|Bid||211.60 x N/A|
|Ask||211.80 x N/A|
|Day's range||211.20 - 222.00|
|52-week range||201.20 - 282.30|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||N/A|
|PE ratio (TTM)||3.59|
|Forward dividend & yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y target est||N/A|
(Bloomberg) -- Health academics, death-monitoring platforms and even zombie movies -- these aren’t normal sources of information for investors trying to assess risks in markets. But these aren’t normal times, as the coronavirus outbreak triggers an unconventional hunt for insights about what to expect from a swiftly spreading epidemic.Most fund managers simply do not have the models to track what threatens to be a global pandemic, leading them to turn to universities, world health bodies and even works of fiction, while at the same time playing safe by ploughing money into havens such as bonds and gold.The myriad of potential outcomes -- from a global pandemic that kills millions like 1918’s “Spanish flu” influenza to a V-shaped recovery if the disease peters out -- makes following traditional data sources too slow and limited, leaving many strategists caught on the wrong foot. Funds are instead going straight to experts, akin to the way investors consulted pollsters and political consultants ahead of the tortuous series of Brexit votes in the U.K.Dashboard of DeathInvestors are now trying to manage their risks and work out how much of the slide in stocks and rally in bonds is reasonable given the escalation in virus cases from South Korea to South America. That has already pushed long-term U.S. Treasury bond yields to a record low, driven the Swiss franc to the strongest since 2015 against the euro and pushed gold prices to a seven-year high.Unigestion SA is tracking the spread of the virus using data from the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, which has developed an interactive dashboard that charts the cases per country, total deaths and recovery rate.“We are following the spread of the virus outside China closely, especially in countries with a high population density and less developed health-care systems,” said Salman Baig, a money manager at Unigestion. The investment company’s own “Growth Nowcaster” model does not see much of a hit to growth -- so far.And therein lies the rub. Market strategists have already seen their forecasts for the year-ahead destroyed by the virus, even before the full effects of the virus are seen in economic data. Societe Generale SA sent out a note to clients last week revising its call for the euro, saying that its currency views had “not had a good start to the year.”Estimates for the economic impact of the virus vary wildly. Oxford Economics Ltd. reckons an international health crisis could be enough to wipe more than $1 trillion from global gross domestic product, while the International Monetary Fund currently thinks the virus will only force it to knock 0.1 percentage points off its 3.3% global growth forecast for 2020.“We just don’t have enough data about the persistence of this to make an accurate forecast you can hang your hat on,” Simon French, chief economist at Panmure Gordon & Co., told Bloomberg Television on Tuesday. “This is why proper experts are so important. Proper experts -- in terms of the medical sphere, rather than the economists, or the traders who have to translate that into what it means for the rational market reaction and the irrational market reaction.”Unprecedented ReactionThe scale of governments’ attempts at containing the virus, from lockdowns in cities and travel blockades, is an “extreme reaction” that appears unprecedented, making it difficult to tell how quickly the global economy could bounce back, Richard Lacaille, chief investment officer at State Street Global Advisors, told Bloomberg Television.For M&G Plc fund manager Wolfgang Bauer, who has a PhD in chemistry from the University of Cambridge, it’s worth being careful when it comes to how much trust to place in models so far, given the scatter-shot nature of the information available.“The situation is evolving so fast that any attempt of a precise assessment of the wider implications is nearly impossible as the error margins are so high,” he said. “When valuations are so tight that the error margins are almost not existent, then any negative development or news -- be it weak macro data, political risk flaring up or a ‘black swan’ like corona -- can be painful. If I’m not compensated well for taking risk, I scale back.”James Athey, a money manager at Aberdeen Standard Investments in London, said his team was positioned defensively at the start of the year because risky assets appeared to be pricing in a “utopian future” at a time when the global economic cycle appeared to be approaching an end and unable to withstand a negative shock.“Of course we didn’t, or couldn’t, predict coronavirus but, as we say, we look for ‘vulnerabilities not triggers,’” he said in an interview.He has been taking his virus cues from epidemiologists and organizations such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Still, he’s also been talking about a post-apocalyptic horror movie about a mysterious virus that creates zombies who run roughshod over London.“I did quote ‘28 Days Later’ when describing the various outcomes on the desk,” said Athey.