Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
Prudential PLC (PRU)
Forum rules
No penny shares or promotional posts
No penny shares or promotional posts
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5922
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
- Has thanked: 4281 times
- Been thanked: 2637 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
Neither Phoenix nor Chesnara were involved in this legal case reported here
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019 ... uity-sale/
where it was decided by the High Court that Prudential did not have the right to sell £12bn of annuities to Rothesay Life.
Rothesay is an unlisted company with three main backers, Blackstone, GIC (Singapore) and MassMutual.
It was reported that two key reasons for the Court's decision were that Rothesay is relatively new (est 2007), and that Prudential had never told annuitants that a transfer might occur.
Presumably this latter objection would apply to all such schemes?
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019 ... rs/?page=1
One wonders what impact this may have on the future growth prospects of Chesnara and Phoenix, both of which I hold.
V8
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019 ... uity-sale/
where it was decided by the High Court that Prudential did not have the right to sell £12bn of annuities to Rothesay Life.
Rothesay is an unlisted company with three main backers, Blackstone, GIC (Singapore) and MassMutual.
It was reported that two key reasons for the Court's decision were that Rothesay is relatively new (est 2007), and that Prudential had never told annuitants that a transfer might occur.
Presumably this latter objection would apply to all such schemes?
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019 ... rs/?page=1
One wonders what impact this may have on the future growth prospects of Chesnara and Phoenix, both of which I hold.
V8
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3553
- Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
- Has thanked: 1213 times
- Been thanked: 1306 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
88V8 wrote:Neither Phoenix nor Chesnara were involved in this legal case reported here
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019 ... uity-sale/
where it was decided by the High Court that Prudential did not have the right to sell £12bn of annuities to Rothesay Life.
Rothesay is an unlisted company with three main backers, Blackstone, GIC (Singapore) and MassMutual.
It was reported that two key reasons for the Court's decision were that Rothesay is relatively new (est 2007), and that Prudential had never told annuitants that a transfer might occur.
Presumably this latter objection would apply to all such schemes?
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019 ... rs/?page=1
One wonders what impact this may have on the future growth prospects of Chesnara and Phoenix, both of which I hold.
V8
88V8, Thanks for that update.
I'm more concerned currently about the effect on PRU's SP which seems to be descending daily, to a point where my +30%/40% gain has now become a -6% loss on paper. Noted it improves the dividend yield. I did think about topping up, but am aware of the concept of falling knives.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16629
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
- Has thanked: 4343 times
- Been thanked: 7536 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
This is not new news and was reported in the newspapers last weekend if not the one before. Why do you mention Chesnara and Phoenix Holdings? They do not and as far as I know never were involved in this. I am not sure 'do not have the right' is quite the right expression. They have the right to sell to anyone they like subject to the approval of the Court (which in a sense is their regulator in this sort of case)
The main issue I think is that this was part of the plan by Prudential to hive off its UK business from its Asian business but the said newspaper reported that Pru had said that this set back would not affect that.
Usually if the Court is satisfied that the security is at least as good as existing and no policyholder has made any objection, the transfer is rubber stamped so somebody has not done a very good job here. Pru must know the ropes. I do not think it will have any impact of Chesnara or Phoenix but you never know. Phoenix is much bigger than Chesnara but both firms are well established in the marketplace and I think are much better placed than Rothesay. I wonder why Pru chose Rothesay in the first place? Presumably because they were going to pay more to Pru than the other two
Dod
The main issue I think is that this was part of the plan by Prudential to hive off its UK business from its Asian business but the said newspaper reported that Pru had said that this set back would not affect that.
Usually if the Court is satisfied that the security is at least as good as existing and no policyholder has made any objection, the transfer is rubber stamped so somebody has not done a very good job here. Pru must know the ropes. I do not think it will have any impact of Chesnara or Phoenix but you never know. Phoenix is much bigger than Chesnara but both firms are well established in the marketplace and I think are much better placed than Rothesay. I wonder why Pru chose Rothesay in the first place? Presumably because they were going to pay more to Pru than the other two
Dod
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6131
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 1427 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
Dod101 wrote:The main issue I think is that this was part of the plan by Prudential to hive off its UK business from its Asian business but the said newspaper reported that Pru had said that this set back would not affect that.
Usually if the Court is satisfied that the security is at least as good as existing and no policyholder has made any objection, the transfer is rubber stamped so somebody has not done a very good job here. Pru must know the ropes. I do not think it will have any impact of Chesnara or Phoenix but you never know. Phoenix is much bigger than Chesnara but both firms are well established in the marketplace and I think are much better placed than Rothesay. I wonder why Pru chose Rothesay in the first place? Presumably because they were going to pay more to Pru than the other two
Like Aberdeen Standard, the UK operation of Prudential seems to be intended to be primarily a fund management operation. Hence the use of the M&G name.
