Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Discuss your favourite picks, broker, and trading or investment style.
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33399
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by AltaRed »

I gave you a hint above. $69 million less legal fees which I saw somewhere that said less than 22.5% which if true, means about $55 million to disperse. If everyone who owned the circa 1.7 billion shares claims, then that means about 3 cents a share....and they only pay out if the payout is $10 or more.

Perhaps only half of the shares outstanding will respond (which is probably way too low given institutional holdings), then 6 cents a share.

Your guess is as good as any.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by Shakespeare »

The settlement is $69M C$. Manulife Financial Corporation Securities Class Actions

Assume the lawyers get 1/3 and have billed enough to eat 1/2, leaving, say $35M.

Manulife has 2B shares outstanding Manulife Financial Corporation [MFC] | Manulife Financial Corporation Stock Quotes | TMXmoney.

The award is probably prorated in some way, but that's only .0175 per share.

The only reason to fill out the form is to keep the f&king lawyers from getting it. :evil:

Added: AR beat me to it.

Further added: This kind of sh*t is what gives lawyers a bad name (sorry, George). It's effectively a legalized shakedown. :evil:
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33399
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by AltaRed »

:wink: :wink: Except I made an assumption of the number of shares outstanding for the time period in question. I saw they had 1.8 billion shares back in 2012...the rest has been option creep since then to 2 billion shares today. Just like many Boards, they let their float creep with incentive compensation rather than buying back shares off the market. Bastards!
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
2 yen
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4116
Joined: 09 Apr 2005 09:15

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by 2 yen »

Thanks folks for clarifying. Unless further info comes down the pipe, I'll give it a pass.

2 yen
SQRT
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5441
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Ontario/Arizona

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by SQRT »

I filed today on 1,500 shares. Will let you know how much I get. Hoping for $100.
User avatar
Arby
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3125
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 19:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by Arby »

I filed my claim today. Hope I receive enough to cover the postage for mailing the claim.
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33399
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by AltaRed »

No receipt of any materials on this matter... and I owned MFC 2007 through 2012. Are there any specific qualifiers?
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
2 yen
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4116
Joined: 09 Apr 2005 09:15

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by 2 yen »

AltaRed wrote: 26 Jul 2017 16:58 No receipt of any materials on this matter... and I owned MFC 2007 through 2012. Are there any specific qualifiers?
The documentation talks about 'Ontario' owners which equals everyone not in Quebec, and Quebec owners. The dates for the period covered are very slightly different for those 2 'regions'. Your dates until Feb 12, 2009 should qualify. Who did you have the shares with? FYI today I received a duplicate set of forms in the mail. Seems things are perhaps not running smoothly. TDDI in my case.

2 yen
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33399
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by AltaRed »

Scotia iTrade. Complicating the matter is that the original holding was bought via E*Trade before Scotia bought that brokerage, but the shares were sold through Scotia iTrade.

Added later: I've just downloaded the form from the Manulife Settlement site.... Will do my own thing.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
Peculiar_Investor
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 13271
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 14:52
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by Peculiar_Investor »

More lawsuits and other actions that are apparently weighing on Manulife share price today. Muddy Waters’ Carson Block shorts Manulife Financial | Financial Post
Short seller Carson Block, who runs Muddy Waters, announced a short position in the insurer Thursday, and said the company’s life insurance subsidiary just concluded a trial with a hedge fund that could lead to billions in losses. A verdict is expected this year, Block said.

In a report, Muddy Waters said it believes investors aren’t aware of the material risks to Manulife posed by the trial. The insurer was taken to court by hedge fund Mosten Investment LP, which claims it should be allowed to deposit unlimited amounts of capital with Manulife and earn at least 4 per cent in annual interest based on a 1997 insurance contract it owns.
I'd hazard a guess this relates to John Hancock acquisition from 2003.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki New editors wanted and welcomed, please help collaborate and improve the wiki.

