Talk:USAA/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This proposes an acronym page for USAA

USAA is a three-letter acronym that can stand for a wide variety of terms.

etc. etc.

I think \a see also at the top is more appropriate--Looper5920 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Looper since this USAA is a more well-known company. My only question is, do we add a "See Also" at the top for companies that don't even have Wiki articles? --Brownings 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Additional info - few of the millions of customers no that USAA is united services auto association. They just call it USAA. 2. USAA is the offical and legal business name. 3. USAA has been a constant, while the words have changed over the years - example: long ago it was United Services Army Association HillCountryGrump Hillcountrygrump 13:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my position on this. Based on other entires like IBM it seems there should be an acronym page for USAA with a link to United Services Automobile Association... Hillcountrygrump 13:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Actually, while USAA is used as a trademark, the official business name (part of which is required by Texas law) is United Services Automobile Association (A Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange). If you are a member, you can see this on the top of the declarations page of any policy. Also, isn't USAA a four letter acronym? Grin. Swizzlez 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
A 'vandal' is trying to make a disambiguation page. I propose redirecting this page to the company's current full name, and add a disambiguation link to it. What do you think? (I don't want to do it directly since it seems to be controversial) -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If Wiki has articles for another or all the other uses of USAA, then I say create the disbiguation page. Until then leave this USAA as the USAA. --Brownings 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Brownings and Looper5920. I'd prefer a disambig line at the top; a disambig page would be okay too; but neither is needed until we have information on any of the other organizations. --Allen 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism returns

Looks like the aluminum foil hat aficionado has returned and has dropped any pretense of 'discussing' his controversial changes. Just like the roaches, as soon as Splash turns off the 'light' the sockpuppets return in what their simplistic mind(s) believes to be 'under cover.'


Don't you just love it when a loosing team constantly comes to play at your homefield? Sure, ticket sales may be far below normal box office receipts, but its always a good workout and you know it won't hurt your win record. [cracking my knuckles and stretching]


Kudos to Amcbride and Mmx1 for their rapid response skills.

- - - - - - - - - -

Hillcountrygrump 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I'm a long time USAA employee. I think you have done a fair job of describing the company.

When you have millions of customers there will be some people unhappy with you. We have made mistakes because we are a collection of humans. I've been here 25 years and do not know of an incident when we planned to cheat a customer or claimant. That doesn't mean we don't disagree with them. We often disagree with claimants and jurors about what is fair.

Some of the previous comments (that yawl removed) were baffling to me. We do have a huge building. But we have 15,000 employees in it, plus contractors. It is pretty tight in here - I have no idea where anybody got the idea that it was only 50% used. And as anybody can see we didn't shut it down when we opened the Phoenix office (circa 2000).

Subscriber Savings Account is unique - and I understand confusing to some who have to guess what is going on, but it is not some rip off scheme. I'm not an accountant or attorney but will try to explain it. Since we are a reciprocal/mutual our profits are considered to be overcharges to our customers (we call them members) who are also the owners of the company. At the end of each year if we have a "profit" we have three choices how to handle it: 1.) give it back to the members as a refund (with some contraints) 2.) pay taxes 3.) hold it in reserves (an equity account held against future claims and catastophes - a liability, essentially which reduces our taxes).

We choose to do two things with our "profit/overcharge". 1.) We hold some of it in reserves (positions us financially to weather rough years and reduces our taxes) 2.) Refund some of it back to the members (who are also our owners). But, we do the refund with a twist. We don't return all of the money to our members. We hold some of it in the Subscriber Savings Account. Here is why... We can claim it as an asset which increases our financial strength even more (did you notice our high financial ratings from all agencies?) which allows us to get the best interest rates when we use debt.

Here is a little more about SSA. Each member has an "account". When it exceeds a certain dollar amount (was $1,000 years ago, I think it is near $3,000 today) USAA sends you a refund check for the difference. Also, if you cancel your USAA auto insurance the entire amount is refunded to you. Unusual, no doubt. Sinister - I think not... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hillcountrygrump (talkcontribs) .


Ooops - need to sign Hillcountrygrump 21:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Two things about the Subscriber Savings Account. First, not all of USAA's reserves are held in SSA's. There is a portion held as "unassigned reserves" and then a portion that has been allocated to members in their SSA's.
Second, distribution from SSA's is actually a rather complicated formula, and not simply an amount over and above some other set amount. Each year (if it is financially viable to do so), a portion of the unassigned reserves and/or excess premiums (i.e., profits) of USAA is allocated to each member's Subscriber Savings Account, based both on how much is already in the SSA, and also based on how much business one has done with USAA over the past year. Then, a certain percentage of each member's Subscriber Savings Account is distributed to the member, either in the form of a premium credit, or (I believe) if the distribution is over a certain amount, a check can be issued. Lastly, there is an extra distribution made to seniors, not sure if it depends on age or the tenure of membership, but USAA distributes an extra amount to its older members. Seems fair to me, as the only way to get at ALL your SSA money at once is to either cancel all your policies for six months or die, so why not give back a little extra to older members who can enjoy the fruits of their long-time membership instead of waiting to die and pass the couple thousand in the account on to their heirs?
I know you don't have to have a certain dollar amount because I got a premium credit of something like $3 the first year I was a member and I am certain that was my SSA distribution. It can end up being a sizeable chunk of cash (couple hundred dollars or more) depending on how much one has paid in premiums and how long one has been a USAA member.
Not sure how the SSA reduces USAA's taxes, but I do know that all distributions from it are considered a return of premium paid and are not taxed to the member.Swizzlez 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Aluminum foil hat man, if you'd like to discuss your insistence on adding what is most decidedly your opinion about how USAA should be run (i.e. you want the senior leadership's salary published), I'd be happy to debate that point in the discussion forum. The Wiki entry on USAA, however, is not a place to espouse what you think is best, just what "is". For example, I think an appropriate statement could actually be something like "Because it is not a share company, USAA's leadership is not required under the law to disclose details of their compensation package," and people can infer whatever they want from that. Otherwise, I'm going to keep deleting your opinion from the Wikipedia entry on USAA no matter how many times you try to change it (and believe me, I'm more stubborn than you are crazy). Swizzlez 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Swizzlez 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anyone"?

From the article:

anyone can become a member by opening a bank account, an investment account, or by seeking life insurance from USAA

From USAA.com:

Who can apply?
* Active duty officer and enlisted personnel
* National Guard and Reserve officer and enlisted personnel
* Officer candidates in commissioning programs
* Former spouses and adult children of USAA members

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.238.180 (talkcontribs) 22:13, 20 May 2006.

(former employee here)
Distinction is what's legally allowed vs. what USAA markets to. The article is correct; there are specific eligibility rules for property insurance, but not most other products. In line with their mission statement ('provider of choice for the military community'), USAA primarily markets to military and dependants on usaa.com.
- 68.92.156.81 06:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

section removal

Hillcountrygrump 13:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I removed the section on litigation for the following reasons:

  1. . every major (top 10) P&C insurance company in the U.S. is the target of dozens even hundreds of law suits.
  2. . there isn't a "lawsuit" section for the other insurance companies.
  3. . there is nothing especially unique or impacting about these lawsuits.
  4. . it implies that this company has a bigger lawsuit problem than other insurance companies, and that is not correct
  5. . in fact, this company is regularly ranked in the upper echlon for customer service and loyalty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillcountrygrump (talkcontribs) Hillcountrygrump 13:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Price increase - bias view

Every US insurance company constantly adjusts prices up and down. Likewise they constantly adjust the geographic areas where they sell insurance driven by factors like risk, building codes, rates allowed by the state, etc.

