Aviva Share Discussion Threads

[spud] 14/1/2021 11:42

Aviva pressed to recall bonuses after share buyback debacle



By Amy Austin
Investor group ShareSoc has called on Aviva to claw back bonuses paid in 2018 after the provider was censured for 'potentially misleading' the market in its share buyback saga.
In an open letter to the provider, published yesterday (January 13), ShareSoc said if Aviva was unable to recall directors’ bonuses from 2018 it should consider asking those involved to volunteer to give back the bonuses in question.

Another way could be for Aviva to take the 2018 bonuses from any 2020 bonus awards, the investor group stated.

In the letter, Cliff Weight, director of ShareSoc, said: “ShareSoc considers that it should be possible to claw back bonuses which were not deserved.

“The FCA fines and censure are very important and Aviva needs to advise how the organisation will address and change remuneration matters.”

Aviva declined to comment on the letter but noted that it revised down executive director bonuses at the time in 2018.

Last year (October 26), the Financial Conduct Authority publicly censured the pensions and insurance giant for failing to ensure its market updates were not misleading.

It found that Aviva had failed to consider adequately how its announcement in 2018 might be interpreted by the market, especially the holders of the shares in question.

The incident concerned preliminary year-end results from March 2018, in which Aviva said it could legally cancel nearly half a billion pounds worth of preference shares held by investors.

At the time the shares were trading at above their par value, so the statement raised concerns holders would incur losses if the shares were cancelled.

As investors took action to sell at the above par trading price, the market price for the preference shares fell between 20 and 26 per cent on the day of the announcement.

But Aviva had not decided to cancel the shares in question and the impression given by the announcement was not accurate.

Following this, ShareSoc warned Aviva that a “trivial remuneration adjustment” would not be acceptable and has also called for a cultural change at the provider.

In its Q3 statement, Aviva said it accepted the FCA’s decision and said it was “a disappointing episode for which we are sorry for and lessons have been learned”.

In light of the final notice, it said it was reviewing the impact on remuneration.

spud

[cjac39] 14/1/2021 11:37

yes MT and ive closed out all my just shares today. i was disappointed by the results in so much as i was expecting a decent back book gain but their credit book seems more troubling than i realised. new business profits are somewhat illusory and i suspect their ifrs results could look less good.

its the second time I've bought just in 40s and sold in high 70s / 80s and i would like to think i will get a third chance to do the same as that trading range is ideal.

[muscletrade] 14/1/2021 11:03

Just Group, up 16%. The retirement products firm hailed its "pleasing" 2020 performance, shaking off Covid-19 worries. Retirement income sales rose 12% to GBP2.15 billion from GBP1.92 billion in 2020, helped by a 22% surge in defined benefit de-risking premiums to GBP1.51 billion. "The defined benefit market remains buoyant - this has been the second highest year for market transaction volumes and the industry pipeline is very strong. During the year we have written 23 transactions. DB De-risking sales in the second half of the year were over GBP1 billion, a record six months for the group," Just Group explained. "The market for guaranteed income for life solutions has continued to recover following the Covid-19 related sales disruption in the first half of the year. Sales in the second half were similar to the second half of 2019." Broker Numis commented that Just Group's retirement income sales accelerated by more than expected in the second half of 2020, driven by strong defined-benefit transaction volumes.

[mo123] 14/1/2021 10:24

Basic summary

[chinese investor] 14/1/2021 08:27

34p to 390p !

[dr biotech] 14/1/2021 08:19

It makes sense - just have to look at the recent union issues getting involved in France, Tullochs inability to sell Singapore, time taken to sell different units in Italy. It’d have been hard to sell all of those to a single buyer, or even a consortium like RSA. Single country in theory much easier.