(Refreshes chart.)To contact the reporter on this story: John Ainger in London at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Dana El Baltaji at email@example.com, Neil Chatterjee, Michael P. ReganFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Dan Loeb’s Third Point LLC says it has a history of working constructively with boards to promote the success of their companies. The activist’s latest goal seems to involve removing the board of Prudential Plc entirely, and dismantling the head office around it, as part of a breakup of the $48 billion insurer.That may not be as hard as it sounds.Once focused on Britain, Prudential has transformed into a large Asian insurer with a smaller U.S. business attached. Its shares suffer under a stark valuation discount to Hong Kong-listed peer AIA Group Ltd., and Loeb has set out a plausible explanation for why. The reason, he says, is that the Asian side needs capital to grow, but competes with shareholders for dividends. Likewise, the U.S. business would be better off conserving cash in support of its own capital strength. Meanwhile, most investors don’t want to invest in an Asian-U.S. hybrid insurer.The remedy sounds simple: Split Prudential into separate U.S. and Asian businesses with their own stock listings and dividend policies. The Asian shares would probably command a much higher valuation than whole the group does now, providing an acquisition currency that would be a cheap source of growth capital. At the same time, scrapping the conglomerate structure would eliminate the need for a costly corporate center based in London.None of this is likely to be a huge surprise to Prudential’s directors. The board has already been simplifying the company, mainly by spinning off the M&G Plc asset management business. That move has failed to address the valuation gap, so the next logical step would be to jettison the U.S. subsidiary and become a pure Asia play. Prudential’s chairman, Paul Manduca, is retiring next year anyway, and Chief Executive Officer Mike Wells has been in the role for five years. Manduca’s successor, banker and former government minister Shriti Vadera, has a chance to be radical.The real opponents to Loeb’s ideas are more likely to be found among Prudential’s long-term investors. Third Point is a new arrival taking on a longstanding problem. But Prudential has a large number of U.K. investors whose own narrow interests may be served by keeping it in its current form, paying high dividends via a London-listed share. Recall that consumer giant Unilever NV encountered huge resistance to an attempt to simplify its structure in 2018, while plumbing group Ferguson Plc is moving with extreme care about a possible re-domicile for the same reason.Loeb argues Prudential in two pieces would be worth twice what it is today. He may be right, but if a breakup involves a dividend cut along the way, it won’t be plain sailing.To contact the author of this story: Chris Hughes at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Chris Hughes is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals. He previously worked for Reuters Breakingviews, as well as the Financial Times and the Independent newspaper.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
This Fool explains why he's thinking about buying some of the highest-yielding stocks in the FTSE 100 today. The post With their 7% dividend yields, I’d consider buying these FTSE 100 stocks appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
These high-yielding FTSE 100 stocks could give you a passive income for life. The post 3 FTSE 100 dividend stocks with yields over 6% I'd buy today appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
Let's take look at some of the biggest dividend forecasts in the FTSE 100 (INDEXFTSE: UKX) for 2020.The post A dirt-cheap 8.5%-yielding FTSE 100 dividend stock that I’d buy for 2020 appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
BP, BAE, and M&G have started 2020 in fine form for different reasons, and I think shareholders will be pleased in 2020 and beyond.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- More than three years after the Brexit referendum left investors with $23 billion trapped in seven U.K. real estate funds, holders of another property portfolio have discovered that when their right to daily redemptions meets the reality of hard-to-sell assets, their money can become a hostage to illiquidity.M&G Plc on Wednesday said it’s freezing a 2.5 billion-pound ($3.3 billion) property fund after it suffered “unusually high and sustained outflows” at a time when the looming election and the prospect of Britain finally leaving the European Union “have made it difficult for us to sell commercial property.”With investors in Neil Woodford’s flagship fund still locked in almost six months after he halted redemptions, the U.K. regulators will surely have to act. The measures introduced by the Financial Conduct Authority in September — ordering fund managers to suspend redemptions if there’s “material uncertainty” about the value of 20% or more of a funds’ real estate holdings — clearly have not gone far enough.Of course there’s room for debate about what distinguishes a liquid security from an illiquid one. And no one wants to bar retail investors from participating in the higher returns that come with an illiquidity premium. But property is clearly beyond the bright and shining line of what counts as an easy-to-sell asset, wherever you choose to draw it.And peer pressure just doesn’t cut it as a good excuse for maintaining the status quo, even if it’s a plausible explanation for why we are where we are today. As Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe explained in July, “It’s not clear how strong consumer demand for absolute daily liquidity is. But if everyone else in the market is offering it, it’s difficult for one fund not to offer it.”It’s time he and his colleagues came up with a solution. There is one possible way to address that issue, at least as far as property funds are concerned. Regulators could oblige real estate portfolio managers to switch to less-frequent redemptions — once a quarter, for example, holders would have the right to redeem their investments, with their cash returning to them at the end of the three months.If the promise of daily liquidity for assets that are hard to sell is “built on a lie,” as Bank of England Mark Carney said in June, then it’s time for the overseers of finance to inject a dose of truth and reality into the market — before more investors find their nest eggs imprisoned.To contact the author of this story: Mark Gilbert at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Melissa Pozsgay at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Mark Gilbert is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering asset management. He previously was the London bureau chief for Bloomberg News. He is also the author of "Complicit: How Greed and Collusion Made the Credit Crisis Unstoppable."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.