Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Goshawk Insurance Holdings LSE:GOS London Ordinary Share GB0003779195 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 4.50p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0 06:30:09
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Nonlife Insurance - - - - 39.58

Goshawk Insurance (GOS) Latest News

Real-Time news about Goshawk Ins.Hds (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
More Goshawk Insurance News
Goshawk Insurance Takeover Rumours

Goshawk Insurance (GOS) Share Charts

1 Year Goshawk Insurance Chart

1 Year Goshawk Insurance Chart

1 Month Goshawk Insurance Chart

1 Month Goshawk Insurance Chart

Intraday Goshawk Insurance Chart

Intraday Goshawk Insurance Chart

Goshawk Insurance (GOS) Discussions and Chat

Goshawk Insurance Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
07/5/200719:47Six reasons to short Goshawk197
10/4/200623:33Goshawk Insurance Holdings Plc2,422
02/12/200500:14BUY THIS AND BE RICH4
03/11/200523:38The GOS Action thread14
20/10/200522:51FREE MONEY FOR XMAS8

Add a New Thread

Goshawk Insurance (GOS) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Goshawk Insurance trades in real-time

Goshawk Insurance (GOS) Top Chat Posts

effortless cool: Upside for share price looks minimal, so I rolled forward all my shorts until June. Price now seems to be adjusting after a period of irrational exuberance. Still no news on when the results come out. Perhaps they can't afford the printers?
handycam: Share price behaviour looks very much like suspension looming, in my experience.
effortless cool: Anatole, The terms of the deal ($12.5m up front) are certainly better than those announced on 24 October ($2.5m up front, $4m-7m 2006), so the new management is off too a good start ... ... but ... ... shareholders are now looking at the prospect of: (a) paying in more funds to avoid administation; (b) delisting; and (c) waiting years while the banks take their share and the reserves work their way to ultimate before finding out if they are going to get any money back. Quite why this situation caused the share price to rise today is a mystery to me. EC
thedawn: EC Thanks for your thoughts on BRE. I was interested to hear about Berkshire Hathaway having the lowest profits since 2001 due to their high exposure to insurance. Not a good sign for BRE either. Do you have any targets for the share price? I note from the chart it recently fell through its 200 day moving average which it has stayed above for almost a year. Not a good sign either. The notes to the market are in my opinion extremely positive though. They mention a return of cash despite the hurricanes. Could it be the share is currently being supported by this expectation perhaps? If it doesn't happen after a half promise like that it could be a serious fall in order. The guys on the BRE board seem mostly positive also, but they would, wouldn't they! Cheers and thanks again!
greenpastures: If I read the annual report correctly GOS has risk mitigation procedures in place so that a severe natural catastrophe loss should be restricted at the outside to 30% of nta. That puts us around the present share price by my reckoning. However, there is likely to be several more storms before the season is finished according to the US Met office. We seem to be in a severe and numerous tropical storm cycle so I hope the risk procedures GOS use are taking that into account.
mr ashley james: RNS Number:7276O Goshawk Insurance Holdings PLC 11 July 2005 GoshawK Insurance Holdings Plc Annual General Meeting ("AGM") At the AGM of GoshawK Insurance Holdings Plc ("GoshawK" or the "Company"), Paul Spencer, Chairman of GoshawK, made the following comments: "2005 has been a good year so far for your company. In our trading update released this morning we stated that for the underwriting year to date premiums written total $117m an increase of approximately 35% over the same period last year. We performed well in Japan at the April renewals thanks to the excellent relationships Russell Brooke, CEO, has further developed with the leading Japanese insurers. In June and July we saw a 70% increase in volume, coupled with good renewal rates, in our US renewals capitalising on the established relationships of Steve Velotti our new US underwriter. Your company is well positioned to continue to grow profitably in its chosen markets. This is in marked comparison to the dire straits we found the Company in when myself and Russell took over in late 2003. The Board regrets that our largest shareholder Phoenix Asset Management has decided to attack the Board in public when other major shareholders have made it clear that they would not accept Phoenix taking management control without paying a premium. The Board will answer all your questions including governance and remuneration but it is important you understand why the Board believes this move by Phoenix is all about trying to get control. In 2004, the year in question, although approached by the Company, Phoenix did not want to meet. During this period we did consult with two other major longstanding shareholders on issues including our 2005 remuneration. In 2005, the Company has met four times with Phoenix. In our meetings