|Bid||0.00 x 0|
|Ask||0.00 x 0|
|Day's Range||23.00 - 23.08|
|52 Week Range||18.40 - 23.90|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.39|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||29.21|
|Earnings Date||Aug 1, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.34 (5.75%)|
|1y Target Est||27.16|
(Bloomberg) -- High-yield investors in Europe are splitting from banks and law firms representing borrowers just months after setting up a lobby group alongside the broader trade body.The European Leveraged Finance Association is ending its formal affiliation with the Association for Financial Markets in Europe on July 1, according to a statement seen by Bloomberg News. The decision was mutual, Gary Simmons, managing director of AFME’s high-yield division, said in the statement.A majority of ELFA members voted to leave AFME last week because they want more independence to resist aggressive terms and weakening protections in Europe’s 145 billion-euro ($165 billion) leveraged-finance market, according to people familiar with the matter. AFME had tried to mend ties with dozens of investors that quit its high-yield division last year after the introduction of a 7,500 pound ($9,570) annual membership fee added to frustration with borrowers using a frothy junk-bond market to chip away at protections.Going Independent“It was essential for us to establish our organization within AFME as we were building from scratch,” said Sabrina Fox, executive adviser at ELFA. “By going independent, we’re now able to pursue goals that are unique to us, and we feel it will help us work more effectively on implementing some of our own strategies to further our agenda.”Fox and a representative for AFME declined to comment on the investor vote.“The high-yield investor community is an important part of the European high-yield industry and we value its contribution to maintaining a healthy and viable market,” AFME’s Simmons said.ELFA’s members have almost doubled in size since March, with Oak Hill Advisors and Invesco Ltd. among recent additions, according to a person familiar with the matter, who isn’t authorized to talk about it. The 20 asset managers in the group also include Janus Henderson Investors, AXA Investment Managers and JPMorgan Asset Management.The group recently pushed back against issuers’ reluctance to provide the full picture of their finances and increased pressure on private companies to make their earnings public.“We want to be fully independent because we’re representing a different constituency of the market,” said Tatjana Greil Castro, a portfolio manager at Muzinich & Co Ltd. and an ELFA member. “AFME is more of a sell-side organization and they’re representing their constituency. We’re still fully expecting to collaborate in the future.”To contact the reporters on this story: Laura Benitez in London at firstname.lastname@example.org;Katie Linsell in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sarah Husband at firstname.lastname@example.org, ;Vivianne Rodrigues at email@example.com, Abigail MosesFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
LONDON/NEW YORK, June 24 (Reuters) - Rivals to Lloyd's of London are riding a rising tide of marine insurance rates, leaving the 330-year-old market behind after it jettisoned sections of its oldest line of business last year. Premiums for marine insurance, which until 2018 had fallen for years due to rising competition and lower claims, are increasing after a surge in catastrophe losses in the past two years and growing geopolitical tensions.. For Lloyd's, still reeling from two years of losses due to the heavy claims from natural disasters, it will still take 12-24 months before the segment returns to profit, Chief Executive John Neal told Reuters in New York last week.
(Bloomberg) -- Europe’s biggest insurers refuse to sell policies to coal miners and arms producers. A Dutch firm may go further by denying coverage to gambling companies and nuclear-power generators.The asset-management arm of ASR Nederland NV already has a list of 243 companies that it won’t invest in for ethical reasons. Now the Utrecht, Netherlands-based firm is considering applying that list to the insurance side as well, according to Chief Executive Officer Jos Baeten.“We are having an internal debate on whether we can still justify insuring those companies that are excluded from our investments based on our socially responsible investment policy,” Baeten said in an interview.That would put ASR, the second-largest general insurer in the Netherlands, ahead of the pack.Axa SA was the first big firm to stop insuring new coal-fired power plants back in 2017. By the end of 2018, Zurich Insurance Group AG, Munich Re, Swiss Re AG, Hannover Re and Allianz SE had all followed suit. These insurers also deny policies to producers of weapons banned by international agreements.‘Controversial Pipelines’NN Group NV, ASR’s larger Dutch rival, has restricted investment in tobacco companies and firms involved in oil sands and “controversial pipelines” from its investments, in addition to thermal coal and banned weapons producers. These restrictions also apply to its insurance business, according to spokesman Maurice Piek.ASR is now looking at broadening its exclusion list further to cover all armaments, gambling and nuclear power, a move that other firms could follow. Baeten said the ban would apply to new policies, and ASR will honor all of its existing contracts. The firm has already denied cover to several companies, he said, declining to identify them.National issues could prevent some insurers from following ASR in refusing policies to nuclear power producers, for example, according to Charles Graham, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.“Denying cover to nuclear power is a tricky one,” he said. “For Allianz to do so given the position of the German state may be not impossible; for Axa, given the importance of nuclear power in France, it’s probably a lot less likely.”‘Black Sheep’Other firms prefer to continue doing business with such companies to retain the leverage needed to push them to change.