Our rating
All business conducted through our wholly-owned Guardrisk Cell Captive arrangement
has an AA rating from Global Credit Ratings.
Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited
|
South Africa Insurance Analysis
|
October 2011
|
|
Security class
|
Rating scale
|
Currency
|
Rating
|
Rating watch
|
Expiry date
|
|
Claims paying ability
|
National
|
Rand
|
AA
|
No
|
10/2012
|
|
Financial data:
|
|
(US$’m Comparative)
|
|
|
31/03/10
|
31/03/11
|
|
R/US$ (avg.)
|
7.85
|
7.21
|
|
R/US$ (close)
|
7.39
|
6.85
|
|
Total assets
|
542.7
|
604.2
|
|
Total capital
|
16.3
|
20.7
|
|
Cash & equiv.
|
409.3
|
464.3
|
|
GWP
|
585.7
|
493.1
|
|
U/w result
|
103.4
|
120.7
|
|
NPAT
|
5.3
|
7.5
|
|
Op. cash flow
|
20.2
|
30.1
|
|
Market cap
|
n.a.
|
|
Market share*
|
54%
|
|
*Estimate based on GCR’s sample relating to alternative risk transfer GWP for 2010.
|
Fundamentals:
Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited (“Guardrisk”) is a 100% held subsidiary of Guardrisk
Holdings Limited, which in turn is wholly owned by Alexander Forbes Equity Holdings
(Pty) Ltd (“Alexander Forbes”). This relationship provides the insurer with technical
support and access to a secure distribution channel. Guardrisk was established in
1992 and was the first insurer to introduce the cell captive insurance concept in
South Africa. The company had a substantial base of around 105 cells in F11.
GCR contacts
Craig Davids
+27 11 784-1771
davids@globalratings.net
Marc Joffe
+27 11 784-1771
joffe@globalratings.net
Website: www.globalratings.net
Rating rationale
The rating is based on the following key factors:
- Guardrisk’s leading position in the cell captive market, complimented by strong
management and a high level of technical capabilities.
- The insurer has demonstrated an ability to consistently report growth in assets
under management, while profitability has remained sound.
- Guardrisk has committed to preserve capital at a level that covers the risk based
capital requirement by 1.3x, with core capital coverage (excluding holding company
loans) to be maintained at a minimum of 1x. Any surplus capital is expected to be
paid to Guardrisk Holdings through a dividend. Note was also taken of the fact that
the statutory solvency margin has remained above the regulatory minimum over the
review period.
- The conservative investment mix and comfortable liquidity measures were favourably
viewed.
- Guardrisk is exposed to credit risk relating to its third party sponsored cells,
should the reinsurance as first layer of protection fail. However, risk is mitigated
by the diversification between the cells and the variation in risk types and target
markets.
- The ring-fenced nature of the cell ownership, as well as the broad diversity of
cells, was considered when assessing the total risk profile of the company.
Solvency & liquidity
Notwithstanding a R39m dividend payment (F10: nil), following solid retained earnings,
shareholders interest increased from R121m to R142m in F11. Subsequent to year-end
F11, Guardrisk paid a dividend of R50m, which was offset against a loan to the holding
company (which consequently decreased to R45m at August F12). Core capital (excluding
the loan to the holding company) covered the risk based capital requirement 1.3x
at FYE11 (FYE10: 1.1x) and remained above the 1x cover required by GCR as a minimum
for the current rating. The statutory funding ratio remained unchanged at 32% in
F11 and comfortably complied with the minimum regulatory requirement. The insurer
maintains a conservative investment mix, with a large cash component (85% of investments).
Further, the claims cash coverage ratio was posted at a comfortable 28 months in
F11 (F10: 25 months). Guardrisk uses XoL cover to protect promoter capital, with
the highest net retention per risk and event equating to 1.4% of FYE11 shareholders
funds.
Business mix
Guardrisk is the leading alternative risk transfer provider in South Africa, having
operated in this segment for more than 15 years. Guardrisk provides structured insurance
products in the form of contingency policies and traditional cell captive facilities,
which accounted for a combined 80% of statutory GWP in F11 (F10: 81%).
|
Table 1
|
F10
|
F11
|
Business mix
statutory GWP
|
R’m
|
%
|
R’m
|
%
|
|
First party cells
|
797.1
|
20.8
|
751.6
|
17.2
|
|
Third party cells
|
1,156.2
|
30.2
|
1,493.2
|
34.3
|
|
Contingency policies
|
1,148.5
|
30.1
|
1,233.9
|
28.3
|
|
Direct business
|
723.4
|
18.9
|
879.1
|
20.2
|
|
Total revenue
|
3,825.3
|
100.0
|
4,357.8
|
100.0
|
Direct business
Direct business advanced 22% to R879m in F11, representing 20% of total revenue
(F10: 19%). This was largely supported by the fact that the insurer began to participate
on a substantial portfolio of general commercial business1 (GWP of around R490m).
