Analyst estimates for an insurance company
Something to consider is how broad is Yahoo! Finance taking in their data for making some comparisons.  For example, did you look at the other companies in the same industry?  On the Industry page, the Top Life Insurance Companies by Market Cap are mostly British companies which could make things a bit different than you'd think. Another point is how this is just for one quarter which may be an anomaly as the data could get a bit awkward if some companies are just coming back to being profitable and could have what appears to be great growth but this is because their earnings grow from $.01/share to $1/share which is a growth of $10,000 percent as this is an increase of 100 times but really this may just be from various accounting charges the company had that hit its reserves and caused its earnings to dip temporarily.
"&gt; Let's just say the insurance industry knows a lot more about underwriting than you do.  I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless statement. I work in insurance (first as a consultant, before 'retiring' to work in insurance distribution a few years ago), and I know that our industry frequently uses flawed or outdated methodologies due to the simple fact that insurance companies are very conservative and *very* resistant to change when it comes to changes to their core business. Unless you can show a direct, negative impact on the bottom line caused by the currently used method, you are unlikely to make any changes at all. In this case, if the entire US car insurance industry is using the same flawed system, it won't affect a single company if they also stick to it.   Until 1996, before the current system was introduced, insurance companies in Germany used to rate liability insurance for cars (almost) exclusively by engine power output. The industry had known that this method was fundamentally flawed since at least the late 1980s (comprehensive and partial coverage had been rated by the 'new' system for a few years at this point, which had also taken years to work out), but it took additional years of planning, negotiations and cooperation by the entire industry to change to the new system for liability.   So please, do not ever assume that ""the insurance companies are the experts, they know what they are doing!"". It might very well be the case that they are stuck with flawed/outdated systems simply because there is no sufficiently strong impulse to change what they do.   The current Tesla rate adjustment situation is a wonderful example of this - it apparantly took AAA *5 years* since the Model S first came out to realise that their initial estimate was wrong (it seems unlikely that the accident rate or repair costs have suddenly changed over the last year) and take appropriate actions. By late 2013, there were easily enough Teslas on the road (about 20,000) to get realiable data, yet nothing happened for nearly another 4 years." I'm responsible for all our hedging.  Since we sell the energy to end users we do mostly fixed buys, swaps and calls.  I'm a excel guru and dabble a little in SQL.  we have Crystal Ball as well but i have no idea how to use it.  I guess I'm trying to figure out if there is a tool that people use to help me analyze the spreads. or perhaps some reading material to help me through this. This is what i've been working towards for so long and i really don't want to fuck this up My company has a dashboard that basically does this. We select industries / companies we want to be notified of and we get an email in outlook when a new analyst note, research report, or SEC filing is posted on that industry or company. As somebody working in Equity research for one of the top ranked ER producing firms in NA, i'm a little surprised to see so many people down on sellside ER.  It absolutely has value, although it is not as directly tangible as somebody sitting at a desk cold calling and closing sales. Every day we are sending out a huge amount of advisory information to our sales and trading guys, as well as our clients. Our MD and analysts are on the phone constantly with guys on the other end looking to make decisions and wanting clarification.  My group in particular works in a sector where differentiating between a huge number or relatively similar firms that all require incredibly high capital investments is the name of the game, and as such finding ER analysts who can really pick out the important subtle details is very important for identifying real value.  I'll agree that being able to sell is important, but that's always something you have to be good at no matter what it is you're doing. Even in interviews with a hospital you have to sell yourself.  This got a bit long but is SS ER dying? Absolutely not. Is there going to be a concentrating focus on a smaller number of quality analysts? Possibly.  I'm a junior guy, so who knows where this industry is going. All I know is that compared to my friends in entry level roles in S&amp;T and IB, the technical knowledge i'm picking up with regards to my sector is leaps and bounds ahead of them and will give me a great deal of optionality going into the future as to where I want to take my career.  I really like being in ER, and i respect the people I'm lucky enough to work with and I don't think that the guys who really know how to pick the winners are going anywhere. "I am doing an assignment for a finance class, and I am writing a recommendation for a specific capital structure. One of the concerns brought up by the ""board of directors"" was interest coverage, so in my addressing that topic in my report, I want to compare to competitors. The interest coverage ratio under this capital structure that I'm choosing is 11.8 and the two competitors we are given information on are Company A (who has an interest coverage ratio of 6.67) and Company B (who has an interest coverage ratio of 11.25). It seems good, but my concern is that I may be missing something, as Company A is similar in size (in terms of sales) to the company I am writing a report for while Company B has ~50 times more sales than the company I am writing a report for.   