local tax group. Initially, she split her time between credit and incentive work and unclaimed property. It didn’t take long to realize she had a passion for unclaimed property and wanted to make it the focus of her career.

 

“What appealed to me about unclaimed property as a young associate and senior associate was being in the same room as the client—the company executives,” she says. “I was talking to the controller, the vice president of taxes—basically C-suite executives—about their unclaimed property liability and how to help them mitigate it. I really enjoy the consulting aspect, discussing state compliance and auditing trends, and how we could help.”

 

In 2009, when Deloitte got out of the unclaimed property business, Popal moved to Thomson Reuters for two years before accepting a position at PricewaterhouseCoopers, helping to lead the East Region for the firm’s unclaimed property group. As a PwC director and East Region leader of the Abandoned and Unclaimed Property practice based in Atlanta, she specializes in unclaimed property project management, audit defense, high-level risk assessments, state voluntary disclosure initiatives, and the quantification of unclaimed property liabilities. She also works with clients to implement policies and procedures related to unclaimed property reporting and tracking.

 

In addition to her move to PwC, in 2011 Popal’s peers elected her to the position of southern vice president on the UPPO Board of Directors. In 2014, she was elected to the second vice president seat and progressed through the officer chairs to become first vice president in 2015 and now president.

 

Popal’s leadership comes at an exciting and historic time for UPPO and the unclaimed property profession. The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) is on the verge of releasing the final draft of the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (RUUPA), and the need for specialized unclaimed property education and professional development opportunities continues to increase. As such, Popal is making advocacy, membership, and professional development her top priorities.

 

As the ULC wraps up its work on the RUUPA in July, Popal looks forward to UPPO’s work with state legislatures to reform unclaimed property compliance laws and regulations.

 

“This will be a long process,” she says. “But with the dedication and tenacity of our Government Relations and Advocacy Committee, we’ll be able to put forward a strong voice and affect real change.”

 

The need for education focused on the ever-evolving unclaimed property laws and compliance requirements will accelerate as states adopt the RUUPA. This presents an opportunity for UPPO membership growth. Popal plans to work with the board and committees to explore and create partnerships with other organizations with similar goals or needs that UPPO can fulfill.

 

Popal also looks forward to the association expanding its certificate program. As the program is refined following the pilot program stage, it offers the potential for unclaimed property professionals and their companies to better demonstrate their expertise and commitment to high standards.  

 

With UPPO playing such an instrumental role in the success of its members and evolution of the unclaimed property profession, Popal couldn’t be more honored to serve as 2016/17 president.

 

“UPPO has been a consistent piece of my professional life,” she says. “Through my UPPO membership, I’ve gained life-long friends, professional connections, and had a reliable place to turn for information and resources. UPPO has given me the opportunity to grow into the professional I am today, and I’m grateful to have this opportunity to give back to this organization and my peers in a big way.”

 

Outside of her professional life, Popal and her husband are proud parents of five-year-old and seven-year-old sons. They are planning upcoming trips to California to spend time with family and to Florida to spend time with Mickey Mouse.

 

Tags:  Heela Popal  leadership  UPPO 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Top 7 reasons to participate in the UPPO Unclaimed Property Certificate Program!

Posted By Administration, Thursday, August 27, 2015

Here are the top seven reasons to participate in the UPPO Unclaimed Property Certificate Program!

1. Be acknowledged internally for your expertise. What we do as unclaimed property professionals isn’t always understood by our employers, but the meaning of being a certificate holder within your profession is understood. Universally, holding a certificate means that you hold a certain level of expertise and had to complete quantifiable goals to receive it.

2. It’s an obvious one, but an important reason – you’ll become more effective and confident in your responsibilities. You’ll learn the fundamentals of compliance at a deeper level than you could in one education session.

3. Be one of the first to hang the unclaimed property certificate above your desk. It’s something only 30 people in the profession will be able to do. 

4. (For managers with new employees) Use this as a long-term training solution for your newer employees. It will teach and re-teach topics throughout the year – to relieve you from providing that continued education new professionals demand and need. Take a peek at the program curriculum.

5. Grow as a professional. It’s always good to challenge yourself and learn something new.

6. You’ll earn CPE while you learn! For every live webinar and in-person education session you attend at the Annual Conference through the certificate program, you’ll be eligible to earn one CPE credit. That’s six CPE credits, right there!

7. Be able to provide feedback and improve the program for future classes of the program. The program has been reviewed and tested, and we think it’s pretty awesome, but we recognize it’s the first year it’s ever been offered. We’ll want your honest opinions about how to make this better for future participants – leaving the first class with the ability to influence change the most. 

Do you have a reason why you are participating in the program that wasn’t included in this list? Leave it in the comments section.


More information

Find more information about the program on the FAQ page

Tags:  certificate program  education  professional development  unclaimed property  UPPO 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 1 of 9
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  >   >>   >| 
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal