I just can’t understand Sampo’s current decline. The results were strong and the outlook is good. Maybe a few big players are just trimming their positions and looking for other potential opportunities. Well, as it drops enough, Sampo’s potential continues to rise. Looking forward to that.
8 Likes
It seems the current decline is affecting the entire insurance sector. AI disruption fears have spread to it as well. I can’t personally assess to what extent this is justified.
12 Likes
I am not that pleased with Sampo’s new profit distribution policy. As a retiree, I would like a stable and generous dividend flow from my investments, and that is exactly what Sampo provided during Nalle’s time; thank you for that. I am no longer reinvesting my dividends back into Sampo; I will strive to find better dividend payers in the future. At the current share price, the €1.36 dividend is only just under 4%, so it’s nothing very impressive. I certainly understand the logic of share buybacks, but they have also wasted huge amounts of shareholders’ money, especially if the company faces setbacks, as happens to all of them at some point. How, for example, are Nokia’s historical share buybacks reflected in its current share price?
25 Likes
Will Sampo be AI-disrupted?
Sampo, Tryg, Allianz, Axa, Zurich, Aviva, etc. The share prices of European insurance giants are sliding today as well. A small piece of news regarding Lemonade and speculated impacts of AI triggered a downward spiral across the entire industry—an industry that, until now, has been considered a bastion of stability.
Following today’s “AI Disruption” segment by @Verneri_Pulkkinen, here are a few thoughts on the outlook for the insurance industry in general and Sampo in particular:
For Sampo and most insurance companies, digital and AI matters are certainly not a new thing. For example, Sampo has sunk about a billion euros into these systems over the last few years. Still, not all companies in the industry are this far along in the transition to the digital world, and “casualties” may emerge over time as productivity gains from AI create a gap between companies.
One of the most significant AI impacts on the insurance industry is market-psychological. Mere speculation about an AI shake-up has clearly increased uncertainty and diminished the industry’s former trump cards: stability and predictability. It is partly due to these attributes that the companies’ multiples and valuations have remained high. It may be that a slice of these multiples has already been “AI-disrupted,” even if the actual impact remains inconclusive.
However, this isn’t necessarily a purely negative thing for shareholders. While dividends remain steady, as announced in connection with the recent interim report, Sampo is de facto increasing the role of share buybacks in its profit distribution policy, at least slightly. Buybacks executed at a lower price are more productive for shareholders.
Another uncertainty factor may lie in the future. As Sampo shareholders know, the British insurance market with its Hastings unit is a digital bazaar where pricing dominates. The Nordic “rational” insurance market—even if at least as digitized—is based on customer retention and high-quality customer relationships. Could the surge of AI and its agents somehow and at some point shake up consumer behavior in Sampo’s main market? In a way we don’t yet grasp today?
On the other hand, insurance companies, if anyone, are processors of massive data sets. And it is precisely in these areas where the productivity benefits of AI are highlighted, especially as systems evolve. AI can act as a turbocharger for boosting underwriting results.
The rise of “Insurtech” companies that streamline the operations of insurance firms is a good example of this. For instance, ZestyAI counts Lemonade and Berkshire Hathaway’s insurance arms among its clients. (By the way, I wonder which company Sampo uses for this, @Mirko_Sampo_IR?)
All in all, the AI speculation in the insurance industry resembles the “Fintechs are coming to eat the traditional banks” hype from a few years ago. What happened? Fintechs are everywhere, but the industry giants—such as Santander, JPMorgan, Nordea—are fitter than ever. Mid-sized and legacy-style players have been squeezed between large banks skillfully utilizing scale and data advantages + expensive AI systems, and agile, often purely web-based fintechs.
My bet is that this will happen in the insurance industry as well. Sampo is in a strong position in this AI disruption race, but it needs to maintain quite an “AI sprint.”
Below is last week’s McKinsey analysis on the implications of AI for insurance companies for those who want to dive deeper.
52 Likes
One interesting change could be that consumers start comparing insurance more through chatbots. While a “digital bazaar” prevails in the UK as you mentioned, in Finland, my understanding is that people are much more prone to going directly to the websites. In the UK, the “digital bazaars” might actually be under threat of disruption themselves…
Whether competition will eventually tighten if behavior changes, time will tell.
Otherwise, one would indeed think that AI will further streamline the operations of existing behemoths, enabling better services and lower prices, thus strengthening their position.
