insurer

On October 17, 2025, Shaker Investments disclosed it sold out of The Progressive Corporation (PGR 0.83%), liquidating 9,829 shares for an estimated $2.62 million.

What Happened

Shaker Investments disclosed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated October 17, 2025, that it had sold its entire stake in The Progressive Corporation in the third quarter. The liquidation involved 9,829 shares, with an estimated transaction value of $2.62 million based on the average price for the quarter. The fund’s post-trade holding in the insurer is now zero shares.

What Else to Know

The fund sold out of Progressive, reducing its allocation from 1.07% of 13F AUM in the previous quarter to zero.

Top holdings after the filing:

• NYSE:AX: $33.84 million (13.5% of AUM)
• NASDAQ:AVGO: $12.30 million (4.9% of AUM)
• NASDAQ:NVDA: $12,301,219 (4.9% of AUM)
• NASDAQ:MSFT: $8,486,093 (3.4% of AUM)
• NASDAQ:GOOGL: $8,297,003 (3.3% of AUM)

As of October 16, 2025, shares of Progressive were priced at $221.74, down 13.17% over the past year; shares have underperformed the S&P 500 by 24.06 percentage points over the past year.

Company Overview

Company Snapshot

The Progressive Corporation is a leading U.S. property and casualty insurer with a diversified portfolio spanning auto, residential, and specialty insurance lines. Its multi-channel distribution model includes independent agencies, online, and phone channels.

The company offers personal and commercial auto insurance, residential property coverage, and specialty property-casualty products, including insurance for motorcycles, RVs, watercraft, and business vehicles. It generates revenue primarily from underwriting insurance policies and related services.

Progressive serves individual consumers, small businesses, and property owners across the United States through direct channels and independent agencies.

Foolish Take

By selling its entire stake of more than $2.6 million worth of Progressive stock, Shaker Investments has cut loose one of America’s largest insurers. Should retail investors do the same? Let’s have a closer look.

It’s been a less than stellar year so far for Progressive. Shares have declined (3.9%) year-to-date, while the S&P 500 has advanced by 14.5%. Even within the insurance sector, Progressive has lagged major benchmarks, such as the SPDR S&P Insurance ETF (KIE) and iShares US Insurance ETF (IAK), which have generated a total year-to-date return of 1.5% and 1.8%, respectively.

Adding to the stock’s tough year, Progressive recently released disappointing third-quarter earnings results on October 15. Both earnings-per-share and revenue came in below analysts’ estimates, with Progressive stock falling on the announcement. In addition, the company noted that it was recording a nearly $1 billion expense related to a change in Florida policy that limits profits on auto insurance in the state. Despite these setbacks, the company reported increased premiums written and earned, indicating growth in the company’s core operations.

At any rate, retail investors looking for exposure to the insurance sector may want to consider a broad-based ETF, like the SPDR S&P Insurance ETF (KIE) or the iShares US Insurance ETF (IAK). These ETFs provide diversification within the sector, ensuring that investors aren’t as exposed to operational risks at any single company.

Glossary

Exited its position: When an investor sells all shares of a particular investment, fully closing out that holding.
13F reportable assets under management (AUM): The total value of securities a fund must report quarterly to the SEC on Form 13F.
Allocation: The percentage of a fund’s assets invested in a specific security or asset class.
Liquidation: The process of selling an investment position, often fully, to convert it into cash.
Stake: The amount or percentage of ownership an investor holds in a company or asset.
Dividend Yield: A financial ratio showing how much a company pays in dividends each year relative to its share price.
Distribution model: The methods a company uses to sell its products or services to customers (e.g., direct, agencies).
Underwriting: The process by which an insurer evaluates and assumes the risk of insuring a person or asset.
Property and casualty insurer: An insurance company providing coverage for property loss and liability for accidents, injuries, or damage.
Specialty insurance lines: Insurance products designed for unique or non-standard risks, such as motorcycles or RVs.
TTM: The 12-month period ending with the most recent quarterly report.

State lawmakers are considering a bill meant to protect access to HIV prevention drugs for insured Californians as threats from the federal government continue.

Assembly Bill 554 would require health plans and insurers to cover all antiretroviral drugs used for PrEP and PEP regimens. The drugs just have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and would not require prior authorization. The bill would also prevent health plans from forcing patients to first try a less expensive drug before choosing a more expensive, specialty option.