Normal people… believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet. – Scott Adams
SQRT
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5441
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Ontario/Arizona

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by SQRT »

SQRT wrote: 20 Jul 2017 08:50 I filed today on 1,500 shares. Will let you know how much I get. Hoping for $100.
They responded to me recently saying I didn’t give them enough “support”. I’m ignoring this now and forgetting about it.
OnlyMyOpinion
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4231
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 23:17

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by OnlyMyOpinion »

BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9064
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by BRIAN5000 »

rharvey199 wrote: 05 Oct 2018 08:02
slim wrote: 04 Oct 2018 15:08 Sold all my manulife.
me too. one of the most frustrating stocks i have ever owned. held it for a long time and it did absolutely nothing. the short report was the last straw. more than enough really good companies out there without having to hold this one and wonder what else is going to blow up in the next quarter.....manulife to me is the CIBC of insurance co's
My last buy on MFC was at $15.40 (ACB $12.45) will buy more if it dips below $20 in wife's account (lol) but its in my buy zone now with a possible 20% upside. :roll:

I own Insurance companies as a group (ala CEW) IAG, GWO, MFC, SLF and 1/2 PWF they yield 4% at the moment, make up 7% of total equity. Don't care if they go up or down but will buy more if they go on sale or to have a reasonable equal weight in each. SLF seems to have done the best for me till now not sure which will do best going forward. I would like to have all my stocks go up all the time I guess but find it hard to buy momentum stocks. After another 20 years we shall see, Leaders & Laggards comes to mind. Maybe after a few years they will work out the kinks or fire management etc..
This information is believed to be from reliable sources but may include rumor and speculation. Accuracy is not guaranteed
OptsyEagle
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2240
Joined: 25 Feb 2007 18:59

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by OptsyEagle »

Manulife issued a PR with respect to new and more well defined regulations pertaining to the lawsuit and of course the short seller, who would be happy to bring down the entire life insurance industry if he can make more then $50 on a trade. I guess Saskatchewan didn't agree that was a good idea.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/manul...114500425.html

and of course the new Saskatchewan regulation: Effective October 25, 2018 and applies to all eligible policies currently inforce.

http://fcaa.gov.sk.ca/public/CKedito...C_517-2018.pdf
2 (a) no licensed insurer shall receive or accept for deposit funds or payments in excess of the amount required to pay the life insurance premium for the eligible period; and

(b) with respect to a contract that is not exempt from accrual taxation pursuant to the Income Tax Act (Canada), no licensed insurer shall receive or accept for deposit funds or payments in excess of the life insurance premium required to keep the contract of life insurance in force until the end of the eligible period.
That should be the end of that.
User avatar
Peculiar_Investor
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 13271
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 14:52
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by Peculiar_Investor »

Thanks for the heads up. I was wondering why MFC was up approximately 5% this morning. I guess the market likes the new regulations.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki New editors wanted and welcomed, please help collaborate and improve the wiki.

Normal people… believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet. – Scott Adams
User avatar
Norbert Schlenker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7960
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
Contact:

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by Norbert Schlenker »

Well, I'm a direct shareholder since the bad old days of early 2009, so I guess I should be pleased personally that MFC has successfully lobbied governments to let them out of their own contractual obligations. MFC wrote those contracts so I can't imagine why they shouldn't be bound by them, so I am appalled at the public policy implications.
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
OptsyEagle
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2240
Joined: 25 Feb 2007 18:59

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by OptsyEagle »

Sorry for the links in my above post. Not sure why they don't seem to work. If you want to see the regulators info it is linked on MFC's news release as well.

I think a contract should be reviewed with respect to the intent of all parties. I am pretty sure MFC never intended for:

1) the policy to be sold from one insured to a hedge fund.
2) that the hedge fund should be able to put in unlimited amounts of money.

Everyone knows this is MFCs intent because everyone knows that MFC understands that at a certain amount of deposit they would have run afoul with respect to capital ratios and therefore their intent is reasonably clear. Unlimited was not their intent.

We also can surmise that the hedge fund, being an accredited investor, would also be aware of my point #2. Also, I would love to see the contract in question, because I have seen that actual issue dealt with in most of the contracts I went back to review, so my best guess is that they found an obscure one...or more likely they are just interpreting some other clause the way they would like it interpreted instead of the way it was intended to be interpreted.

Anyway, at best this lawsuit will settle to maybe cover the hedge funds legal costs and this matter will be over. No other lawsuit would be able to come forward because the person buying that contract should be aware of these regulations before they bought it. Anyone else would need to have a handy $5B or $10Billion laying around to want to make a similar deposit and bring this issue back.