But who knows. I’m an “insurance analyst” once a quarter when I go to interview Sampo, but I follow the industry with the enthusiasm of a dilettante. 
29 Likes
We haven’t made it a habit to highlight specific names in our external communication. A lot of development work is done in-house, and there are numerous external partners across various areas. Generally, these insurtech firms want to collaborate specifically with the biggest players in the industry.
P.S. For us, AI is not some separate new thing that suddenly fell from the sky. It is simply the next step in technological development, in which we have been purposefully investing for a couple of decades already 
96 Likes
While researching Sampo’s competitors, I ended up investing in Protector Forsikring. The company seemed to be disrupting the insurance market and felt like a formidable opponent for Sampo. For me, this investment taught a lot about the importance of the expense ratio in investing. Insurance is, in many ways, very similar to investing. Warren Buffett’s tide metaphor fits well here: only when the tide goes out do you discover who has been swimming naked.
This AI and self-driving cars are new, expensive technology. When something unexpected happens—like the freezing temperatures in Finland we’ve been reading about in the papers lately—it can cause surprises. Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were issues with self-driving car technologies. If someone has insured them and a major multi-car pile-up involving self-driving cars occurs, these disruptors will vanish from the Nordic markets quite quickly. I assume that at that stage, the majority of cars in Finland will still be basic Corollas that are at least half the price. The situation will surely change a lot in twenty years, but for those waiting, time is long. When dealing with domestic insurance companies lately, you hardly interact with actual people anymore. For instance, an authorization for imaging under a health insurance policy was requested directly from the insurance company’s bot. There is already a lot of automation in insurance today. Secondly, managing the actual claims process flexibly for the customer and cost-effectively requires a large network of partners. In my estimation, those aren’t built overnight with AI.
9 Likes
Right on cue, some movement for the digital bazaars:
4 Likes
Surprise Announcement. Nordic capital and Sampo to divest shares in Noba
Dagens Industri reports that 50 million share or 10 percent of the company will be sold in accelerated bookbuilding process tonight
32 Likes
Surprise announcement II: Among others, the Swedish Shareholders’ Association is shooting down Sampo’s intentions. Lawyers have been unleashed against the Noba sale.
13 Likes
On what grounds could the sale of shares be blocked? That article is behind a paywall.
1 Like
Wasn’t the split 1:5, meaning the current price is still €45 compared to the old one?
Personally, I’m in the opposite camp regarding profit distribution, meaning I welcome share buybacks as one element of distribution for the sake of tax efficiency. I also like that it’s a systematic policy, rather than extra funds being sporadically used for buybacks every now and then.
25 Likes
The Noba sales mess was discussed on several media platforms yesterday. Here is the main content:
Sampo and the Swedish private equity firm Nordic Capital made an agreement in connection with Noba Bank’s listing that they would not sell off their holdings before March 25, 2026. Now an “exception” has reportedly been made to the agreement, to which the listing parties such as DNB, Carnegie, Goldman Sachs, etc., would agree. The reason given for the exception is “strong institutional interest.” For example, expanding Noba’s ownership base.
According to the chief lawyer of the Swedish Shareholders’ Association (Aktiespararna), it is a matter of principle. If something like this has been agreed upon, it is in the interest of other owners that the agreements are upheld. The sale of large blocks of shares and their entry into the market can significantly affect the share price (usually downwards), and thus weaken the position of other owners. At this rate, other owners, especially retail investors, find themselves in a situation where they know that the sales restrictions in the agreements do not actually matter.
According to the chief lawyer, the agreement was torn up for only one reason: Noba Bank’s share price has risen 50% since the listing. But what kind of justification can the share price level be for backing out of an agreement?
The guess is that the sale took place overnight. At the time of writing, it is not clear whether legal action will be taken against the Noba sale. In any case, the chief lawyer sees features of a precedent in it, although there was one partially similar case a few years ago.
28 Likes
A rather peculiar move from Sampo. I don’t see it as a good thing for retail investors at all that major shareholders are starting to break their post-IPO lock-up restrictions. In that sense, I understand the position of the lawyer from the Swedish Shareholders’ Association very well. However, as a Sampo shareholder, what puzzles me more is whether it was so important to be able to sell the shares 1.5 months early. Is the potential benefit worth the risk of a possible legal case? I also don’t see how this would be good for Noba’s value development, at least in the short term. It feels like there is a lack of trust in Noba and they just want to get their money out quickly.