with Phoenix, they have never mentioned any concerns regarding remuneration. The first we knew about these concerns was on 1 July 2005, by fax, immediately prior to their announcement. In our meetings, all Phoenix wanted to talk about was taking management control and managing the assets. But they made it clear they were not prepared to make an offer with an appropriate premium for management control. I have recently spoken to a significant number of shareholders, representing approximately 45% of the shares, who fully support the Board and have no support for Phoenix or their desire to take control. They want Phoenix to put up (meaning make an offer at an acceptable premium) or shut up (meaning support management in continuing to grow the value of the group for all shareholders). Certain shareholders I have spoken to provided us with feedback concerning the breadth of consultation, structure and disclosure, all with respect to remuneration. However, not in a single case were these concerns about the level of remuneration. These shareholders recognise how management have turned round the company and this has been reflected in the share price rising 57%. We have tried to incentivise management in a manner where shareholders also benefit and, in consultation with shareholders, would like to continue to do so. Following this AGM your board will continue to drive forward with the strategy we have consistently outlined to you. We believe this strategy is in the best interests of our shareholders as a whole and will produce superior returns. However if Phoenix or other shareholders discuss constructively with us ways of performing better which are in the interests of the shareholders then we will listen and act. We strive to do what is in the best interests of all our shareholders. Your management team in Bermuda under Russell's leadership is doing a great job. Any shareholder disputes when read about by clients, reinsurance brokers, the rating agencies and, of course, our staff makes their job harder. Surely we should be trying to help not hinder. Can we please listen to what the majority of the shareholders want and help create an environment where Russell and the team can thrive." Result of AGM All resolutions at the meeting were passed. The board has noted certain shareholders' views on remuneration and will consult with them accordingly. Paul Spencer, Chairman of GoshawK, commented: "2005 has been a good year so far for GoshawK. The board will continue to drive forward with the strategy we have consistently outlined to shareholders. I am delighted shareholders voted in support of the Board." 11 July 2005 Enquiries: GoshawK Insurance Holdings plc Today: 020 7457 2020 Paul Spencer, Chairman Thereafter: 020 7499 2355 Russell Brooke, CEO Thereafter: +1 441 505 3050 College Hill 020 7457 2020 Tony Friend Richard Pearson This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END RAGPKDKDNBKDNOD
mr ashley james: RNS Number:5036O Phoenix Asset Management Partners L 5 July 2005 Statement by Phoenix regarding forthcoming AGM of Goshawk Insurance Holdings plc We note the statement issued by the board of Goshawk on 4th July 2005. Goshawk's response to Phoenix is an inadequate answer to the serious questions of corporate governance and remuneration that we raised in our letter to shareholders of July 1st. In that letter we detailed our concerns about the quantity of pay and our view that it is not justified in the interests of shareholders, which the board appears to treat as a difference of subjective opinion. We encourage shareholders to read the 2003 and 2004 Annual reports themselves but we raise here in detail the following corporate governance and remuneration issues which need no subjective interpretation: 1.) The remuneration report of 2003 states that Paul Spencer will receive a special bonus of #100,000 if the share price is above 50p on 30/09/04. The share price had not reached 50 pence by this date and nor by 31/12/04 so why was he paid the bonus? In the Remuneration Report of 2004 it says the strike was 40p and the expiry date 31/12/04. When and why was this changed? 2.) In the 2004 Remuneration Report the Bonus Plan for Russell Brooke and John Beck is shown as having two parts, a.) Performance bonus and b.) Share price incentive bonus. Yet in the 2003 report there was no mention of the Performance bonus for 2004. The 2004 report describes that it has elements linked to a share of profits payable in shares but there is no mention of this in the 2003 report. When were these changes made and why? 3.) In the 2003 report it says that the Remuneration Committee will meet at least biannually but in 2004 it only met once. This is unusual. So far as we are aware, no other company in the sector had so few meetings and the average was about four. During 2004 new remuneration consultants were appointed, terms of reference were set and the consultants reported back to the committee. We do not understand how these important issues could be adequately dealt with in one meeting of the remuneration committee. 4.) The Corporate Governance section of the 2003 annual report contained the statement that, "it is the intention of directors to comply with the new Combined Code during 2004". The 2004 annual report made it clear that this did not happen in that the "The Chairman received additional remuneration in 2004 and is eligible for additional remuneration in 2005". 