Subscribers iconSite access

home subscribe

Community Investors' blog

Print
Email
Text size
Comment

European sector review

12 June 2008 [0 comments]

After difficulties in the banking sector led to an indiscriminate sell-off of financial stocks, the UK insurance sector has underperformed. While insurers are major holders of financial assets, they have been unfairly punished given that they are not vulnerable to the same credit and liquidity problems as banks.

Rising yields and lower equity markets affected balance sheets. Accordingly, fee incomes were lower, total exposure to pressurised asset classes was very low and write-downs have been minimal. Full-year results broadly met or exceeded expectations, although outlook statements were more cautious.

More positive news
So far in 2008, the insurance sector’s performance has decoupled from that of the banks, outperforming the FTSE. Following strong growth in 2006 and 2007, we expect slowing growth and profits.

Weaker equity markets will lead to lower fee incomes, and continued uncertainty will reduce consumer appetite for equity-related products, although certain product lines offering guarantees could see stronger demand.

Despite weaker equity markets, the industry remains in a strong capital position, unlike earlier this decade when there were concerns over forced sales of equity and rights issues. While life insurance profits tend to be sensitive to the economy, property and casualty earnings are more defensive and cash generative, although subject to underwriting cycle fluctuations. We expect to follow UK motor rates closely, where industry profitability remains stubbornly low. An upturn has been widely expected but slow to arrive.

Embedding the value
Although market conditions may unsettle consumers, demographic changes mean that medium-term demand for savings and retirement products looks set to remain solid.

This dynamic is particularly pronounced in emerging markets, where Prudential’s unique Asian franchise still enjoys exceptional growth. If markets recover, there will be further potential for dividend upgrades, particularly from Aviva, where there is potential for ‘orphan assets’ (surplus funds to back liabilities) being freed up for shareholders.

In life insurance, avoid companies with just a UK focus and invest in large companies with diversified earnings and/or overseas exposure. Given the limited variation in price-to-earnings multiples, we are comfortable remaining with Prudential and Aviva. Although our fair value has less upside than Aviva, reflecting market volatility, Prudential is our top pick.

Prudential attractions
The Pru’s unique Asian franchise remains its key attraction and we expect the very strong growth to continue. Management recently announced that Asian new business targets will be met a year early, and guidance provided at the recent Asia investor day reiterated the positive outlook.

In the US, management has flagged up the fact that variable annuity sales will slow on account of volatile markets, but the upward-sloping yield curve and higher credit spreads point towards strong fixed annuity sales. In the UK, growth will remain subdued, following the exit from a number of product lines, but the group’s positioning in with-profits products should make it a strong contender to win any new contracts on the market.

With group cash flow improving, expect dividend upgrades. Trading on an undemanding price-to-earnings multiple of just 8.3 times, we expect investors to increasingly view Prudential as a cheap Asian play, compared with an average European one. It remains a takeover target but any approach would be complicated by the management’s stated preference for the independent route.

We remain cautious towards UK-focused life insurance businesses, although Standard Life surprised on the upside at its full-year results. A notable exception to our focus outside the UK is Old Mutual, at which overseas growth is eclipsed by currency and political risks. In non-life insurance, Admiral remains our preferred play, due to its individual strengths rather than for any thematic reason.

Henk Potts is equity strategist at Barclays Wealth

There are currently no comments on this post.

 

Advertisement

Leave a comment

Comment


Q&A More investors' blog

European sector review

16 October 2008 [0 comments]

Henk Potts warns investors that power utilities are not as defensive as they might appear to be

Market view

8 October 2008 [0 comments]

Robert Tyerman stresses the need for investors to be selective as markets tread a tentative path towards recovery

Weathering the storm

2 October 2008 [0 comments]

What Investment catches up with a selection of investment clubs to see how they are faring in the current stock market turbulence

 
 

Recommendations Recommendations

 

Q&A Q&A forum

Downsizing option 25 July 2008 [0 comments]

 

We have lived in our very large house in a very small village for nearly 25 years, where we have built a life and are very happy. The house now has a very high value in financial terms.
However, we are now looking at the prospect of having to make a downsize move, mostly because of the financial implications of owning a house of this size, such as higher heating bills, council tax, insurance and other essential expenditure.
We have looked into the area of equity release schemes but have constantly been told that it is more cost effective to downsize to a smaller property. However, even if we did downsize to such a property, it would still be of a high value in this area.
Additionally, it would be very expensive to make this move, considering the potential costs involved in moving home. We have calculated that it will cost us close to £100,000 to move, taking into account estate agent fees, legal fees, stamp duty and various moving costs. This £100,000 is immediately wasted and, on a personal note, we would have to start a new life in our retirement.
These factors therefore bring us back to equity release. We would require an additional income of up to £20,000 per annum for possibly a ten-year period before we need to move. If the calculation was for a property valued at £1.5 million, we would only need an increase in the property value of around two per cent a year to cover the withdrawal of £20,000 for income and the interest payments. Would this be the preferable solution in investment terms for our situation, rather than taking the money out of the property by downsizing, especially in view of the current outlook for house prices, and then investing the funds elsewhere and paying more tax on the funds we have released?
G Boot, Kent

more

 

Q&A Events

 
moreMedia Magnate Awards
12th November n/a
moreQuoted Company Awards
28th January London
moreM&A Awards 2009
18th February London