Current Page: 2 of 4
Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: ChrisC (IP Logged)
Date: 30 March, 2020 17:50

The AGM where the dividend was agreed was on 6th February so yes before this pandemic became such and having been proposed and voted upon it has to be paid.

The first domestic transmission of the disease (someone who hadn't traveled abroad) was reported at the end of February.

It's the way it works - nothing to do with the government, greed, corporate conspiracy just the system working as it should.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Brownian Motion (IP Logged)
Date: 30 March, 2020 18:24

No, not as it should - as it does. It should have more flexibility to react to changing circumstances and, generally, hold itself to a far higher standard of ethics.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: ChrisC (IP Logged)
Date: 30 March, 2020 18:57

It's a matter of long standing company law so until the law's changed that's how (according to the law) the system should work.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: RushdenTiger (KT at work) (IP Logged)
Date: 30 March, 2020 22:21

It's like things are done. And like things change. And someone says why did you do the first thing?And the answer is 'well I didn't know about the second thing when I did the first thing'. And everyone says 'that's a bad thing you did initially' even though you didn't know about the second thing.

Still everyone know best.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Fat Boy (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 07:40

I'll have to double down on my research before commenting then.

I don't quite buy this not being forseeable in early Feb. I've sat through company risk assessments considering threats like this. I'd be gobsmacked if a travel company wasn't keeping a close eye on something that had already been declared a global health emergency of international concern by WHO. I appreciate that there were no travel restrictions planned at that point, but the odds of them being required later in the year will have been dramatically higher than is typically the case.

However, it's all academic though if they aren't asking for state aid, and have managed their finances anyway! Looking up the details they want commercial rate loans rather than a bailout as such - so if they can manage that then so be it. Presumably the hit for share holders will be in the next year or two as loans are repaid and dividends reduce and/or share values drop.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Yorkie (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 08:12

If it is like the banks (certainly RBS), any "bailout" will actually be a government investment as shares are bought. Shares, and the sale of them, is basically another way of raising capital for a business to use. So, like with RBS, unless the company goes bust (and the objective is to stop this), the government will benefit from future share dividends and any rise in share price. (They might lose some of their "investment" if the share price drops.)

In all of this, there are going to be winners and losers. Individuals and companies. Some people are having to work (NHS staff under very difficult conditions) whilst others are sat at home getting most of their pay but not spending their commuting and other costs. Some folk are unable to work and getting no government support/income replacement at all but will be contributing to pay all these grants back when it all gets back to normal. So a double whammy for them! And why should someone who is prudent with their money and saves rather than smoking 60 a day and drinking 10 pints and night get no benefits whilst the latter will get loads. Same with people who only have the number of children they believe they can support (and when they are able to support them) whereas others don't seem to know what contraception is! Everyone and every situation is individual and different of course but the general principals stand.



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Stopsy (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 10:22

My issue with the bank analogy RBS above is that the government bailed it out and as soon as it looks like making obscene profits again, wishes to sell to the private sector, why not keep it as an investment and pay back for the tax payer?

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Tiggs (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 10:37

I suppose that any profit that they make from the sale goes back to the Treasury, and then any future investment risk is negated as well ?



http://v4admin.sportnetwork.net/upload/103/103_0_1529059667.jpg

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: ChrisC (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 10:38

Probably because investments and returns can go up or down.

It's a choice whether you capitalise (I know capatalism is a dirty word on here in some quarters but it pays my pensions) on any positive market sentiment and crystalise any profit available from your original investment or take the risk on future returns which as say can vary and the future's full of unknowns (like pandemics for example)

Whatever the government (or anybody else for that matter) does the future may condemn their choice. At least with crystalisation (sic) you have certainty.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Rich W (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 11:21

Quote:
Fat Boy
I'll have to double down on my research before commenting then.
I don't quite buy this not being forseeable in early Feb. I've sat through company risk assessments considering threats like this. I'd be gobsmacked if a travel company wasn't keeping a close eye on something that had already been declared a global health emergency of international concern by WHO. I appreciate that there were no travel restrictions planned at that point, but the odds of them being required later in the year will have been dramatically higher than is typically the case.

However, it's all academic though if they aren't asking for state aid, and have managed their finances anyway! Looking up the details they want commercial rate loans rather than a bailout as such - so if they can manage that then so be it. Presumably the hit for share holders will be in the next year or two as loans are repaid and dividends reduce and/or share values drop.

We did some work on impacts of a global flu pandemic over 10 years ago. There is no way that this wasn't built in to their risk modelling.



...

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: ChrisC (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 11:28

Quote:
RichW
Quote:
Brownian Motion
All whilst he's refusing to pay both staff and suppliers.

Exactly. And now you begin to understand the drivers for his Brexit 'principles'.

I must admit that I hadn't picked up the principles that UK company law, employment law and the law of contract would come to an end after we left!(Sm100)

Wow!!

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Rich W (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 11:30

Now, now Chris - it's not like you to wilfully miss a point.



...

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: ChrisC (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 11:31

Quote:
RichW
We did some work on impacts of a global flu pandemic over 10 years ago. There is no way that this wasn't built in to their risk modelling.

That's interesting do you recall which previous pandemic was used as a reference?

Certainly not the Flue pandemic of 1968 I guess.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Rich W (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 11:47

1957, 1968 and SARS - with the latter being the trigger for our process. We were only looking at Business Continuity rather than wider impacts but if our little team identified it - and I know the wider community right accross business sector; and reprting to the top of Government, was aware of it and planning for it. I went to a conference in the first year of the Coalition Government with a ministerial key speaker on the subject.

I just refuse to believe that the Insurance Industry, whose business is based on the understanding of potential risk, haven't quantified these risks.



...

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: RushdenTiger (KT at work) (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 12:36

They probably had a go at quantifying and worked out it was trillions and trillions and therefore uninsurable.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Brownian Motion (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 12:41

If that's the case, policies would specifically exclude pandemic instances - they don't.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: RushdenTiger (KT at work) (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 14:02

Perhaps it's what's in your policy that's more important than what isn't. Just because it isn't excluded doesn't necessarily mean it's included.

And by the way I'm as pussed off as anyone re claiming on my business interruption policy.

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Yorkie (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 15:19

Some local authorities self insure as they believe that it is cheaper to, say, rebuild a burnt down school than pay the insurance premium demanded.

And big businesses like Currys buy in goods to sell on the basis that there is no manufacturer warrenty, choosing to provide it themselves as they believe this to be the cheaper option.

Going back to RBS, I believe that the government is receiving far more for any sold share than they paid for it.

The cover provided by any insurance policy is usually directly connected to its cost/premium. Having just renewed my house and contents insurance, when you start digging and comparing policies, there are wide differences in the level of cover, excesses applied, what is covered and what's excluded. The cheaper ones often have far more restrictions and exclusions. And they'll often be the ones who wriggle rather than payout. A great "value" v "cost" predicament.



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Stopsy (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 17:47

Understand the price differential in RBS share buy/sell costs but why not use that share holding as a profit generator for the nation rather than return it to the private sector . Give 10 people 1,000 generates more good in my opinion than giving 1 person 10,000

Re: o/t Insurers duck and dive!
Posted by: Yorkie (IP Logged)
Date: 31 March, 2020 17:59

What Tiggs and Chris said.

The RBS shares have "generated" their profit which once realised can be reallocated/redistributed. In 1,000 lots if you wish.



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg

Current Page: 2 of 4
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net