Tryg in 2002 and 2003 had to strengthen its claims reserves significantly driving a Combined ratio around 109% in 2002 and 101% in 2003. Primarily reserves related to personal injuries business had to be strengthened. Expense ratio was around 24% in 2002 and 22% in 2003, ROE after tax was around 15% already at the end of 2003.
The 2004 numbers (note that IFRS new reporting standards weaken comparability with 2003 and before) showed a strong improvement with a Combined ratio of 91.1% while the company still booked a modest reserves strengthening. Expense ratio was around 17% under the new reporting standard while ROE was in excess of 23% driven mostly by the strong Combined ratio improvements.
In 2005 the company listed its shares in October at a DKK230/share level while the year-end share price was 319. The company reported a premiums growth of 2.9% while the Combined ratio was 89.0% with the expense ratio hitting 17.0%. ROE was 28% boosted also by a strong investment return. The company paid a dividend per share of DKK21 meaning that total return (share price performance plus dividends) was nearly 48% for 2005.
In 2006 the company grew the top-line by 2.0% reporting a Combined ratio of 86.4% of which the expense ratio was 16.8%. ROE was 35% boosted also by strong investments returns. The company paid a dividend per share of DKK33 meaning that total return on the stock was around 45%.
In 2007 the company grew the top-line by 3.7% reporting a Combined ratio of 86.1% of which the expense ratio was 16.7%. ROE was approximately 23% with investment return of DKK340m vs DKK1.2bn in 2006. The company paid a dividend per share of DKK17 meaning that total return on the stock was around -6%
In 2008 the company grew the top-line by 4.3% reporting a Combined ratio of 89.1% of which the expense ratio was 17.3% (this would have been in line with the 16.7% reported in 2007 adjusting for the costs of the Living House, can-not remember what is/was the Living House..). ROE was 9% dragged down by investments losses in all quarters due to highly negative development in capital markets. The company paid a dividend per share of DKK6 meaning that total return on the stock was -14%.
In 2009 the company grew the top-line by 0.4% reporting a Combined ratio of 91.1% of which the expense ratio was 16.5%. ROE was 24% approximately helped by a pretty strong investment income. The company paid a dividend per share of 15.8 meaning that total return on the stock was 9.5%
In 2010 the company grew the top-line by 9% (note it was 4.5% in local currencies but exchange rates movements inflated the number in DKK) reporting a Combined ratio of 98.2% of which the expense ratio was 16.6%. 2010 was without doubts one of the worst year in terms of weather related claims in the last many years, also large claims were worse than historical expectations. In total the Combined ratio was affected by at least 600-700 basis points by one off events, it would have been between 91.2% and 92.2% without these. Reported ROE was 6.6%. The company paid a dividend per share of DKK4 meaning that total return on the stock was -23%.
More in general the average Combined ratio for the relevant period, 2004 to 2010 was 90.1% looking at reported numbers, around 89.2% adjusting for the extraordinary weather-related claims in 2010. The average expense ratio in the period was 16.8% placing Tryg amongst the most efficient Nordics and European insurers. The overall average ROE for the period was 21.2% again placing Tryg amongst the most profitable insurers in the Nordics and European insurers. During this period the focus was on profitable growth not growth “per se”, and the top line development in the period was similar to peers and close enough to general economic developments in the key Nordic countries. The total return offered by the stock from the listing to year-end 2010 has been slightly lower than the OMX all share driven by the extraordinary events of 2010, until the beginning of 2009 the total return was substantially higher than the leading Danish index. In the period in observation the total return was the double of the European insurance sector.