“It’s better to talk to the black sheep and try to engage with them,” said Chris Bonnet, head of environmental, social and governance business services at Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty. “We see such a high risk in coal, so it makes sense to exclude them. But in other sectors, it makes no sense to exclude.”Providing insurance to a company that your asset-management arm has refused to invest in is an obvious source of tension for underwriters.“We should not have one decision on underwriting and another on investment,” said Linda Freiner, global head of sustainability at Zurich. “The underwriting side is starting to wake up, but we are a little bit behind compared with the investment industry.”Baeten’s position is straightforward.“If you can’t explain yourself on the national news, you shouldn’t do it,’’ he said. “You should have the guts to make choices.”To contact the reporters on this story: Ruben Munsterman in Amsterdam at firstname.lastname@example.org;Will Hadfield in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Shelley Robinson at firstname.lastname@example.org, ;Joost Akkermans at email@example.com, Patrick HenryFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- A group of junk-bond managers who buy some of the riskiest debt sold on global capital markets, are pushing back against issuers’ reluctance to provide them with the full picture of their finances.Janus Henderson, Allianz Global Investors and JPMorgan Asset Management were among 20 asset managers who presented a list of questions on Monday to some of Europe’s largest bond underwriters that prospective issuers must answer on their finances. Failure to respond could prompt investors to charge more or even walk away altogether from bond sales.“We want them know in advance that investors will be asking these questions so management can be prepared,” said Sabrina Fox, executive adviser at the European Leveraged Finance Alliance that represents the investors.The questions focus on issuers’ plans for disclosing earnings, their levels of indebtedness and -- if they are private-equity owned -- whether they plan to make acquisitions, according to ELFA.“Investors must assume the worst when details are not disclosed,” said Clark Nicholls, a senior portfolio manager at AXA Investment Managers, which has $759 billion of assets and is a member of the ELFA group.“When you get borrowers being selective on the information they disclose, the market isn’t a public one anymore,” he said.The questionnaire is the first major coordinated step by ELFA since investors set it up this year to lead a fightback after a bond market boom reduced their bargaining power in the face of rapid borrowing by junk-rated companies. As European junk-bond yields fell toward a record below 3% in late 2017, issuers grew cagier about their financial disclosure.“When the market is overheated and frothy, we see borrowers pushing more and more and things can become less disciplined,” said Andrew Jackson, head of fixed income at Hermes Investment Management.But the boom started to falter in 2018, providing asset managers with an opportunity to be more assertive with corporate bond issuers. ELFA published a survey last month showing that private companies are facing greater pressure from bondholders to make their earnings public.Read more: Junk-Bond Investors Push Back on Private Company Restrictions“Investors will increasingly differentiate between those with better disclosure and governance,” said Mark Wade, head of industrials and utilities research at Allianz GI, which manages over $30 billion.“Disclosure and governance are key variables in relative value analysis and companies that seek significant latitude in reporting and covenants may need to be prepared to pay higher funding costs."(Updatees to add investor quote in eighth paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Benitez in London at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Vivianne Rodrigues at email@example.com, Chris VellacottFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
“It’s just a mindless bond market rally -- once it gets going, it gets going,” the chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank said in a recent interview with Bloomberg TV. It’s a counterpoint to the Wall Street adage that the smart money in bonds makes it the leading indicator for global markets. Treasury yields are falling at the fastest pace since the global financial crisis.
If you buy and hold a stock for many years, you'd hope to be making a profit. Better yet, you'd like to see the share...
French insurance firm AXA said on Tuesday it provided insurance coverage for two of the contracting firms that were working on Notre-Dame's restoration prior to the blaze that devastated the cathedral. Police have begun questioning the workers involved, the prosecutor's office has said. The French insurer also said it provided insurance coverage for some of the relics and religious artworks displayed in the cathedral.
French President Emmanuel Macron appointed legislator Amelie de Montchalin as new European affairs minister on Sunday to replace Nathalie Loiseau in a small, expected cabinet reshuffle two months before the European elections. Loiseau quit her job on Wednesday to lead Macron's party for the European election campaign. The vote will be held in France and the other countries of the European Union in late May.
This is lamentable considering the shared purpose of the two kinds of retirement accounts: both are tax-qualified, each is a defined-contribution pension account and both are treated as retirement accounts for legal purposes.(1) The main distinction is that 401(k)s are governed by 26 U.S. Code § 401 and are covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known by its acronym Erisa. If it’s a for-profit corporation, partnership or limited-liability company, then the retirement plan is the 401(k). For many 403(b) account holders, the plan sponsor and the employer are two different entities.