Guitarsolo
04 Sep 2017
Re: FCA probe? As always, there is a lot of information in the results (does anyone actually make it to the end?).There are comments on another thread but, with regard to the FCA probe, I did note this excerpt of the results:"The investigation into how Countrywide Assured disclosed exit fees to customers, initially announced on 3 March 2016, is ongoing. We have provided the FCA with all information requested. Discussions are ongoing and given the narrow scope of the investigation we retain our opinion that the outcome from the investigation should not have a material impact on the company."So CSN's management seem quite relaxed about the situation - at least if the scope remains "narrow" as it currently is. I presume this means a focus on disclosure of exit fees, but perhaps there is something in a wider context that could be harmful. But unless anything like that were to happen (and don't put all your eggs in one basket) I am not too worried about this. Guitarsolo
forddrive
01 Sep 2017
Re: H1 results I agree. This company is well run. We have a large holding, and add on any weakness.
methilman
31 Aug 2017
H1 results A strong set of results. I think they could have been more generous on the dividend front, if only for my dear Mother's sake. Good response on the sp front, but on relatively low volume. Definitely one to hold and forget.Mm.
Bowman
24 Jun 2017
Re: FCA probe? GS,I did a Google search on "FCA probe into the potential mis-selling of life insurance products". Only one of the hits on the initial page was dated 2017. This was a Reuters report on a statement released by the rating agency Fitch, as follows."LONDON, March 27. Mis-selling provisions booked by three UK life insurers show regulatory scrutiny of firms' historical conduct remains a threat to profitability and support our negative sector outlook, Fitch Ratings says. The high levels of capitalisation across the market should allow UK insurers to absorb compensation costs and fines without any major effect on their credit profiles. However, significant negative press coverage of future findings could lead to reputational damage and the risk of loss of business for affected insurers. Recent Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) proposals to establish an annuity comparator tool and increase the information provided to customers will, once implemented, reduce insurers' exposure to annuity mis-selling investigations. But the regulator is likely to increase its focus on other business areas, such as the level of fees charged on savings products. In their 2016 annual results, Prudential and Standard Life announced that they had each set aside provisions of GBP175 million related to the potential mis-selling of annuities. This followed an FCA investigation into whether customers purchasing standard annuities were given sufficient information about their potential eligibility for an enhanced annuity. Similarly, Phoenix announced a GBP25 million provision covering both the annuity sales review and another FCA thematic review into the fees charged to long-standing customers in the life insurance sector, affecting Abbey Life business acquired from Deutsche Bank. Old Mutual has also stated that it is working with the FCA on its review of the treatment of long-standing customers. However, it has not made any explicit provision for any related costs. The impact varies significantly across the affected companies, being more costly for Standard Life where the provision represents 24% of 2016 operating profits, compared to 4% for Prudential and 7% for Phoenix. However, the impact on capital is limited, with provisions being around 3% of Solvency II own funds for Standard Life and less than 1% for Prudential and Phoenix. Moreover, both Prudential and Standard Life have indicated that they may ultimately be able to recoup some of the costs from reinsurance recoveries and Phoenix has stated that it has an indemnity agreement with Deutsche Bank, which will cover up to GBP175 million of costs related to the FCA's review. These arrangements could significantly reduce the ultimate financial impact on the firms. We previously estimated that compensation costs across the UK life insurance industry as a result of the annuity sales review could be in the region of GBP500 million. Given the reported provisions, this estimate remains appropriate. The FCA has not made public a list of the companies that it has instructed to investigate potential mis-selling of annuities, but the absence of disclosures by other major UK life insurers in their 2016 results suggests any impact of the review on other firms may be small. In addition to the investigations into annuity sales and fees on long-standing customers, the FCA is also currently conducting reviews into retirement outcomes and the effectiveness of independent governance committees for workplace pension schemes. The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority has also announced an EU-wide investigation into conduct in the unit-linked life insurance market. All of these reviews could further affect UK life insurers."So it seems that investigations are continuing, but the impact currently appears minimal.
Guitarsolo
23 Jun 2017
FCA probe? It's been 15 months now since the FCA launched its probe into the potential mis-selling of life insurance products. Have I missed any updates or conclusions? Has anyone been tracking it and able to give an update. The share price suggests that there has either been no development or a positive development since it is 30% higher than March 2016. These things will take a long time I appreciate. But surely the FCA should provide some sort of update so that shareholders and potential shareholders are informed?Guitarsolo
strapuk
08 Jun 2017
Re: drop Well I've done the former - any help in doing the latter would be greatly appreciated!! Holder since Q1 2011 (av 255p) and not bothered by SP. Divd on cost of 7.65% in an ISA is what's keeping me smiling! Long may it continue.
budu
08 Jun 2017
Re: drop It has usually been very volatile but always bounces back, in my 8 years' experience of it. It iseems pretty safe, unless people stop buying life assurance and stop dying.
indibay
08 Jun 2017
drop the price for this share is getting pretty messy of late
strapuk
22 Jan 2017
Re: not 3.8% not 9%, but 28% I was thinking just the same myself. Anyway, nothing clawed back, so personally I'm happy enough - esp at share price in the mid-350's.
S17
24 Dec 2016
Re: not 3.8% not 9%, but 28% Clarity at last from HL. I've got 10.4779% of the excess shares I applied for. Seems to have been a bit of a lottery depending on broker used, but certificated shareholders must have lost out if they only got 3.8%.
Medway Man
22 Dec 2016
Re: not 3.8% not 9%, but 28% My wife and I use different brokers........both are saying similar "that they are awaiting refunds from Chesnara on scaled back applications"...... so don't hold your breath for 23rd!
S17
21 Dec 2016
Re: not 3.8% not 9%, but 28% All excess monies will be returned by 23rd, so we haven't long to wait - or have we? That depends on the post if holding in certificated form, or our nominees if held electronically. Getting an answer before Christmas may be possible, but it looks a bit tight.
yeehar
21 Dec 2016
Re: not 3.8% not 9%, but 28% So, at the risk of :a) being wrong; and/orb) starting a conspiracy theorydoes that mean that if you *do* only get 3.8% through a nominee that either:a) all their customers did take up their basic entitlements; orb) the nominee is still struggling with the detail or...er... finding an alternative home for the "excess excess" shares?
PeterZmith
21 Dec 2016
Re: not 3.8% not 9%, but 28% There's seems a lot of confusion about excess allocation rates but I'm not sure it's that complicated. Anyone investing through a nominee is not on the share register and so the 3.8% rate does not apply to them. Their nominee will have applied for shares equal to the total applications of its customers and will have received 100% of the nominee's total holding and 3.8% of the excess. This means any customers applying for an excess will get more that 3.8%. In effect the basic entitlements of the customers who did not take them up are available to additionally meet the excesses of those who applied for them. The actual rate you get will depend on the level of basic applications not taken up by customers of your nominee and the level of excess applications for that nominee. So it will vary from nominee to nominee.
72_fastback
21 Dec 2016
Re: not 3.8% not 9%, but 28% I can trump all of you for a mix-up on this!I have got 530% of my entitlement and 84% of my excess application.Beat that!I have no idea what I will finally end up with though - presumably someone will attempt to clear the mess up at some point.
