MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[Beagle]

14% v 15%. You're not splitting hairs there, are you, Beagle?

Agree there's not much in it so why would I illustrate how close their growth rates are?

The point I am trying to illustrate is how well MET have actually performed over the last 5 years, relative to the sector benchmark widely regarded as RYM, (slightly better).
Why is this point so important ?
With RYM you pay a very handsome premium for their growth, despite growing slower than the average for this sector. 2.6 times asset backing and based on last years underlying profit of $227m and 500m shares underlying eps of 45.4 cps gives a historical underlying PE of 26.3. i.e. One is paying a hefty premium for that below average sector growth.

On the other hand with MET one is paying only 55% of NTA and based on last years annual underlying profit of $90.5m http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...727/306132.pdf underlying eps is 42.4 cps and the historical PE is just 9.3. i.e. one is paying nothing for the growth.

Historically a PE of 8.5 is considered to be the benchmark for a no growth company but that's with 10 year Govt stock at 4%. Where its is now a no growth company should have a PE of 11.

No matter whether you look at MET from an NTA perspective, an embedded value perspective or an earnings perspective, its dirt cheap.

Unless something is dirt cheap I am happy to keep my powder dry and will not participate in this market that is completely divorced from the economic reality of what the economy is starting to go through.

Actually when you really look into it, there's very little difference between the underlying eps of RYM SUM and MET. I believe ultimately the share market is a weighing machine, not a voting machine so from here MET's share price is highly likely to outperform its peers.