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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jeffbas who wrote (10313)	4/10/2000 12:09:00 AM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78595

Exactly what you have described, jeffrey, equally spells opportunity for the person who can get the access and takes the time to study those liabilities. I suspect this is where Warren Buffet shone originally. Lots of study bears juicy fruit when investing in finance/insurance businesses. Uncertantly and the war stories increase perceived risk and so deflate the acquisition prices that great deals can be uncovered - if you can know what you are buying. I was once involved with buying a small P&C business - an investment that did very well. peter

To: jeffbas who wrote (10313)	4/10/2000 5:26:00 AM
From: Madharry	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78595

excellent point. doesn't take much for one's assets to shrink by 3%.

To: jeffbas who wrote (10313)	4/10/2000 9:00:00 PM
From: Joan Osland Graffius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78595

jeffrey, >> I have a bias against investing in a bank or an insurance company I am looking at some of the financial institutions as puts these days. Do you have a feel for the risk of the derivatives that are carried at some of our large banks like JPM and CMB. TIA, Joan

To: jeffbas who wrote (10313)	4/10/2000 11:28:00 PM
From: QuietWon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78595

jeff,peter,joan,armin - u may have seen my posts on Anthony@Pacific about Conseco, CNC, and a few of the facts & best guesses as to the situation at/with CNC. 1. Disagree with bank/ins co reason for not investing since: (a) assets are not the only item to consider (b) u can chk into the assets by reading the NAIC statement blank, AM Best, S&P, etc publications (c) u go long in a co b/c of the overall situation - most times there are both +ve & -ve factors 2. Failures of ins co's such as Mutual Benefit, Executive Life, Confederation Life, were due to a large extent LIQUIDITY crises. This takes into account both assets and liabilities. The Liabilities and Assets were not well "matched". Aggressive real estate investing is not necessarily a bad thing, but when there is a heavy concentration of it in a particular area, a particular type, etc, that can be a contributing factor. On the liability side, these companies got into trouble with the GICs and other "spread" savings products (ie short term liabilities) they sold. These products have an implicit put option for the buyer (buyer of insurance product can cancel at any time) and there may be few or no risk mitigating product features such as MVA's and surrender charges. To the extent these products were sold by brokers (vs career agents aka company emplyees) the cancellation risk could be more significant. Add it all up, if a customer wants their money the ins. co may need to sell assets prematurely and if those assets are longer in term/duration than the liabilities together with rising interest rates, the ins co will take a capital loss. If there is any hint of financial trouble, you can bet more of the ins. product customers will want their money. Institutional investors are typically first to request/put the ins contract back to the ins co. This could create a "run on the bank". So, why didn't the ins co's just buy some shorter term assets? B/c the yield curve was "normal" shaped (yields for shorter term assets were smaller than for longer term assets) for most of the period, the market was very competitive and margins were shrinking so the only way to achieve profit goals and meet market demand for higher rates for customers was to invest in higher yielding assets. 3. Good point on good will 4. CNC also has arrangements with potential investors whereby funds were lent out and having a strike price near "$20" and a penalty CNC was to pay if price below "$20". Guess what, price was below $20 in Dec. 5. Anyone rem PennCorp, which tried to be a CNC and grow by acquisition. PFE made acquisitions but the businesses were (in hindsight) underevaluated, requiring reserve increases, and not integrated that well ie less synergy, and admin systems were poor, likely not noticing the underreserved problem for some time. 6. CNC had been known as a good acquirer until the mobile home financing co purchase. Admin systems likely better than PennCorp situation. Prudent investment? Don't let me start ...