Santander to Rename its UK Banking Brands
The Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley are to be scrapped.
Spanish banking giant Santander is to rebrand all of its major UK High Street brands - Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley.
A total of 1,300 branches will have their names changed to Santander by the end of 2010, in a £12m move.
Any customer of Abbey, Alliance & Leicester or Bradford & Bingley savings will be able to carry out transactions in any of Santander's UK branches.
But one analyst told the BBC the move could be risky.
Santander is the second-biggest banking group in the world after HSBC.
It said it hoped to save about £180m by integrating the three businesses, and that the overhaul reflected the group's policy to operate under a single brand - which is already found in more than 40 countries.
Santander has already incorporated its flame logo into the Abbey branding, and it said that customer feedback suggested its brand would be welcomed in the UK.
"Customers trust us as a global brand and they feel very safe about their savings," said António Horta-Osório, chief executive of Santander's UK businesses.
"It's important for customers who travel around the UK to have 1,300 branches to transact with - and they will have the same product and the same people facing them in the branches."
The move would also allow the UK business to use the "expertise and product developments from Santander's global business," he added.
The first name changes will begin in June, with Abbey credit cards being rebranded, while the renaming of branches will begin next year, with Abbey and B&B first to be overhauled.
However despite the savings it anticipates making, banking analyst Leigh Goodwin said that the policy was a risk and, in his view, a mistake.
"Abbey has good value as a trusted brand in the mortgage and savings arena," he said.
"Staff will be upset and there will be a potential loss of customers."
Santander gained a foothold in the UK banking market in 2004 after buying Abbey for about £8bn, in Europe's biggest cross-border bank takeover.
The deal offered Santander control of Britain's second-largest mortgage lender, with 741 branches and 18 million customers.
The Spanish bank saw further expansion opportunities in 2008, as some UK banks were severely threatened by the global financial crisis.
It bought Alliance & Leicester in a £1.3bn deal aimed at reducing funding pressures on the UK bank and strengthening Santander's local business.
In September, the UK's biggest lender to landlords, Bradford & Bingley, was taken over by the government after the credit crisis had shut off its funding.
Santander stepped in and paid £612m to take control of 197 Bradford & Bingley branches and £20bn in deposits.
In December the group said it was cutting 1,900 jobs across the UK - but has said the rebranding will not lead to branch closures.
Bradford & Bingley still exists as an entity and is owned by the Treasury.
Santander's specialist brands, including the internet bank Cahoot, will retain their identities.
UK banks owned by Santander currently operate under two banking licences.
One covers Abbey, Bradford & Bingley and Cahoot. The other relates to Alliance & Leicester.
This means that savers are 100% covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for up to £50,000 across Abbey, B&B and Cahoot combined. In addition, they are also covered for up to a further £50,000 with A&L.
Santander says this will remain the case up until at least mid-2010, because Abbey and B&B are being rebranded first - meaning that A&L will still be running as a separate business under its own name and its own licence.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Amlin Acquires Fortis Corporate for €350m
Lloyds of London Insurer announced today that it had agreed to buy FCI from the Dutch Government.
Amlin plc (“Amlin” or the “Group”) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement to acquire Fortis Corporate Insurance N.V. (“FCI” or the “Company”), a leading provider of corporate property and casualty insurance in the Netherlands and Belgium, from the State of the Netherlands (the “Seller”) for €350 million (the “Acquisition”).
Amlin will also announce separately today a placing of 23,502,567 shares, representing approximately 5 per cent. of Amlin’s issued ordinary share capital, to institutional investors, in order to finance part of the consideration that is payable to the Seller (the “Placing”). The balance of the consideration will be funded from Amlin’s existing cash resources.