Advice, things to consider as I move forward?" This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price.  Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts. To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings. "Insurance companies on average make money by selling insurance, which   means you lose money on average by dealing with them. The insurance is not gambling where the house always wins. This expression is literal in gambling, because that's how they set the odds. Insurance isn't necessarily similar. Example. Suppose there's 10% chance that $10,000 the boat sinks due to a defect. So, on average your loss is going to be $1,000. The variability of your loss measured as its standard deviation is $2,846. The variability of loss is a measure of risk. Now, let's look at two $10,000 boats. There's 1% chance that they both sink, and 18% chance that only one of them sinks. So, the expected loss is, unsurprisingly, $2,000. However, the variability of expected loss is $3,842, not quite twice the risk (variability) of a single boat accident. If you imagine that instead of a couple of boats the insurance has 100 boats, the variability of their loss (hence their risk) will increase only by a factor of 10, not 100 compared to a single boat. This means that their risk in relative terms is smaller than yours, the individual insurer's.  What I tried to show was that it is possible to both of you and the insurer to benefit from the arrangement. It doesn't mean that it happens in every case, but generally it does. That's why in actuarial science there's a term fair price. UPDATE I was trying to avoid talking about utility here, because it's an involved subject, but you're dragging the discussion in this direction :) You're right that expected value cannot explain the insurance. The reason is that there's another concept that's necessary in addition to the objective measures such as expected value and risk: I mean the utility function or risk-aversion. So, in short you need to maximize expected utility, not the expected payout. Here's a toy example with the same boat. Assume that insurance is $150, and they pay the entire boat's value in case of accident, i.e. $10,000. You're given two choices effectively. At the end of the year, you have either of the following: You're right that the expected value in the second option can be higher in the second option. Let's say the probability of the loss is 10%, in this case the expected value would $9,900, which is higher than certain value of option 1. Why then some people choose option 2? The reason is that we don't maximize the expected payout, but we maximize the utility, according to modern microeconomics and game theory.  Utility is some kind of an function that reflects your preference given the uncertain choices. Every person has their own preferences, and utility function.  Let's say that yours is exponential with a=10000. In this case we can calculate the expected utility as follows: The math works out in such a way that it accounts for your risk tolerance. Depending on how much you love or hate risk, your expected utilities for these option will come out differently. For this given toy example it turned out that the expected utility is higher with insurance, so this person should get it. However, for different values of a parameter ""a"" in the function, it may not make a sense to insure. Some people are risk averse, some are risk lovers in certain situations. That's the reason why given the same options we make different choices. You may say that you don't value certainty enough to buy this insurance. The bottom line is that nobody can tell you that you're wrong to not buy an insurance. If your risk tolerance is high it may not make a sense for you. Having said this all, I must note that sometimes the society doesn't accept your preferences and utility function. Yes, you tell me today that you accept the risk, but tomorrow when the boat sinks you may come to me and say that you can't pay the student loan because of the hardship. That's the reason why it's mandatory to get liability insurance on cars, for instance." "Probably not, though there are a few things to be said for understanding what you are doing here.  Primerica acts as an independent financial services firm and thus has various partners that specialize in various financial instruments and thus there may exist other firms that Primerica doesn't use that could offer better products.  Now, how much do you want to value your time as it could take more than a few months to go through every possible insurance firm and broker to see what rate you could get for the specific insurance you want.  There is also the question of what constitutes best here.  Is it paying the minimal premiums before getting a payout?  That would be my interpretation though this requires some amazing guesswork to know when to start paying a policy to pay out so quickly that the insurance company takes a major loss on the policy. Similarly, there are thousands of mutual funds out there and it is incredibly difficult to determine which ones would be best for your situation.  How much risk do you want to take?  How often do you plan to add to it?  What kind of accounts are you using for these investments, e.g. IRAs or just regular taxable accounts?  Do tax implications of the investments matter? Thus, I'd likely want to suggest you consider this question: How much trust do you have that this company will work well for you in handling the duty of managing your investments and insurance needs?  If you trust them, then buy what they suggest.  If you don't, then buy somewhere else but be careful about what kind of price are you prepared to pay to find the mythical ""best"" as those usually only become clear in hindsight. When it comes to trusting a company in case, there are more than a few factors I'd likely use: Questions - How well do they answer your questions or concerns from your perspective?  Do you feel that these are being treated with respect or do you get the feeling they want to say, ""What the heck are you thinking for asking that?"" in a kind of conceited perspective. Structure of meeting - Do you like to have an agenda and things all planned out or are you more of the spontaneous, ""We'll figure it out"" kind of person?  This is about how well do they know you and set things up to suit you well. Tone of talk - Do you feel valued in having these conversations and working through various exercises with the representative?  This is kind of like 1 though it would include requests they have for you. Employee turnover - How long has this person been with Primerica?  Do they generally lose people frequently?  Are you OK with your file being passed around like a hot potato?  Not that it necessarily will but just consider the possibility here. Reputation can be a factor though I'd not really use it much as some people can find those bad apples that aren't there anymore and so it isn't an issue now.  In some ways you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you.  There are more than a few companies that want to get a piece of what you'll invest, buy, and use when it comes to financial products so it may be a good idea to shop around a little." "Let me start with a somewhat sarcastic statement: There are probably as many things done to analyze a stock as there are people doing the analysis! That said, at a general level an analyst researches the historical performance of the company at a fairly detailed level (operations within divisions of the company, product development cycles within divisions, expenses vs income trends for each division and product, marketing costs, customer acquisition costs, etc); gathers information about what the company is doing now AND planning to do in the future -- often by a discussion with principles at the company; establishes a view on related macro-economic trends, sector and industry trends, demographic trends, etc.; and combines it all to forecast a change in revenues, margins, free cash flow, dividends, etc. over a period of time.   They then apply statistics that relate those numbers to stock price in order to imply stock prices and price ranges over those same periods.  Finally, depending on how those stock prices compare to the current stock price, they'll classify the stock as Buy, Sell, Hold, etc. This sounds like alot of work.   And it generally is if you get detailed about it, which is what professionals or significant money managers are doing.   However, there are also lots of arm-chair analysts posting their output on any number of financial sites (Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool, etc.) if you'd like to really explore the range of detail some people consider as a ""stock analysis"".  That sounds more negative than I intended it to be, so let me clarify that I think some of these write-ups are really quite good IMO." "Thanks for the response.   I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc.  Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info?  filtering out the ""recent equity issuance or M&amp;A activity exceeding 10% of total assets"" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&amp;A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged" "If the time horizon is not indicated, this is just a ""fair price"". The price of the stock, which corresponds with the fair value of the whole company. The value, which the whole business is worth, taking into consideration its net income, current bonds yield, level of risk of the business, perspective of the business etc.. The analyst thinks the price will sooner or later hit the target level (if the price is high, investors will exit stocks, if the price is cheap, investors will jump in), but no one knows, how much time will it take." Theres obviously a ton of licensing/certifications that go into an insurance company. I'm wondering anyone has experience with a start up or small insurance company and can speak to the pros and cons of it.   More specifically, is there a certain rule about how much money should be set aside as float assuming a policy limit of 10 million? I'd imagine it depends on the type of coverage to a large degree.   Just beginning to start the process of researching this based on an unexpected bit of news/opportunity. Thanks. So the MS analyst wasn't acting independently of MS's role as underwriter when he revised his earnings estimates?   MS is a big place.  I guess I just assumed that someone could be on one end saying something, with other parts of the company blissfully unaware.  All without a conspiracy to commit fraud.  Good to know.   Perhaps you can point - for those of us ignorant in finance - to the rules or laws that were broken here. My dad runs an AV labor company (trade show setups etc) and his insurance company called him as they were finalizing his workers comp. They asked when he was submitting all of his employees drug screenings. My dad laughed at them and said he would not be submitting any. They told him his premium would be higher to which my dad replied that if he drug tested, he would have 4 people working for him and thus wouldn't even have a business - just send the bill.