Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Insurance cos (proposed buy outs, etc. discussion) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (33)	11/27/1999 1:10:00 PM
From: Carey Thompson	Respond to of 55

In the current environment, many mutual or policyholder owned insurers are switching to publicly owned companies. MONY, Mutual of New York, just became publicly owned, too. First, the current policy holders received shares based on annual dividends received, policy amount, etc; also, they are given a chance to buy enough additional shs for a round lot of 100 (or multiples of 100). Then the public is offered stock at the IPO price. The policyholders and Met Life sales staff are the possessors of the real information on this company. If you are a policy holder, go with your impression of Met. Good luck. Carey Thompson Care

To: gg cox who wrote (33)	11/29/1999 11:21:00 AM
From: QuietWon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55

gg, one general comment about demutualizations and specifically mentioned about MetLife. Commentator on CNBC about MetLife said some policyholders will be much better off than others. >>That statement is not necessarily true. And, it seemed from the commentator's viewpoint or the way it was expressed, that that would be acceptable to MetLife or they knew of it etc. >> MetLife should, and likely will, look into it. Demutualization: basically sharing the value of the insurance entity with its owners, the policyholders. Regulators -- want to ensure solvency Owners/policyholders -- want a fair and equitable distribution of the value of their policy(ies). One method of doing so is to look at the reserve (the funds held by the insurance company as they value they deem a policy to be worth), so what is the problem with an equitable distribution? Couple of items of judgment are needed - a single premium deferred annuity (a form of savings policy) has a higher value in the early years after purchase than a 'comparable' life insurance policy, especially the younger one is at the the time of purchase. So, a broadbrush average, typically, would be used for the class of deferred annuities vs. life insurance. Another item of practical nature, is that insurance companies use a set of tables to determine each person's expectancy for the risk being covered, rather than tailoring it very specifically down to each policyholder. At time of issue, though, some of the policyholder specific items are taken into account, but over time, this initial information becomes less useful since many things could happen between when the policy was purchased and when the demutualization is to occur. To prevent anyone from obtaining shares on the potentially very cheap (ie., buying an insurance policy today in order to get shares), a cutoff date is determined ie. policyholders of a certain date are eligible, thereafter not. Sort of like a record date for a dividend or stock split, etc. The items are more micro than macro, but I thought I'd share something you may find interesting.