Interesting article. Would appreciate your thoughts...
~How is it that Directors like Steinberg and Berkowitz can be considered 'independent' by WTM when they run a company that supplies to, and is a customer of, WMT, for basically all its revenues?
~Note how Olympus Re was set up. Original investors had (have?) put options to sell back their stock. Why would original investors agree to buy back another at a set price? ...or am I wrong to assume it was a set price.
~The execs of White Mountain had/have part ownership of Olympus. One would think White Mountain would view that as a conflict of interest? Olympus Re is both a customer of, and vendor to, White Mountain. However, the ones that had to make that determination, White Mountain Directors, were their partners at Olympus Re! Aren't they all conflicted Directors of the companies they mutually serve?
~What right should WTM get a fee for managing/advising Olympus Re's investments? Olympus Re is headed by 'investment managers'! If WTM is supplying all the 'revenues' to Olympus Re, and gets fees for the investment side, just what is the Olympus Re entity doing for its business raison d'etre?
~ With the above scenario, which I think is accurately viewed according to the Royal Gazette article, why would a state regulatory office want insurance assets held offshore?