Actually can look for "Net asset value attributable to unitholders" in financial statement
Prudential YE2022, 22.0bil, up from 21.1bil (+0.9bil, +4.3%)
GE YE2022, 12.6bil, up from 11.7bil (+0.9bil, +7.2%)
AIA HY2022, 12.5bil, up from 12.5bil (no change)
HLA HY2022, 4.83bil, up from 4.35bil (+0.5bil, +11%)
Allianz YE2022, 3.2bil, up from 2.7bil (+0.5bil, +18.5%)
Etiqa YE2022, 2.44bil, up from 2.37bil (+0.07bil, +2.95%)

Surprised, thought GE is half dead on ILP and AIA is promising, but seems like reverse.
Also thought Etiqa is faster growing vs HLA, but it is reverse as well.
But clear winner (growth) is still Allianz.

Insurance management is very unlike banking. For banking, local players can shine easily, and foreign banks are not anyhow better than local banks in Malaysia. Insurance is very different. Many local insurers failed 20 years ago, many Indo/Vietnam/India insurers still fail today, even local GI insurer in Taiwan province almost bankrupt due to covid insurance.

Of course not all foreign insurers are equal, it depends on whether the regional office has any intention to really invest in Malaysia market. You can guess it from the parent company report. E.g. in AIA/Pru, Malaysia is always being mentioned. Allianz occasionally will report Malaysia market. Some other Switzerland/Canada/US/Japan based insurers, Malaysia is never really their focus.

Etiqa GROWTH FUND - 384mil
GROWTH FUND - 1004.5mil

Previously, there will always be a default fund (typically local equity), which agent will just set to 100% for any new customers. Only recently, choices of funds increased, with more "fancy" funds to select, especially for Pru and AIA.

AIA EQUITY PLUS FUND - 3004mil
PRULink Equity Fund - 7612mil
Allianz Life Master Equity Fund - 1237mil

Allianz ILP is popular (and cheaper, on purpose to gain market share previously). In fact, if just look at ILP alone, top 3 players should be AIA, Prudential, Allianz. You can actually get a sense of the "size" of ILP business by summing up all their ILP fund size, is public info.

Growth potential of insurance depends on regulation and economic growth. Malaysia economic growth is almost non existent since 2018, but we have great regulation on insurance.

almost all time high again

EV calculation will not be a catalyst to Allianz, since EV doesn't change under IFRS17 (some impacts from IFRS9 but is not significant). EV also been there for a long time, and no one seems to care or understand.

Immediate catalyst will be Takaful shareholder run away and invest in Allianz (hopefully), and if someone noticed Allianz growing dividend. Immediate threat will be upcoming RBC2 in 2024 (another regulatory change, unknown impact).

Allianz products are still selling very well, despite lower NBV. Not sure with their medical portfolio now, hopefully another round of repricing to bump up the EV / future profit.

Core profit exists previously because market movement will impact P/L a lot under IFRS4. Now it will not impact that much (partly will absorb by CSM, for VFA business), and anyone can easily split out the impact (insurance service results/investment service results) to exclude any market movement impact.

Yup, acq exp definitely increases.

Wait for HY23 financial statement for details breakdown.

I believe the NBV previous is based on MCEV (post tax), and NBV now directly take from IFRS17 CSM (gross tax). However, RA is also source of profit.

NBV previously is on best estimate basis, but now is on 75th percentile. More accurate way is to compare NBV with NB CSM + RA.

CSM release rate, annualized 12.4%, much higher than what I expected, but spike in profit is lower than my expectation, was expecting +50%.

Now can wait for STMB's Q1 and its poor result due to focus on single premium product.

Market share increases, but NBV drop due to paying more commission. PBT lower vs Q1 2022, it said due to claims, suspect is due to the release in claims reserve (set up during covid to defer profit) in 2022.

Q1 CSM amortization (key source of profit) = 95mil, full year should be ~400mil. i.e. FY2023 number will be much higher than FY2022 (377.5 IFRS17 basis or 287.2 IFRS4 basis)

For insurance contracts issued, the Group has adopted the standard using the full retrospective approach for all currently modelled products in annual cohorts 2014 or later. For modelled products in annual cohorts prior to 2014, the modified retrospective approach will be applied.

Unlike Manulife, Allianz doesn't go for shortcut!

For life, profit before tax lower to 96.5 from 131.5 (IFRS17 basis), Q1 2022 IFRS4 PBT = 67.7 (core profit = 100.7). No more core profit now under IFRS17.

Restated YE22 profit higher 31% under IFRS17 basis (life only), total company level, higher 24%.

