MERCURY GENERAL CORP (MCY): what the price requires
At today's price, MERCURY GENERAL CORP (MCY) is priced for 15.3% return on equity. boothcheck doesn't publish a fair value or a price target; it shows what the price assumes, so you can judge whether that bar is too high.
Generated: 2026-07-14 · Exported: 2026-07-16 · Source: https://boothcheck.com/report/MCY
Headline
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Ticker | MCY |
| Company | MERCURY GENERAL CORP |
| Current price | $110.09/sh |
What The Price Requires (Inversion)
The assumption today's price embeds, recovered by inverting the valuation.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Inversion basis | financials |
| Return on equity needed | 15.3% |
| Return on equity now | 22.4% |
| ROE gap | -7.1pp |
| Price-to-book | 2.35x |
Solve inputs: computed at a 8.8% cost of equity with 4% terminal growth over a 5-year stage, on common book equity (FY2026); each 1pp of cost of equity moves the implied ROE ~2.4pp.
How unusual the bet is: within-range
| Reference | Value |
|---|---|
| vs own history | +0.70σ |
| cohort percentile (of 80 peers) | 68 |
| sustained it ~10 years at this level | 59% |
| implied end-window share | 0% |
Valuation X-Ray
The price is supported by asset-based and earnings-power and relative-multiple and growth-DCF value. A value/asset-supported name, not a pure growth bet.
How the valuation models price the stock relative to the market price. Price/FV above 1.0 means the market pays more than that lens defends (expensive); at or below 1.0 the lens can defend the price.
| Family | Median price/FV | Models | Reads |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asset | 0.67x | 3 | justifies |
| Earnings | 0.45x | 2 | justifies |
| Relative | 0.60x | 3 | justifies |
| Growth | 1.14x | 1 | expensive |
Families that justify the price: Asset, Earnings, Relative, Growth
The models below discount at their own flat-beta convention rates (cost of equity 9.3%, WACC 7.1%); the inversion above states its own rate.
Per-Model Detail (n=9)
| Model | Family | FV | Price/FV | Applicable | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCF Perpetual Growth | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Bank Fair Value (P/TBV) | — | $296.00 | 0.37x | yes | TBVPS $45.87 × 6.45x (ROE (TTM) 32.4% / CoE 9.3%, g=5.0% (sustainable: 65% retention × ROE, 5% cap; not the terminal-growth assumption)) |
| Relative Valuation | Relative | $183.37 | 0.60x | yes | P/E 11x (static sector reference · 2026-04), scenarios: 9.2x / 11.0x / 12.8x (bear / base = reference held flat / bull), EV/EBITDA 10x |
| Simple DDM | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Two-Stage DDM | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Simple Excess Return | Asset | $163.92 | 0.67x | yes | BV/sh $46.76, ROE (TTM) 32.4%, ke 9.3% |
| Two-Stage Excess Return | Asset | $321.76 | 0.34x | yes | 5yr excess ROE then converge to ke=9.3% |
| Discounted Future Market Cap | Growth | $96.45 | 1.14x | yes | Rev $6.1B, growth 10% (input: historical growth; tapered), Terminal P/S: 0.8x / 1.0x / 1.2x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull, cap 8x) |
| Peter Lynch Fair Value | Relative | $182.04 | 0.60x | yes | EPS $15.17, growth 1% (input: historical EPS growth), PEG=5.15 (Overvalued) |
| Margin Trajectory | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Earnings Power Value | Earnings | — | — | no | — |
| Residual Income | Asset | — | — | no | — |
| Graham Number | Asset | $126.34 | 0.87x | yes | √(22.5 × EPS $15.17 × BVPS $46.76) — Graham's conservative floor |
| EV/EBITDA Relative | Relative | — | — | no | — |
| FCF Yield | Earnings | — | — | no | — |
| SBC-Adj FCF Yield | Earnings | — | — | no | — |
| Ben Graham Formula | Earnings | $489.49 | 0.22x | yes | EPS $15.17 × (8.5 + 2×15.0%) × (4.4 / 5.3%) |
| ROIC-Justified P/B | Asset | — | — | no | — |
| P/Sales Sector | Relative | — | — | no | — |
| PEG Fair Value | Relative | $568.88 | 0.19x | yes | EPS $15.17 × (PEG 1.5 × growth 25.0% (input: historical EPS growth)) → PE 37.5x |
| Earnings Yield | Earnings | $164.00 | 0.67x | yes | EPS $15.17 / required return 9.3% (Rf 4.3% + ERP 5.0%) |
| Funds From Operations Multiple | Relative | — | — | no | — |
| Clinical Phase NPV | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Merton | Asset | — | — | no | — |
| V5 Mechanical | — | — | — | no | — |
Solvency
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Share count CAGR (dilution) | 0.0% |
Deposit/float-funded balance sheet: debt is funding, not corporate leverage, and GAAP operating cash flow follows loan flows. Net-debt, interest-coverage, and cash-burn lenses do not apply. The solvency frame for a financial is regulatory capital and payout capacity (CET1, stress buffer, dividends plus buybacks against earnings).