Going forward, Guardrisk aims to continue growing its direct business division,
with the aim of increasing the underwriting component of promoter profits.
Contingency policies
A contingency policy is an insurance contract structure that allows the policyholder
to participate in the underwriting performance of a predefined insured risk or set
of risks. The insurable interest relates to first party risks, meaning the risks
associated with the client’s own business or operations within the same group. Premiums
are charged upfront and are calculated in terms of the policyholder’s expected risk
exposure over the period of the contract. In addition, Guardrisk provides an excess
layer of cover over and above this retained portion, usually limited to 20% of the
total gross premium. In effect, Guardrisk’s claims exposure is limited to 120% of
the premium over the term of the contract. The net surplus of the contingency policyholder’s
account (after Guardrisk’s management fee and a provision for unexpired risk) accrues
to the client as a policyholder bonus at the end of the contract period. This may
be used to fund the premium payments in the following period, or be retained by
the client on expiry of the contract. GWP from contingency policies advanced by
7% to R1.2bn in F11, facilitated by Guardrisk’s Corporate Risk Solution (“CRS”)
department, which focuses on 1st party corporate business and contingency policies.
Cells
A cell captive is a contractual agreement entered into between the insurer and the
cell shareholder, whereby the risks and rewards associated with certain insurance
activities accrue to the cell shareholder. Cells are fully or partially capitalised
by the client, through the acquisition of “A” ordinary shares. In terms of the “A”
shareholders agreement, Guardrisk has a contractual right to call for additional
capital in the event that solvency of the cell falls below the agreed minimum level
(regulatory minimum of 15%). In determining a solvency benchmark for the cell, Guardrisk
uses a risk based model that considers the underlying risk characteristics of the
business, with underwriting risk modelled at a 99.5th percentile level of certainty.
On this basis, cells that are adequately capitalised may withdraw a portion of their
funds in the form of a dividend.
1st party cell arrangements refer to the insurance of risks that relate to the cell
owner’s own operations, or operations within the cell shareholder’s group of companies.
The company bears no risk on first party cell arrangements, as aggregate claims
are limited to the accumulated surplus in the cell. The number of active 1st party
clients decreased to 32 in F11 from 34 previously, with gross premiums contracting
by 6% to R752m for the year. The five largest 1st party cell owners together accounted
for a higher 72% of GWP in F11 (F10: 63%).
3rd party cell arrangements are where the cell shareholder provides the opportunity
to its own client base to purchase branded insurance products. Guardrisk is the
principal to the insurance contract, although the business is underwritten on behalf
of the cell shareholder. Guardrisk would ultimately be responsible for claims in
the event that the cell owner was unable to meet its obligations to policyholders.
Accordingly, it is important to consider the track record and financial soundness
of each of the cells, which can have a direct impact on Guardrisk’s profitability
and capital requirements. In this respect, Guardrisk has implemented a monthly compliance
check with each of its cells, which is in line with regulatory reforms in the global
insurance industry. In terms of 3rd party cell arrangements, Guardrisk divides its
operations into two sub-segments, which are managed under separate divisions. The
affinity segment relates to cell facilities provided to corporate entities that
sell ancillary insurance products alongside their primary product offering. The
cell owner participates in a portion of the underwriting risk by writing the insurance
business into the cell.
The UMA segment includes business derived via underwriting agencies that wish to
retain a portion of risk for their own accounts. This usually relates to more market-wide
risks, which is subject to a higher level of underwriting volatility.
Following a net take-on of 7 new cells (predominantly corporate entities), Guardrisk
operated 73 cell facilities in F11. Further, the split between corporate and UMA
owned cells equated to 77%:23% (F10: 69%:31%), with GWP being split 56%:44% in F11
(F10: 60%:40%). The five largest cell owners accounted for a cumulatively higher
43% of GWP in F11 (F10: 42%), with the largest representing an unchanged 10% of
the total. It is, however, noted that Guardrisk’s underlying profits relate to management
fees and investment fees, based on investment income on assets under management.
The average earned loss ratio for the ten largest 3rd party cells increased from
42% to 48% in F11, although this was offset by a more favourable claims experience
in several smaller sized cells. In this regard, the overall earned loss ratio declined
by two percentage points to 37%. Four of the ten largest 3rd party cells reported
underwriting deficits in F11 (total 3rd party underwriting deficits in F11: 11),
compared to three previously (total 3rd party underwriting deficits in F10: 14).