[1robbob] 14/1/2021 08:05

I am a long term Investor
....and certainly not a get rich quick 'merchant'

I invested in Aviva some time ago; for its safe yield!! and capital protection

All I was saying in my post was what I believe the current position to be

[ayl30] 14/1/2021 07:37

Agree not a share for a quick buck, more an investment somewhere to park money to get a dividend return with prospect of capital growth and poss takeover in medium or longer term. Get rich quick merchants not appropriate as investors here

[rcturner2] 14/1/2021 07:27

If you buy a share like Aviva I think you have to be patient and if you are not patient then you should look elsewhere. There is value here but it could take a long time for that value to be recognised. Years ago I held two listed insurers that were very similar (I can barely remember their names, Catnic was one I think) and they were value plays and you just had to sit there and take your dividend and be patient. Both got taken over at significant premiums and both offers came pretty much out of nowhere.

[1robbob] 13/1/2021 23:19

I appreciate that I am talking my own book, but I think that Aviva’s independence has never been more at risk than now

Managing, restructuring or selling a business in France has always been a minefield for non national companies. The emergence of Macif as a potential buyer for Aviva France is hugely significant, as it removes a major stumbling block for any would-be buyer of Aviva as a whole.

In addition, those substantial international Insurance Companies who might appear at the moment to be the under-bidders for Aviva France might consider a bid for the whole of Aviva to be a more effective strategy

Although RSA is not directly similar to Aviva, having approved the takeover of RSA it would be totally inconsistent of the Authorities not to allow a takeover of Aviva – another stumbling block removed

I firmly believe that Culmer and Blanc were put in position by the major Institutional shareholders to extract the ‘full value’ for their shareholdings. Should they do so, the Institutions will be eternally grateful !!

In general, the overall Insuance environment is as benign as it has been for years

The Board of Aviva now have a damn good idea as to what their sales programme could realise

With a significant percentage of the Aviva share capital owned by a large number of private shareholders, a Board recommendation of a Takeover Offer would be hugely beneficial to any would-be buyer. The Aviva Board have never been in as good a position to extract a good price for Shareholders.

WISHFUL THINKING......PERHAPS......PERHAPS NOT

[eurofox] 13/1/2021 22:03

price was being held down for large worked transaction to complete and when done price was allowed to continue on its path

[boozey] 13/1/2021 21:31

Interesting rise at the end of the day on a flat day at best in the markets. I wonder what that was about.

[cjac39] 13/1/2021 21:26

Wba - I’ve been reviewing a few gi companies and some of them report metrics about how much they’ve been able to upscale renewal policies. Is this under threat or normal expectations for these companies?

[ayl30] 13/1/2021 21:13

Happens all the time. same with AA where I have my annual telephone call and they reduce to last years price!

[wba1] 13/1/2021 20:06

Dr Biotech; insurers are still able to do dual pricing (pricing the same risk differently for new and existing customers). The FCA have proposed outlawing it but responses to their proposals have to be in by later this month and no prohibition is in force at present.

[geckotheglorious] 13/1/2021 19:26

Dr Biotech,

"I thought they weren’t allowed to offer better deals to “new” customers"

Really? Where have you been? Everyone knows they are able to do that.

For someone who looks down at people who they think are not as smart as them you are woefully naive here.



FYI
"Car and home insurers face ban on charging existing customers more than newbies"
Date of article:Sept 2020

Currently insurers often gradually renew the renewal price for existing customers over time, known as "price-walking". This is why the best prices are usually for new customers and you should NEVER auto-renew.

But under proposals from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for "significant reform", insurers would be unable to charge existing customers more than new ones, or slowly increase existing customers' prices unless their risk profile has changed. So when you renew a car or home insurance policy, you would pay no more than you would if you were a new customer buying a policy through the same sales channel (for example, online). The FCA estimates the proposals could save consumers £3.7 billion over 10 years.

The regulator is consulting on its plans until January 2021, and says it intends to publish new rules "next year", though it's not yet clear when they could come into effect.



p.s Another tip for you.
"Car insurance pricing tends to get more expensive the closer you are to your renewal date so leaving it to the last minute is not sensible - it also is cheaper several days after you are you're tied in for the next year!!"

