Insurers

[monabri]

Reference Mr Woods and the tone of his letter to the banks ( implied threat).

I noted that there was talk about insurers being made to pay back insurance premiums because people are in lockdown...supposedly ! ( like my neighbours who sally out in their cars every 5 minutes or the group of 5 youths kicking a ball around the park last Sunday who then all got in a single car). Maybe similar threats were hinted at or maybe that's still to come?

[Wizard]

This is what infuriates me about the subject. People like many of us here who are reliant on dividends are no burden on anyone whilst it seems at times like most others are getting State handouts. so far I only have two outright cancellations, HSBC and Gleeson but I expect the life companies to cancel. What about Admiral since Direct Line has fallen? meanwhile apparently those working from home can claim from their employers for expenses like using more electricity and so on and then get tax relief despite of course making savings for travel and so on.

I am disgusted with shareholder organisations like the UKSA who refuse to make any comment.

Dod

My bold.

This probably off topic, but I am sorry Dod, that may apply to you personally but I think that is broadly wrong. I suspect many here draw an old age pension. And if we are talking about the more mature portion of society who invest for retirement income in 'normal times' they also typically get a disproportionate benefit from NHS spending, that sounds like it is even more the case due to Covid.

[Dod101]

I get a State pension but at about £700 per month it is not exactly a burden on anyone. I rely on my dividends and even in these straitened times am unlikely ever to qualify for other State benefits. You are well off topic and I not sure what your point is anyway. Old age and NHS need will come to all of us if we are fortunate enough to get through the current crisis.

Dod

[monabri]

And if we are talking about the more mature portion of society who invest for retirement income in 'normal times' they also typically get a disproportionate benefit from NHS spending, that sounds like it is even more the case due to Covid.

What? Maybe we should just top ourselves then...not wishing to be a burden in our dotage? Perhaps we should forget about the years of taxes paid in as well.

[Wizard]

And if we are talking about the more mature portion of society who invest for retirement income in 'normal times' they also typically get a disproportionate benefit from NHS spending, that sounds like it is even more the case due to Covid.

What? Maybe we should just top ourselves then...not wishing to be a burden in our dotage? Perhaps we should forget about the years of taxes paid in as well.

That was not my point at all. It is just unreasonable to say that those drawing dividends are "no burden on anyone", that is not the case for anyone in society, we all pay in and we all get some benefits that is how it works.

[Dod101]

That was not my point at all. It is just unreasonable to say that those drawing dividends are "no burden on anyone", that is not the case for anyone in society, we all pay in and we all get some benefits that is how it works.

We know that but the point was that broadly speaking those living off their dividends and leading a quiet life, paying their taxes and so on are, compared to many others, not being a burden to anyone. I would have thought that that was obviously what was meant. NO furlough for me for instance, no extra state benefits nor a nice civil service pension. Surely that was obvious?

Dod

[Wizard]

That was not my point at all. It is just unreasonable to say that those drawing dividends are "no burden on anyone", that is not the case for anyone in society, we all pay in and we all get some benefits that is how it works.

We know that but the point was that broadly speaking those living off their dividends and leading a quiet life, paying their taxes and so on are, compared to many others, not being a burden to anyone. I would have thought that that was obviously what was meant. NO furlough for me for instance, no extra state benefits nor a nice civil service pension. Surely that was obvious?

Dod

No, because what you are now saying is no additional burden, not no burden. And back to a point I made before, the economy is being crashed to deal with a disease that kills a disproportionate number of older people*…


* and as a man of a similar age to the PM I know I am benefitting from that and am grateful for it.

[Arborbridge]

This is what infuriates me about the subject. People like many of us here who are reliant on dividends are no burden on anyone whilst it seems at times like most others are getting State handouts. so far I only have two outright cancellations, HSBC and Gleeson but I expect the life companies to cancel. What about Admiral since Direct Line has fallen? meanwhile apparently those working from home can claim from their employers for expenses like using more electricity and so on and then get tax relief despite of course making savings for travel and so on.

I am disgusted with shareholder organisations like the UKSA who refuse to make any comment.

