With this ruling, motor insurance companies will automatically pick up the bill. It's only right that innocent accident victims should not go through the legal nightmare just because the motorists are at fault and insurance companies refuse to pay. But could there be unintended consequences?
With the ongoing liberalization, insurance companies need to better differentiate pricing based on motorists' past records, such as traffic summons.
Hi, may I know why the fair value loss for Allianz General is far far less than Allianz Life? I think most premiums will be invested in bonds right? Both Allianz General and Life invested in different types of bonds kah?
Yes, the demand is weak across the industry. In the current year prospect section, it mentions that the higher inflation may impact claim costs while lower disposable income may impact consumers’ purchasing power and spending on longer-term commitments such as insurance products.
Hi observatory, from slide 7 of Analyst briefing, the fair value loss is -68.6 mil.. But in the Q2-2022 Quarter Report, the 6Month fair value loss is - 594 mil??
@wsb_investor, thanks for the explanation. It makes sense. Liability will reduce when the assumed discount rate is raised. However is it common for insurance companies to change their discount rate assumption from quarter to quarter? This could open up opportunity for life insurers (probably not Allianz) to massage their profits in every quarter, despite such reported profit may not be reflective of long term company potential.
Most of the liability measure with latest interest rate assumption, except a particular block of business. Another issue is that, there are reserve that floored to 0, so in comparison, less sensitive to interest rate movement. e.g. bond value drop, but reserve still floor to zero.
Fellow investors, don't you think that whilst rise in interest rates may be bad in terms of fair value, the new cash flows form coupons, dividends & premiums will be able to invest at higher yields?
So rise in interest rates is a boon to the insurance companies.
wondering on how IFRS 17 will impact on the reporting on this investment fair value gain/loss in the income statement later on.... Any comments fellow investors?
Quoted from RHB-OSK: "under the new MFRS 17 standards effective 1 Jan 2023, underwriting profits are to be stretched out across the lifetime of the contract, whereas underwriting losses are charged to the income statement immediately."
Pretty surprising from their statement that the underwriting profit is stretched out throughout the contract period, whereas underwriting loss is charged into the income statement immediately...
RHB-OSK claimed that the reported profit in IFRS 17 might be lower..
Any comments on their statement above?
From their claim, it seems that the profit would emerge slower in IFRS17 as compared to the current accounting practice..
In general, profit will be slower, that is super general. Allianz Life has a very special concentration on ILP. This is from the AGM.
The Group do not provide forecast/estimates for financial results. It is observed that retained earnings would be higher under MRFS 17 as compared to the current MFRS 4 mainly contributed by faster profit emergence for investment-linked products, and deferral of acquisition cost.
Sunlife IFRS17 investor education: 1. Traditional insurance business has higher impact driven by deferral of new business gains. 2. Higher expected profit recorded in early years for VUL products in Asia. (VUL here not exactly ILP, but ILP is much more profitable vs VUL)
The last point "Upon the adoption of FRS 17, the negative revaluation on the group’s life insurance’s investments which dampened the group’s net profit in FY21 and FY22 will no longer have any P&L impact from FY23F onwards. We understand that the marked-to-market changes in valuation of securities portfolio commencing from next year will flow through the comprehensive income."
That is a very general statement. Under IFRS17, there are 2 key measurement models (VFA/GMM). Assets hold can also further split into "assets backing liabilities" and surplus assets (excess assets above liabilities, mainly to support required capital). Only assets backing VFA liabilities will have 0 P&L impact on change in fair value. GMM business and surplus assets will still subject to the usual change in fair value impact.
Thank you for the clarification. Based on balance sheet as of Jun 30, the assets side has about RM20b investments, RM1b reinsurance asset. Insurance contract liabilities is RM18b. Does it mean around 20 + 1 - 18 = RM3b of investments may still be subjected to FV impact post IFRS17?
April 2020: 5.32% Nov 2020: 5.539% Dec 2021: 6.46% Sep 2022: 7.25% ~2% increase in holding, total value ~47mil (is relatively nothing if comparing with EPF size)
#AIAGroup (Hong Kong) Update on #IFRS17 Adoption "...the adoption of these accounting standards does not affect the underlying economics of our business with no material changes expected to the Group’s VONB, embedded value, solvency, capital, cash generation and the established prudent, sustainable and progressive dividend policy.
Operating profit after tax (OPAT) and shareholders’ allocated equity will remain the Group’s key IFRS performance indicators following adoption of the new standards. Our preparation for adoption is on track and we intend to provide a further update on the 2022 full year position in our annual results and the Group’s full restated consolidated financial statements for 2022 in the second quarter of 2023, prior to announcing the 2023 interim results.
For clarity, the adoption of IFRS 17 will resolve a large part of the non-economic accounting mismatch that is created between assets and liabilities in the Group’s consolidated financial statements under IFRS 4. In particular, the adoption of IFRS 9 and 17 will eliminate US$1.4 billion of the US$1.552 billion negative non-economic fair value movements on interest rate derivative financial instruments included within the net profit reported in the 2022 interim results. The Group uses these derivative financial instruments for risk management purposes. "
Its disclosure is top notch. I hope Allianz Malaysia will provide greater disclosure too so that investors have better insight and confidence.
