[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Phoenix Group Holdings Plc LSE:PHNX London Ordinary Share GB00BGXQNP29 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  11.00 1.74% 643.60 643.40 643.80 644.80 633.00 635.00 822,289 16:28:37
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Life Insurance 4,704.0 1,270.0 91.8 7.0 6,431

Phoenix Share Discussion Threads

Showing 4301 to 4325 of 4925 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  173  172  171  170  169  168  167  166  165  164  163  162  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
10/2/2021
09:53
speedsgh9 Mar '20 - 08:11 - 3697 of 4318 0 1 0 Future dividend guidance in today's results... HTTPS://www.investegate.co.uk/phoenix-group-hldgs--phnx-/rns/2019-annual-financial-results/202003090700063592F/ "The Group's enhanced cashflow profile post the acquisition underpins the Board's proposal to increase the final 2020 dividend per share by 3%." So final payment in May 2021 will increase to 24.10p. I assume that this increase will apply to both interim & final payments from May 2021 onwards? If so, full yr dividend post increase becomes 48.20p. FY19 final - 23.40p/share (payable May 20) FY20 interim - 23.40p/share (payable Sep 20) FY20 final - 24.10p/share (payable May 21)
bluemango
10/2/2021
09:45
Just scanned through the thread and found this: bluemango - 09 Mar 2020 - 15:08:40 - 3709 of 4318 I have had confirmation that the projected dividend payments are as outlined by speedsgh above, i.e. with the 3% uplift at the time of the 2020 final dividend paid in May 2021 (24.1p) giving an anticipated full 2020 dividend of 47.5p and 48.2p the following year.
bluemango
10/2/2021
09:39
Nice to see this looking buoyant again. Final results in less than a month, due 8th March. I've made a note that Phoenix flagged a final dividend increase for these results, from 23.4p to 24.1p from May 2021 (so to be announced next month), but can't find again the RNS that states this - can anyone point me to this? Thanks
bluemango
28/1/2021
11:43
tournesol 28 Jan '21 - 08:51 - 4312 of 4315 "So what I'm asking myself is - have we really had 100,000 "excess deaths"? or have we simply reverted to the mean?" The "mean" has been changing for decades and arguably hundreds of years. I read life expectancy used to be in the 30's in the Canary Islands. Life expectancy in poor countries is still much lower than here. Diet , technology have moved the goalposts. Yes we have had excess deaths some of that excess is due to the success of the flu vaccine. What excess death figure would there have been if we had ignored the risk of covid and done nothing...
fenners66
28/1/2021
09:55
So - attempting to read into mortality changes for year end assumptions..... People who had updated to the most recent version of CMI tables last year end may be less likely to change mortality assumptions as there's not sufficient evidence yet of a trend? People who were on older versions may update by a year's worth of tables (which, from memory last year, was generally a net positive for annuity writers)? Who are the first annuity players to report? I think most are out in the 1st/2nd week of March - but do any of the Life reinsurers report in Feb?
kirkie001
28/1/2021
09:36
Thanks for posting - yes - that's the key thing
williamcooper104
28/1/2021
08:59
Looking forward, it is unclear if life expectancy will return to baseline levels rapidly, and even if/when it recovers, how mortality will be different. So it might have changed and it might not. They don't know until they find out if it has just dragged deaths forward several months, with life expectancy possibly going back to the same as before. It will be while yet before they know if there are any significant changes to the longer term trend.
aleman
28/1/2021
08:51
I was surprised to read a long and detailed article on the BBC website yesterday about the reasons for the UK's apparently "high level" of Covid mortality. According to the above, 2020 was far from a bad year for mortality, in fact there were 10 years out of the past 30 which were worse! In every year from 1991 to 2000 mortality rates were higher than last year. In 2001 mortality declined and continued to decline more or less until 2020 when Covid arrived. So what I'm asking myself is - have we really had 100,000 "excess deaths"? or have we simply reverted to the mean? And if mortality has been unusually low for the past 20 years then doesn't that mean that people who would previously have been expected to die were effectively given a life extension - with the implication that the number of frail and vulnerable people in the population must have increased. Which must surely explain why a disease like Covid has had such an impact. How does any of this affect Phoenix? No idea, but thought it was interesting.