Key Acquisition highlights
1. Establishes a substantial Continental European platform, providing Amlin with immediate scale in a key strategic market and opportunities for future expansion
2. Positions Amlin as a leading provider of marine, liability and commercial property insurance in the Netherlands and Belgium
3. Expected to enhance earnings and return on equity (“ROE”) in 2009(1) and to contribute to Amlin’s cross cycle target ROE of at least 15%
4. Diversifies Amlin’s portfolio in terms of geography, customer base, business lines and distribution
5. Enhances Amlin’s overall business mix by increasing the proportion of commercial lines insurance
6. Introduces an experienced management team to lead further European growth
7. Increases the scale of the Group’s investment activities and presents scope for significant reinsurance synergies
8. Enlarged Group will retain capital strength and flexibility for further profitable expansion where market conditions are favourable
9. Shareholders’ approval will be sought at a general meeting
Information on FCI
FCI is a leading provider of corporate property and casualty insurance and risk management solutions in the Netherlands and Belgium. Headquartered in Amstelveen, the Netherlands, the Company also has offices in Rotterdam, Antwerp, Brussels and Paris. FCI is regulated by the Dutch Central Bank (the “DNB”) and is licensed to write most lines of non-life business across Europe with the exception of motor (only Belgium and the Netherlands) and credit insurance. Formerly part of the Fortis Group, FCI was created as a result of a merger in 1999 between Fortis-Industrial and Amev-Interlloyd. On 3 October 2008 the Dutch government became the 100% shareholder of FCI as part of the nationalisation of the Dutch entities of the Fortis Group.
Based on market estimates, FCI holds a strong competitive position. In the Netherlands, which represented 63% of gross written premiums (“GWP”) in 2008, FCI targets the co-insurance market. It is the market leader in Dutch marine insurance, and holds a top three position in liability and commercial property insurance. In Belgium, representing 36% of GWP, FCI is the market leader in marine and commercial property insurance and a top three provider of liability insurance.
Amlin plc (“Amlin” or the “Group”) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement to acquire Fortis Corporate Insurance N.V. (“FCI” or the “Company”), a leading provider of corporate property and casualty insurance in the Netherlands and Belgium, from the State of the Netherlands (the “Seller”) for €350 million (the “Acquisition”).
Amlin will also announce separately today a placing of 23,502,567 shares, representing approximately 5 per cent. of Amlin’s issued ordinary share capital, to institutional investors, in order to finance part of the consideration that is payable to the Seller (the “Placing”). The balance of the consideration will be funded from Amlin’s existing cash resources.
Key Acquisition highlights
1. Establishes a substantial Continental European platform, providing Amlin with immediate scale in a key strategic market and opportunities for future expansion
2. Positions Amlin as a leading provider of marine, liability and commercial property insurance in the Netherlands and Belgium
3. Expected to enhance earnings and return on equity (“ROE”) in 2009(1) and to contribute to Amlin’s cross cycle target ROE of at least 15%
4. Diversifies Amlin’s portfolio in terms of geography, customer base, business lines and distribution
5. Enhances Amlin’s overall business mix by increasing the proportion of commercial lines insurance
6. Introduces an experienced management team to lead further European growth
7. Increases the scale of the Group’s investment activities and presents scope for significant reinsurance synergies
8. Enlarged Group will retain capital strength and flexibility for further profitable expansion where market conditions are favourable
9. Shareholders’ approval will be sought at a general meeting
Information on FCI
FCI is a leading provider of corporate property and casualty insurance and risk management solutions in the Netherlands and Belgium. Headquartered in Amstelveen, the Netherlands, the Company also has offices in Rotterdam, Antwerp, Brussels and Paris. FCI is regulated by the Dutch Central Bank (the “DNB”) and is licensed to write most lines of non-life business across Europe with the exception of motor (only Belgium and the Netherlands) and credit insurance. Formerly part of the Fortis Group, FCI was created as a result of a merger in 1999 between Fortis-Industrial and Amev-Interlloyd. On 3 October 2008 the Dutch government became the 100% shareholder of FCI as part of the nationalisation of the Dutch entities of the Fortis Group.