Annuities can be profitable, but Companies writing them need a fair amount of solvency capital, be able to get good returns in fixed interest markets and if open to new business, able to get its longevity forecasts correct.
Something must have spooked the Court as usually these schemes go through on the nod. I could suppose that the capital backing of Rothesay and its ability in extremis to raise fresh funds was in doubt, although the FCA didn't raise any objections.
Rothesay already have the assets as initially the transaction took the form of reinsurance.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16629
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
- Has thanked: 4343 times
- Been thanked: 7536 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
Having read as many reports as I can find, it seems that the Court simply thought that Rothesay Life does not have the long term security and reputation that Pru has and to that extent the annuitants were being short changed. It is a bit like choosing which platform to use; a very personal judgement.
Dod
Dod
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3553
- Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
- Has thanked: 1213 times
- Been thanked: 1306 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
What I am concerned about, is how that will affect the prospects for Prudential, assuming that is what is driving the SP down, as opposed to it being caused by the impending sale of the M&G part.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6131
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 1427 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
richfool wrote:What I am concerned about, is how that will affect the prospects for Prudential, assuming that is what is driving the SP down, as opposed to it being caused by the impending sale of the M&G part.
The annuities will most likely stay with the M&G part, being UK domestic.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16629
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
- Has thanked: 4343 times
- Been thanked: 7536 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
They seem to be trying to make M & G Prudential into simply a fund manager and want rid of the annuities which do not fit that model. Maybe they will hand them over to another consolidator in due course. I guess if there sufficient reserves to go with them either Phoenix or Chesnara might be happy to take them but the Pru might have to sweeten the deal. Or of course they might get leave on appeal to transfer them to Rothesay after all.
Dod
Dod
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4897
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
- Has thanked: 622 times
- Been thanked: 2726 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
As the Pru have already reinsured these annuities with Rothesay, it is probably difficult to undo that and then transfer them to another more robust insurer.
I assume a 'Part VII transfer' (which the Court refused) is in effect a novation of the policies (ie the insurance contract is transferred to Rothesay and it is as if it was always with Rothesay - Pru is off the hook completely).
The Pru are still on the hook if Rothesay became insolvent, but otherwise not liable for them, though it is possible they will need to allocate some capital to cover the potential liability for regulatory purposes.
I guess the policies legally will stay with whatever part of the current Pru wrote the policies. It will not be up to the Pru to choose whether they are part of the new M&G Pru or part of the new Asian Pru.
The advisers who arranged the Rothesay deal must be looking a bit silly now?
I assume a 'Part VII transfer' (which the Court refused) is in effect a novation of the policies (ie the insurance contract is transferred to Rothesay and it is as if it was always with Rothesay - Pru is off the hook completely).
The Pru are still on the hook if Rothesay became insolvent, but otherwise not liable for them, though it is possible they will need to allocate some capital to cover the potential liability for regulatory purposes.
I guess the policies legally will stay with whatever part of the current Pru wrote the policies. It will not be up to the Pru to choose whether they are part of the new M&G Pru or part of the new Asian Pru.
The advisers who arranged the Rothesay deal must be looking a bit silly now?
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16629
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
- Has thanked: 4343 times
- Been thanked: 7536 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
Scrumpyjack is correct. The fact that Pru chose to reinsure those contracts with Rothesay (or any other reinsurer) does not absolve them from liability and responsibility to ensure that the annuitants are paid. The reinsurance is an internal, behind the scenes arrangement which should enable Pru to hold fewer reserves against the liabilities than if they held the annuities without reinsurance. Now that the Court has shown (at least by implication) some unease with the reinsurance arrangements though, I wonder if that means that the Pru's regulator will ask Pru to increase those reserves a bit or even disregard the reinsurance altogether?
Pru have said that they are going to appeal the judgement so it is not over yet but I would think that it would be a brave new judgement to overturn the current situation, erring on the side of caution and all that.
If Pru had got the Court's approval for the transfer they would have been off the hook totally. Very often these Part VII transfers are internal such as happened often with Phoenix Holdings where they were originally an agglomeration of smallish life assurers and they did a lot of internal transfers of liabilities to enable them to close down a number of individual funds into one main fund, thus saving on admin by winding up a number of those companies once the transfers had been completed.