tournesol
28/1/2021
07:20
WC - as usual they don't say just what study. It's here: https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/early/2021/01/18/jech-2020-215505.full.pdf What they seem to be estimating is the usual definition, "life expectancy at birth". That reduction of 1 year (women 0.9 years, men 1.2 years) won't help much, but what about the LE of a 70 yo? That could well have fallen by say 5 years. Now that would affect Phoenix!
jonwig
28/1/2021
00:16
Our favourite grim subject - covid and mortality The Times is reporting that there is a study suggesting that total impact of CV19 is to reduce life expectancy by a year
williamcooper104
22/1/2021
16:57
Which is why I looked at the capital release impact of pensioners without assessing them as having big pensions. Since we know that the majority of covid deaths are very elderly ie already drawing their pensions and would have had annuities bought a long time ago am I therefore right in thinking the release could be as large as I estimated above ?
fenners66
22/1/2021
11:50
From the 2019 annual report under 'Risk Management' (p56): The Group has guaranteed liabilities, annuities and other policies that are sensitive to future longevity, persistency and mortality rates. For example, if our annuity policyholders live for longer than expected, then the Group will need to pay their benefits for longer. The amount of additional capital required to meet additional liabilities could have a material adverse impact on the Group’s ability to meet its cash flow targets. And vice-versa, surely? A decrease in longvity could have a material positive impact on solvency and cashflow. Obviously we'll have to see what they say shortly. As people have pointed out, it's excess deaths in total, including economy weakness and other health conditions. Set against this, there's the weighting against poorer people who are less likely to have annuities.
jonwig
22/1/2021
11:03
You should also note that 'flu' vaccines have been becoming less effective over the last 15 years. There is a theory that this is because the 'flu' virus is becoming adapted to the eggs that it is grown in as part of the production process. hTTps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6685099/
this_is_me
22/1/2021
10:29
I agree with that. There are excess deaths in the pipeline from lack of current treatments. There are also excess deaths in the pipeline from the economic austerity that is to come as a result of the economic and tax effects that restrictions and lockdown cause in future - fewer expensive drugs and kidney dialysis machines, etc. . I actually suspect the future health effects of current restrictions are likely to be bigger than Covid in the end, and have not been given enough weight in recent decision-making, expecially as it will hit younger people more. In summary, we've had a double spike from Covid. I expect there to be a short term reduction over the next year or two (from some deaths of very old brought forward several months) and then I expect a decade or more of modestly higher death rates from a financially weakened NHS. This is hard to determine. It could be from next to nothing to quite significant. (And, to be fair, there might be some slight benefit if higher uptake of vaccinations in future reduce such as flu deaths.) This study estimated 130k extra premature deaths due to the last recession (which might be a small part of the rising annual death totals trend seen since 2011, mainly due to ageing baby boomer numbers). The current recession looks set to have a bigger financial effect. Then add on excess deaths already being caused by major NHS disruption and patients avoiding hospitals. A figure of 300k premature deaths, some of them younger, seems possible. That is only half a year's deaths, though, over maybe a decade, so likely to affect PHNX but probably not greatly so. Https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/perfect-storm-austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report
aleman
22/1/2021
09:57
Aleman there is also the excess deaths in prospect, and already happening, due to the lack of treatment of cancer and also heart disease, diabetes etc.
this_is_me
22/1/2021
09:32
Benefits of excess deaths would be small anyway, barely material in my estimates. I am not planning to make any changes to my investments because of them.
