Potential merger would ’destroy the competition’ in insurance sector
Barlow Lyde & Gilbert (BLG) chief executive David Jabbari has refuted claims that the firm has been forced into a potential merger with insurance rival Clyde & Co (3 June 2011), despite sources claiming that the firm had no option but to agree to the deal.
While Jabbari said the discussions with Clydes proved his firm was “bold and innovative”, he stressed that at this stage the merger is not a done deal.
“BLG has a variety of options in pursuit of its strategy of growth in its core markets in the UK and internationally,” he said.
That said, a source close to the firm claimed that a weakened international presence and collapsing rates in the domestic insurance sector, particularly in the commoditised market, meant the firm was strategically “backed into a corner”.
The assertion is backed up by other senior ex-BLG partners, who said the firm’s management had told partners earlier this year that the firm would cease to exist as an independent entity by the end of the 2011-12 financial year.
One said: “My understanding is that the partners have been alerted that the firm needs a merger because it can’t regroup and rebuild.”
Outside perceptions are that any union would be a takeover by Clydes rather than a merger of equals. Financially there is a large disparity between the two firms’ profitability, with BLG’s average profit per equity partner (PEP) figure for 2010-11 estimated to be around £300,000, while Clydes’ figure for 2009-10 was £605,000. It is understood that this could result in a number of BLG’s equity partners being demoted to salaried status in any merged entity.
In turnover terms, however, the deal would be transformational in the insurance sector. Based on figures for 2010-11, the combination would result in a firm with a revenue
of £306.5m, giving it a sporting chance of entering the UK top 10 and, as a BLG insider said, “destroying the competition”. Rival Holman Fenwick Willan posted a revenue of £112.5m in 2010-11, while Kennedys’ turnover for 2009-10 was £88.2m.
A partner at a rival firm said: “It’s a seismic move that will have consequences for all firms in the insurance market.”
The deal would give Clydes an instant domestic network, while BLG would gain access to Clydes’ network of 22 international offices.
In addition, Clydes would pick up BLG’s highly respected professional indemnity team, led by Sarah Clover, and the bulk insurance practice recently acquired from defunct
firm Halliwells.
Readers' comments (24)
Anonymous | 7-Jun-2011 4:36 pm
I dont see the relevance of the private equity remarks.
This is hardly a liquidity event for either party.
I also dont see the relevance to this situation of any historic mergers between either firm's key clients (whom I assume are either insurance brokers or underwriters).
I know nothing about this firm other than its trading margin has been poor over a prolonged period compared to its peers. It would have been interesting to see if the current management could have turned it around without reverting to merger.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8-Jun-2011 2:14 pm
Merger is not failure: this is the wake up call to law firm management teams. The test is simple. A rescue merger never does more than consolidate and shore up weak positions. It buys time and can make sense. However, a strategic merger changes the landscape: it puts competitors on the back foot and forces them to re-think their strategy under pressure. This merger shows every sign of falling into the latter category. Would this merger have really drawn this amount of comment if it was not sending shockwaves?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8-Jun-2011 4:03 pm
Is it diworsification for Clydes?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8-Jun-2011 11:45 pm
Has there been any mention of Clydes taking on those Halliwells client account liabilities the SRA are interested in? And what about those Halliwells partners in management at the time of the 'client account fiasco', the Kevin Finnigans et al that may be subject to "regulatory and disciplinary steps"? Nice to enter the UK top 10 with the SRA investigating your partnership!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment