A rare thing happened this week. There was some good news for Norwich Union’s with-profits policyholders. More than a million of the long-suffering investors have been promised a share of the £2.3 billion in surplus assets that languish in two of the insurer’s main with-profits funds.

This is a very welcome development for the 90 per cent of Norwich Union’s endowment customers who face a shortfall on their mortgages. It is also a boost to the hundreds of thousands of with-profits customers who have seen their nest eggs stagnate after years of pitiful returns.

The decision is also a victory for the consumer groups that have run a dogged and worthy campaign for surplus assets in with-profits funds to be distributed using the 90-10 principle; that is 90 per cent to policyholders and 10 per cent to shareholders. (While inherited estates might have accumulated from previous generations of policyholders, existing policyholders have always had a more morally persuasive claim to the money than shareholders ever have.)

But before we fall over ourselves in congratulating Norwich Union for rewarding policyholders, there remain questions. First, why are these surplus assets being paid out in three instalments; a strategy that unfairly penalises customers whose policies mature before 2010? If this money really is surplus to requirements, as Norwich Union suggests, it should be paid out in full and without delay. The only conclusion we can reasonably draw is that the insurer believes that a lump-sum payout will trigger a mass exodus of customers.

We should also remember that the distribution of these funds is only half the story. There remains an estimated £3.1 billion in the inherited estate. Norwich Union says that this money cannot be distributed to policyholders because it provides a safety net that allows the funds to invest in the equity market while meeting liabilities. However, the insurer is negotiating with policyholders to buy the rights to any future profits from this money. Norwich Union should avoid the temptation to short-change customers on this deal. After all, there is no point in only doing half the right thing.

There’s just not enough money to go round

The Bank of England surprised no one this week by announcing a quarter point cut in the cost of borrowing. But while no one was shocked, many were left disappointed.

An increasingly vocal band of economists are calling for sharply lower borrowing costs.

They argue that only radical action now will prevent economic disaster later. That, of course, remains to be seen. While the risks of a serious recession have undoubtedly increased, much of the pessimism is overdone. The evidence, thus far, points to slowdown rather than meltdown. What there can be no doubt about, however, is that the credit crunch has made new mortgages more expensive, relative to the base rate.

One year ago, the best tracker-rate, two-year mortgage with a fee of £1,000 was 38 percentage points below the Bank of England base rate. Today, the best equivalent deal is just 1 percentage point below the base rate. It is a similar story with fixed rates.

The problem now is not so much that the wholesale cost of money is too high – the spread between the base rate and Libor has fallen from 1 percentage point in December to 0.09 of a point this week. It is more that there is a limit on the funds that some banks have available to lend. This means that the lenders with cash to offer face less competition and can, therefore, increase their margins. The longer the funding shortfall continues, the more damaging it will be to the economy, and the more compelling government intervention will look. The Treasury should seriously consider the possibility of creating an agency to buy good-quality mortgage-backed securities as this would increase the funds available by allowing lenders to to refinance their loan books.

Borrowers looking to remortgage have their own dilemma to consider: to fix or to track over the next two years? Well, if you want the cheapest deal and do not need the security of a fix, trackers look attractive, but only if you think the base rate will fall below 4.75 per cent. If you think the base rate won’t go this low, a fixed rate will likely be cheaper.

When it comes to discounts, don’t be a plonker...

Asking for a discount is as alien to the British as jumping a queue, or drinking tea without milk. At checkouts across the country, you are more likely to see shoppers apologising for not having the right change than negotiating a better price.

But as we report on pages 10-11, our collective politeness and refusal to bargain is costing us hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in potential lost savings.

From Waitrose to Woolworths, locksmiths to lenders, there are hundreds of companies that are willing to offer a deal – if only we would ask.

In the immortal words of Derek “Del Boy” Trotter, Peckham’s finest wheeler-dealer, “he who dares, wins”. While it might not make you a millionaire by this time next year, you can certainly save the odd score by having the courage to haggle.

So the next time you are out shopping or speaking to your insurer, broadband or mobile phone provider, don’t be a plonker, ask for a better price.

You know it makes sense.