If you are going to post rate changes post all of them, and do it for all of the insurance companies. This smacks of competition...

--Hillcountrygrump 01:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

changed why military couldn't get insurance

It is subtle, but the reason people in the military couldn't get insurance wasn't because they took their vehicles into combat zones. It was because they were considered cavalier about life and therefore risky drivers; therefore, high risk drivers. Turns out to be the exact opposite. They were disciplined, educated, and had a dependable source of income--Hillcountrygrump 01:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

What exactly is germane

Hillcountrygrump, I would appreciate it if you would quit deleting entire passages of this entry without any type of editing. This goes against Wiki guidelines which I invite you to review.

Furthermore, I believe what you have been deleting is actually germane; first of all, USAA is unique when compared to pretty much every Fortune 500 company, and most definitely every major financial services company. People looking to Wikipedia to do research into a company want MORE information, not less. If they want to know what services USAA offers and an essentially detail-free synopsis of USAA's background, they can get that on the public USAA website. The entry here should be unique and detailed, not a copy of what's available elsewhere. In addition, information posted here, both on the legal structure of USAA and the identification of its competition is factually accurate and not easily found elsewhere on the web; it has been gathered both from personal experience, both as a USAA member and as a stint as a USAA employee, as well as family contacts in the financial services industry and some pretty detailed web and newspaper searches.

Even further, regarding competition, I invite you to visit any military installation and go to the commissary or exchange, and watch the credit and/or debit cards that are used to make purchases. Visit websites that cater to the military and see who is advertising. Review various chat rooms (for example, the Motley Fool's Military Fools section) and see what companies are being discussed as being useful financial service companies for members of the military. Talk to service members and see who they are using for their insurance.

All the information I've included is to the best of my knowledge accurate and is also pretty balanced. I invite any constructive edits (for example, I know I can be wordy) or formatting changes, but please stop deleting entire passages on a wholesale basis.

Swizzlez 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Add: there is no IRS jargon on the page. Read it carefully, and you'll see the details are from the Texas Insurance Code. I guess if you were writing an advertisement for USAA you would leave out anything complicated or that portrays USAA unfavorably, however, this webpage is a reference, not an ad. I happen to think USAA is fantastic but in order to maintain objectivity, I think it's best to include the good and the bad. I notcied that a section about the controversial layoffs of 2001 was also removed in the most recent edit; I think this is important as for 75 years USAA was known in San Antonio as an employer that had never laid anyone off; laying off 5% of the workforce was an abrupt (and in my opinion) necessary change, but not without controversy; it also seemed to be a pretty important turning point in company history.Swizzlez 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


From HillCountry Grump to Swizzlez

Dear Swizzlez,

FIRST - FULL OPEN DISCLOSURE - I am a USAA employee and know that I have bias. I try very hard to control it. I do this by looking at the entries for other companies as a standard. Let me know when you think my bias is getting in the way.

Second - I think that most of what you post is accurate (some speculation that needs to be removed) and brings a NPOV.

Third - If it is wrong to make large deletes, then it is also wrong to make large additions... I found it hard to "edit" many of your entries and still have them make sense. It took complete rewrites. So, like you replaced my stuff with your text, I replaced your stuff with nulls. Just because something is true does not make germane. And, germane is relative. Right? That is why I try to use entries for other companies as a standard.

1. The structural detail you added appears to be accurate, but USAA is NOT more complex than its competitors. The structure, like that of comeptitors is dramatically affected by the IRS, state insurance regulators, the SEC, the FDIC, etc. Your description here is complex and I think it makes the company look unncessarily complex, and I don't think you'll find similar complexity described at other company entries.

I agree that the USAA P&C company is unique. But, I think you should explain the texas insurance code in its own entry, not in the USAA entry.

2. I don't see references to competitors when I go to other company entries. If you want to talk about comeptitors then I suggest you do that in an entry for "The Insurance Industry" or something.

3. The ONLY reason I brought up SSA in the first place is because somebody was trying to make it sound like SSA was some kind of evil magic that we used to steal from our customers.

4. What is your source about the bank being modeled after Fort Sam Bank?

5. Concerning the layoffs. Why is it germane for a company that is consistently named among the best companies in America to work for? - Name a Fortune 500 company over 20 years old that hasn't had layoffs - Name a Fortune 200 financial services company that doesn't use outsourcing or third party resources - What is your source about the number of employees laid off? - It was a controversy in San Antonio because it was a way for the local press to make money...

Is it true that USAA had layoffs? Yep. Was it hard for a lot of people. Yep. But is it germane 5 years later? Nope.

6. I think your opening statement under the "Competition Section" is speculative. Can you support it with a source?

7. The JD Power award is almost 5 years old. Adding it is fine, but why would you delete 2006 ratings? Recent data seems more germane...

8. Under eligibility you say something about "symmetry". What is you source for that? It sounds speculative. Hillcountrygrump 13:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


not sure how adding large additions is wrong for an encyclopedia entry. review of numerous articles for a number of financial and non-financial services companies indicate a great deal of detail, especially a lot more than I saw when I first looked at the USAA entry. it's certainly not equivalent to deleting large swaths of accurate and relevant information.

1) the texas insurance code is relevant since the fact is that under the concept of the Association, every subscriber does insure every other subscriber. most people don't expect that when they buy insurance they are actually exchanging liability with other people, they think a corporation is gambling on whether they're going to have to pay claims on a certain person's policy or not in that particular year. thus, it is worth pointing out that a provision of the insurance code does limit liability, and I don't know of any other fortune 500 company that is owned by its members, and not shareholders or a tightly held private company.

Further, this is an encyclopedia. it is not an advertisment. it is not here to say whether USAA is better or worse than any other company; to me it seems that you fear that if people read about the structure of USAA that they won't want to do business there if it's complex. I think that if Wiki is building an encyclopedic reference source for virtually anything you can think of, the more detail the better.

2) A few company entries that mention competitors: Coca_cola, H-E-B, Google, Dell, among many others.

3) I think the SSA is worth mentioning in the article. I just wanted to point out in the discussion how it actually works. You don't need thousands of dollars in it to start getting credits or a check disbursed.

4) A USAA executive.

5) Discussion of layoffs is especially germane if the company is consistently labeled as one of the best to work for. If one thinks they are getting a great deal, they need to know of the potential for layoffs to occur. Discussion of layoffs is justified considering that up until the layoffs, USAA was known for never laying off anyone, ever [1]. Thus it is worth bringing up, perhaps with an edit to frame it in a more historical light. Why not discuss and include outsourcing, especially as it relates to layoffs? Regarding the stir in the media in San Antonio, again, USAA was always known as a place where as long as you got a job and did it well, you would keep it until you wanted to leave. That is no longer the case, for better or worse, and merits at least a brief mention, either in a historical context or as a relatively recent development in a company that has existed for well over 80 years. **Opinion Follows**: I like USAA, in fact, I think it's one of, if not the best company in the US. However, I am distanced enough from it to know it is not perfect, and in fact, things HAVE changed over the past 10 years; the culture in the past was more familial and the bottom line, while important, was not sacred. It has NOT changed to a ruthless pursuit of the bottom line at all costs, but some of the familial/esprit-de-corps characteristics, both inside the company and in it's exterior approach to members have faded, if only just a little; a major turning point in this was the restructuring of a few years back where over 1000 staff were laid off. If someone else can think of a way to include this sentiment as more fact based than opnining, I think it should be included, the only way I can think of to do that fairly now is just to mention there were layoffs.

regarding the numbers: sources: [2], [3], [4]

6) I don't have access to customer surveys or market research, but I do read a variety of publications geared toward military members. Based on experience and observation that anyone can do as outlined above, since USAA's target market are those people in military service, retirees and their families, USAA competes with other businesses seeking to serve that particular niche. For the most part, these companies, while numerous, are dwarfed by the size of USAA. Pick up any publication geared towards a military audience and you'll see ads for USAA, a variety of military credit unions, GEICO, maybe AAFMAA, First Command, etc. If you pick up a military newspaper local to a certain base, you'll see ads for the local military credit union and/or bank, probably USAA, and a few other companies that cater to the military. I don't think that's speculation, there is definitely evidence out there.