The bill requires insurance providers to cover these drugs without cost-sharing with patients, and it limits the ability of insurers and employers to review treatments to determine medical necessity. To streamline reimbursements and expand the range of PrEP medications doctors can pick for their patients, the legislation allows providers to directly bill insured patients’ pharmaceutical benefit plans.

LGBTQ+ public health advocates worry that the Trump administration’s recent attempt to slash $1.5 billion in HIV prevention funding from the federal budget — along with its decisions to stop offering suicide-prevention counseling for LGBTQ+ individuals through the national 988 lifeline and to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender Americans — amounts to an assault on the queer community.

The state bill would act “as a shield against this administration’s cruelty,” said California Assemblymember Mark González (D-Los Angeles) who co-sponsored AB 554 with Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco).

A recent cause for alarm among LGBTQ+ health advocates, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, is news that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to replace the entire U.S. Preventive Services Task Force because its 16 appointed members are too “woke,” according to unnamed individuals cited by the Journal.

At a news conference Monday, Kennedy confirmed that he is reviewing the makeup of the panel, adding that he hasn’t made a final decision.

The bill was introduced earlier in the year out of fear that Kennedy’s skepticism about vaccines might spill over into HIV/PrEP drug coverage and because of worries that President Trump would dismantle the task force, González said.

The task force wields immense influence, making recommendations about which cancer screenings, tests for chronic diseases and preventive medications are beneficial for Americans and therefore should be covered by insurers — including drugs for HIV/AIDS prevention.

Drugs prescribed in a PrEP regimen — short for pre-exposure prophylaxis — block the virus that causes AIDS from multiplying in a person’s body. They can be taken in either pill or injection form on an ongoing basis. PEP refers to post-exposure prophylaxis and involves taking medication within 72 hours of potential exposure and for a short period of time, in order to prevent infection and transmission of the virus. Both regimens are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as effective ways to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS when used correctly.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was created in 1984 by congressional authorization to issue evidence-based advice to physicians on which screenings and preventive medicines are worth considering for their healthy patients. The panel’s recommendations are closely watched by professional societies when adopting guidelines for their clinician members. In many cases, when insurers are on the fence about whether to cover a given screening or diagnostic test, they’ll turn to the panel’s recommendations.

The panel, made up of doctors, nurses, health psychologists, epidemiologists and statisticians who are experts in primary care and preventive medicine and who serve four-year terms on a voluntary basis, is meant to be free from conflicts of interest and outside influences.

Some of its past recommendations, however, such as its advice on prostate cancer screenings, have been met with criticism.

When it comes to HIV prevention, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to back up the task force with its July 11 ruling in Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management, which upheld a key mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring insurers to cover preventive care, including for HIV.

However, in the same ruling, the court also declared that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to review decisions made by the task force, and to remove members at his or her discretion.

Kennedy abruptly postponed the task force’s July meeting, sparking concern among public health advocates and Democratic leaders.

“The task force has done very little over the past five years,” Kennedy said at Monday’s news conference. “We want to make sure that it is performing, that it is approving interventions that are actually going to prevent the health decline of the American public.”

González said he worries that the Supreme Court gave the administration a new way to meddle in the healthcare decisions of LGBTQ+ people.

“The Braidwood decision was both a relief and a wake-up call,” González said. “While it upheld the Preventive Services Task Force’s existing recommendations — keeping protections for PrEP, cancer screenings, and vaccines intact — it handed unprecedented authority to RFK Jr. to reshape that very task force and place existing protections under direct threat once again.”

González described AB 554 as “a measure to protect LGBTQ+ Californians and ensure we never return to the neglect and devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis.” The state Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on whether to advance the bill on Aug. 29.

“These attacks aren’t isolated,” the lawmaker said. “They are coordinated, deliberate, and aimed squarely at our most vulnerable communities.”

In a high-stakes gamble, Wall Street hedge funds are offering to buy claims that insurers may have against Southern California Edison if the utility is found liable for causing the devastating Eaton fire in Altadena.

The solicitations are legal, but have alarmed California state officials — who loathe the idea of investors profiting from a disaster that claimed 18 lives and destroyed more than 9,400 homes and other structures.