[dr biotech] 13/1/2021 18:47

Reinsured my car today. Quote I received from my current insurer (Hastings) was 420, 40% higher than I paid last year. Went to confused, lowest quote was 270 - also from Hastings, same details but actually with a lower voluntary excess.

Rang them up, they said it was due to dynamic pricing and that quotes change all the time. This was obviously scripted. I thought they weren’t allowed to offer better deals to “new” customers, perhaps this dynamic pricing is a plausible get out for them? Ended up paying 250 about 60% of their original offer.

[wskill] 13/1/2021 17:04

Guys surely the analysts have priced this in I would be surprised if they’d not,but knowing the uk they forget about this part of insurance companies profit.
So we should be looking forward to analysists upgrades in the near future.

[huncher] 13/1/2021 16:27

Depends on pricing structure - used to be said you could write EL to approaching 100% given IIC but with current returns may be a bit more circumspect and hang on to prior year.

[shalomshalom] 13/1/2021 16:19

Yes, completely understand what you are saying. It is just the point they are building the expectation to recognise this release for year end and also giving the indication of what it might be. They probably cannot hide it completely regardless - as you say. One way or the other profit smoothing is relatively a good problem...

[wba1] 13/1/2021 16:10

Please do not think I am trying to minimise Aviva's capacity for reserve releases. On the contrary, I believe they have significantly greater potential than L&E. My comments are related to the business politics involved. Unlike L&E, Aviva have a very large GI business which also has big potential for profit and releases. Aviva incurs circa £7bn of net claims in a year, much of which will be motor and liability. In 2020 motor claims (and liability to some extent)are substantially down which will produce a windfall profit which will be hard to hide even after booking Covid claims and expenses. In the current climate I would expect a UK CEO to want to avoid any impression of profiteering and assume the extra GI profit will make it more difficult to release from the long term side. And that is without even considering possible releases from prior year reserves.....

[shalomshalom] 13/1/2021 15:34

LGEN will have longevity/mortality release of c.£200m so I do expect to see a nice release here. They actually said "Further benefits from UK longevity are expected, albeit lower than in 2019" in the Q3 update.

[wba1] 13/1/2021 12:17

In terms of longevity and reserving there seem to be two issues on the pension/annuity side (there is also an issue on GI as life expectancy is a factor in PI awards, but this can be ignored for now).

Firstly there is the question of any reserves which can be released due to the premature deaths of those in receipt (or prospective receipt) of pensions held by Aviva. Putting to one side the ability of a CEO to fudge this by just stuffing such releases into excess reserves elsewhere ...... then I agree some release is due. If you take the excess death number of circa 90k then Aviva release will be due to that number reduced by the proportion having private pensions, and the Aviva market share of those with private pensions. I have no idea what these figures are, but if the former proportion is, say, 30%, and Aviva have a 10% share then the excess deaths in the Aviva book would be circa 2700. A useful but not huge number. Aegon did estimate the average private pension pot in the UK at £50k, so this would imply a release of £135m. But(!), excess deaths have disproportionately hit the most elderly, and reserves held for those would be smaller - so I suspect any releases due to the excess deaths will be less than £100m

Secondly, there is the question of reductions in life expectancy in the reserving model for living pensioners (and prospective pensioners). There certainly should be reductions, even ignoring 2020 excess deaths, as the improvements in life expectancy had already stalled before the pandemic and the expectation is that the new iteration of the IFA model, due in March, would reflect this factor. But insurers are able to 'adjust' the IFA model for reserving purposes and any CEO who wishes to 'smooth' profits need only do so in order to keep surplus reserves available for a rainy day.

So, should there be some reserve releases due to both temporary and longer term changes in deaths and life expectancy? Yes. But will there be? Do not bank on it in the next set of results.