7) Yes, that JD Power award is relatively old, but does represent the culmination of years of consistently good service. The sentence about the 2006 rating was essentially lifted directly from the JD power press release and I don't think that's appropriate. The entry as it stands does say that USAA has remained at the top of the ratings since the award.

8) Symmetry: another way of stating that the policy regarding eligibility for officers was changed to match the policy regarding eligibility for NCOs. It is a fact that prior to the admittance of NCOs to USAA membership, if you were a retired officer and you had never joined USAA, you could still do so at any time. Once enlisted members were allowed to join, retired and separating officers faced the same time cutoff that retiring and separating enlisted members faced. Thus the policy for both types of military member is symmetric, i.e. equal, i.e. fair.

Obviously, like every wikipedia entry this one is a work in progress and can always use edits. However, making sweeping deletions to true and germane information regarding USAA is not helpful in the establishment of a detailed encyclopedia. I fail to see how adding large amounts of information can be seen as identical to deleting said large amounts, and refer you to Wikipedia:Etiquette, where it says "try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle." Swizzlez 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

. . . .

From HillCountryGrump to Swizzlez

So basically you are rejecting all of my suggestions.

It looks like we may need to involve an arbitrator...

I agree that USAA being an unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange is germane. It should be part of the description. I don't think it should be explained here, and I don't think the pros and cons should be discussed here. That should be discussed at the URIE entry. By the way, a URIE is not a mutual, but it is very close and there are lots of mutuals in the insurance industry including F500 companies: Northwestern Life, State Farm, MassMututal, and New York Life to name a few. If I'm ineterpreting you correctly you are saying that USAA's use of the URIE is a risk because in a huge disaster the liability is limited. I have two facts for you to consider. #1. Several insurance companies declared bankruptcy in Florida in 90's after hurricane Hugo. The few remaining insurance companies, including USAA, had to pick up the loses of those that took banktruptcy in addition to covering their own responsibilities. It was the "publicly owned" companies that dumped their customers in Florida, to take care of their stock holders elsewhere. #2. The Florida insurance regulators have one main job. Make sure that the insurance companies doing business in Florida take care of Floridans. The Florida regulators don't have the worries that you seem to be expressing about a URIE... Ditto any other state!

You describe the county mutual. Almost every insurance company in Texas uses county mutuals. In fact, USAA was one of the last to adopt the technique. I don't that is addressed about any other insurance company. Why is it germane?

USAA has lots of subsidiaries. I think there is one in each state for the P&C insurance part of the business. Ditto Life insurance. I think that is how every company in this industry is set up because there is no federal insurance charter. By explaining it in the USAA entry you make USAA seem really complex compared to the other companies in the industry and that would scare some people away from the company. Either do it for every company or don't do it for this one. I would think that consistency is a trade mark of a good encyclopedia.

Concerning edits. You mass replaced the stuff I put out there, but now you want me to edit your stuff one sentence or word at a time. That doesn't seem right...

You are saying that if something is a fact, it belongs. I disagree. I think it must be current and/or very unique to be relevant.

You say this is not advertising. I agree, but your wording makes the company seem a lot more complex than other companies and that is not accurate. Also, the style you are using for this company is not found in the rest of the encyclopedia.

I see you found some companies with competitor links. I'm not suprised since there are thousands of companies. I didn't see any in the financial services industry on your list. It seems crass to me to link people to competitors. Perhaps this is my bias. But, I'm still going to insist that you put that stuff in an industry entry.

Concerning the bank. "An executive" is not a source. I need a name or a public source or I'm calling it speculation.

Also, the symmetry statemment is your opinion. I'd say that you make a logical argument, but it is your opinion. I think you need to have an industry analyst or a public statement by a USAA executive to use it.

So, I still haven't changed your stuff because I think you are being fair. But, I also think you are really bringing aspects to the entry that (while they may be unintended) do put the company are a disadvantage. I think that consistency with other companies in the industry is the only way to make this fair. Is there any reason for us to continue the dialog. Are you willing to budge? Or, should we engage a wiki arbitrator?

Hillcountrygrump 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

. . . . . . . . . . .

No, you're not interpreting or reading correctly. Liability is limited as described in the entry. There are no worries listed in the entry. I am not a Robert Koenig sockpuppet! I'm not sure why you think this is some kind of USAA attack. A URIE is, as a matter of fact, unique and should be mentioned somewhere, if you want to move it, that's fine.

USAA does use county mutuals for high-risk drivers in Texas, and if you happen to be dropped from United Services Automobile Association for bad driving, that's where you go. It's a part of the company. Why not mention it? Do you think it's a black mark? I don't get the objection to mentioning the existence of something that is real.

I'm not out to edit every single company. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, not an advertisment. The entry is not designed to attract nor scare people away from USAA, but to provide facts. Go to the entry on American Airlines. It describes the company as a subsidiary of AMR, and if you link to AMR, it describes a number of other subsidiaries. I don't think people are frightened to fly on American or invest in it or otherwise do business with it because it has subsidiaries. People who are geekish enough to be searching an encyclopedia for information are looking for details, and I am providing them to the best of my knowledge. It is not my responsibility to pore over the rest of Wikipedia and make a list of all business entries that mention competition. To suggest I do so is ridiculous.

In everything I read from you, you clearly believe this site is designed to advertise; it is not. It is designed to provide information. Linking to an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry on competitors is, therefore, not an attempt to divert business away from your employer and my insurer, but to further illustrate the environment in which this business acts. You will noticed that the linked entries have hardly any information about them, probably because they are small and simple operations. USAA, however, is a Fortune 500 company deserving of a detailed reference entry. There are far more entries besides the ones I found that have links to competition, but it is not my responsibility to prove that it is against Wikipedia practice to discuss competition of a business. Find a Wikipedia guideline that says I should remove competition data, and I will.

I'm not sure which of the parts of your entries I changed, but I do remember deleting the rating sentence as it was directly lifted from the JD Power press release about the most recent survey, which is plagiarism.

Sorry, but I'm not going to budge. Again, clearly you are concerned with the ability or lack of ability of this site to direct people to USAA. That's not what it's for. Instead, it is here as a reference to provide as much relevant information as possible. The irony of it all is that I think anyone who is eligible SHOULD be doing business with USAA, but this is not the forum to advance such a point of view. If you want to provide constructive contributions, or edit style (which I would welcome), great, but if your aim is to delete everything that you don't feel portrays USAA in the best possible light, find yourself an arbitrator.

Swizzlez 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

oh, by the way, some of the entry I actually don't like but I left in due to the "contributions" of RJK and his sockpuppets. Obviously his non NPOV stuff should have been removed, but I left things in like "complex corporate structure" as a substitute for outlandish statements like "mystifying array of....". I wouldn't mind actually removing things like that, but felt it was the most I could compromise with his input since this is a collective effort. Swizzlez 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One at a time

Swizzlez,

Overall I like what you have done. I'm a stickler for detail and facts. I'm going to start working my disagreements with you one at time.