5.) Simon Miller is the Senior non-executive responsible for evaluating the Chairman. The Corporate Governance section says that he communicates and takes feedback from shareholders. We have been Goshawk's largest shareholder for some time and before that a significant shareholder and yet we have never had any communication from Mr. Miller or any other non-executive other than the Chairman. 6.) If Simon Miller and George Robb are re-appointed to the board at the forthcoming AGM both will exceed the period of service which the combined code highlights as an indication that their independence might be open to question. (Simon Miller and George Robb were both appointed to Goshawk on 18th November 1996) As shareholders can see, the reason why we will be voting against the Remuneration Report and the two directors involved in running and operating the remuneration committee has everything to do with objective serious concerns about directors' remuneration and corporate governance. In order to state our objection to motions in the AGM we felt the need to make a full disclosure of our position, which we did in our letter to shareholders of 1st July 2005. Having done so we will now be free, following the AGM, to speak to shareholders about our proposal for the company and if we find there is sufficient support then we will call a separate EGM. Sir Peter Thompson Gary Channon Phoenix Asset Management Partners 020 8600 0100 This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END STRUVVURVSRBRAR
mr ashley james: RNS Number:4023O Goshawk Insurance Holdings PLC 02 July 2005 GoshawK Insurance Holdings Plc Response to Phoenix announcement The Board of GoshawK Insurance Holdings Plc ("GoshawK" or the "Company") notes the announcement made on 1 July 2005 by Phoenix Asset Management Partners Limited ("Phoenix"), which holds 28.9 per cent. of the outstanding share capital of the Company. Background Phoenix, in its announcement, details certain views it holds in relation to the remuneration of directors, the strategy of the Company and a proposal which it has made to the Board to gain senior board and management positions. Phoenix has been a shareholder in GoshawK for certain periods of time since October 2003. It has built up its interest in the Company to its current position during the course of the last year. The Board has considered the announcement and is making the following response. Directors' compensation GoshawK faced significant challenges in 2003, a year which saw heavy losses. In late 2003, Paul Spencer was appointed Chairman of GoshawK, a new senior management team appointed, the Group's Lloyd's syndicate was closed and a new strategy implemented. Since Paul Spencer's appointment on 26 September 2003, the share price has risen from 28p to its current level at close of business on 1 July 2005 of 44p, a rise of 57 per cent. The payments under the remuneration scheme recognise the contribution of the senior management team in the successful turnaround of the Company following its exit from Lloyd's. The scheme also recognised that, for a period of six months, Paul Spencer took on the role of Executive Chairman before Russell Brooke was appointed Chief Executive of GoshawK in April 2004. The remuneration of the Chairman and the senior management team has been structured to align their interests with those of all shareholders of the Company and is performance based. In structuring the remuneration of the Chairman and the senior management team, the Remuneration Committee of the Board received external expert advice and ensured that the scheme put in place was appropriate when compared with relevant benchmarks and comparable companies. Details of the approach to remuneration can be found in the 2004 report and accounts. GoshawK's strategy The Company has communicated its strategy regularly and consistently to shareholders. Rosemont Re has been established as a focused short tail reinsurer. The Board remains confident that the strategy the Group is pursuing will deliver attractive returns to shareholders. The progress has been recognised by AM Best in returning Rosemont Re to Stable Outlook in December 2004. This could not have been achieved without the acceptance of the strategy by our clients and the broker community. The Board will continue to seek to create value for shareholders consistent with a prudent approach to risk management. Progress into 2005 has been positive and a trading update will be issued on 11 July 2005, the day of the AGM. Proposal made by Phoenix Earlier this year, Phoenix made a proposal to the Board of the Company suggesting that Sir Peter Thompson and Gary Channon be appointed Chairman and Chief Executive of GoshawK respectively. It was also proposed that the Company adopt an alternative strategy for the investment of its reserves and capital. Directors of GoshawK have met with Phoenix on a number of occasions during this year. The Board of GoshawK considered the proposal made by Phoenix carefully and came to the view that the proposal would result in a change of control of the Company without an appropriate