Based on market estimates, FCI holds a strong competitive position. In the Netherlands, which represented 63% of gross written premiums (“GWP”) in 2008, FCI targets the co-insurance market. It is the market leader in Dutch marine insurance, and holds a top three position in liability and commercial property insurance. In Belgium, representing 36% of GWP, FCI is the market leader in marine and commercial property insurance and a top three provider of liability insurance.
Homeowners Insurance
We protect the roof over your head and everything under it, especially your sense of security.
State Farm® has been writing homeowners insurance for over 60 years. Today, we insure about 13.5 million homes.
We offer broad protection that you can trust, plus affordable rates, and outstanding service.
The State Farm Homeowners Insurance Policy offers protection for your dwelling, as well as your personal possessions and personal liability.
If something like fire makes your home uninhabitable, State Farm covers the increased costs of a place to live until you can move back in.
We can replace personal belongings at replacement value – not the depreciated value.
Homeowners insurance can help protect you in case of a liability lawsuit against you.
This could occur in a situation where you are held responsible for:
Injury to another person
Damage to another person’s property
This could apply whether the incident occurred within your residence or elsewhere.
State Farm® has been writing homeowners insurance for over 60 years. Today, we insure about 13.5 million homes.
We offer broad protection that you can trust, plus affordable rates, and outstanding service.
The State Farm Homeowners Insurance Policy offers protection for your dwelling, as well as your personal possessions and personal liability.
If something like fire makes your home uninhabitable, State Farm covers the increased costs of a place to live until you can move back in.
We can replace personal belongings at replacement value – not the depreciated value.
Homeowners insurance can help protect you in case of a liability lawsuit against you.
This could occur in a situation where you are held responsible for:
Injury to another person
Damage to another person’s property
This could apply whether the incident occurred within your residence or elsewhere.
Soft Top Drivers Ruining Hearing
Publication Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009
Motorists who drive their convertible with the top down could suffer from serious hearing problems, according to research.
A study from New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton found that the combined noise of the engine, wheels, air and traffic can reach a peak of 99 decibels and could cause serious hearing loss.
If the prospect of paying more for your car insurance wasn't bad enough, your hearing may also suffer significantly too.
Scientists have found that motorists driving a convertible at 50, 60 and 70mph were consistently exposed to between 88 and 90 decibels of noise.
Philip Michael, who led the research, said: "Long or repeated exposure to sounds over 85 decibels is widely recognised to cause permanent hearing loss."
One remedy for people unwilling to give up the joys of top-down motoring is keeping the car windows raised, said the researchers.
This could significantly reduce noise exposure levels to 82 decibels.
The research was presented at the 2009 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation annual meeting in San Diego, California.
Motorists who drive their convertible with the top down could suffer from serious hearing problems, according to research.
A study from New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton found that the combined noise of the engine, wheels, air and traffic can reach a peak of 99 decibels and could cause serious hearing loss.
If the prospect of paying more for your car insurance wasn't bad enough, your hearing may also suffer significantly too.
Scientists have found that motorists driving a convertible at 50, 60 and 70mph were consistently exposed to between 88 and 90 decibels of noise.
Philip Michael, who led the research, said: "Long or repeated exposure to sounds over 85 decibels is widely recognised to cause permanent hearing loss."
One remedy for people unwilling to give up the joys of top-down motoring is keeping the car windows raised, said the researchers.
This could significantly reduce noise exposure levels to 82 decibels.
The research was presented at the 2009 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation annual meeting in San Diego, California.
Car Theft Scheme Could Prompt Crime
Publication Date: Thursday, October 08, 2009
Police have been forced to rethink a scheme to protect car owners from having valuables stolen after drivers argued it was making their cars more vulnerable.
The initiative, introduced by Kent Police, saw officers attaching yellow bags containing leaflets on to cars which had valuables on display.
But car owners said the brightly-coloured bags were more likely to draw the attention of thieves to items that could be stolen.
Andrew Howard, spokesman for the AA, said: "Fundamentally we see all the reasons why the police are doing this, but they have got to be careful they don't advertise cars with valuable contents to people you don't want to alert or to potential thieves."
With gadgets like satnavs becoming more popular and advanced, it is increasingly important to ensure they are out of sight and the vehicle is protected by car insurance.
Chief Superintendent Mark Salisbury, Kent Police's area commander for West Kent, said the scheme was now being reviewed "because we do not want people to be fearful of becoming a victim of vehicle crime thinking this leaflet is in some way responsible."
He said: "They are designed to look like parking tickets so they don't advertise the fact that the vehicle is vulnerable." He added there had been a 20% reduction in thefts from vehicles during the first three months the leaflets were used.
Police have been forced to rethink a scheme to protect car owners from having valuables stolen after drivers argued it was making their cars more vulnerable.
The initiative, introduced by Kent Police, saw officers attaching yellow bags containing leaflets on to cars which had valuables on display.
But car owners said the brightly-coloured bags were more likely to draw the attention of thieves to items that could be stolen.
Andrew Howard, spokesman for the AA, said: "Fundamentally we see all the reasons why the police are doing this, but they have got to be careful they don't advertise cars with valuable contents to people you don't want to alert or to potential thieves."
With gadgets like satnavs becoming more popular and advanced, it is increasingly important to ensure they are out of sight and the vehicle is protected by car insurance.
Chief Superintendent Mark Salisbury, Kent Police's area commander for West Kent, said the scheme was now being reviewed "because we do not want people to be fearful of becoming a victim of vehicle crime thinking this leaflet is in some way responsible."
He said: "They are designed to look like parking tickets so they don't advertise the fact that the vehicle is vulnerable." He added there had been a 20% reduction in thefts from vehicles during the first three months the leaflets were used.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Principles of insurance
1. A large number of homogeneous exposure units. The vast majority of insurance policies are provided for individual members of very large classes. Automobile insurance, for example, covered about 175 million automobiles in the United States in 2004.[2] The existence of a large number of homogeneous exposure units allows insurers to benefit from the so-called “law of large numbers,” which in effect states that as the number of exposure units increases, proportionally the actual results are increasingly likely to become close to expected proportions. There are exceptions to this criterion. Lloyd's of London is famous for insuring the life or health of actors, actresses and sports figures. Satellite Launch insurance covers events that are infrequent. Large commercial property policies may insure exceptional properties for which there are no ‘homogeneous’ exposure units. Despite failing on this criterion, many exposures like these are generally considered to be insurable.
2. Definite Loss. The event that gives rise to the loss that is subject to the insured, at least in principle, take place at a known time, in a known place, and from a known cause. The classic example is death of an insured person on a life insurance policy. Fire, automobile accidents, and worker injuries may all easily meet this criterion. Other types of losses may only be definite in theory. Occupational disease, for instance, may involve prolonged exposure to injurious conditions where no specific time, place or cause is identifiable. Ideally, the time, place and cause of a loss should be clear enough that a reasonable person, with sufficient information, could objectively verify all three elements.
3. Accidental Loss. The event that constitutes the trigger of a claim should be fortuitous, or at least outside the control of the beneficiary of the insurance. The loss should be ‘pure,’ in the sense that it results from an event for which there is only the opportunity for cost. Events that contain speculative elements, such as ordinary business risks, are generally not considered insurable.
4. Large Loss. The size of the loss must be meaningful from the perspective of the insured. Insurance premiums need to cover both the expected cost of losses, plus the cost of issuing and administering the policy, adjusting losses, and supplying the capital needed to reasonably assure that the insurer will be able to pay claims. For small losses these latter costs may be several times the size of the expected cost of losses. There is little point in paying such costs unless the protection offered has real value to a buyer.