In my opinion, the matter is over.
randomwalker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2392
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 20:55

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by randomwalker »

OptsyEagle wrote: 30 Oct 2018 09:17 Manulife issued a PR with respect to new and more well defined regulations pertaining to the lawsuit and of course the short seller, who would be happy to bring down the entire life insurance industry if he can make more then $50 on a trade. I guess Saskatchewan didn't agree that was a good idea.
I guess Saskatchewan doesn't think free market capitalism is a good idea. Same 2008/ 2009 BS of "too big to fail."
randomwalker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2392
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 20:55

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by randomwalker »

OptsyEagle wrote: 30 Oct 2018 11:42 Sorry for the links in my above post. Not sure why they don't seem to work. If you want to see the regulators info it is linked on MFC's news release as well.

I think a contract should be reviewed with respect to the intent of all parties. I am pretty sure MFC never intended for:

1) the policy to be sold from one insured to a hedge fund.
2) that the hedge fund should be able to put in unlimited amounts of money.

Everyone knows this is MFCs intent because everyone knows that MFC understands that at a certain amount of deposit they would have run afoul with respect to capital ratios and therefore their intent is reasonably clear. Unlimited was not their intent.

We also can surmise that the hedge fund, being an accredited investor, would also be aware of my point #2. Also, I would love to see the contract in question, because I have seen that actual issue dealt with in most of the contracts I went back to review, so my best guess is that they found an obscure one...or more likely they are just interpreting some other clause the way they would like it interpreted instead of the way it was intended to be interpreted.

Anyway, at best this lawsuit will settle to maybe cover the hedge funds legal costs and this matter will be over. No other lawsuit would be able to come forward because the person buying that contract should be aware of these regulations before they bought it. Anyone else would need to have a handy $5B or $10Billion laying around to want to make a similar deposit and bring this issue back.

In my opinion, the matter is over.
If all of the above was in fact the case then the government should not have stepped in as they did. The matter should have been decided before a judge in a court.
randomwalker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2392
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 20:55

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by randomwalker »

I can't imagine going into a court in a contract dispute and arguing "well that's not what I intended."
OptsyEagle
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2240
Joined: 25 Feb 2007 18:59

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by OptsyEagle »

randomwalker wrote: 30 Oct 2018 12:01 I can't imagine going into a court in a contract dispute and arguing "well that's not what I intended."
Happens all the time. That is what judges are for.

Did they really think the country would stand by and let them destroy the entire life insurance industry to punish MFC for some omission done over 20 years ago, and except for Muddy Waters saying so, we don't even know that it was omitted entirely. The only other benefit, in addition to punishing MFC, would be to help a hedge fund and a short seller make more money.

So you be the judge. What would you really do with this case?

By the way, everything I said above was known when Muddy Waters issued their press release. It was just the Saskatchewan regulator siding with the insurance industry that came to light today.
randomwalker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2392
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 20:55

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by randomwalker »

OptsyEagle wrote: 30 Oct 2018 12:14
randomwalker wrote: 30 Oct 2018 12:01 I can't imagine going into a court in a contract dispute and arguing "well that's not what I intended."
Happens all the time. That is what judges are for.

Did they really think the country would stand by and let them destroy the entire life insurance industry to punish MFC for some omission done over 20 years ago, and except for Muddy Waters saying so, we don't even know that it was omitted entirely. The only other benefit, in addition to punishing MFC, would be to help a hedge fund and a short seller make more money.

So you be the judge. What would you really do with this case?

By the way, everything I said above was known when Muddy Waters issued their press release. It was just the Saskatchewan regulator siding with the insurance industry that came to light today.
I agree with you "That is what judges are for..." and like I said above the government should have stayed out.

And yes I do believe companies, sectors and entire economies should be allowed to fail as that's how free markets and capitalism are suppose to work, though clearly we live in a world where that's not the case. The longer we keep bailing the system out the worse the end result will be.
OptsyEagle
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2240
Joined: 25 Feb 2007 18:59

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by OptsyEagle »

randomwalker wrote: 30 Oct 2018 14:09
OptsyEagle wrote: 30 Oct 2018 12:14
randomwalker wrote: 30 Oct 2018 12:01 I can't imagine going into a court in a contract dispute and arguing "well that's not what I intended."
Happens all the time. That is what judges are for.