This was particularly evident in the one cell (earned loss ratio of 38%, vs. 25%
in F10), which reported an underwriting deficit of R17m in F11 (F10: R6m deficit).
As such, this cell evidenced a 15 percentage point decline in its solvency margin,
to 16% at FYE11 (minimum regulatory requirement: 15%). According to management,
however, results for the five months to August 2011 indicate the cell to be adequately
managed, with solvency expected to be maintained above the minimum requirement in
F12. Cognisance is also taken of the fact that a cell (3% of GWP) has remained undercapitalised
over the last two financial years, following a marked deterioration in its claims
management. Accordingly, Guardrisk has implemented corrective underwriting action
(via tariff increases and better claims control) on this cells’ account, and believes
the cell will be self sustainable by financial year end F12.
Competitive positioning
Table 2:
Peer comparison – IFRS (R’m)
|
Centriq*
|
Guardrisk
|
|
GWP
|
2,038.4
|
3,555.0
|
|
NWP
|
381.1
|
1,653.2
|
|
NPAT**
|
35.4
|
60.3
|
|
S/h funds
|
108.4
|
141.7
|
|
Key ratios (%)
|
|
GWP growth
|
4.3
|
17.4
|
|
Statutory solvency margin
|
30.0
|
32.0
|
|
Claims cash cover (months)
|
41.5
|
27.5
|
*Year ended December 2010. **Including unrealised movements
Guardrisk continued to report double digit growth in F11 (of 17%; F10: 22%), supported
by an uptick in business under its 3rd party cell arrangements. Accordingly, the
insurer’s market share (GCR’s sample) of alternative risk transfers increased to
around 54%2 of GWP in F11, from 53% previously. Further, Guardrisk maintained its
statutory solvency margin at 32% in F11, which compares favourably to that of its
largest competitor and the regulatory minimum. Guardrisk also continued to report
sound liquidity measures, with the claims cash coverage ratio sustained in excess
of two years.
Reinsurance
Guardrisk assists in either directly arranging or providing guidance for the appropriate
reinsurance cover for all of the 3rd party cells, to ensure that cell owners are
not retaining risks in excess of their available capacity. The 3rd party reinsurance
programme is well diversified, with reinsurers displaying a minimum international
rating (or GCR domestic currency rating in the case of local insurance companies)
of A- (single A minus). In terms of its own risk assumption, Guardrisk uses XoL
treaties to protect its net account, which are placed with Africa Re and Hannover
Re. The highest net retention amounts to R2m per risk on both 3rd party business
and direct business written respectively (1.4% of FYE11 shareholders funds). In
addition to the above, Guardrisk utilises CAT cover for the entire cell captive
facility, providing capacity to the value of R190m (retention: R5m).
Asset management
|
Table 3: Investment portfolio
|
F10
|
F11
|
|
|
R’m
|
%
|
R’m
|
%
|
|
Cash & equiv
|
3,025.0
|
82.5
|
3,180.3
|
85.4
|
|
Preference shares
|
374.7
|
10.6
|
360.6
|
9.7
|
|
Unit trusts
|
143.9
|
4.1
|
167.4
|
4.5
|
|
Unlisted equities & subsidiary
|
6.8
|
0.2
|
6.8
|
0.2
|
|
Fixed interest security
|
n.a.
|
n.a.
|
7.6
|
0.2
|
|
Total investments
|
3,550.4
|
100.0
|
3,722.7
|
100.0
|
Funds backing the “A” shareholders’ capital are invested in accordance with a mandate
provided by the cell owner, which indemnifies Guardrisk from responsibility for
adverse market movements. The total investment portfolio grew by 5% in F11, to R3.7bn,
compared to a compound annual growth rate of 12% registered over the review period.
The investment portfolio primarily comprises cash and money market instruments (85%).
Of this, 80% is invested in international investment grade rated entities, mainly
placed with the five largest South African banks. The remaining 20% relates to money
market investments, backed by appropriately rated corporate entities. Further, Guardrisk
only invests in local instruments. Overall, realised investment income decreased
by 15% to R237m in F11, equating to an average investment yield of 7%, from 8% previously.
This is largely due to the protracted lower interest rate environment during the
financial year F11.
Cash and equivalents covered cell owners’ capital and policyholder liabilities 0.8x
at FYE11, which has remained unchanged since FYE07. Excluding amounts due to cell
owners, the claims cash coverage ratio advanced to 28 months (FYE10: 25 months),
a review period high.