5. Affordable Premium. If the likelihood of an insured event is so high, or the cost of the event so large, that the resulting premium is large relative to the amount of protection offered, it is not likely that anyone will buy insurance, even if on offer. Further, as the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer. If there is no such chance of loss, the transaction may have the form of insurance, but not the substance. (See the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board standard number 113)
6. Calculable Loss. There are two elements that must be at least estimable, if not formally calculable: the probability of loss, and the attendant cost. Probability of loss is generally an empirical exercise, while cost has more to do with the ability of a reasonable person in possession of a copy of the insurance policy and a proof of loss associated with a claim presented under that policy to make a reasonably definite and objective evaluation of the amount of the loss recoverable as a result of the claim.
7. Limited risk of catastrophically large losses. The essential risk is often aggregation. If the same event can cause losses to numerous policyholders of the same insurer, the ability of that insurer to issue policies becomes constrained, not by factors surrounding the individual characteristics of a given policyholder, but by the factors surrounding the sum of all policyholders so exposed. Typically, insurers prefer to limit their exposure to a loss from a single event to some small portion of their capital base, on the order of 5 percent. Where the loss can be aggregated, or an individual policy could produce exceptionally large claims, the capital constraint will restrict an insurer's appetite for additional policyholders. The classic example is earthquake insurance, where the ability of an underwriter to issue a new policy depends on the number and size of the policies that it has already underwritten. Wind insurance in hurricane zones, particularly along coast lines, is another example of this phenomenon. In extreme cases, the aggregation can affect the entire industry, since the combined capital of insurers and reinsurers can be small compared to the needs of potential policyholders in areas exposed to aggregation risk. In commercial fire insurance it is possible to find single properties whose total exposed value is well in excess of any individual insurer’s capital constraint. Such properties are generally shared among several insurers, or are insured by a single insurer who syndicates the risk into the reinsurance market.
2. Definite Loss. The event that gives rise to the loss that is subject to the insured, at least in principle, take place at a known time, in a known place, and from a known cause. The classic example is death of an insured person on a life insurance policy. Fire, automobile accidents, and worker injuries may all easily meet this criterion. Other types of losses may only be definite in theory. Occupational disease, for instance, may involve prolonged exposure to injurious conditions where no specific time, place or cause is identifiable. Ideally, the time, place and cause of a loss should be clear enough that a reasonable person, with sufficient information, could objectively verify all three elements.
3. Accidental Loss. The event that constitutes the trigger of a claim should be fortuitous, or at least outside the control of the beneficiary of the insurance. The loss should be ‘pure,’ in the sense that it results from an event for which there is only the opportunity for cost. Events that contain speculative elements, such as ordinary business risks, are generally not considered insurable.
4. Large Loss. The size of the loss must be meaningful from the perspective of the insured. Insurance premiums need to cover both the expected cost of losses, plus the cost of issuing and administering the policy, adjusting losses, and supplying the capital needed to reasonably assure that the insurer will be able to pay claims. For small losses these latter costs may be several times the size of the expected cost of losses. There is little point in paying such costs unless the protection offered has real value to a buyer.
5. Affordable Premium. If the likelihood of an insured event is so high, or the cost of the event so large, that the resulting premium is large relative to the amount of protection offered, it is not likely that anyone will buy insurance, even if on offer. Further, as the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer. If there is no such chance of loss, the transaction may have the form of insurance, but not the substance. (See the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board standard number 113)
6. Calculable Loss. There are two elements that must be at least estimable, if not formally calculable: the probability of loss, and the attendant cost. Probability of loss is generally an empirical exercise, while cost has more to do with the ability of a reasonable person in possession of a copy of the insurance policy and a proof of loss associated with a claim presented under that policy to make a reasonably definite and objective evaluation of the amount of the loss recoverable as a result of the claim.