Did they really think the country would stand by and let them destroy the entire life insurance industry to punish MFC for some omission done over 20 years ago, and except for Muddy Waters saying so, we don't even know that it was omitted entirely. The only other benefit, in addition to punishing MFC, would be to help a hedge fund and a short seller make more money.

So you be the judge. What would you really do with this case?

By the way, everything I said above was known when Muddy Waters issued their press release. It was just the Saskatchewan regulator siding with the insurance industry that came to light today.
I agree with you "That is what judges are for..." and like I said above the government should have stayed out.

And yes I do believe companies, sectors and entire economies should be allowed to fail as that's how free markets and capitalism are suppose to work, though clearly we live in a world where that's not the case. The longer we keep bailing the system out the worse the end result will be.
But this case was not about whether a company like MFC should be allowed to fail. It was about whether we should let the entire life insurance industry fail so that a hedge fund and short seller can make a lot of money from it. That is all this case is about.

Even if the Regulator did not take action, I highly doubted a Judge would have ruled against these insurers. It just would not be right. Everything the hedge fund was trying to do was against the intent of a contract, that the insurer did not even take out with the hedge fund. A contract that probably stated somewhere within, although not to the hedge funds liking, that there was indeed a limit to the amount one can deposit into the contract.

Hey, they took a shot and they lost. It is people like Muddy Waters that I would like to see a little more regulation with. I have nothing against short sellers, but what Muddy Waters did is also against the intent of short selling. They did not need to issue their report. All they needed to do, if they believed what they reported, was to short the stock and then sit back and wait for the court case to get resolved. However, they did not do that. What they did was announce their report to the public, as loud as they possibly could, with the sole intent to create additional uncertainty so that the stock in question would go down. That should not be allowed.

Now I am sure they could probably have executed this stuff in a lot of different ways to achieve the same end, but with the internet allowing this stuff to disseminate so quickly to anyone and everyone, regardless of their knowledge and experience, and way too many people like Muddy Waters around, I think this stuff could use a little more thought and possibly regulation. I have not given enough thought but I do know investors were hurt by these unscrupulous investors and because of that this issue should be addressed.
User avatar
Norbert Schlenker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7960
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
Contact:

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by Norbert Schlenker »

CNW wrote: TORONTO, Nov. 1, 2018
  • Manulife announces agreements to reinsure substantially all of its legacy U.S. individual and group pay-out annuities businesses, and mortality and lapse risk on a portion of its legacy Canadian universal life policies. These transactions are expected to release over $1 billion of capital.
  • Manulife announces intention to launch Normal Course Issuer Bid to acquire up to 40 million of its common shares, subject to regulatory approval.
  • Manulife increases its common share dividend by 14%.
  • Manulife changes its DRIP Program to issuances from treasury at a 2% discount relative to the market price.
My favourite part of this press release is this spin:
Manulife's Board of Directors today announced an increase of 14% or 3 cents per share to its quarterly common shareholders' dividend resulting in a dividend of $0.25 per share on the common shares of Manulife, payable on and after December 19, 2018 to shareholders of record at the close of business on November 20, 2018. Manulife has a strong track record of delivering progressive dividend increases ...
Well, except for that 50% cut in the dividend in early 2009, before which it was $0.26 per share. ;-) Here we are, 9 1/2 years later, and I guess that's been forgotten in the mists of time.
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
User avatar
scomac
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7788
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 09:47
Location: The Gateway to Wine Country

Re: Manulife (Symbol-MFC)

Post by scomac »

Norbert Schlenker wrote: 01 Nov 2018 19:49 My favourite part of this press release is this spin:
Manulife's Board of Directors today announced an increase of 14% or 3 cents per share to its quarterly common shareholders' dividend resulting in a dividend of $0.25 per share on the common shares of Manulife, payable on and after December 19, 2018 to shareholders of record at the close of business on November 20, 2018. Manulife has a strong track record of delivering progressive dividend increases ...
Well, except for that 50% cut in the dividend in early 2009, before which it was $0.26 per share. ;-) Here we are, 9 1/2 years later, and I guess that's been forgotten in the mists of time.
Fortunately you and I have longer memories than the media wonks... :roll:
"On what principle is it, that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"
Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1830
Post Reply