Dod

My bold.

This probably off topic, but I am sorry Dod, that may apply to you personally but I think that is broadly wrong. I suspect many here draw an old age pension. And if we are talking about the more mature portion of society who invest for retirement income in 'normal times' they also typically get a disproportionate benefit from NHS spending, that sounds like it is even more the case due to Covid.

I'm not sure which part you are saying is "broadly wrong". Like Dod, I receive State Pension which isn't a "hand out" but something I've paid for, as is any NHS treatment I receive - and BTW, nowhere near enough to pay fixed costs. And as for the older ones getting a disproportionate benefit, that's true - always has been - and the younger ones will also get a disproportionate benefit when they get older. That's the nature of "insurance". How extra disproportionate this is due to Corvid 19 is hardly clear, or whether it's even significant in the general sweep of things.

But the "handout" Dod mentions isn't those things that we've paid for and expect to receive - it's the billions of pounds of help now being dished out. I'm not objecting to that because it is necessary, but I am objecting to being made to feel that NOT requiring a hand out and living on dividends is suddenly unpatriotic or immoral.
I've never ever needed state help through unemployment (yes, I've been lucky) but I think this political interference which is resulting in a rout of dividends - a sort "negative" hand out for people who are otherwise perfectly able to exist on their investments, is beyond the pale.
Shareholder bashing is just an easy target - like a year or two back, it was landlord bashing. At one time it was only utes which were thought to be subject to political interference, now it's potentially all sectors through transmission of the idea that "giving" money to shareholders is wrong at the moment. That wouldn't be so bad if we had some visibility about whether those dividends might be restored later, but most companies are cancelling rather than carrying forward.

We thought Corbyn would be bad! Well, I guess Corb+Corv might have been worse.

Arb.

[tjh290633]

Moderator Message:
Gentlemen, we are going off topic. This thread is headed "Insurers". Please keep to that.

TJH

[onthemove]

I noted that there was talk about insurers being made to pay back insurance premiums because people are in lockdown...supposedly !

I've posted previously about a French insurer doing that.

And since then I noticed yesterday...

"A major car insurer in the US is refunding millions of dollars to customers stuck at home during coronavirus lockdowns.
Allstate, the country's fourth biggest car insurer, said it would give back $600m (£490m) in total to customers.
Another insurer, American Family Mutual, is also refunding customers, with cheques totalling $200m.
(…)
The refunds could put pressure on other car insurers globally to make refunds..
(…)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52194521 "

[Redhill]

Lets be clear on this - those suggestions of refunding premiums to policyholders relate to general insurance business, not to life and pensions business. LGEN doesn't write general insurance.

[ADrunkenMarcus]

Insurers romping ahead this morning with LGEN and Aviva up 16% and 14% respectively.

Perhaps the market has got the message that dividends are safe?

I'd hope 'the market' would never think Aviva's dividend was safe.

It has form.

It's a serial slasher.

From memory, they slashed c. 2002-03, c. 2009, c. 2011-12 and now c. 2020.

The dividend per share forecast for 2019 was still substantially below that of 2002 even on a nominal basis. And they didn't pay it anyway as the final was cancelled or, if we're charitable, postponed.

I held from October 1998 to April 2010 - the share price went from 855p to 385p (still much higher than today). Total return -18% for the twelve year period and only because the dividends that were paid compensated for some of the capital loss.

Holding Aviva for any length of time is only really for the masochists, in my opinion.

Best wishes

Mark.

[Wizard]

Good news for many insurers at the bottom of this on the face of it negative piece as FCA seems to take the view the ABI was right and not Sunak.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52291286

The Financial Conduct Authority has ordered insurance companies to pay out claims to firms "as soon as possible" or explain themselves to the watchdog.
The FCA has told insurers if there are reasonable grounds to pay part of a claim but not the full claim, they must make an interim payment...

...Mr Woolard admitted that following conversations with insurers, it was clear that most business interruption policies held by small and medium-sized businesses only had basic cover which did not include pandemics and therefore insurers had no obligation to pay out in relation to Covid-19.
"While this may be disappointing for the policyholder, we see no reasonable grounds to intervene in such circumstances," he said.