edmundshaw
20/1/2021
11:46
Looks like a good appointment: Https://www.thephoenixgroup.com/~/media/Files/P/Phoenix-Group-v3/Media/Phoenix_Appointment.pdf
lauders
18/1/2021
16:59
Here's some comments on how assessing excess deaths is not straightforward. Note how EuroMOMO has a baseline that slowly rises to allow for the ageing population. If the line were flat, it would overstate excess deaths in the latest year. That's what comparing against a flat 5-year (or even 10-year) average does. https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1350131598289743875/photo/1 More comments here: Https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html Comparisons to other measures of excess deaths in England The Office for National Statistics also publishes a weekly report on excess deaths in England & Wales. The numbers reported by ONS are broadly in line with the overall excess death figures in this report but there are some differences as the ‘expected’ numbers in this report are not just the simple five-year average for 2015 to 2019, as used by ONS. As explained in the Methods, they are instead modelled estimates which adjust for factors such as the ageing of the population and the underlying trend in mortality rates from year to year. EuroMOMO is a European mortality monitoring programme that aims to measure excess deaths related to seasonal influenza and other public health threats that uses a standardised methodology across 24 European countries. The methodology used by EuroMOMO is similar to that used by the PHE model, however, the EuroMOMO model looks at deaths by date of occurrence, and the PHE model looks at deaths by date of registration. Because there is a time lag between date of occurrence of death and date of registration, analysis of excess deaths by date of occurrence requires a delay correction, the reliability of which improves over time. These two models produce very similar results but with small differences due to the delay correction applied by EuroMOMO. The PHE Daily GRO mortality model is used in PHE’s COVID-19 surveillance report for all-cause mortality. It uses a 5-year average to estimate expected deaths, similar to that used by the ONS but with a trend included. It looks at deaths by date of occurrence based on rapidly reported deaths from the General Register Office and uses a registration delay correction, the reliability of which improves over time. Overall, the excess deaths are similar in the COVID-19 surveillance report and this report, but may show some differences in specific weeks due to use of occurrence date compared with registration date, and in recent weeks due to the delay corrections. To my mind it is better not to correct for delay but actually wait and use the right figures! You can pull up excess deaths by both date of registration and occurrence in the following link if you click on the regional and local figures. It's a bigger difference than you might think, eg. London is 9640 excess deaths by registration date but 7541 by date of death. I'm curious how it gets so big over a whole year when you'd expect it to be small over such a timeframe. Both these numbers are against 5-year averages so would be lower against a trended baseline/actuarial projection by maybe 30%? Https://victimofmaths.shinyapps.io/COVID_LA_Plots/ As with all statistics, assume it's wrong and then try to work out why it's wrong and by how much. As mentioned earlier, this year's positive excess could well be followed by a negative figure next year or two. I expect the balance of the two will be the important figure for PHNX - but how big will that balance be and for which numbers? I'm not assuming automatically that PHNX will benefit from Covid. It could be that more people take vaccinations in future and life expectancy increases. Who knows?
aleman
18/1/2021
13:30
I can't really comment on a report without knowing what assumptions they've used, but it sounds like they wanted headlines. The data needed to make such claims is not available yet. It has to be riddled with assumptions that others might not make.
aleman
18/1/2021
13:26
Good points Another big unknown is the long term effects of long covid
williamcooper104
18/1/2021
12:08
From an article in the DM "The UK study is based on calculations of excess mortality, which is a figure for how many deaths are occurring above what is expected for the time of year from historical trends. It focuses on data spanning from March 2 to November 20 2020 and recorded 57,419 excess deaths, 15 per cent up on the expected figure, had Covid not struck. " "The UK has recorded more than 86,000 COvid-related fatalities. " So 37.5 weeks or 1528 a week But my 5000 a week above was intended as current since the death for covid figures were averaging over 1200 a day (down to 1119 at the moment, but could still rise again) and as these stats state they are before the current surge. So I was trying to calculate a current weekly figure rather than the total. I take the point that in months/years to come we may see the deaths decline as these are only pulled forward. I note also the same DM article referring to UK life expectancy declining by about a year so I guess that will have to be built into actuarial models. Aside from the number of deaths are the thoughts on funds using older gilts and the subsequent value gains on those gilts (if they were to be sold) reasonable or will they have already been replaced? I do understand that any shorter dated gilts from say 10 years ago etc will already be gone.