21 Likes
Sampo has reduced its stake in NOBA
Sampo plc (“Sampo”) has sold 10.0 million shares in NOBA Bank Group AB (publ), (“NOBA” or the “Company”) to institutional investors in an accelerated bookbuild process conducted together with Nordic Capital (the “Share Sale”).
Sampo received gross proceeds of approximately EUR 95 million from the Share Sale. Following the Share Sale, Sampo holds 64.7 million shares in NOBA, representing a 12.9 per cent stake in the Company.
DNB Carnegie Investment Bank AB (publ), Goldman Sachs Bank Europe SE and J.P. Morgan SE acted as Managers for the accelerated bookbuild process.
Sampo and Nordic Capital have committed to the Managers not to dispose of or transfer, subject to certain customary exceptions, any of their remaining shareholding in NOBA for a period of 90 days following the settlement of the Share Sale, unless the Managers grant an exception.
Edit: And Sauli’s thoughts
24 Likes
I’m not technically familiar with the transfer restriction (lock-up) in the Sampo/Noba case, but typically, this requires the consent of the rights holder for the restriction to be lifted. In that scenario especially, one would expect the interests of minority shareholders to also be weighed before the restriction is dissolved.
Food for thought: Which owner is better for Noba? A new major owner, who would presumably have the motivation to develop the company, or Sampo, which has openly stated that this is for sale?
Especially if the buyer is a new anchor owner with the motivation to develop the company for the long term, I would personally choose the former.
15 Likes
You can also look at it another way. If Sampo were to sell the shares on the open market instead of as block trades, it would drive Noba’s price down, meaning retail investors would also suffer the most.
16 Likes
Thanks for the media summary. In my opinion, this seems like a rational move on a general level based on a quick read. The amount is small compared to Sampo’s total holding, and the company’s desire to divest its holdings was already known anyway. Supply and demand meet.
In my own opinion, the situation for private shareholders doesn’t improve at all by waiting just over a month and then having Sampo dump the same batch onto the market. Of course, they lose the opportunity for shorting. I personally understand the “strong institutional interest.” I’m certainly not impartial as a Sampo shareholder, but I recognize what a small part of the holding means in this context and its scale relative to Sampo. Perhaps there will be a slight ripple in Sampo’s share price if those ten million are used for share buybacks. Unless I’m buying and selling, the impact is very minimal. I’ve been thinking about buying, so I should probably get active. I’ve been writing on my blog about AI and Sampo.
13 Likes
A retail investor should perhaps be cynical enough not to rely on institutional agreements being set in stone, especially if the agreement includes clauses under which the agreement can be flexible. From the perspective of the share price development, however, such a block trade is probably a better option in the long run, as has already been pointed out here. The Swedish Shareowners Association likely has no means to intervene, and amending an agreement between institutions within the terms of the agreement’s provisions is not really a matter for regulatory oversight either. I don’t see any risk for Sampo here, and in any case, I trust the legal expertise of a group the size of Sampo.
8 Likes
Well, my favorite topic. Here’s a misconception again, and I suspect you specifically don’t understand the logic. I’ll summarize it here, and if there’s more to discuss, let’s continue in another thread because the principle applies to all companies, not just Sampo.
Sampo isn’t wasting anyone’s money, and future setbacks are irrelevant here. If you want dividends and don’t want to increase your ownership stake, sell your shares in an amount equal to the profit distribution, which cancels out the ownership-increasing effect of the buybacks in your case, and you get cash instead of ownership, just as you want. You decide whether you take cash or ownership, not Sampo. The same applies if they only paid dividends: you could reinvest them in Sampo if you wanted and do your “own buybacks.” This just seems impossible for so many people to grasp, I don’t know why.
Thanks to the buybacks, you get that money at a lower tax rate (0–24% vs. 25.5%). Thanks to the split, it’s quite easy to realize the desired amount. (This is one of the few reasons why a split can be useful). The only downside is the commission that must be paid on the sale; no commission would be charged on a dividend. However, at Nordea for example, it’s at most 1%, so even with taxes, this ends up being cheaper for you even if the position and the amount to be realized are small.
Nokia’s share price drops or rises were never due to buybacks or the lack thereof. In the exact same way, buybacks by Sampo, BRK, and Apple are just profit distributions, and the price increases and decreases are due to entirely different reasons.
58 Likes