I'm starting with the bank section. Encyclopedias stick to the facts. So, we can't use the statement about the Fort Sam Bank unless we can prove it. We have to substantiate the "fact" with a reference to a public statement from an official USAA source or we have to qualify the statement with something like "allegedly". I have trouble imagining an encyclopedia using "allegedly" in its articles... Hillcountrygrump 15:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the section on target market

Swizzlez,

I made changes because you get a little wordy. I tend to be terse. We might need to compromize... I don't think I took out any substance. Hillcountrygrump 14:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the CIO article about Steve Yates and the layoff

Swizzlez,

First, I've been at USAA for 25 years. I know that the culture has changed. I also know that no company is perfect. We got bloated and lazy (just my opinion) and had been that way for a while like 1995 to 2000. Let me say this another way - we were bloated and lazy at the expense of the membership (just my opinion).

Is it a fact that USAA had layoffs? Yes. It is also a fact that there was a handsome severance package. Some people volunteered to be cut so they could get the severance. A friend of mine was offered a demotion but opted to take the severance because they said "It would take years to save that much money."

1. This seems like a rediculous level of detail to me. 2. It was almost 5 years ago. 3. We are listed in the top 100 companies to work for in 3 spaces (at least): IT, Hispanics, and Women 4. It was 5 years ago 5. It is ancient history

Hillcountrygrump 14:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No rumors allowed

1. Swizzlez, no rumors. 2. Unless you provide a source for the symmetry I'm gonna keep taking it out. Symmetry is your opinion, your impression. Just state the facts, if you have them (and they are not proprietary). I will not remove the symmetry statement if you can find a bonafide industry analyst that says it creates symmetry, or a statement by USAA saying symmetry was a desired outcome. 3. Why did you take out the top 100 places for Hispanic women? Hillcountrygrump 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Swizz I don't understand you

1. I thought you were the one that said no wholesale deletes... what do you call what you did? 2. I thought you were the one that wanted to add "interesting details"... 3. I thought you were the one that said "membership details" were missing... well here is membership demystified... 4. Oh yeah, I think it eaiser to read the way I did it...

Hillcountrygrump 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Who is advertising Swizz?

You accuse me of advertizing - which by the way I find to be very crass.

I offered a pretty simplified explanation of what it takes to become a member (owner of the company) which is very unique, and has expiration dates that few people understand...

Yet, you have added competitor information to the wiki which I consider to be advertizing for USAA's competition. What do the competitors have to do with USAA? How did you pick the competitors you included in the entry? Are you advertising for GEICO? Do you own Berkshire stock?

Hillcountrygrump 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposes an acronym page for USAA

USAA is a four-letter acronym that stands for a wide variety of organizations and at least one act of Congress:

At mid-night, GMT, 13 September 2006, I will be moving all United Services Automobile Association content to the correct article - which is: United States Automobile Association.

And this article will become the acronym page it is supposed to be.

Bradford Patrick
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
200 2nd Avenue S. #358
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
1.727.231.0101
fax:+1.7172580207
email: bpatrick@wikimedia.org

has been advised if this situation and the conduct of LeyteWolfer, below.

Readers are invited to review this report on Robert G. Davis rent-a-shills at Wikipedia.

I have no love for USAA one way or the other, but as I've said time, and time, and time again, I don't see the point of adding an acronym page unless Wiki has an article on one or more of the other USAA entities you mentioned above. If Wiki has them, or hell even if you create them, then I'd gladly join your push for the acronym page. As for Mr. Bradford Patrick, if he has any weight or opinion on the USAA acronym discussion, then he should post here, otherwise anything you post claiming Mr. Bradford Patrick said is just Hearsay. --Brownings 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Your long list of red links above does nothing to prove your point. The page should remain as is until other salient articles are created. Agree with Brownings above.--Looper5920 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I think \a see also at the top is more appropriate--Looper5920 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Looper since this USAA is a more well-known company. My only question is, do we add a "See Also" at the top for companies that don't even have Wiki articles? --Brownings 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Additional info - few of the millions of customers no that USAA is united services auto association. They just call it USAA. 2. USAA is the offical and legal business name. 3. USAA has been a constant, while the words have changed over the years - example: long ago it was United Services Army Association HillCountryGrump

Actually, while USAA is used as a trademark, the official business name (part of which is required by Texas law) is United Services Automobile Association (A Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange). If you are a member, you can see this on the top of the declarations page of any policy. Also, isn't USAA a four letter acronym? Grin. Swizzlez 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
A 'vandal' is trying to make a disambiguation page. I propose redirecting this page to the company's current full name, and add a disambiguation link to it. What do you think? (I don't want to do it directly since it seems to be controversial) -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If Wiki has articles for another or all the other uses of USAA, then I say create the disbiguation page. Until then leave this USAA as the USAA. --Brownings 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Brownings and Looper5920. I'd prefer a disambig line at the top; a disambig page would be okay too; but neither is needed until we have information on any of the other organizations. --Allen 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmm you're entirely right. -- lucasbfr talk 01:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Why is the old conversation still here?

Can someone please explain to me why this particular part of the discussion did not get archived, but the response to it most certainly did? I have a feeling one of banned user Robertjkoenig's sockpuppets archived the discussion to present the current discussion the way he wanted. From my standpoint, any edit to any wiki page or talk page that one of his sockpuppets makes should be deleted as though it never existed, as he clearly has a soapbox-style agenda, whereas everyone else who has toyed with this page, while they may have disagreements, seems to have a factual encylopedic reference as a goal. If leaving the residual part of the archived discussion is allowed, then all the conversations subsequent to it should, in my opinion, be left on the talk page.

By the way, RJK (sockpuppet-man), if you are allowed to continue to post here (even though you've been banned), it is not cool to edit your own entry as a response to someone else's subsequent entry, rather, continue it as a discussion below the response to your points. That way anyone who hasn't seen the start of the discussion can follow it like a regular conversation. Thanks. --Swizzlez 18:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Swizzlez: you're an obsessed old man who should be thinking about Nicole Smith and not some sock-puppet. You might consider "putting a sock in it" or "putting a sock on it" depending on what your mood is. Now - what text do you feel was archived infairly? Why don't you do get it and move it back up onto this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.154.31.131 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

The personal attacks on this and other users stop now. If we get one more, I will semi-protect this page> Thanks, Gwernol 19:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As promised, this page is now semi-protected due to continued personal attacks by the banned user Robert Koenig. Gwernol 19:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why all the fuss behind the disambig requests above

The reason Robert J Koenig is doing this is clearly related to the facts of the case (linked well below this post, in fact, i think it's in one of the archives) involving his use of a website that used the acronym, USAA. In it, the administrative judge overseeing the right of a person to use a certain domain name decided that since USAA was a very well known acronym used by United Servies Automobile Association, they had the right to any domain name that was both similiar and related to that organization. Thus, RJK was prohibited from using the domain name "fixusaa.com", and now he is on yet another quixotic diversion to build up evidence that USAA actually refers to a number of other, very obscure acronyms. I find it telling that he created the link page called "the united states arbitration act" (which actually doesn't exist, as it's called the "Federal Arbitration Act") as an attempt to show that USAA actually refers to some other established and well-known concept.

I believe he thinks that if he can show that USAA is an acronym that refers to a wide variety of well known concepts or organizations, he can then take up his cause to establish some "alternative" usaa website to continue his bizzare quest at attacking USAA. Unfortunately for him, however, 1)all the concepts or organizations he proposes as alternatives to the well-known "USAA" are obscure or don't even exist and 2) I doubt establishing this on Wikipedia will ever affect any kind of judgement for or against him in the future in terms of the use of the acronym USAA in any website.