premium being paid to all shareholders and was therefore of the view that it could not recommend this proposal to shareholders. The asset management proposal was also carefully reviewed and felt to be inappropriate given the Company's strategy and approach to risk. The Board also felt that conflicts could arise in granting to one of its shareholders an arrangement of this nature. Summary The Board has noted the points raised by Phoenix. It has considered the proposal made by Phoenix and believes that it would result in a change of control of the Company without any benefit to other shareholders. The Board believes that the strategy that GoshawK is pursuing is the right one and in the interests of all shareholders. Accordingly, the Board recommends that shareholders vote in favour of the resolutions proposed for the AGM to be held on 11 July 2005. Contacts: Paul Spencer, Chairman, GoshawK 020 7499 2355 Russell Brooke, Chief Executive, GoshawK 001 441 278 0701 Tony Friend, College Hill Associates 020 7457 2020 Roddy Watt, College Hill Associates 020 7457 2020 This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END MSCPKBKBKBKKAOK
ursus: what an excellent letter this is! i've even beaten hashley james to the cut and paste job. i'm glad i sold gos before the tag debacle, but it shd provide some fun over coming weeks... and while phoenix is at it, how about having a look at the too generous amounts those dozers at highway pay themselves. RNS Number:3920O Phoenix Asset Management Partners L 01 July 2005 Phoenix Asset Management Partners Limited Phoenix Asset Management Partners Ltd are sending out the following letter to the registered shareholders of Goshawk Insurance Holdings Plc today. Dear Goshawk Shareholder We are writing to you as the representative of certain investment funds (the "Funds") holding 50,838,408 Ordinary shares in Goshawk Insurance Holdings plc which represents 28.9% of the outstanding share capital. At the forthcoming Annual General Meeting on 11th July 2005 we intend to vote against three of the motions before the meeting. This letter sets out our reasoning for this, our concerns about the current strategy of Goshawk and the details of an alternative proposal that we made to the company. AGM Motions The motions in questions are: Resolution 2. To reappoint S E C Miller, who is retiring by rotation in accordance with the Company's articles of association, as a director. Resolution 3. To reappoint G A Robb, who is retiring by rotation in accordance with the Company's articles of association, as a director. Resolution 6. To approve the directors' remuneration report for the financial year ended 31 December 2004, together with the auditors' report thereon. Problems with Directors' compensation We believe that the compensation awarded to directors in 2004 is out of line with the performance of the business in the year, is inconsistent with the Remuneration Report of 2003 and is just too high in absolute terms for the size and type of business Goshawk is. Although in 2004 the company suffered a loss of $8.8 mil and book value fell 9%, the total compensation of the top three officers of the company (Chairman, Chief Executive and Finance Director) rose by 114%, the biggest increase in the sector (defined as the relevant constituents of the FTSE All Share Insurance Index). In the 2004 Remuneration Report it is a stated policy to "reward successful performance". In our view, from a shareholder's perspective, 2004 was not a successful year. The 2003 Remuneration Report states that the Chairman, Paul Spencer, would be awarded a bonus based upon the share price on 30th September 2004 or at the offer price at the time of any takeover offer for the company that was successful prior to that date. The lowest share price required to trigger a bonus was 50p at which level he would receive #100,000. Neither of these conditions was satisfied and we would have expected there to be no bonus paid under this scheme. However, in the 2004 Remuneration Report the scheme is restated but the criteria have now been changed. The lowest strike price has been reduced to 40p and the expiry date has been moved back to 31st December 2004. As the shares closed at 40.25p on 31st December 2004, Mr. Spencer has been awarded a #100,000 bonus. The Report does not explain that the criteria have changed and it reads to us as though these were always the criteria, which is not the case. The end result is that Mr. Spencer earned $375,000 as non-executive Chairman in 2004 versus $43,000 in 2003. Viewed as a ratio to market capitalisation, Mr. Spencer is the best paid non-executive Chairman in the sector. Likewise the top three officers are the best paid in the sector. However, the movement in shareholder value (the change in book value plus dividends) at -9% is the second worst, as is the combined ratio of 108%. If we only consider the continuing business then the deterioration in 2004 is even greater. 