But not so good for Hiscox, the wording of whose policies looks like it could potential be very worrying for their shareholders IMHO...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52280012

Hiscox's policy documents says it will cover financial losses for businesses which are unable to use their premises following "an occurrence of any human infectious or human contagious disease, an outbreak of which must be notified to the local authority".
Marie-Claire di Mambro, a solicitor at Keystone Law, believes the clause should "cover any business that purchased this policy for any financial losses incurred as a consequence of Covid-19".
A separate clause says the insurer will cover losses if an incident within a mile of an insured business means the government refuses access to that firm's premises. That could be a shop, factory or climbing wall, for example.
Ms Di Mambro says this second clause should cover a business that cannot use its buildings because the government has forced companies to close as a result of the pandemic.

[monabri]

As LGEN is ex-dividend tomorrow, I think it would be "unwise" for them to let the share go ex-dividend only to cancel it at a later date. In saying this, I recognise that other companies (albeit not insurers) have backed out of the payment having already gone ex-dividend (e.g. Barclays Bank...very very late!) so it is not a guarantee,as such. I feel that with all the pressure that has been applied to date to the financial sector (i.e. from the PRA & Mr Woods) that once they cross the "XD threshold" then LGEN would be committed to paying a dividend. They will be crossing their Rubicon!

Fingers crossed!

[kempiejon]

As LGEN is ex-dividend tomorrow, I think it would be "unwise" for them to let the share go ex-dividend only to cancel it at a later date. In saying this, I recognise that other companies (albeit not insurers) have backed out of the payment having already gone ex-dividend (e.g. Barclays Bank...very very late!) so it is not a guarantee,as such. I feel that with all the pressure that has been applied to date to the financial sector (i.e. from the PRA & Mr Woods) that once they cross the "XD threshold" then LGEN would be committed to paying a dividend. They will be crossing their Rubicon!

Fingers crossed!

But it's not too late for the government or regulator to bring their displeasure to bear, I don't see the risk is the company necessarily going back on their statement but the external pressures applied. Isn't that what happened with Barclays? Like you monabri I'm hopeful - in fact I topped up with collected dividends, 6% just on this xd date - that's going to replace a cutter like lloyds or HSBC for now.

[Wizard]

Hardly any drop having gone ex-div. Hard to tell what that means it this market. Would it have risen if it did not go ex-div or has the market nor believe it will pay for some time or so ething else? Who knows, certainly not me.

[kempiejon]

Hardly any drop having gone ex-div. Hard to tell what that means it this market. Would it have risen if it did not go ex-div or has the market nor believe it will pay for some time or so ething else? Who knows, certainly not me.

What I know is that I can't know, the market movements are often irrational, in fact it's not even irrational as that applies method it's just random. Though it does appear to be malicious towards my holdings. As is said a post up 6% was today's xd amount and as wizard notes hardly any movement, 6 weeks to go for pay day.

[Padders72]

As of right now LGEN (now ex-div) has dropped around 12p over last nights close, which is nigh on exactly the value of the next dividend.

[monabri]

One possible scenario might be:

Sell pre-XD and rebuy early this morning.... (see "7 that won't cut their dividend" on this board viewtopic.php?p=302277#p302277)

However, It might have been taken a stage further....having rebought, sell again as the share price starts to rise ..."double dividend".

image hosting russia

[Bouleversee]

I would like to think that L&G won't cancel their dividend at this late stage. Are they one of the insurance companies who will benefit from the earlier than expected demise of the elderly who understandably have taken second place to younger people in terms of ventilators, PPE, etc? It is one of the 2 of my holdings which are paying (fingers crossed), the other being Tesco, whereas 41 have so far said they are not. There are still a few who have not yet declared their intentions so I live in hope. Diversification has been proven to be of little benefit in the face of a pandemic and has made me revise my views about investment. I wonder what the miners, pharma, utilities, tobacco and Moneysupermarket will do.

No further comment. It would be unprintable as well as OT.