Author Topic: PROTCT - Protector Forsikring  (Read 20213 times)

John Hjorth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1831
Re: PROTCT - Protector Forsikring
« Reply #60 on: September 07, 2018, 09:51:29 AM »
Got it. It still makes me ponder whether a cost advantage is worth anything if one can't run the business in a disciplined manor.

How do you figure out whether there is discipline ex ante without actually being in the business?

Analysis, bjakes00. A lot of it. Analysis by country & region, analysis by business line, and so on. It's well documented in the annual reports for prior years, when new activities, countries & regions and business lines has been started up. It has not "just" been trial and error method while expanding the business.
”In the race of excellence … there is no finish line.”
-HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai


alwaysinvert

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
    • värdeinvesteraren
Re: PROTCT - Protector Forsikring
« Reply #61 on: September 07, 2018, 10:18:02 AM »
How can we ascertain with some sense of certainty that they are actually going to be disciplined going forward? Growth is great but not without discipline as we all know.

I think you can take some solace in the fact that it is specific niches that are performing poorly - there is no sign of bad underwriting in Sweden for example, despite that being where most of the recent big growth has happened. So issues of over-aggressiveness, if they exist, don't seem to manifest across the board, which is a good sign.

In the end, insurance is a bit of a black box and a large part of it comes down to trusting the underwriter. I think Sverre is very good from following him and the company for over 5 years. But I could certainly be wrong on that and it's hard to convince other people of it. Recent results are certainly no help.

However, if profitability issues are of a sustained nature then the company probably made a very poor decision in the recent large buyback. That would be an inexplicable action if they really thought matters were worse than what they have communicated. So, the bear case that's left is them being very wrong/incompetent, but honestly so. And after following the company for a long time, that also seems highly unlikely to me.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2018, 10:20:37 AM by alwaysinvert »