2004 was a good year for Goshawk's management but a poor one for its shareholders. We believe the compensation policies and practices pursued by the board are not justified in the interests of shareholders, that they are not justified by industry comparisons and that the Remuneration Report does not adequately explain the reason for changes to the bonus scheme criteria. In conclusion we cannot support the motion approving the Report. Additionally, the two non- executive directors that are up for re-election are from the Remuneration Committee and in fact Mr. Miller is its Chairman. Problems with the current strategy The company is now taking considerable risks on behalf of shareholders. The Annual Report states that the maximum risk to be taken by the company on a single major catastrophe is limited to 30% of Rosemont Re's capital, equating to around 40% of Goshawk's shareholder capital. If this goes wrong the current management team have very little of their own money at stake. The company has also moved its share capital into US dollars without consulting shareholders who are largely UK sterling based. We accept that the earnings of the business are US dollar based but it doesn't follow that the capital should be. The company also decided it would report its earnings in US dollars. Given that its shareholders are predominantly UK based, and that the report is primarily for their purposes, this suggests to us a lack of sensitivity to shareholders' requirements. We believe that the company has been actively seeking a buyer of the business; the compensation plans are certainly structured to incentivise that outcome. However, apart from an unsuccessful approach from Nikko Principal Investments last year the strategy has not borne fruit. In the meantime the net asset value has declined and the share price has risen, in our view significantly reducing the chance of a takeover at a premium. There is a low barrier to entry in the Bermuda reinsurance market and we believe that any potential purchaser is likely to weigh the modest costs of starting up a new vehicle against the price of buying Goshawk with its portfolio of legacy risks. As a result, we believe a buyer will probably expect to pay a discount to book value offering little upside for Goshawk shareholders from the current price. In summary, Goshawk currently has a management that in our view pays itself too much, takes too much risk, outsources the investment of its float (capital & premiums), has little personal financial investment in the company and which has not delivered an exit for shareholders. The alternative In April 2005 we made an approach to Mr. Spencer with a proposal that we believe would create significant shareholder value and better align interests of management and shareholders. In June Mr. Spencer informed us that the Board had turned down our proposal. We proposed that Mr. Spencer step down as Chairman to be replaced by us (Sir Peter Thompson as Chairman and Gary Channon as Chief Executive responsible for capital allocation and investment). Russell Brooke would remain Chief Executive of Rosemont Re (Goshawk's re-insurance subsidiary) in Bermuda as he currently is. We proposed that we would run the company with an approach inspired by Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway. We have developed a framework to combine long term value investing and intelligent value based underwriting. Using shareholder's capital twice to support two rewarding activities results in excellent long term returns, as Berkshire Hathaway has demonstrated. We are not claiming to be Messrs Buffett and Munger but we do claim to benefit from much of their wisdom and teachings which are in the public domain. We proposed that we would work for no pay or bonuses. We would have one option scheme that would pay us if we double the value of the company in 5 to 7 years. If we don't, we get nothing. We did not seek board control or any contractual notice period. If we were failing, the board could remove us immediately as could shareholders given that our equity interest would remain unchanged (we are not seeking equity control). These are the most aggressive shareholder orientated criteria we have come across. Our incentive would come from the 28.9% shareholding that we have. As Mr. Buffett might say, we are prepared to eat our own cooking. Our plan would yield immediate cost savings that we estimate at over $4 mil per annum coming from lower board compensation, the saving of external investment management fees and other savings, including moving the head office out of its unnecessary St. James' location. By following the teachings of Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger and Benjamin Graham over the past 7 years since we founded Phoenix Asset Management Partners, we have generated an average investment return of 15.4% per annum investing in the UK stock market whilst the total market (as defined by the FTSE All Share Index) has returned just 1.6% per annum (1/5/98 to 30/6/05). We believe our proposal was very compelling for Goshawk shareholders. Sir Peter Thompson brings decades of business experience and a record of generating outstanding returns for shareholders (as investors in NFC, FI Group and Community Hospitals could confirm). At Phoenix Gary Channon has produced best in class investment returns since we set-up the company in 1998. This has been achieved through the application of a rational, disciplined, risk averse investment strategy without leverage, derivatives or short selling. With that combination of business