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

"Tim" wrote:
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?

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

Why do you think that?

"Mark" wrote
There is a case, if anyone in the past was underpaid,
for them to be traced and given a share...

Ahem - the IE exists *because* higher bonuses were not declared
in the past on old policies. But if higher bonuses *had* been declared,
then the shareholders would have got their cut at the time - the classic
"90/10 gate" (90% goes to WP policyholders' bonuses, 10% to shareholders).

So - if it had been paid to the old policyholders previously,
the shareholders would have got their share then. Why
do you think they *shouldn't* get their share now, if past
policyholders were traced and got their share now?

"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.

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

"Mark" wrote
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?

What 'purpose' do you think the "big pot of money" (IE) is for?
It wasn't created deliberately; it has arisen because no-one knew
exactly what level of bonuses should have been declared in the past...