Bin, you might be able to tell us what the difference is between what the tapes would show and the paperwork issued to us by ELAS?.

What difference ?

You , Anthony and Eldir all sent me details of your WPA incomes ( for which thank you )

1 early 89, 1 late 89 and 1 early 92, Eldir provided his start and current income but was away on hols and unable to send me the intermediate years.

ALL 3, showed that by 2010 the current income were down to 41% , 42% and 43% of the starting income, and that starting income would have been almost identical with that from a conventional fixed level annuity guaranteed not to decrease by 1 penny and still paying 100% of the starting level today.

The two sets of income figures which provided incomes paid for every year from start to end showed that in the early years there was modest but definite growth, anyone who DIED before 2002 would indeed have "Done OK".

In 2003 there was a massive slash in incomes and by 2005 or 2006 ( depending on exact start dates ) ALL of the accumulated early gains had been snatched back by virtue of the income then being around 40% below the starting level.

By 2010 as stated above, all 3 WPAs had lost approximately 60% of the income they had started with, and would still have had if they had been sold conventional annuities at the time.

All those who produce cod calculations of what annuities might or should have produced and suggest that these WPAs were overpaying; miss the very simple point. A fixed Conventional Guaranteed Annuity WOULD still be paying thses original annuities today. That was the rate then, and having bought them then, that is what they would have been paying today.

If ELAS had not invented the WPA, and the Regulators not allowed ELAS to market them without the reserves to do so, all these Annuitants would have bought Conventional Guaranteed Annuities and have rock solid, safe incomes TWO & a HALF times higher than the 41-43% that they have today. If that is Investor protection by prudent Regulators I am kipper.