7. Limited risk of catastrophically large losses. The essential risk is often aggregation. If the same event can cause losses to numerous policyholders of the same insurer, the ability of that insurer to issue policies becomes constrained, not by factors surrounding the individual characteristics of a given policyholder, but by the factors surrounding the sum of all policyholders so exposed. Typically, insurers prefer to limit their exposure to a loss from a single event to some small portion of their capital base, on the order of 5 percent. Where the loss can be aggregated, or an individual policy could produce exceptionally large claims, the capital constraint will restrict an insurer's appetite for additional policyholders. The classic example is earthquake insurance, where the ability of an underwriter to issue a new policy depends on the number and size of the policies that it has already underwritten. Wind insurance in hurricane zones, particularly along coast lines, is another example of this phenomenon. In extreme cases, the aggregation can affect the entire industry, since the combined capital of insurers and reinsurers can be small compared to the needs of potential policyholders in areas exposed to aggregation risk. In commercial fire insurance it is possible to find single properties whose total exposed value is well in excess of any individual insurer’s capital constraint. Such properties are generally shared among several insurers, or are insured by a single insurer who syndicates the risk into the reinsurance market.
Senate Finance Committee Rejects the Public Option
Wednesday September 30, 2009
As a kid, prior to being old enough to drive, I remember sitting in the back seat of an old station wagon while adult relatives discussed Ohio moving to mandatory auto insurance. See, at the time, auto insurance was optional. That meant when some truly horrific accidents happened those involved could not pay their hospital and repair bills because the other guy was uninsured.
But, what I remember most, was hearing a claim by some insurance industry representative that auto insurance rates would decline by 25% or more if everyone was required to purchase auto insurance. I recall an uncle stating that claim was a lie. Seemed harsh. Harsh, but prescient. Ohio did pass mandatory auto insurance, rates never declined, and competition was non-existent.
Don't get me wrong, mandatory car insurance is a necessity and a great public policy decision. But, without a public option, or an extremely limited option that kicks in only after some pretty extreme circumstances, the poor cannot afford to drive to jobs increasingly far away and the law makes criminals out of the uninsured -- just look at your local court's docket.
Yesterday, encouraged by the leadership of a Senator who represents fewer Americans than reside in my county, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a public insurance option as part of health reform. This could be considered an effort at bi-partisanship, or one could look at who the Chairman's top contributors are and draw your own conclusions.
In the face of a personal mandate and requirement on business to carry health insurance, it is not reform for there not to exist a viable public option readily available and affordable. In my market, premium rates vary so dramatically that there is really no reason to the rates. One insurer requires over $800 per month, while comparable coverage (limited to a pretty decent HMO) exists for $242 per month including a dental plan. $800, and I am not in business. $242, and I am in business and could afford an employee and provide that health benefit. The public option needs to exist in order to allow people to actually afford this envisioned mandate.
As a kid, prior to being old enough to drive, I remember sitting in the back seat of an old station wagon while adult relatives discussed Ohio moving to mandatory auto insurance. See, at the time, auto insurance was optional. That meant when some truly horrific accidents happened those involved could not pay their hospital and repair bills because the other guy was uninsured.
But, what I remember most, was hearing a claim by some insurance industry representative that auto insurance rates would decline by 25% or more if everyone was required to purchase auto insurance. I recall an uncle stating that claim was a lie. Seemed harsh. Harsh, but prescient. Ohio did pass mandatory auto insurance, rates never declined, and competition was non-existent.
Don't get me wrong, mandatory car insurance is a necessity and a great public policy decision. But, without a public option, or an extremely limited option that kicks in only after some pretty extreme circumstances, the poor cannot afford to drive to jobs increasingly far away and the law makes criminals out of the uninsured -- just look at your local court's docket.
Yesterday, encouraged by the leadership of a Senator who represents fewer Americans than reside in my county, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a public insurance option as part of health reform. This could be considered an effort at bi-partisanship, or one could look at who the Chairman's top contributors are and draw your own conclusions.
In the face of a personal mandate and requirement on business to carry health insurance, it is not reform for there not to exist a viable public option readily available and affordable. In my market, premium rates vary so dramatically that there is really no reason to the rates. One insurer requires over $800 per month, while comparable coverage (limited to a pretty decent HMO) exists for $242 per month including a dental plan. $800, and I am not in business. $242, and I am in business and could afford an employee and provide that health benefit. The public option needs to exist in order to allow people to actually afford this envisioned mandate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