“I think everyone in this room looks at a catastrophe, like what happened in Southern California, and our natural instincts are to say, ‘What can we do to help?’” Tom Welsh, the chief executive of the California Earthquake Authority, which manages the state’s wildfire fund, said at a recent public meeting. “There are other actors in the environment who look at that situation in Southern California and ask instead, “What can I do to profit?’”

The investors are aiming to buy so-called subrogation claims from insurance companies. These are claims that insurers would file against Edison seeking reimbursement for the money they paid to their policyholders for fire damages if it’s determined the utility’s equipment triggered the wildfire that began Jan. 7.

For the insurers, selling the claims — even at a steep discount — allows them to get at least some reimbursement for the money they’ve paid out. For the hedge funds buying the claims, it’s a gamble that could pay big if Edison is found liable and they can cash in those claims for much more than they paid.

More than $17 billion in insurance claims for the Eaton and Palisades fires has been paid out so far, according to the California Department of Insurance.

State officials say California has a stake in the trading of fire-related subrogation claims, which was previously reported by Bloomberg, because of the potential effect on the state’s wildfire fund.

That fund, which currently has about $21 billion, would be used to cover most of the costs of damage claims should Edison be found liable for starting the Eaton blaze. While the cause is still under investigation, a leading theory is that a decommissioned transmission line in Eaton Canyon was reenergized and sparked the blaze, Edison has said.

The wildfire fund is managed by a state board called the Catastrophe Response Council. At its last meeting in May, Welsh told the board that solicitations from New York brokers and investment firms began landing in his email inbox in March.

Ronald Ryder at Oppenheimer & Co., a New York investment firm, told Welsh in an email on April 15 that his company was currently trading the subrogation claims. Ryder wrote that there had already been 10 transactions worth more than $1 billion in recovery rights for the Eaton fire as well as the Palisades fire in Pacific Palisades, where the city of Los Angeles faces potential liability.

In another email, Ryder told Welsh that investors were bidding 47 cents on the dollar for the claims related to the Eaton fire. For the Palisades fire, the bidding was 5 cents on the dollar, Ryder wrote.

Welsh warned the council that “speculative investors” might hold onto the Eaton claims and “really try to get outsized profits by demanding settlements from Edison of 75, 80, 85 cents on the dollar.”

If that were to happen, the wildfire fund could pay out “hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars” more than if the claims were settled directly by the insurers, he said.

“That would really, very negatively impact the durability of the wildfire fund,” Welsh said.

Oppenheimer declined to comment, and Ryder didn’t respond to messages.

Under a 2019 state law, the state wildfire fund would be expected to reimburse Edison for most of the insurers’ payments to policyholders if its electrical equipment is found to have started the Eaton fire. The Palisades fire, which occurred in territory serviced by the L.A. Department of Water and Power, isn’t covered by the state fund.

California lawmakers created the wildfire fund in 2019 to protect the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities — Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — from bankruptcy if their equipment sparks catastrophic wildfires.

The possibility of large settlements paid out by the wildfire fund has led to dozens of lawsuits against Edison, even before the cause of the fire has been determined.

If found responsible for the fire, Edison would negotiate settlements with the insurers, as well as with homeowners and others who have filed lawsuits, saying they’ve been harmed. The utility would then ask the state wildfire fund to cover those amounts.

If the insurers have sold their claims, however, the investors who bought them would reap the returns. Attorneys who handle the complex transactions would also get a cut and “generally take a very high percentage off the top,” Paul Rosenstiel, a catastrophe council member, said at last month’s meeting.

Already, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state leaders are worried that the $21-billion wildfire fund could be depleted by damage claims from the Eaton fire.

Welsh recounted how a hedge fund had profited in 2019 by buying insurers’ subrogation claims against PG&E after its transmission line was found to have started the 2018 Camp fire that killed 85 people and destroyed much of the town of Paradise. Bloomberg reported at the time that hedge fund Baupost Group made a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars by buying the claims at 35 cents on the dollar and later getting a settlement valued at much more.

To stop hedge funds from profiting on the claims, Welsh said, the earthquake authority is now considering changing its claim administration procedures to make the settlements less lucrative for those investors.

One possible change being discussed, according to authority staff, would require a utility that ignited a wildfire to prioritize settling the claims of victims and insurers who have not sold their subrogation rights before those claims owned by hedge funds.

SACRAMENTO — Nearly six months after a firestorm ravaged communities across Los Angeles, California lawmakers are crafting legislation to try to protect the state insurance program for high-risk homes from financial collapse.

