Finance

Private equity’s insurance binge brings new risks to global finance

Published

2 years ago

January 25, 2024

Private equity’s insurance binge brings new risks to global finance

A DECADE OR so ago private equity was a niche corner of finance; today it is a vast enterprise in its own right. Having grabbed business and prestige from banks, private-equity firms manage $12trn of assets globally, are worth more than $500bn on America’s stockmarket and have their pick of Wall Street’s top talent. Whereas America’s listed banks are worth little more than they were before the pandemic, its listed private-equity firms are worth about twice as much. The biggest, Blackstone, is more valuable than either Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley—and has the confidence of a winner. “It’s the alternatives era,” proclaimed the company’s ebullient Taylor Swift-themed festive video in December. “We buy assets then we make ’em better.”

This is not, though, the business that has recently boomed for them. Traditional private equity—using lots of debt to buy companies, improving them, and selling or listing them—has been lifeless. High interest rates have cast doubt on the value of privately held companies and reduced investors’ willingness to provide new funds. It does not seem to matter. Core private-equity activity is now just one part of the industry’s terrain, which includes infrastructure, property and loans made directly to companies, all under the broad label of “private assets”. Here the empire-building continues. Most recently, as we report this week, the industry is swallowing up life insurers.

All of the three kings of private equity—Apollo, Blackstone and KKR—have bought insurers or taken minority stakes in them in exchange for managing their assets. Smaller firms are following suit. The insurers are not portfolio investments, destined to be sold for a profit. Instead they are prized for their vast balance-sheets, which are a new source of funding.

Judged by the fundamentals, the strategy makes sense. Insurance firms invest over long periods to fund payouts, including annuities sold to pensioners. They have traditionally bought lots of government and corporate bonds that are traded on public markets. Firms like Apollo can instead knowledgeably move their portfolios into the higher-yielding private investments in which they specialise. A higher rate of return should mean a better deal for customers. And because insurers’ liabilities stretch years into the future, the finance they provide is patient. In banking, long-term loans are funded with lots of instantly accessible deposits; with private assets and insurance, the duration of the assets matches the duration of the liabilities.

Yet the strategy brings risks—and not just to the firms. Pension promises matter to society. Implicitly or explicitly, the taxpayer backstops insurance to some degree, and regulators enforce minimum capital requirements so that insurers can withstand losses. Yet judging the safety-buffers of a firm stuffed with illiquid private assets is hard, because its losses are not apparent from movements in financial markets. And in a crisis insurance policyholders may sometimes flee as they seek to get out some of their money even if that entails a financial penalty. Last year an Italian insurer suffered just such a bank-run-like meltdown.

Making things harder is the complexity of the tie-ups, which involve labyrinthine interlinkages between different bits of firms’ balance-sheets. Much reinsurance activity takes place in Bermuda, an offshore hub where there is more than a whiff of regulatory arbitrage. Yet compared with the zealots who police the global banking system, insurance regulators are docile.

As private assets become more important, that must change. Regulators should co-operate internationally to ensure that the safety-buffers are adequate. High standards of transparency and capital need to be enforced by suitably heavyweight bodies. The goal should not be to crush a new business model, but to make it safer. Financial innovation often brings new benefits even as it creates new ways to blow up the system. Regulators would be making a mistake to ignore either edge of the sword. ■

Finance

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Published

12 hours ago

February 28, 2026

Press Room

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.

Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.

Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.

As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.

He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.

Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.

Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.

As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.

Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.

In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.

“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”

—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.

Finance

Where in California are people feeling the most financial distress?

Published

1 day ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Where in California are people feeling the most financial distress?

Inland California’s relative affordability cannot always relieve financial stress.

My spreadsheet reviewed a WalletHub ranking of financial distress for the residents of 100 U.S. cities, including 17 in California. The analysis compared local credit scores, late bill payments, bankruptcy filings and online searches for debt or loans to quantify where individuals had the largest money challenges.