Yes, just present value of distributable profit + net asset

Release future profit because already accounted for in equity.
Imagine equity now = 0, PV profit = 1000.
Next year release 100 profit, PV profit = 900, equity increase to 100.

expected return on EV = profit release

MCEV/TEV logic actually can trace back to option pricing (i.e. the famous Black–Scholes model). Under TEV/real-world, you are expecting to earn bond spread/illiquidity premium/credit spread/equity risk premium etc, and discount with a weighted average rates that reflect your risk. It is very hard to do it right, to explain and also to compare. For example, Prudential might use 10% equity return, but AIA might use 9% equity return, yet both might use same discount rate. It will get super complex real fast when you have much more assets type, especially the non-traditional assets, across multiple currency/countries etc. MCEV/risk-neutral/market-consistent will resolve it to revert both earn/discount rate to risk free/risk free + IP/MA etc.

PBT is IFRS4 basis, not EV basis. Closing EV = Opening EV + NBV - profit released + unwind impact (discounting). You also need to consider discounting impact.

Example:
Profit 100 yearly, 10% discount rate, 5 years.
PV profit (Y0) = 100/1.1 + 100/1.1^2 + ... 100/1.1^5 = 379
PV profit (Y1) = 100/1.1 + 100/1.1^2 + ... 100/1.1^4 = 317
Cashflow release = 100
A simple closing EV (317) will not same as opening EV (379) - profit release (100).
In this case, the discounting impact is 37.9, i.e. opening EV 379 * 10%.

In theory and conceptually, market consistent and real world should yield the same results.

It is not just the profit that being discounted, but all future cashflows. You cannot assume that all cashflows are same sign (i.e. profit). On top of that, the earning rate is different as well, where for market consistent, you will also use risk free earning rate, which will give you lower absolute amount, before discounting.

For ILP business, due to compounding effect, Allianz's MCEV is more conservative than AIA's TEV.

Imagine your unit value, growing 4% yearly in Allianz, vs AIA 10%. At 10th year, AIA project unit value will be 175% of Allianz (before other lapse/death assumptions). Fund management charge, which is a key source of income for ILP, will different greatly between AIA and Allianz (in absolute amount). Insurance margin will be the same, assuming same sustainability. However, sustainability will not be the same as well. In Allianz projection, policies more likely assumed to be lapse (due to negative unit fund) before age 70, while AIA projection, policies are more likely to sustain to age 100.

It depends on product type and other assumptions, transition CSM with fair value approach ("FVA"), the shortcut, or full retrospective approach ("FRA") can have very big difference, even up to 1000% (10x, yes). FVA is just formula based, with optional adjustments, while FRA has a strict process to follow (assuming IFRS17 always exists).

Yes, CSM + RA will roughly similar with EV. EV has additional component (e.g. cost of capital) to be more reflective of actual business, to represent cost of holding reserve/capital, this is not applicable under IFRS17. EV is designed for life insurance, while IFRS17 is for all insurance. Another key difference is the assumptions used. IFRS17 must use market consistent (i.e. risk free rates) for all cashflows projection, while EV (in Asia, but not Allianz) typically will use a real world return (and discounting) for cashflows projection.

For old block of business before 2023, you will need to calculate a one-off CSM, assuming IFRS17 always exists. This part got many rooms to play with the number. e.g. some companies will calculate a proper way, go back 10+ years to calculate CSM, or you can just take a shortcut and report a lower CSM.

For Manulife:
"For calculating the contractual service margin (“CSM”), the fair value approach is used for all in-force policies sold before 2021, and the full retrospective approach is used for all policies sold in 2021 onwards."

For this transition CSM (opening balance), it is unrelated to RA.

On your second question, both CSM and RA represent future unearned profit, difference being CSM = 75th percentile, while CSM + RA = best estimate (50th percentile). So it should be 320mil (market cap), vs 241 CSM + 232 RA = 473 gross tax, or 360 net tax.

Manulife also "intentionally" set a low CSM, but might also due on its business nature (not sure what's it saving/protection mix). If Allianz (primary protection business) didn't intentionally set a low CSM, spike in operating profit should be very substantial (much higher than Manulife 11.6%)

Manulife disclosed its CSM = 241mil, RA = 232mil, net tax ~ 360mil, vs its market cap of 420mil (inclusive of asset management business).

Globally Manulife mainly focus on HNW saving products (e.g. Manulife SG is top 3 ranked by APE), and indeed Manulife also has a HNW subsidiary in Malaysia (one of its kind), but Manulife itself quite limited branding in Malaysia, with poor agency channel and banca channel (Alliance bank).

Tuneprotect also released its IFRS17 Q1 result, but nothing to see there, since minimal change to General insurance.

IFRS17 impacts the most on conventional life. Maybank has multiple subsidiaries (conventional/takaful x life/general). By product type, IFRS17 also has different impacts on regular premium/single premium (e.g. STMB), and protection / saving.

Allianz Life has relatively minimal saving products, but this is not the case for Etiqa Life.

Q1 result confirm bad, I will guess at least a -50% impact to profit (exclude any fair value related)

Great Eastern Holdings G07 0.00% , a member of the OCBC Group, reported earnings of $244.0 million for the 1QFY2023 ended March 31, 10.9% higher than the earnings of $220.0 million in the 1QFY2022.