A bill, AB 226, sponsored by Assemblymembers Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and David A. Alvarez (D-San Diego), would make the state’s insurer of last resort, the FAIR Plan, eligible for loans and bonds from the state-backed California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to avoid running out of money after a disaster.

Alvarez proposed the measure last year but it failed to pass. Despite receiving unanimous support in the Assembly, the bill never reached the Senate floor for a vote before the end of the 2024 legislative session.

If the measure had passed last year and been signed into law by the governor, the FAIR Plan would have had more flexibility to weather the massive number of claims filed after the January firestorms, Alvarez said.

Instead, the FAIR plan was forced to imposed an extra $1 billion in total assessments on insurers that provide homeowners policies in California. To recoup those expenses, insurance companies are expected to hike rates on homeowners through monthly surcharges.

“Had they had this option available to them … they would not be having to hit consumers with price increases on the private market now,” Alvarez said.

AB 226 is one of many wildfire-related bills still winding their way through the slow legislative process. If passed into law, the measures would protect homeowners from price gouging after disasters, streamline the process for filing claims for lost property and offer financial protections for disaster victims.

Lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom in January approved $2.5 billion in wildfire aid after the Palisades and Eaton fires killed more than two dozen people and became the second and third most destructive fires in state history. Legislative leaders at the time signaled for a swift, bipartisan approach to the disaster.

“Tens of thousands of our neighbors, our families and friends, they need help. This means that we need to be able to move with urgency, put aside our differences, and be laser-focused on delivering the financial resources, delivering the boots on the ground that are needed and the policy relief that is needed to get neighborhoods cleaned up and communities rebuilt,” Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) said after it passed.

California’s last-ditch home insurer, the FAIR Plan, is meant as a backup for properties deemed high-risk and uninsurable by private companies. A Times analysis found that within the Eaton and Palisades fire zones, the number of homes on the plan nearly doubled between 2020 and 2024 and the plan has become one of the state’s largest insurers.

Amid lawsuits alleging collusion between private insurers and the FAIR Plan and policyholders raising concerns about delays in payments and smoke damage investigations, lawmakers and insurance advocates have repeatedly called for better safety nets — like the one proposed in AB 226 — to keep the insurer solvent in emergencies and viable as a long-term solution to the state’s home insurance problem.

This year, Alvarez was joined on the bill by Calderon, chair of the Assembly’s insurance committee. It passed through the Assembly at the beginning of March but has not yet seen its first Senate committee.

Alvarez celebrated the bill’s swift passage through the Assembly and hopes the Senate will work to do the same, “God forbid, if it has to be used because of a devastating fire this summer,” he said.

Other major wildfire bills being considered by lawmakers include:

• AB 493, which would require lenders to pay policyholders interest on disaster insurance payouts that are held in escrow. The measure, authored by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) would close a loophole in existing law, which already requires interest payments on other escrowed funds.
• AB 597, also introduced by Harabedian, which would keep public insurance adjusters from gouging homeowners, especially after a natural disaster or state of emergency.
• SB 495, which would prevent insurers from requiring an itemized list of personal property losses from policyholders during a state of emergency, and would require insurers to provide extensions where reconstruction is delayed. The bill, introduced by state Sen. Benjamin Allen — who represents the Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica areas — passed a Senate floor vote on Tuesday and is headed to the Assembly.

Most of the pending legislation won’t directly support survivors of the Palisades and Eaton fires but are still important to the rebuilding process, said Maryam Zar, president emeritus of the Pacific Palisades Community Council and founder of the Palisades Recovery Coalition.

The new laws would help prevent and prepare for future fires, she said, and are a show of goodwill to the communities that are suffering still.

Some other fire relief measures focus on easing the permit process for rebuilding, while others extend provisions set by Newsom during the state of emergency — easing tenancy rights for people staying in temporary housing for longer than 30 days, shortening the permit approval timeline and securing mortgage forbearance for destroyed properties for up to a year after the disaster. Others look to address staffing issues for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as fire season turns into a year-round threat.

“Wildfire survivors continue to face housing insecurity, financial strain, and emotional trauma long after the immediate danger has passed,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said in a statement. “These State bills represent a commitment to meeting people where they are — actively in recovery, rebuilding their lives, and in need of our long-term support.”