THEREFORE, I don't think that his proposed changes should be enacted until there is some established page about some other organization or concept using the acronym USAA which was not written or developed by Robert J Koenig, usaaindexer, usaaeditor or any of his other sockpuppets.

Swizzlez 03:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd move this to the bottom; most editors look to the latest sections first. But good detective work! I'd definitely oppose any such move now.--Mmx1 03:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
how bizzare, i always look at the top. if you want to move it down that's fine.Swizzlez 03:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's stuck under another section (and lord knows this page is a mess), ppl tend to gloss over it. Promoting this to top level section and putting it at the bottom. --Mmx1 03:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Swizzlez's comments regarding allegedly dishonest attempts to create the appearance that USAA is a common name. The simple fact that Koenig has not even gone to the trouble of writing articles for the above named organizations (even the real ones) indicates to me, and any credible legal authority, that Koenig is only interested in providing a veneer of use for the term 'USAA.' It can definitely be successfully argued that the majority of people coming to read a USAA article expect to see one on the banking and insurance corporation, and that very few people (possibly numbering only Koenig's lawyer) would be coming to see how many organizations (again real and false) share the initials USAA. For the record, too, Koenig's attempts to frighten the editors' community at Wikipedia speak of his own (feeble) attempts at censorship, which he claims to be suffering through himself. Koenig is a disingenious user of Wikipedia, in my opinion, and any legal authority responding to future claims against USAA would be wise to triple-check any so-called 'facts' that come from Koenig, if evidence of his character here provides any insight. There is usually an iceberg that he is attempting to hide under the water. LeyteWolfer 13:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he did go to the trouble of writing articles for two of them, the United States Achievement Academy and United States Air-Table-Hockey Association. Interestingly, he just cut and paste from the Achievement Academy's website for both entries; when it was pointed out that cutting and pasting was against the rules, he then made a half-hearted attempt at an entry for the Achievement Academy which was found to be lacking any useful information for wikipedia, so both entries were removed. It appears that since it was obvious that RJK is the man behind the latest entries, his usernames were determined to be sockpuppets and the Wiki ban on RJK was extended to his most recent socks. I guess we have a lot of IP address sockpuppets to look forward to; I plan on sticking the sockpuppet label on any IP address talk page if the contribution is clearly linked to RJK. Swizzlez 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Actually, he did go to the trouble of writing articles for two of them, the United States Achievement Academy and United States Air-Table-Hockey Association. Interestingly, he just cut and paste from the Achievement Academy's website for both entries..."
That's cute! Well, while I admit the error that Koenig ignored all the previous associations (in regards to writing them), it does show how he uses the veneer of the truth to obfuscate his real intentions. Someone acting from a point of poor faith is accusing others of the same tactics. Normally, that would be 'kettle calling the pot black,' but in this case its simply Koenig not judging himself with the same methods he applies to others. Good job, Swizzlez. LeyteWolfer 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
While I ordinarily wouldn't link to any of his pages or even discuss it here, since he's taken up so much time vandalising the entry I figured that since I found some basis for RJK's quest, I thought I would share with anyone else who is interested. This page, part of RJK's blog, I believe, explains the impetus for RJK's over-a-decade long crusade against USAA. I personally can't be sure whether his allegations on that page are true (based on the rest of his behavior, anything that he says seems dubious), but essentially he is upset that USAA overpaid a claim of his by $35 and he feels that was part of a concerted effort to cause his rates to increase so that USAA could recoup the amount of the claim. The total amount of the claim? $510. See for yourself on his page. Because of this, he has set up at least one website which he was forced to give up [5] and tries to use a variety of other websites to rail against USAA, believing that anyone involved in any way with USAA and who happens to disagree with him is dishonorable or worse. However, he doesn't seem to be able to substantiate any of his claims against USAA, save for the fact that they get complained about and sued just like any other large business in the US. Everything else he seems to bring up is either related to unsettled court cases or unsubstantiated rumors, neither of which seem relevant as proper Wikipedic sources.
If any editor of Wiki thinks that this entry should be removed, feel free, but I think it's at least somewhat relevant to explain why one banned poster (and all of his sockpuppets) has an agenda and why any of his entries, especially on any archived talk pages, should be taken with a grain of salt. In the spirit of equality, I will say that I am a member of USAA, I probably stand to gain an infinitesmal amount of extra return of profit should this article influence more people to join, but, hopefully I've done the best I can at describing the organization with a balanced perspective instead of with such a vitriolic, irrational agenda advanced by someone who seems to be unable to move on. Now for me....back to something better...halftime's over...FOOTBALL!
--Swizzlez 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That may be an interesting read, but since Robert Koenig has gone so much effort to pull the wool over his eyes, I'd have to doubt 90% of any facts presented by him, with his perspective. Scratch that: just facts presented by him. He's gone to so many lengths to convince a future court that there are many people railing about the 'injustices of 10 extra dollars charged against Robert Koenig' that you can't even assume trust in someone who posts in support of him. But, doing the research was a sign of a good editor. Thanks, Siwzz. (This is the part where a sockpupput will now call me names.)LeyteWolfer 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


My team totally cr%&*)ped out, so I quit watching and did some more research. And now I remember, from reading posts a long time ago about (probably by) Koenig, his biggest complaint was his claimed 1989 pipe burst which he claims destroyed his New York City apartment, and USAA's refusal to pay for said damage. It's detailed here (although because he includes snippets of everything, it's hard to say who was right and who was wrong in the matter) [6]. This is now conjecture and speculation (which is why it's on the talk page), but my guess is he went to court and lost, and has been on a crusade ever since.
He also has a number of sections of articles and papers at [7], [8], the most telling being this letter[9], in which he rambles about why USAA is so bad, and then states (plainly), "I want to see USAA dissolved." He seems to want to help the attorneys in the true v. usaa case, however, I read through the case; while I'm not a lawyer it appears frivolous to me and seems like it will likely be thrown out. Even if it is for some reason settled, I would imagine the only change would be an increase in the reserves allocated to SSAs, and not the bleeding to death of USAA as desired (see the letter) by RJK. It also brings me to my next point, which is: you have to seriously wonder about the motives of a man who wants to end the existence of a business which serves the majority of the members of the active duty military. Assuming that there is an infinitismally small chance that that would actually happen in my lifetime, and assuming it happens, yes, we could all get insurance and financial services elsewhere, but is Koenig's revenge, even if justified, worth the time, money, grief and frustration it would cause military members & their families, not to mention the over 20,000 employees that would be out of jobs? Talk about ego.
I also found a rough draft of a letter [10] he has written to the division of corporations of Delaware. It explains his obsession with the fact that USAA is not incorporated, and his obsession with the use of the phrase "URIE". Apparently, in Delaware, only "legal persons" may own shares in a corporation. According to RJK's logic (wishful thinking?), a reciprocal is not a legal person and thus cannot own USAA Capital Corporation or any of its other Delaware subsidiaries, and thus all of USAA's members would technically be entitled to the shares of USAA Capital Corporation and any other Delaware subsidiaries of USAA. My guess is that that has already been well reviewed by USAA's lawyers, a reciprocal probably is a legal person in Delaware and RJK is stretching.
Last, two more things. 1) I wouldn't be surprised if the links die soon, as RJK has not made the information he has posted on the internet easy to find and that may be for a reason. 2) On a personal note, thanks RJK; this has been kind of a fun little logic puzzle for me. It's times like these that I wonder why I didn't go to law school, but I think it's because I didn't want to end up a bitter old man. I see through your reasoning and your motives, and it seems to indicate that instead of what seems superficially to be the irrational crusade of someone who may not be well is actually the futile effort of a man so hell-bent on revenge he's lost touch with reality. Perhaps you should take up yoga? If I were a betting man, I'd bet on USAA outliving you, me, and everyone else on the planet. Is spending almost 20 years attempting to destroy USAA (and not getting very far) really all that fulfilling? Only you know; as for me, I'm gonna go drink some beer and watch the rest of today's football....
--Swizzlez 02:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Swizzlez, get a life and stay out of others'. I understand that you have a personal... well uh you just don't like him. Digging up his past is going a bit too far, especially considering that you have probably not known him outside of the internet. While going through a man's past may be perfectly legal, does that mean you should? Think about this, you make up the majority of posts and text on this discussion, and it sounds like YOU are on a crusade. Anyway, three words for "RJK", INCREASE YOUR MEDICATION.