AIA has recently reported growth across all segments in Q3. Specifically for Malaysia, "The strong momentum that returned to AIA Singapore and AIA Malaysia in the second quarter continued through the third quarter with both businesses again delivering double-digit VONB growth. In each market, both our Premier Agency and partnership distribution channels grew VONB, supported by our ongoing investments in TDA. In Singapore, an increase in active agent numbers and a more favourable product mix drove growth, while we delivered excellent results from our exclusive partnership with Public Bank Berhad in Malaysia."
Hope this momentum is also shared by Allianz Malaysia.
Allianz (Global) IFRS17 presentation, similar level of operating profit vs current IFRS. But not very representative, Prudential & AIA (Asia focus, more on protection) IFRS17 presentation will be more representative vs Malaysia business.
AmInvest report: The group’s stronger focus in investment-linked (IL) products with protection riders will put its life insurance business to be less significantly impacted by FRS 17, which will be implemented on 1 Jan 2023. (wrong statement, IL is positively impacted under IFRS17)
Upon the adoption of FRS 17, the negative revaluation on the group’s life insurance investments, which has dampened the group’s net profit in FY21 and FY22, will no longer have any P&L impact from FY23F (correct, to some extent)
Despite the economic recovery so far, ALIM has yet to resume its NBV growth.
According to page 3 and 21, for 9M22, "New business value was RM208.4 million, decreased by 1.9% due mainly to lower sales volume from agency business". For comparison, before the pandemic NBV grew at 30% in FY19 and 17% in FY18.
The general insurance business GWP has registered 12.3% growth for 9M22, versus 10.8% for industry and 20.6% for Takaful (page 19). Given AGIC's dominant position in motor insurance, it has likely benefited from the strong recovery in auto sales this year.
AGIC will probably return to slower growth mode in 2023 (after benefiting from the low base effect this year). Hopefully by then ALIM NBV growth could recover to its pre-pandemic pace.
Upon the adoption of FRS 17, the negative revaluation on the group’s life insurance investments, which has dampened the group’s net profit in FY21 and FY22, will no longer have any P&L impact from FY23F (correct, to some extent)
How would the fair value gain/loss being reflected in IFRS17?
It's true that the good results of 1Q21 was skewed by lockdowns in 2020. So a YoY comparison with 2022 may not be appropriate. NBV for 9M22 is RM208.4m. 9M19 figure was not reported in the quarterly presentation then. I worked backward from 3Q20 presentation which mentions "New business value (for 9M20) was RM 165.9 million, declined by 11.8%." It means NBV for 9M19 = RM165.9m / (1 - 0.118) = RM188.1m. The increase over a 3-year period, from 9M19 to 9M22 = 208.4/188.1 - 1 = 10.8%. CAGR is 3.5%. It's fair to say that ALIM business has recovered back to and above pre-pandemic level. But the growth rate has yet to return to the double digit growth of 2018-19. Of course, the EV at RM3.6b is larger today than 3 years ago.
Zurich Insurance Group AG has emerged as the frontrunner to buy a majority stake in the Malaysian insurance business of US insurer MetLife Inc and Kuala Lumpur-listed AMMB Holdings Bhd, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
A deal could value AmMetLife Insurance Bhd at about US$400 million and would need approval from the Malaysian central bank, said the people, who asked not to be identified as the process is private. Singaporean insurer Great Eastern Holdings Ltd also remains interested in buying the roughly 70% stake, the people said.
Allianz size (from financial statement) is ~3x-4x of AmMetLife, but reputation wise and future new business sales are much more promising vs AmMetLife. 1.7bil MYR * 3 is already higher than Allianz market cap (with GI).
Despite declaring an interim dividend of 16 sen for the first time recently, the final dividend of 69 sen is still higher than 63 sen in FY21. Full year dividend 85 sen is 35% higher than last year. The dividend yield is 6.1% at today closing price! It's even higher for ICPS. However on the flip side, does it also mean less growth prospect since less capital is needed?
One can manufacture profits with creative accounting and dubious accounting standards. I've invested in some companies that have massive reserves accumulated over years of profitability. Shareholders however suffer with share price stunted and microscopic dividends. Dividends is proof of real and not just paper profits. Generous dividends is proof of real and large profits! Kudos to the management of Allianz!!
Over the past 10 years, Allianz (life) is still on rapid growing phase, where capital required is much more intensive, vs its yearly profit. Obviously as of now, as the 4th largest life insurer, it will no longer have this issue. AFAIK, Pru and AIA will pay maximum amount of dividend that is allowed under RBC framework yearly.
*Dividend is not depending on IFRS17 profit, even though profit is expected to spike under IFRS17, dividend will still still be in similar range, 85sen + 10-20% growth yearly. **IFRS17 implementation cost is expensive (easily >10mil/year, over ~200mil PBT), but it will go away in 2023.
I've sold my entire stake. I reasoned that it must be an irrational exuberance for fantastic dividends that has pushed its share price to such heights.
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
observatory
1,070 posts
Posted by observatory > 2022-08-10 12:28 | Report Abuse
With this ruling, motor insurance companies will automatically pick up the bill. It's only right that innocent accident victims should not go through the legal nightmare just because the motorists are at fault and insurance companies refuse to pay. But could there be unintended consequences?
With the ongoing liberalization, insurance companies need to better differentiate pricing based on motorists' past records, such as traffic summons.