Bullet Takeaways
Mercury General is a California-concentrated personal-lines insurer that just walked back from the edge. The 2025 Palisades and Eaton wildfires drove a brutal stretch, but Q1 2026 swung to net income of $190.4 million from a $108.3 million loss a year earlier, and the combined ratio improved to 89.3% from 119.2%.
At about $103 the shares trade roughly at or modestly above book, and the valuation models lean clearly to the value side. Asset-based, earnings-power, and relative-multiple frames all land above the price, which the system reads as a value/asset-supported name rather than a growth bet.
The forward swing factor is rate. California approved a 6.9% homeowners rate increase in December 2025, effective July 2026, which directly addresses the pricing-versus-risk gap that the wildfires exposed.
Bull Case
Start with the risk that almost ended the conversation, then check whether the latest data confirms or refutes it. The fear on Mercury General is concentration: a personal-lines insurer heavily exposed to California, hit directly by the 2025 Palisades and Eaton wildfires, with reinsurance costs rising and a combined ratio that blew out to 119.2% a year ago (a loss-making book by definition, since anything over 100% means claims and expenses exceeded premiums). That is the bear in one sentence. The Q1 2026 results undermine it more than they confirm it. The company swung to net income of $190.4 million from a $108.3 million loss, and the combined ratio snapped back to 89.3%, comfortably profitable underwriting. Net premiums earned rose to $1.45 billion from $1.28 billion. The catastrophe quarter was an event, not a permanent state.
The economics underneath are those of a value-supported financial, not a growth story, and that is the point. The inversion solves on return on equity with a retention near 0.87 and a cost of equity near 8.8%, and the priced-in assumption reads within range rather than stretched. In plain terms, the market is paying for the book value and the normalized earnings power, not for a heroic growth path.
The rate action is the bridge from the bad year to a normal one. The California Department of Insurance approved a 6.9% increase on the company's homeowners line in December 2025, effective July 2026. Rate increases are how a property insurer re-prices risk after a loss event, and getting one approved in a tightly regulated state is the specific catalyst that closes the gap the wildfires exposed. With the dividend intact (about $1.28 a year, $0.32 quarterly), a Strong Buy analyst consensus, and the combined ratio back below 90%, the bull case is that a cheap, asset-backed insurer is being priced for a catastrophe year that has already passed.
Bear Case
Begin with the balance sheet, because for an insurer the fragility is structural and specific. Mercury General runs a deposit-and-float-funded book where the liabilities are claims reserves, and the single largest stress on that structure is geographic concentration in California catastrophe exposure. The 2025 wildfires were not a one-quarter accounting blip: the company has managed more than 2,900 wildfire claims and paid over $1.4 billion to date, and even in the recovery quarter it absorbed about $93 million of catastrophe losses net of reinsurance, largely from reserve development on the Palisades and Eaton fires plus storms in California, Texas, and Oklahoma. Reserve development means the original loss estimate was too low and had to be topped up, which is exactly the failure mode that makes a concentrated property book risky. The capital adequacy that matters for an insurer is its ability to absorb the next event, and a portfolio this concentrated has less margin for a repeat than a geographically diversified peer.