For the current quarter, the earnings were reported on the SFRS(I) 17 insurance contracts basis while the earnings for the 1QFY2022 were reported based on SFRS(I) 4 insurance contracts principles. The impact of the new method of reporting will be disclosed in the group’s 1HFY2023 results.

*NBEV - 11%, but ifrs17 profit higher 10%

pg164 AR2022:

1. The combined effect on the Group’s consolidated statement of financial position on transition to MFRS 9 and MFRS 17 as at 1 January 2022 is to improve total equity measured under MFRS 17 by approximately 8%

100% Eq @ YE22 = 4.2bil, 8% = 336 mil

2. For insurance contracts issued, the Group intends to adopt the standard using the full retrospective approach for all currently modelled products in annual cohorts 2014 or later. (Generally longer FRA period = higher transition CSM = more future profit)

AIA FY2022 report:
Overall expected positive impact of IFRS 9 and IFRS 17 compared with IAS 39 and IFRS 4

Under IFRS 4, mark-to-market movements on derivative financial instruments are reflected in net profit but these are not fully offset by the corresponding change in the value of the liabilities. The adoption of IFRS 17 will eliminate this non-economic accounting mismatch that is created between assets and liabilities in the Group’s consolidated financial statements under IFRS 4. Non-operating movements on derivative financial instruments for participating business was negative US$2,003 million in 2022 as shown below. For clarity, this figure would have been zero under IFRS 17. Including this effect, net profit will be at least US$2 billion higher than net profit under IFRS 4.

https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2023&no=160281

same same speech this budget 2.0

YE2022, PBT +12.6%, PAT -1.2% due to Prosperity Tax. Life core profit for past 4 years = 273, 270, 267, 325; GI profit for past 4 years = 362, 432, 437, 462.

https://www.allianz.com.my/content/dam/onemarketing/azmb/wwwallianzcommy/pdf/investor-updates/2022/2022_Q4_AMB_Analyst_Briefing.pdf

Aaron Fryer, Regional Chief Financial Officer, Allianz Asia Pacific, said: “In a year of uncertainty and amid a turbulent global economy, our core businesses have displayed resilience and performed in line with expectations, achieving a 17 percent increase in operating profits in Asia in FY2022.

“The Life & Health (L/H) business saw robust growth, with operating profit up 20 per cent to EUR 532 million, primarily due to profit increases in Taiwan, Malaysia, and China.

“The Property & Casualty (P/C) business in the region showed continuous growth, with operating profit up 8 per cent to EUR 141 million, while total revenues rose 17 per cent to EUR 1.7 billion, driven particularly by strong growth in China, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand (including the acquisition of Aetna Thailand).

https://fintechnews.my/34207/insurtech-malaysia/fwd-to-snap-up-majority-stake-in-gibraltar-bsn-life-plans-for-rebrand/

close at all time high now, despite EPF stop buying

For me, I foresee a spike in earning & share price in HY23 (August 23), and then YE23 (Feb 24), then will enter a stabilize phase, unless any major change in market share.

Allianz Life MY should already have internal projection readily available, just whether if they will disclosure it. Don't be surprised by a 50-100%, or even 200% spike in earning on the Life side.

Actually pan-Asia insurance stock all rise to xx-weeks high now, e.g. PRU (HKSE).

Almost all time high now

Vincent Tan used to say that Prudential and Digi were the most tragic divestment for him. I supposed this partly the reason he get into MCIS Life now (VT already owns U-mobile). Life insurance is a great business, if done right. However, typically local insurer, without foreign insurer support, usually will fail to perform well, as selling insurance contract is not like selling a house or a car, it is much more complex than every other things. MCIS also has a rather unique demographic (e.g. some said Pru and AIA only serve the rich), MCIS has a lead in certain demographic as well, but is not an attractive one. Overall, I dont think BCORP taking over MCIS is a good idea. If I were VT, I will rather take over AXA Affin Life (now Generali), or AmMetlife (to be sold to either Zurich or GE).

据传，成功集团（BJCORP,3395,主板工业产品服务组）有意向南非桑勒姆集团收购MCIS寿险（MCIS Life）的51%控制股权。
https://www.sinchew.com.my/20230107/%E6%88%90%E5%8A%9F%E9%9B%86%E5%9B%A2-3/

EPF disposed for the first time

Suspect Vincent Tan new target is also a life insurance company. That means, it will be third life insurance that change owner in recent 1 year.

Ammetlife recently rumoured to be sold at 400mil USD, roughly the size of Bcorp. If the target is a life insurance company, it will be smaller/equal size than Ammetlife, and is not Zurich.

because it is not listed? no one mentioned that the new entity is listed.

market cap 1.8bil, should be a small size insurance company, not bank.