See above, the problem does not lie in the subjective question of whether or not 8% return is a reasonable assumption for an investor. The problem lies in how t

See above, the problem does not lie in the subjective question of whether or not 8% return is a reasonable assumption for an investor. The problem lies in how the actuarial liability was (mis)accounted for - specifically, the value of the guarantee was accounted by assigning it zero cost - which is completely incorrect. It is as if an incompetent real estate appraiser were to assign zero value the Golden Gate Bridge, and then your local politician legally transferred ownership of the bridge to some friends for free because the appraisal assigned zero value to the bridge. And then those friends started charging tolls on the bridge, and pocketing the money for themselves. That would normally be considered fraud or embezzlement.