SF, As you mentioned, booked losses this year are already around 2/3rds of last years and still a long way to go in this financial year! |
deadly- just trying to make sense of why it could be down today. other than selling on the news.
dividenddata.co.uk has this as the 2nd top yield in the ftse250 if you include the specials. drops well down the list if you take the special out. perhaps people were hoping for a bigger special? |
The company is hosting a conference call at 1pm UKT, which can be accessed here. (click on the webcast to register) |
SF: All that was known and was in the price. |
It's not that good when compared against Beazley. Beazley seem to be managing risk a whole lot better ATM. |
Early in 2025, we have seen the terrible devastation wrought by the wildfires in California on those communities. As recently announced, for Lancashire, the impact is expected to be within the range $145 million to $165 million
so the booked losses already for 2025 are around 2/3rd of the losses in 2024. the bridge collapse was a big insurance event too. |
LA fire loss will be a 2025 loss, so will be in next year's figures.
2024 losses as extracted from the report:
Lancashire experienced net losses (undiscounted, including reinstatement premiums) from catastrophe, weather and large loss events totalling $214.1 million. This included the impacts of hurricanes Milton, Helene, and Debby, storm Boris and the Calgary hailstorms. The MV Dali Baltimore bridge collision was the most significant large risk event. |
Lower than expected divi when comapred to last year? Still good though |
so what spooked the price? |
Good results and nice 40c dividend |
sigmund
It was a very nice place. I was a forced seller essentially as I found myself without a chair when the music stopped (2008 financial crisis). My own fault really. Misplaced trust in what I thought was class 1 financial advice. I'm not going to write who it was because they compensated me peanuts and got me to sign a non-disclosure to receive said peanuts.
As far as insurance of this nature is concerned I just have small percentages in my portfolio that I hold long-term. Because their returns are not well correlated with the rest of the market it just provides a long-term reasonable hedge. |
Results due 6/3/25.... |
thanks louis. sounds like a nice place!
i have vague memories of something like this happening before.
so i think in future (if wanting to get in and out):
sell asap when we see some insurance-liable disaster when we see it on the tv
there is a slight delay before LRE drops
then it falls 5-10%
then it creeps up again (ie buy as soon as it stops falling)
then consider selling out before another month is up
then buy it again, and repeat
but be sure to stay invested if no huge recent disaster, when a special is likely to be announced?
and if i can't be bothered with all that, just stay invested and assume another disaster just cranks up the inevitable premiums
although what to do if the big one finally hits San Fran, as it must do sometime? |
sigmund
Looks like legalities were already in place (The Guardian):
“We must take action to improve the financial standing of the FAIR Plan and prevent this situation from recurring,” Ricardo Lara, California’s insurance commissioner, said in a press release. The assessment is the first time since the 1994 Northridge earthquake that the plan has called on private insurers to contribute additional funds to pay out claims.
The $1bn assessment will be carried by private insurers, according to their market share. In 2023, California’s largest insurers included State Farm, Farmers Insurance Group and CSAA Insurance, according to Moody’s, a credit rating service.
Insurance companies are responsible for half of that assessment, according to the state’s insurance department, but may pass off the other half to customers as a temporary supplemental fee. The assessment cannot be passed off in future rate hikes. |
bulltradept13 Feb '25 - 12:08 - 1613 of 1614 0 0 0
I do you, I'm not the one casting aspersions on LRE's RNS and its numbers am I.
"I do you ...." - this makes no sense whatsoever.
".... I'm not the one casting aspersions on LRE's RNS ...." - Nor am I; I merely corrected some materially inaccurate numbers from J2M in post 1594.
Insurance is a complex business; your skillset may be better suited to investing elsewhere. (Slots)? |
 Good point on the 1 month delay issue, I noticed that too.
You would have thought risk in some of those areas in LA would be worth considering insuring now considering vegetation has gone, scrutiny will be higher, regulations will be stricter and build-work will have fire mitigation in-mind - most likely.
As far as the insurance issue, who knows? Depends what the California state legislature had in place with respect to this. Here in the UK I think private companies would be able to defend such a case, but in the US legal system who knows? The Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexica, erm sorry Donald, Gulf of America, had BP open to litigation by everyone and his uncle and many affected, or rather, seemingly affected, didn't need any evidence of loss when making a claim.
Insurance in the US is complex and bizarre. I owned a property just north of Tampa with one side of the property solely made of 8ft glass windows. I was around 12 miles inland and never had an issue with insurance and its costs. Community management fees, and the likes of, dwarfed the insurance. |
for future reference, it took around 1 month after the loss event for LRE to declare their exposure. this might be helpful in future.
i saw only a day or 2 ago, that any us insurers who had covered california in the last 2 years, but who had stopped coverage due to increasing risk, were going to be charged for the losses that the FAIR scheme had made. essentially the discounted coverage FAIR scheme didn't have anywhere near the funds to cover the losses.
would LRE have any exposure to such a charge?
it is also scary that a state can order private companies without current exposure to cover what are essentially uninsured risks. surely the lawyers will make some money out of disputing that. this will end up with no one in california being able to insure their homes. |
I do you, I'm not the one casting aspersions on LRE's RNS and its numbers am I. |
bulltradept13 Feb '25 - 11:20 - 1610 of 1611 0 0 0
"I didn't realise we have someone in the comments who knows LRE insurance book ?"
I didn't realise we had someone in the comments who doesn't know the difference between market losses and individual company losses. |
Or you could listen to the company....
Lancashire Holdings Limited (the "Company" or "Lancashire") today announces that it estimates its aggregate net ultimate losses relating to the wildfires in California, which occurred in January 2025, in the range of $145 million to $165 million. This estimate falls within the Company's modelled loss ranges for this type of catastrophe event.
This estimate is undiscounted, after anticipated recoveries from Lancashire's outwards reinsurance programme and the impact of outwards and inwards reinstatement premiums. |
I didn't realise we have someone in the comments who knows LRE insurance book ? |
J2M10 Jan '25 - 16:16 - 1594 of 1608 0 0 0
"Baltimore Bridge was an estimated 4B hit to insurers. For LA Fires I heard 140B mentioned! How much exposure LRE have we don't know but certainly any special dividends again this year must be off the table now".
These are nonsense numbers. The insured loss from the Baltimore Bridge collision is likely around $2bn. LA wildfires are still uncertain but likely in the range $35bn-$50bn. |
oh well, back in again... |
'Should allow attractive return for shareholders in 2025'
Either that or they should sell up. |
Given our strong earnings performance and capital generation in 2024 Lancashire remains extremely well capitalised to achieve its strategic ambitions. |
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
Hot Features
Premium