fenners66
18/1/2021
11:21
fenners66 18 Jan '21 - 00:17 - 4294 of 4297 Anyone run the rule over my annuity release musings yet ? I suspect your excess death figures will be incorrect. Media-reported numbers are over-simplifed and not the same as ones used by actuaries. They need a lot of adjusting. Actuaries project increasing deaths year-on-year due to immigration and ageing WWII baby boomers which mean the over 65s demographic has been growing over 2% per year since about 2011, and rising dementia deaths (now number 1 cause) which has been countering falling mortality rates. Media keep publishing excess deaths against the 5 or 10-year average but that does not reflect Covid excesses unless the demographic is flat. It isn't, so figures in media do not reflect actuarial trends. The annual deaths trend was increasing about 6-10k per year before Covid. I suppose you could knock 18-30k off the excess above 5-year average to get excess above trend but that assumes the trend continues smoothly which it might not. Then there are other issues under the surface that have to be addressed. 2020 excess death figures by date of death were running below those by date of report by about 20k a couple of months ago. (No idea why. Big carry over of deaths yet to report for year-end 2019 maybe?) Also, actuaries will not know the longer term excess until they see how big the negative excess is after the virus spikes. (How many deaths were just pulled forward a few months?). So 80k+ deaths above the 5-year average might be only 60k above trend and only 40k above actuarial trend reported correctly by date of death. If some deaths are just pulled forward a few months, a 40k above trend 2020 figure could then be eroded by below trend 2021 figures. So how big is the Covid and total excess against recent actuarial projections and how big will they be when we look back in a few years? Don't know! Actuaries need to work their way through the distortions in reporting deaths and trends in other factors that cause deaths to tease out the trends used to calculate financial products. It will be a while yet - probably several months to get the correct total deaths by date of death and then a few years to decide if the previously projected longer term trend to measure any excesses from it has changed or not. They will still be messing about with projections from 2019 data and monthly changes in trends for individual causes as they get slower but more detailed data. The early annual deaths figure for 2020 by date of report is probably too crude to be very informative for them, though they will be able to make some inferences from early Covid months where deaths by date will be accurate enough now. They will still need to be cautious of varying reporting of deaths as Covid progressed and changes in treatments that improved survival rates. Projections will emphasis the better survival rates of late - but those figures will only come more sharply into focus in months to come. I don't think we have data to work out even a crude guess, yet. Yes, there will be short-term fluctuations now, based on actual claims, but will they reverse next year and come back on trend? What are other causes doing and how will they behave when Covid distortions are gone, or greatly reduced? Again - don't know!
aleman
18/1/2021
09:00
If I see anything flagged up, I'll post it. FY results early March will have something to say.
jonwig
18/1/2021
08:57
cheers jonwig I was basing my ideas on older annuities as we are aware that the excess deaths are mostly the elderly i.e. already collecting their pensions. Likely pre pension freedom so also likely to be drawing annuity. I believe for these people there will be far less exposure to life insurance as the large sums involved in younger years become very expensive to insure when older.
fenners66
18/1/2021
07:02
fenners - sorry, I saw it and decided it was too hard, and flunked! A quick look says that L&G has the biggest share of the UK individual annuity market with 17% (2019) but that doesn't include bulk annuities maybe? Annuities written 10 years ago balanced gilt returns prevailing then, those written today balance today's yields. Excess deaths based on the former will give greater windfall gains to Phoenix than those from the latter (higher yields then) - I think!
jonwig
Chat Pages: Latest  173  172  171  170  169  168  167  166  165  164  163  162  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
PHNX
Phoenix
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

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

P: V: D:20210922 15:43:38