experience and investment expertise we anticipated that we could have earned excellent long term returns on Goshawk's capital, which was the only way in which we would have financially benefited from our plan for Goshawk. In view of all of this, we were disappointed when Mr. Spencer told us that the Board did not support it. Conclusion Shareholders will have their own views on the performance of Goshawk and its management and on the proposals we put to the board. If you share our view that the compensation policies and practices are not justified in the interests of shareholders you should make your views known to the board and take such action at the forthcoming AGM, in relation to the Remuneration Report and those directors who are responsible for it, as you see fit. If, like us, you consider that the present position is unacceptable and if, like us, you consider that there are alternatives which would achieve better returns for shareholders, we would urge you to make your views known to the board. We believe that Goshawk shareholders are being poorly treated by its management. We feel that now is the time for shareholders to stand up and be counted. It is our company, after all. Sir Peter Thompson Gary Channon
theberg: SC, It appears that GOS will in fact potentially have CAT Losses of US$33m second half ie above the total US$22m previously projected which would have had no effect on NTA per previous press release. If I assume US$11m (US$33m-US$22m) could come off NTA US$184.80m I reduce to be on safe side NTA to US$173.80m which at current ROE per is US$1.88633=£92,138,048 =52.40p approx. I can only assume this is factored into drop from 51.00p to 40.25p, ie £89,683,975 to £70,780,000 approx (low bid 38.00p ie roughly £66,823,540). The NTA per presentation on website shows December 2003 NTA as US$1.03 which today is 54.60p at ROE US$1.88633=£1.00 "LONDON (AFX) - Goshawk Insurance Holdings PLC said it now expects second half losses from hurricanes and typhoons to reach about 33 mln usd. That's up from the 22 mln usd it estimated in September, but since then a fourth Atlantic hurricane hit Florida and further typhoons have hit Japan. In a pre-close statement, Goshawk, which owns Bermuda-based Rosemont Reinsurance Ltd, said its second half results will be hit by the unusually high freqency of windstorm losses in the US and Japan. It said it expects its dollar net asset value at the end of the year to be broadly similar to the end of 2003, which it said was "a reasonable performance in the circumstances". Goshawk said current market conditions are generally favourable with significant price increases in territories impacted by the 2004 catastrophe activity. "We expect conditions to improve further during the April and July 2005 renewals," it said. "Whilst we are disappointed not to produce target returns in our first year as a focused short tail company, we are pleased to have preserved the company's value in very testing conditions," said chief executive Russell Brooke. Submissions received at Rosemont Re are up by approximately 40 pct on this time last year, principally though increased volume from the US, it said. It said it expects to grow its portfolio with continued focus on purely short tail risks. Japan's Nikko Principal Investment last month pulled out of takeover talks with the Lloyd's underwriter. email: jm/" The positive aspect that I can see that dramatically reduces the risk of taking a long in GOS between February and May or June as months is that all Catastrophe perils bar Earthquake (ie windstorm, hurricane, typhoon etc) only account for a diminishing percentage of the cost allocation of Catastrophe losses per month with all bar EQ being below 5.00% by May EQ is straightline approx 8.33% pcm. Bluntly this period is one of the safest times historically to play Insurance/Reinsurance stocks. I think we will still probably have an NTA of at least 52.40p to 54.60p, noting my figures showing ILV's trade to 200%/225% of NTA, with average of top 4 trading on average to around 175% of NTA. It still means in theory my benchmark 175% NTA would equate to 91.70p to 95.50p on actual half year NTA US$184.80m less US$11m noting premium rates increased after second half catastrophes I wonder whether the second half GWPI will exceed US$77.90m first half? If I assumed full year GWPI is 2 X 1st Half (risky assumption I might add) GWPI=US$155.80m, noting dramatic increase in their effectively mainly new book of short tail business maybe not so daft afterall. I still think bad news of 21 months in the GOS price which reached 162p ish 1998 and 135p in 2003 and still looks very cheap to me on both market cap to NTA and market cap to premium written bases. Thought I needed to correct earlier statement about this second half, afterall do not want to be considered a missleading ramper. Anyway I still consider my upside/downside risk at 40.25p mid in excess of 53.25p to 95.50p plays 2.25p to 38.00p bid I can think of less attractive risk reward positions having bought when the windstorm season is basically over with all the bad news already in the price I believe. All IMHO, NAG, DYOR etc, etc Berg
Goshawk Insurance share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:31 V: D:20180223 21:54:36