70.243.166.241 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Page Lock

Is there anyone watching this page that can lock it from edits by IP addresses? I think the USAA article has seen enough abuse lately. --Brownings 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP address under Wikipedia's three revert rules policy. For now the POV-pushing appears to have stopped. If it starts up again I am willing to protect the page. Good luck, Gwernol 00:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm all for leaving the page open (I'd like someone else to come along and help edit/organize it), and I'd like to add some kind of "history" section, I'd be for a temporary protection for awhile. I'm not sure it would do much good because as soon as it is unprotected a sockpuppet of the same old vandal is going to start up with the same routine. Any way to keep unregistered users from editing while allowing those who are registered the privilege of fixing it up? That may be worth a shot if its possible. Swizzlez 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It is possible, but given the vandalism has stopped since the latest IP was blocked (and that IP can't create new accounts during the block period) it looks like you have 24 hours to fix up the article. If another IP or new users starts vandalizing I will protect. In the meantime please keep up the constructive edits, and feel free to ping me on my talk page if issues arise. Thanks, Gwernol 02:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Due to continued vandalism and WP:POV-pushing by well known parties, this article is now under semi-protection. Gwernol 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Essential Business Structure

Isn't this language not perhaps a more accurate way to lead off the article on United Services Automobile Association. We are, after all, talking about encyclopaedic accuracy - not just about the way Gwernol wants to shade things. Gwernol, who is very well informed and on the USAA payroll is forgiven for his bias: but not forgiven for his suppression of other people's thoughts - no matter how inconvenient to Gwernol and his "success fee" for suppressing my thoughts are.

United Services Automobile Association (USAA) is an unincorporated reciprocal interinsurance exchange which has grown to be about the same size as many Fortune 500 financial services corporations. By charter, USAA is restricted to serving military members and their families. And - no matter how inconvenient this truth is to all concerned - it is not a corporation and USAA members are not protected by the standard corporate umbrella. In fact (sorry Gwernol), the corporate veil is pierced at USAA before you even get under way: there isn't even a corporation. It is no secret that many very wealthy ex-military people have been advised by their lawyers to stay away from USAA as the liability shield is a flimsy one supplied only by the Texas Department of Insurance. Depending on the TDI to stand behind you is like asking a rogue wave to leave you alone in a storm. If the TDI's URIE limited liability veil at USAA were pierced, say by an allegation that a member knew Robert G. Davis was mis-behaving: then it might be possible for an adverse party to get at the assets of a deep-pocket USAA member. Gwernol, this is a discussion page, ok? Cool your jets for a second.

Now, Gwernol, below, wants to minimize the notion of "unincorporated". The problem here is that the principal over-riding and most important feature of USAA is that it is "unincorporated". Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchanges are definitionally "unincorporated". Each of the 2.2 million members of USAA is personally on the line for all the claims of all the other members. This is not trivial, Gwernol's hardly indepedent wriggling not withstanding. (I love the image of Gwernol, the worm, writhing as I am about to run the hook through him just prior to "going fishing".) Anyway (sorryGwernol), a mutual insurance compony is a indeed a corporation. No policyholder is personally on the hook for the claims of the other policyholders. Now - how should this fact be documented? I'd like to start with the first page of the United Services Annual Report for 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voltaire Redux (talkcontribs) .

First, please provide a reliable source that shows this is true. Then we can discuss whether it is an important enough fact to include in the lead paragraph of the article. Thanks, Gwernol 14:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm pretty sure we've been graced with the presence of yet another sockpuppet, it is correct that USAA is a reciprocal interinsurance exchange. All the policies I get from them say so in the first line under "United Services Automobile Association". Since I'm not particularly interested in reinforcing this truth (i.e., I really don't care), I don't feel the need to back it up with a link, Mr. Voltaire Redux can do that himself (it should be quite easy to do). I can however refer anyone to the CEO letter contained in USAA's Annual Report which does state, "USAA is not a publicly traded company, so we don’t answer to stockholders — we answer to you."
Now then, the issue becomes whether this fact is important enough to list in the first paragraph of the entry; it is already listed under the insurance heading of the Lines of Business section which is very high up in the article, I know that I myself am prone to wordiness and even I think that the intro sentence as proposed by VR is out of control.
By the way, I actually did search the internet for "Unincorporated Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange" and can find no link besides the entry already established on Wiki (URIE) by one of RJK's sockpuppets (Zorro Redux) where the word unincorporated is used, save for answers.com entries (that mirror Wikipedia), and one other that looks remarkably like it was written by Robert J Koenig. It is true that it is not a corporation. However, the definition of Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange would indicate that it is not a corporation, and thus adding unincorporated to the phrase is redundant. Thus, I am going to drop the word unincorporated from the entire entry. --Swizzlez 16:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unarchived

I have unarchived relevant portions of the discussion, including the evidence of RJK's motivations for the disambig page and dicusssion of the "URIE" wording. --Mmx1 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, it is still just as messy. I say since the talk page is now semi-protected, and almost everything on it is there because of RJK and his sockpuppets, and our taking the bait and responding to it, why not just archive the whole thing now and start off with yet another blank talk page? --Swizzlez 19:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
His socks keep ducking back in (and editing the archive); and I'd like people coming upon the talk page to have some inkling of the situation without having to dig into the archives. I don't think this situation is wholly resolved yet; there was another sock today: User_talk:True_to_usaa. Apparently unable to edit this talk page, he started discussing it on archives 9 and 10 and in the articlespace (which was quickly deleted).--Mmx1 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. you think the archives should be protected too?--Swizzlez 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've indef blocked the latest sockpuppet. I'm now going to go in and semi-protect the talk page archives. Gwernol 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

After RJK used my user page to continue his soapbox (and, funnily enough, accused me of being a sockpuppet), I initiated a suspected sockpuppet report. Not sure if it will do any good but I figure in the future when a whole new crop of people are updating this page and getting slammed by a RJK puppet, they can at least have something to refer to in the suspected sockpuppet archive. Please feel free to make any comments in the applicable section of the page. Swizzlez 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

RJK is back

Looks like RJK is back, although his wording is milder, the obsessive fascination with security at USAA (the bank is still located on the same campus as the rest of USAA, by the way, and many financial services companies do have security; additionally, after Sept 11, USAA's security increased, which seems appropriate given the membership/clientele. The Citi campus in San Antonio is similar. The credit card bank has been in existence for about the same time period as USAA FSB (see the FDIC website if you don't believe me) and I believe it was set up in Nevada due to more favorable credit legislation there as compared to Texas. I don't really think it's relevant to mention unless it is mentioned in a manner consistent with NPOV, such as "the USAA Savings Bank issues all of USAA's credit cards and is located in Las Vegas, NV." I think mentioning the litigation is useless, every large financial services institution has litigation, it is not illustrative of anything at USAA and seems to simply expand the article beyond what needs to be there. For all these reasons, I reverted all of the likely sockpuppet's changes. Swizzlez 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Good call. The average roaming editor doesn't swoop in and add something like that...not in light of the history of Robert Koenig's involvement with this encyclopedia article. LeyteWolfer 21:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for latest revert

Reverted because 1) I have included a link which substantiates USAA's historic eligibility requirements (see the bottom of the article). If anyone thinks it should be taken out of the 'target market' section I think that's fine, but if so it should probably be moved to the 'history' section and not summarily dumped. Similarly, there are articles on the internet about USAA's change in eligibililty from only military officers to enlisted; in addition, the page I linked to reflects some of the facts of the transtion/"roll-out" which offered eligibility to enlisted personnel while curtailing the right of former military officers to join USAA if they hadn't done so while on active duty. Swizzlez 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Question - please

What exactly is this discussion page all about? It seems to me to be one of the most fully developed examples of a completely specious Chewbacca Defense I have ever seen. Is this article about United Services Automobile Association or is it about some guy (I presume he is a guy, unless it is sort of George Elliott "she") named Robert J. Koenig. Clearly the acronym USAA is in common use by several other organizations, most notably:

United States Apnea Association

and

Urban Superintendents Association of America.

The latter even has a website with an almost identical name: usaa.org vs usaa.com.

And the United States Apnea Association has a wikipedia page.

How can it possibly be that even the most loyal United Services Automobile Association fan could argue against the clear and immediate need for a disambiguation page. And what is all this stuff about this Koenig guy?

Whether or not the other USAAs have wikipedia pages is quite irrelevant: all that matters is that the word sequence USAA is insufficiently distinctive for USAA to "own it" on Wikipedia.

May we please now proceed to the establishment of a disambiguation page for USAA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urban supers (talkcontribs) .

On Wikipedia a disambiguation page is a technical mechanism to disambiguate between multiple Wikipedia articles. I'm afraid you are incorrect when you state that "Whether or not the other USAAs have wikipedia pages is quite irrelevant". A disambiguation page is ONLY neeeded when there are Wikipedia articles to distinguish between. Gwernol 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the sockpuppet is back. It seems obvious that he copied the United States Apnea Association's "About" page from their website [11] and pasted it into United States Apnea Association as a new wikipedia entry. Does Mr. Koenig really believe that we don't see through his pathetic attempt at pretending to be someone else writing about himself? How ridiculous. Seems like this talk page might unfortunately need to be protected again.
By the way, Mr. Koenig, USAA does not own this entry, Wikipedia does, and the users of Wikipedia edit it as we see fit. In case you haven't noticed in the many months that you've tried to hijack the entry for your own purposes, this is a collaborative effort and, unfortunately for you, the community of users of Wikipedia does not agree with your edits and has continually modified and/or rejected them accordingly. I suspect that we all will continue to do so. Good day. Swizzlez 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Inaccuracy

Hi, I'm a former employee of USAA (left to begin my PhD program which is to say I left amicably and was not terminated and have no ax to grind.) I worked there quite a while, it is a great company as companies go. Its not perfect, but nobody is. Anyway, the following text is in the SSA entry:

the rest is distributed to each member's SSA using a formula that takes into account the member's current SSA balance as well as the amount of premium the member paid in that year.

That is not factual, it is a little depressing that I still have most of IOP (Intelligent Online Proceedures--a intra-association resource that contains all of the proceedures (I think they call them guidelines now) for the CoSA. Its you're bible for whatever company or department you're in.) memorized but the amount distributed to a member's SSA is dependant on only the amount of premium they paid that year, their current SSA balance is not a variable. For example, last year I think ~14% of the premium paid was assigned to each members SSA and at the end of the year ~5% of the entire balance was sent back to the member. Additionally, it is not mentioned but USAA now restricts essentially all of the business it does to only those eligible for P&C policies (mil and ex-dependants). Which is to say that you can't get banking, or investments unless you're eligible or already had them. I'm not sure the wisdom of that move, but it was probably popular with the members -- people like the idea of exclusivity. Most representatives on the insurance side are actually in fact insurance agents, as they have to be licensed insurance agents to issue policies in most states. So technically the phrase that they don't sell through agents is false -- they do but only because they have to. No comissions, just like other directs (progressive, geico).

Anyway, don't have a user ID so I can't edit -- anyone want to make some of those changes? 24.219.97.39 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Welcome! Get a user ID - it's easy, no spam is generated, and it actually provides a little more anonymity than you would have without one. Thanks for the input. Swizzlez 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"The USAA building is said to be the largest office building in the country."

Isn't the pentagon the largest office building in the country? Not An IP 01:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Swizzlez 15:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

USAA's complex is bigger by usable office square footage, the pentagon is larger by size.

Reason for Revert

User:Hillcountrygrump, you continue to edit the article as though it is a resource for people to click through and figure out whether they are eligible for USAA services, much like it's some kind of advertisement for USAA. The article could already use some editing, but instead of making things clearer, you REMOVE information that is difficult to find elsewhere (such as regarding the business structure of USAA) and add in information that is EASY to determine elsewhere (such as just going to USAA's homepage and plugging your information into the eligibility forms). Once again, (and I say this holding USAA in the highest esteem): THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR USAA. IT IS NOT A WAY TO FUNNEL BUSINESS TO USAA. IT IS NOT A CHEERLEADING SITE FOR USAA. It is an encyclopedic reference and I daresay should be used to summarize deep background information that can't easily be found elsewhere on the internet as a priority, with other goals (such as summarizing information easily found on or determined from the USAA website and posting it here) much lower on the list.

Also, if you insist on continuing to post eligibility requirements, you're gonna have to back them up with a citation. I have never heard that there was a one-year time limit from the day one leaves their parent's home to establish a USAA policy, and, in light of their recent national media campaign to capture the business of people who may not even realize they are eligible for USAA's services, I think that, in fact, there is not a time limit for adult children of USAA members to establish eligibility. However, since there's no source cited to back up your information, I can't really tell.

Swizzlez 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

TIME LIMIT on eligibility

I don't know of a published statement on eligibility, but ask any service representative and they will explain that there is a time limit. So, call and ask a sevice representative before deleting it!!!

I think it is hard rule to explain. When you experience any one of many events like seperating from the military or retiring from the military, or moving out of your parents home (permanantly - not while off at college), or getting divored from someone that is a member, or any other of many events you have the rest of that year, then the whole next year to get a P&C product.

If you don't get a P&C product in that time frame, you lose your chance to get USAA services. You also lose it for your decendants. Now tell me - what other companys do that? It is unique or extremely rate and worthy of description WITHOUT being labeled advertizing.

About advertizing... First, since advertizing includes brand management any and every interaction a company has with a potential customer is considered by some business experts to be advertizing - IBM called those interactions "A MOMENT OF TRUTH". That means that this "ENCYCLOPEDIA" is advertizing for many companys whether people like it or not.

Second, I don't know why USAA has the time limit, but they do. It is a fact. Call and ask a rep. BUT, it is hardly a SELLING POINT. It is not a feature. It is not a price statement. It is not comparison to competitors in any way.

Third, you seem to think it is important to explain that USAA is a direct company instead of Agent based. That, dear Swizz, is called a sales distribution model by LOMA (highly recognized insurance professional association - www.loma.org). Business 101 - Sales and marketing and advertizing all overlap right? Should the section on direct versus agent distribution model be pulled since it is advertizing?

MY POINT - Name other companies that say "we just started the count down on your ability to do business with us".

MY CHALLENGE TO YOU - Your defense of having competitor data on the USAA entry was that people need to know about other providers (*** now that sounds like something a USAA competitor would say ***).