Dod
Pru have said that they are going to appeal the judgement so it is not over yet but I would think that it would be a brave new judgement to overturn the current situation, erring on the side of caution and all that.
If Pru had got the Court's approval for the transfer they would have been off the hook totally. Very often these Part VII transfers are internal such as happened often with Phoenix Holdings where they were originally an agglomeration of smallish life assurers and they did a lot of internal transfers of liabilities to enable them to close down a number of individual funds into one main fund, thus saving on admin by winding up a number of those companies once the transfers had been completed.
Dod
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10554
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
- Has thanked: 3682 times
- Been thanked: 5338 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
It seems to me, that if one had signed up for a cruise with the Queen Mary to to New York, one would feel a bit short changed if you were then told it would be aboard the HMS Pinafore.
I can quite see why the court might not have been happy. Whether the fears are real, I don't know, but would I have signed up with a company called Rothesay of which I had never heard? Certainly not - I would probably have signed up after much hand wringing or research to a trusted name, not a no-name.
Arb.
I can quite see why the court might not have been happy. Whether the fears are real, I don't know, but would I have signed up with a company called Rothesay of which I had never heard? Certainly not - I would probably have signed up after much hand wringing or research to a trusted name, not a no-name.
Arb.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5922
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
- Has thanked: 4281 times
- Been thanked: 2637 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
Mmm, I posted this as a new topic in HYP Practical, thinking about the implications for Phoenix and Chesnara if the Court is inclined to block future transfers because annuitants hadn't given consent.
Didn't consider the effect on the Pru. My only contact with them was many years ago playing chess in their Holborn office as part of the Insurance chess league.
Time will tell whether it does have potential impact on the portfolio transfer market as a whole. Perhaps as Arb suggests, impact on the smaller players.
V8
Didn't consider the effect on the Pru. My only contact with them was many years ago playing chess in their Holborn office as part of the Insurance chess league.
Time will tell whether it does have potential impact on the portfolio transfer market as a whole. Perhaps as Arb suggests, impact on the smaller players.
V8
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2247
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:06 am
- Has thanked: 419 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
More info on the M&G demerger and the future dividend info can be found on the HYP-practical board here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19036&p=253869#p253869
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19036&p=253869#p253869
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3553
- Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
- Has thanked: 1213 times
- Been thanked: 1306 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
I thought this might be of interest. NG are transferring pension risks to Rothesay, and Prudential are appealing the court decision against them doing so:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/natio ... 03128.html
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/natio ... 03128.html
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6131
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 1427 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
Private Eye 1506 has an angle on this.
It claims that some of Rothesay's underlying assets are Ground Rents whose income is perhaps not as risk free as might be appropriate for backing annuities, thus going some way to explain the High Court decision to block the transfer.
It claims that some of Rothesay's underlying assets are Ground Rents whose income is perhaps not as risk free as might be appropriate for backing annuities, thus going some way to explain the High Court decision to block the transfer.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4897
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
- Has thanked: 622 times
- Been thanked: 2726 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
Hasn't been much publicity on this but as I understand it Pru holders will get a dividend of 3.85p next Monday (21st October) at the same time as they get 1 M&G share for each Prudential share. It appears to go xd on thursday 18th Oct. It is described as a 'demerger' dividend.
I don't know what the ticker code for the M&G shares will be (MAG ?)
I don't know what the ticker code for the M&G shares will be (MAG ?)
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3553
- Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
- Has thanked: 1213 times
- Been thanked: 1306 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
scrumpyjack wrote:Hasn't been much publicity on this but as I understand it Pru holders will get a dividend of 3.85p next Monday (21st October) at the same time as they get 1 M&G share for each Prudential share. It appears to go xd on thursday 18th Oct. It is described as a 'demerger' dividend.
I don't know what the ticker code for the M&G shares will be (MAG ?)
Scrumpyjack, thanks for this info.
I must say I would have preferred to continue holding the Far Eastern insurer version of PRU. I might even have topped up, had that been the case.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4897
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
- Has thanked: 622 times
- Been thanked: 2726 times
Re: Prudential PLC (PRU)
Post demerger Pru will be far east only won't it? You can then sell the M&G holding which represents the UK bits.
Pru will I think then account in USD and, if they've any sense, move their domicile elsewhere to avoid the possibility of a Corbyn government confiscating 10%.
I will probably sell M&G post demerger even though that will trigger a CGT bill.
Pru will I think then account in USD and, if they've any sense, move their domicile elsewhere to avoid the possibility of a Corbyn government confiscating 10%.
I will probably sell M&G post demerger even though that will trigger a CGT bill.
Return to “Company Share news (LSE Main Market)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests