On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:57:09 +0100, "Tim" wrote:

"Mark" wrote
IMHO any such "inherited estates" should
be used to pay current policy holders. ...

Would you be saying that if it had turned out that the inherited
estate wasn't needed, in order to pay the current policyholders
their guaranteed benefits and a reasonable return -- would you be
happy in that case to have paid *all* the IE to the shareholders?

No. I meant what I said. All money from the IE should go to policy
holders, none, 0%, nothing should go to shareholders.

There is a case, if anyone in the past was underpaid, for them to be
traced and given a share. However, IIRC there has never been a
shortfall until recently.

"Mark" wrote
... One of the reasons we are in this mess is they didn't
smooth properly and paid out too much in the past.

Eh? If they *had* paid out too much in the past,
then there wouldn't *be* any inherited estates!!

Looking at it from the other side: why are there many policies with
shortfalls when they have a big pot of money for this very purpose?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.