The rate fix is real but slow and partial. The approved 6.9% California homeowners increase does not take effect until July 2026, so the book is still earning at the old, demonstrably underpriced rates through the first half of the year. And 6.9% may not fully cover the step-change in wildfire risk and reinsurance cost; insurers in California have repeatedly found that approved rate is below the rate they actually need, because the regulatory process lags the loss experience. If the next fire season is severe, the combined ratio can deteriorate again before the rate adequacy catches up.
The valuation does not offer a deep margin for that risk. The shares trade at roughly two times book, which is a premium, not a discount, for a personal-lines insurer with this concentration. The bull leans on the bank-fair-value and excess-return frames that sit well above the tape; the bear notes that those frames assume normalized returns, and an insurer whose normal can be erased by a single fire season is precisely the case where the asset-based comfort is least reliable.
Valuation
Mercury General is valued as a financial, so the anchor is book value and return on equity rather than an operating-income multiple. The inversion solves on ROE with a cost of equity near 8.8%, a retention ratio around 0.87, and a growth ceiling near 17.4%, and it characterizes the priced-in assumption as within range: the price is supported by asset-based, earnings-power, relative-multiple, and growth-DCF value at once, which the system flags as a value/asset-supported name rather than a pure growth bet.
The model families lean clearly to the cheap side, but with a wide dispersion that warrants caution. The two disagree because they measure different things: the asset and excess-return frames capitalize normalized profitability against book, while the inversion band stress-tests the ROE path and discounts the catastrophe risk more heavily. For a concentrated property insurer fresh off a wildfire year, the conservative band is the more honest read of downside, and the asset frames are the read of upside if normal returns hold.
The practical conclusion: at roughly two times book, Mercury is not a deep-value asset play, but it is priced below where its normalized earnings power and book value would put it if the catastrophe years are the exception. The whole thesis rests on whether California rate adequacy, the approved 6.9% homeowners increase effective July 2026 being the first visible step, closes the gap before the next severe fire season tests the book again.
Catalysts
Q1 2026 was the turnaround quarter. Net income came in at $190.4 million, reversing a $108.3 million loss a year earlier, with the GAAP combined ratio improving to 89.3% from 119.2% and net premiums earned rising to $1.45 billion from $1.28 billion. The stock nonetheless fell about 6.6% on the report, with the market focused on the roughly $93 million of catastrophe losses net of reinsurance, mainly reserve development on the Palisades and Eaton wildfires plus storms in three states.
The key forward catalyst is rate. The California Department of Insurance approved a 6.9% increase on the company's homeowners line in December 2025, effective July 2026. That is the mechanism for re-pricing the book after the wildfire losses, and its adequacy is the swing factor for the combined ratio through the rest of 2026.
Analyst sentiment is constructive: a Strong Buy consensus with an average target in the $112 to $120 range, above the current price. The company maintains its dividend at about $1.28 annually ($0.32 quarterly).
The items to watch are the 2026 California fire season, any further reserve development on the 2025 fires, the trajectory of reinsurance costs, and whether the approved rate increase is enough or whether Mercury must seek more. Each maps directly to whether the post-wildfire normalization holds.
Peer Cohorts (Per Segment, With Filing Citations)
Property & Casualty (reported)
- CB (Chubb Limited)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- TRV (Travelers Companies, Inc.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- PGR (PROGRESSIVE CORP/OH/)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- ALL (ALLSTATE CORP)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- AIG (American International Group, Inc.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- CINF (CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORPORATION)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- HIG (The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- WRB (W. R. BERKLEY CORP)
- (no filing in the citation store)
Methodology Note
- Priced-in inversion: the valuation is inverted on the current price to recover the operating-income growth, duration, and steady-state margin the price embeds (ROE for financials, FFO growth for REITs).
- Valuation x-ray: the valuation models, grouped into four families (asset, earnings, relative, growth). Each model is expressed as a price/FV ratio (distance from price), not a point fair-value estimate. The spread across families is the disagreement.
- Solvency: net cash/debt, net-debt-to-NOPAT, interest coverage, and share-count CAGR from EDGAR financials (net debt / FFO and fixed-charge coverage for REITs; regulatory-capital framing for financials).
- Peer cohorts: per-segment comparables with deep-linkable SEC filing citations.
Fundamentals sourced from SEC EDGAR filings. Current price from Databento. The priced-in inversion and valuation x-ray are computed by the boothcheck engine; narrative composed by AI from the structured data.