But, you don't think that those same consumers that are eligible to do business with USAA (almost always the best value and usually the cheapest insurance) need to know that their time to do business with USAA is limited. *** That sounds like something a competitor would want to hide***.

Hillcountrygrump 13:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was an employee at USAA. I am no longer working there, I posted above about some inaccuracies. This is also inaccurate. There is no time limit on establishing a policy if you're a ex-dependant of a USAA member. In some cases there can be a discount available on an ex-dependant's auto policy (Safe Driver Discount) which lowers the premium of a child's auto policy if they had a good driving record on their parents auto policy. There is a time limit for this discount as the intention was to ensure that there is no period where the kid could go crazy after leaving parents policy but prior to establishing their own, but I don't remember what it is. There is a time limit on establishing your eligibility if you're in the military. You have to get your first P&C product (auto, renters, home, etc) within 2 years of your retirement/seperation otherwise you will not be eligible. 24.219.97.39 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason for removing competition section

Ok. Fine. I get it. You are the undisputed expert and your opinion is beyond question. Also, mass deletes are only acceptable when you do it. Right?

THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR GEICO OR ANY OTHER ENTITY. IT IS NOT A WAY TO FUNNEL BUUSINESS TO ANY ENTITY. IT IS NOT A CHEERLEADING SITE FOR ANY COMPANY. If you want to explain to people what their options are then create a separate entry for the various industries and list all the companies you want.

This ENTRY MUST BE ABOUT USAA ONLY! It is not titled USAA AND OTHER COMPANIES.

207.155.4.175 04:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said many times before, many other entries cite competition, usually not it its own dedicated section about competition, but throughout the entry. For example, if you read about American Express, Mastercard and Visa will be mentioned. I would suggest that you pick a series of about 10 large businesses at random and read their Wiki entries. My guess it that you will likely find at least half of them mention competition in some way. I'm sorry you feel that keeping the entry from being purely about USAA is somehow rude or incorrect, but I'm afraid you're in the minority. I think it would be better if somehow the information was merged into the rest of the article, but I've tried that before as well and you didn't like it. Swizzlez 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Google search: USAA + Wikipedia

Google search: USAA + Wikipedia:

--A. B. (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus another interesting finding using Wikipedia's own search function:
--A. B. (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable USAA Members

How about a section on Notable USAA Members (from USAA Magazine back cover)

(I am missing 4 issues 2003-6) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.24.175.36 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Not sure what issue it was in, but I remember Tony Hawk being on the back cover once. Swizzlez 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of those people, like Master Chief Brashear are deceased. 24.160.146.230 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Membership Restrictions

USAA has in place membership restrictions that does not allow current associate members to have access to the SSA program even though they can demonstrate military service. Apparently the company does not allow retro active membership past 1997. This is confusing since the customer service reps. tell you that the membership policy applies to NEW members only. When pressed the CS reps. cannot give a plausible reason why someone who is an existing associate member should not be allowed full membership based on the criteria established for enlisted military service. This ad hoc policy seems to minimize one persons service when compared to anothers. This discriminatory policy does not seem to uphold the ideals that USAA was built upon or their supposed concern for veterans affairs. Long standing associate members should be able to request a status change from associate member to full member based on recognized military service. This policy should be included in the USAA article since they reps. say that they do not advertise this issue to existing or prospective members. Saurak88 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find sources that prove notability, then I'd say go for it. --Matt 20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I know why this is, but I don't have documentation to back it up. Back before the late 1990s, membership was open only to active and former US military officers along with a few small other categories of personnel. Enlisted personnel were only eligible for USAA insurance if they derived the benefit from an officer parent, and they would be associate members.
At the time, any person who was an active or reserve officer, former officer, or retired officer, could join USAA at any point. To obtain USAA membership, they did not have to be on active duty, all they had to do was prove that they had been in the military. The decision was made in the late 90s to extend full membership to NCOs, which USAA defines as an enlisted person with over 4 years of military service, and extend associate membership to junior enlisted (those with less than 4 years of service).
When that decision was made, the time period in which someone affiliated with the military could apply for USAA membership was changed from indefinite, to approximately 2 years. This was applied to both the officer corps and enlisted personnel. Personally, I think this was fair; it enabled USAA to open membership eligibility to enlisted personnel gradually instead of in one giant leap. It did not automatically make everyone who had ever been drafted into the military eligible for USAA membership or associate membership (a number of people which could have overwhelmed USAA and whose makeup would have gone beyond USAA's mission statement). In addition, it applied equally to officers and enlisted personnel. Someone who was an officer in the 1970s who did not apply for USAA membership while on active duty is treated just like an enlisted person who was not eligible at the time -- they are unable to obtain USAA membership.
I think the use of the word "discriminatory" is a loaded word in American English these days. USAA obviously made a business decision to limit membership eligibility to those who are currently active; as a private concern they have the right to do so. If you don't agree, you certainly are not required to do business with them.
--Swizzlez 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

USAA employee who edited this page

I am impressed with this wikipage. This is much bigger and much better than most other financial organizations I have seen.

According to: wikiscanner.virgil.gr

The most anon edits have been from Dusseldorf Germany, next is SLC (First Digital), then San Antonio (Stic.net).

The below edits are from the USAA office in San Antonio, all are from 1 to 2 years ago:

Usaa (San Antonio, Texas) - 9
167.24.104.150 20363184_____________________2005-08-05 21:10:45
167.24.104.150 20363316_____________________2005-08-05 21:12:42
167.24.104.150 29237058_____________________2005-11-25 21:28:44
167.24.104.150 73967291___previous version__2006-09-05 16:11:19
167.24.104.150 73968004_____________________2006-09-05 16:15:43
167.24.104.150 73975698_____________________2006-09-05 17:05:34
167.24.104.150 73979701_____________________2006-09-05 17:30:31
167.24.104.150 74009635 please be impartial, this is an encyclopedia. Not a site to flame those companies you do not like 2006-09-05 20:17:19
167.24.104.150 74145302_____________________2006-09-06 15:21:23

Past edits to the page:

  • Litigation links removed [12]
  • Large Amount of data removed: [13][14]
  • Criticism section changes: [15][16]

Travb (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed criticism section

User:Jkp1187 removed:

==Criticism==

In the 1970s some employees tried to form a union and could be seen marching in front of the headquarters entrance on Fredericksburg Road in San Antonio.

In 2001, USAA started a reorganization that resulted in approximately 1,400 workers being laid off, many of whom were Information technology specialists. Shortly after the layoff, but several years after USAA had started using offshore personnel, the local media reported that USAA was outsourcing some of its IT work to Indian based companies.

That is okay, because this section is unsourced and pretty weak. Then again the entire article is unsourced. Travb (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the latter is a fact for the majority of articles on Wikipedia. - Ageekgal 04:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that USAA exists, that it is headquartered in San Antonio, that the abbreviation stands for "United Servicemans' Automobile Association", and the sort of banking/insurance products they offer are common knowledge (and can easily be verified by a trip to USAA's website, or a call to their corporate offices.) Whether or not USAA employees tried to unionize in (vaguely) "the 1970s" or whether or not USAA laid off employees in 2001 does not fall into that category and needs a source. Jkp1187 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article an advertisement versus other pages about banks and insurance companies?

I started editing this page today after seeing a few grammatical errors, but I stopped after reading the whole page. This entire article seems to be an advertisement versus the usual articles I see on Wikipedia about banks and other insurance companies. There aren't any sources backing up major parts and there a several sections containing useless information to the casual reader. I am writing to suggest this article needs to be shortened. I also wonder whether people from USAA or members are editing this page. I believe that is a conflict of interest. I hope this isn't going back to an old discussion, but I am open to what you all think. RavenWriter (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)