When California cities were divided into three geographic regions – Southern California, the Bay Area, and anything inland – the most challenges were often found far from the coast.

The average national ranking of the six inland cities was 39th worst for distress, the most troubled grade among the state’s slices.

Bakersfield received the inland region’s worst score, ranking No. 24 highest nationally for financial distress. That was followed by Sacramento (30th), San Bernardino (39th), Stockton (43rd), Fresno (45th), and Riverside (52nd).

Southern California’s seven cities overall fared better, with an average national ranking of 56th largest financial problems.

However, Los Angeles had the state’s ugliest grade, ranking fifth-worst nationally for monetary distress. Then came San Diego at 22nd-worst, then Long Beach (48th), Irvine (70th), Anaheim (71st), Santa Ana (85th), and Chula Vista (89th).

Monetary challenges were limited in the Bay Area. Its four cities average rank was 69th worst nationally.

San Jose had the region’s most distressed finances, with a No. 50 worst ranking. That was followed by Oakland (69th), San Francisco (72nd), and Fremont (83rd).

The results remind us that inland California’s affordability – it’s home to the state’s cheapest housing, for example – doesn’t fully compensate for wages that typically decline the farther one works from the Pacific Ocean.

A peek inside the scorecard’s grades shows where trouble exists within California.

Credit scores were the lowest inland, with little difference elsewhere. Late payments were also more common inland. Tardy bills were most difficult to find in Northern California.

Bankruptcy problems also were bubbling inland, but grew the slowest in Southern California. And worrisome online searches were more frequent inland, while varying only slightly closer to the Pacific.

Note: Across the state’s 17 cities in the study, the No. 53 average rank is a middle-of-the-pack grade on the 100-city national scale for monetary woes.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Finance

Why Chime Financial Stock Surged Nearly 14% Higher Today | The Motley Fool

Published

2 days ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

Why Chime Financial Stock Surged Nearly 14% Higher Today | The Motley Fool

The up-and-coming fintech scored a pair of fourth-quarter beats.

Diversified fintech Chime Financial (CHYM +12.88%) was playing a satisfying tune to investors on Thursday. The company’s stock flew almost 14% higher that trading session, thanks mostly to a fourth quarter that featured notably higher-than-expected revenue guidance.

Sweet music

Chime published its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results just after market close on Wednesday. For the former period, the company’s revenue was $596 million, bettering the same quarter of 2024 by 25%. The company’s strongest revenue stream, payments, rose 17% to $396 million. Its take from platform-related activity rose more precipitously, advancing 47% to $200 million.

Image source: Getty Images.

Meanwhile, Chime’s net loss under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) more than doubled. It was $45 million, or $0.12 per share, compared with a fourth-quarter 2024 deficit of $19.6 million.

On average, analysts tracking the stock were modeling revenue below $578 million and a deeper bottom-line loss of $0.20 per share.

In its earnings release, Chime pointed to the take-up of its Chime Card as a particular catalyst for growth. Regarding the product, the company said, “Among new member cohorts, over half are adopting Chime Card, and those members are putting over 70% of their Chime spend on the product, which earns materially higher take rates compared to debit.”

Today’s Change

(12.88%) $2.72

Current Price

$23.83

Key Data Points

Market Cap

$7.9B

Day’s Range

$22.30 – $24.63

52wk Range

$16.17 – $44.94

Volume

562K

Avg Vol

3.3M

Gross Margin

86.34%

Double-digit growth expected

Chime management proffered revenue and non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) guidance for full-year 2026. The company expects to post a top line of $627 million to $637 million, which would represent at least 21% growth over the 2024 result. Adjusted EBITDA should be $380 million to $400 million. No net income forecasts were provided in the earnings release.

It isn’t easy to find a niche in the financial industry, which is crowded with companies offering every imaginable type of service to clients. Yet Chime seems to be achieving that, as the Chime Card is clearly a hit among the company’s target demographic of clientele underserved by mainstream banks. This growth stock is definitely worth considering as a buy.