MetLife Reports First Quarter 2014 Results

MetLife, Inc. reported results for the first quarter of 2014.

MetLife reported operating earnings of $1.6 billion , down 4 percent over the first quarter of 2013. On a per share basis, operating earnings were $1.37 , down 7 percent over the prior year quarter. Operating earnings in the Americas grew 3 percent. Operating earnings in Asia decreased 2 percent on a reported basis but increased 8 percent on a constant currency basis. Operating earnings in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) increased 1 percent on a reported basis and 2 percent on a constant currency basis. Offsetting these results were larger losses in Corporate & Other.

In a release on April 30 , the Company noted that first quarter 2014 operating earnings included the following items:

-variable investment income above the company's 2014 quarterly plan range by $63 million , or $0.06 per share, after tax and the impact of deferred policy acquisition costs (DAC)

-previously announced New York legal settlement costs, which reduced operating earnings by $57 million or $0.05 per share, after tax

Premiums, fees & other revenues were $12 billion , up 2 percent (5 percent on a constant currency basis) over the first quarter of 2013.

Book value, excluding accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI), was $49.34 per share, up from $47.37 in the first quarter of 2013.

" MetLife had a solid quarter," said Steven A. Kandarian, chairman, president and chief executive officer of MetLife, Inc. "While our legal settlement with New York had an impact on earnings, strong investment income and significant cost savings helped the bottom line. MetLife's commitment to enhancing long-term shareholder value was demonstrated by the recently announced 27 percent increase in our common stock dividend."

BUSINESS DISCUSSIONS

All comparisons of the results for the first quarter 2014 in the business discussions that follow are with the first quarter of 2013, unless otherwise noted. All comparisons on a constant currency basis are calculated using the average foreign currency exchange rates for the current period and are applied to the prior period.



THE AMERICAS

Total operating earnings for the Americas were $1.3 billion , up 3 percent, driven by Corporate Benefit Funding and Latin America. Premiums, fees & other revenues were $8.9 billion , up 4 percent, and excluding pension closeouts, up 5 percent.

Retail

Operating earnings for Retail were $612 million , down 2 percent primarily due to lower underwriting results. Premiums, fees & other revenues were $3.2 billion , up 9 percent due to higher fixed income annuity sales and variable annuity fee growth.

Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits

Operating earnings for Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits were $188 million , down 18 percent with lower group life, disability and property and casualty underwriting results, partially offset by higher dental, long term care and other health results. Premiums, fees & other revenues were $4.3 billion , up 3 percent due to an increase in sales and better persistency.

Corporate Benefit Funding

Operating earnings for Corporate Benefit Funding were $355 million , up 21 percent due to higher interest margins and improved underwriting. Premiums, fees & other revenues were $426 million , down 24 percent due to lower pension closeouts and structured settlements.

Latin America

Operating earnings for Latin America were $183 million , up 28 percent, reflecting the ProVida acquisition, and favorable market and tax impacts. Operating earnings were up 43 percent on a constant currency basis. Premiums, fees & other revenues were $986 million , up 9 percent, and were up 22 percent on a constant currency basis. Total sales for the region increased 19 percent, driven by group medical in Chile and Mexico.

Operating earnings for Asia were $328 million , down 2 percent on a reported basis. Adjusting for changes in foreign currencies, primarily the Japanese Yen, operating earnings were up 8 percent on a constant currency basis. Premiums, fees & other revenues were $2.3 billion , down 6 percent on a reported basis, but up 6 percent on a constant currency basis, due to business growth in Japan, Korea and Australia. Total sales for the region increased 2 percent, with a rebound in Japan retirement sales and growth in China being partially offset by a decline of Yen life sales in Japan.



EMEA

Operating earnings for EMEA were $88 million , up 1 percent on a reported basis, and 2 percent on a constant currency basis. The prior period benefited by $8 million from both a tax-related and a reserve adjustment in Greece. Adjusting for these prior period items, operating earnings were up 12 percent on a constant currency basis. Premiums, fees & other revenues were $722 million , up 5 percent on both a reported and constant currency basis. Total sales for the region increased 4 percent driven by growth in emerging markets of 9 percent led by the Gulf, Turkey and Poland.

INVESTMENTS

Net investment income was unchanged at $5.1 billion . Variable investment income was $429 million ( $274 million , after tax and DAC), compared with $337 million ( $216 million , after tax and DAC) in the first quarter of 2013.

Investment portfolio net gains were $131 million , after tax, compared with net gains of $160 million , after tax, in the first quarter of 2013.

Declines in interest rates, changes in foreign currencies and the impact of MetLife's credit spreads during the quarter contributed to derivative net gains of $78 million , after tax and other adjustments. Derivative net losses in the first quarter of 2013 were $591 million , after tax and other adjustments. Derivative gains or losses related to MetLife's credit spreads do not have an economic impact on the company.

CORPORATE & OTHER

Corporate & Other had an operating loss of $192 million compared with an operating loss of $86 million in the first quarter of 2013, reflecting $57 million in after-tax New York legal settlement costs and lower net investment income.

MetLife, Inc., through its subsidiaries and affiliates ("MetLife"), is a global provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs.

More information: metlife.com

((Comments on this story may be sent to newsdesk@closeupmedia.com))

Copyright:

(c) 2014 ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved.

Wordcount:



990

Original Post By: http://ift.tt/Rk2R6F

Source : http://ift.tt/Rk2R6F

The last time we spoke

I have some clients who rely very heavily on texting. Their children have taught them how to do it, and now they use text messaging for business communications. It's great when you need to send a quick note, and when you need a quick response, it's better than email. I send text messages all the time.

I have some clients who love email. Some of them like it because it allows them to send something more in depth than a text. They can do it on their own time (unlike a phone call), and they have a record of the communication. Like almost everyone else's, my inbox overflows with daily email.

But as convenient as these popular methods of communication are, they aren't anywhere near as effective as a face-to-face meeting, video conference or telephone call (in that order). The more important the communication, the more important the medium.

There is something extra being communicated when you schedule a face-to-face meeting. The fact that you are willing to invest your time means you care enough to be present. There is no substitute for presence, especially when what you are discussing is important.

Look at a list of your existing clients. When was the last time you met face-to-face with the people you consider to be your most valuable relationships? When was the last time you "spoke" with your client? (Texting and emailing don't count.)

When was the last time you invested your full attention in a conversation with the people who make up your most important relationships? Have you emailed something that would have been better delivered face-to-face (such as your pricing or proposal?)

Look at your client list and answer this question: When was the last time you spoke? Sign up for The Lead and in your inbox every day! More tips:

S. Anthony Iannarino is the managing director of B2B Sales Coach & Consultancy, a boutique sales coaching and consulting company, and an adjunct faculty member at Capital University's School of Management and Leadership. For more information, go http://ift.tt/OU60Je

Original Post By: http://ift.tt/RjmICN

Source : http://ift.tt/1iaWHQt

BULL'S EYE: No answers still as pay day rolls in

Source:





BULL'S EYE: No answers still as pay day rolls in



THIS should be fun. For better or worse, I will soon be able to siphon, tax-free, a spoonful of the lovely retirement-fund pudding I have saved since 1996. Despite being damn excited, I do not expect a happy ending.

Nothing mirrors a more ghastly image of the asset-management and insurance industry than a tearful attempt to track the performance of one's retirement annuity.

At present my asset management company is MMI, a bastard combination of old RMB interests and Metropolitan Life. In the process of that incorporation, my little RA has undergone some bewildering changes - none of which was illuminated by a progress report requested this week.

The policy matures on April 1 2015, but a third of its value ought to be accessible on my 55th birthday, which falls on July 4. So, in the interests of a stupid golfing holiday, I have done some homework (and will report back in detail as the due date arrives).

Dear me, what a mess. For one thing, according to missives from MMI this week, my original policy, bought from Protea Life, has a new number. And its name has gone from Metropolitan Odyssey to Momentum Prospector Universal. And my supposed postal address reveals that Old Mutual Life Assurance Company South Africa (Limited) is getting my mail.

What the hell is going on here?

I realised there were glitches in the system back in February 2004. I had decided it would be nice to find out how much my policy was worth and what its underlying investments were.

The series of articles in Business Times, titled "The Great Policy Robbery", revealed a tragic tale of ineptitude. Sadly the story has got only more miserable.

The policy was sold to me by a wide boy from Port Elizabeth. As much as it was his fault for selling a dud, the practice at the time encouraged insurers to feed salesmen a fat stream of commission for the life of the policy. So my baby RA, after eight years of R500-a-month premiums, was worth just R20,498. Yet retirement planner John Williams worked out that R28,127 had been paid by me. Of that, the product salesman had earned R2502.38 including an initial fee and "renewal commission".

In 2004, I discovered that my pitiful savings were spread between "packaged" portfolios containing 11 separate yet overlapping unit trusts, each charging fees. Goodness only knows what happened to those funds, and their managers: Prosure, Syfrets, NIB Equity and BOE. (Risk management rules say too much diversity means you might as well buy an index-tracker, at far less expense).

So I cut the underlying investment down to one in-house asset-allocation fund. Now I want to know what's really going on. * This article was first published in Sunday Times: Business Times

Original Post By: http://ift.tt/1ky3osV

Source : http://ift.tt/1ky3osV