Solvency
Cell captive business differs from traditional insurance, as the surplus capital
held by the cell owners is not intended to be used to fund business written by other
cells or at the promoter level. Accordingly, each of the cells needs to be adequately
capitalised on a tandalone basis. When cells do not have adequate surplus funds
relative to the internal benchmark solvency level, Guardrisk needs to hold these
surplus funds on its own balance sheet3. Furthermore, Guardrisk accepts risk for
its own account (promoter) by providing an excess layer of protection to contingency
policyholders, by participating on a share of the proportional reinsurance programmes
of 3rd party cells and by underwriting business directly4. Guardrisk uses a risk
based capital model to determine the appropriate level of capital to be held at
the promoter level, which is actively used in the business to guide management decisions.
The model provides for underwriting risk accruing from 3rd party and promoter risks
respectively (99.5% level of sufficiency). Credit risk factors are built into the
model to account for potential reinsurance failure and the possibility of cell owners
defaulting on their obligations to maintain the required risk based solvency level.
The model also includes a market risk component and an estimate for catastrophe
risk (based on two CAT events). These two risk components are built into the capital
allocation for each business line. Guardrisk undertakes a full review of the risk
based capital requirement on a semiannual (analysed internally by the executive
committee), as well as quarterly updates based on best estimates.
During the implementation of the aforementioned risk based capital requirement model
into the business (between F08 and F10), Guardrisk reduced its profit distribution
to shareholders. In this regard, shareholders interest increased from R25m at FYE08
to R121m at FYE10. In F11, however, robust net profits after tax (R54m) saw Guardrisk
declare a dividend of R39m. Shareholders funds were reported 18% higher at R142m
at FYE11.
Table 4:
Risk based capital requirement (R’m)
|
F10
|
F11
|
|
Mining rehabilitation
|
8.4
|
11.1
|
|
Promoter
|
23.1
|
2.1
|
|
First party
|
2.2
|
0.0
|
|
Operational risk
|
12.6
|
30.0
|
|
Standalone total
|
46.3
|
46.2
|
|
Correlation adj.
|
(9.2)
|
(9.0)
|
|
Third party shortfall
|
20.5
|
28.7
|
|
Capital required
|
57.6
|
65.9
|
As at March 2011, the risk based capital model predicted 99.5th percentile losses
of R65.9m in F11 (F10: R57.6m), supported by the growth in business and additional
risk taken on certain lines. As at FYE11, shareholders funds covered the risk based
capital requirement 2.2x (FYE10: 2.1x). Excluding holding company loans of R55m
at FYE11 (FYE10: R60m), core capital covered the risk based capital requirement
1.3x (F10: 1.1x), which is above the 1x cover required by GCR as a minimum for the
current rating. Subsequent to year-end F11, Guardrisk declared a dividend of R50m.
The entire dividend was offset against a holding company loan (R95m), which consequently
decreased to R45m at the end of August 2012. The statutory solvency margin includes
cell owners’ capital (net of technical reserves) and is calculated as a percentage
of total net written premiums, before notional reinsurance outwards relating to
3rd party cells. Statutory net surplus assets increased by 12% to R973m in F11,
as a result of an increase in insurance assets. Similarly, strong top line growth
saw statutory NWP rise by 12% to R3bn. As such, the statutory solvency margin remained
unchanged at 32% in F11. In this respect, Guardrisk has consistently managed statutory
solvency above 30% over the five year review period.
Financial performance
A 5-year synopsis of Guardrisk’s IFRS results is reflected at the back of this report,
whilst brief comment follows below. Guardrisk continued to report strong growth
in F11, with GWP advancing 17% to R3.6bn. This is above the CAGR of 13% for the
five year review period. Notwithstanding a decline in retention to 46% (F10: 51%),
following an R8m transfer from the UPR (compared to a R142m increase in F10), this
saw earned premiums advance 19% to R1.7bn in F11.
Claims incurred increased by a relatively subdued 9% to R545m, resulting in a contraction
of the earned loss ratio to 33% (F10: 36%). Following a 35% increase in acquisition
costs, Guardrisk evidenced its first net commission payment in F11, which amounted
to 7% of NPE (F10: 2% net recovery). According to management, this is largely due
to the hardening of reinsurance rates in the industry. As a result, the delivery
cost ratio increased from 6% to 15% in F11. Overall, Guardrisk posted a lower underwriting
margin of 52% in F11 (F10: 58%).
Profits owed to cells increased from R954m to R980m in F11, exceeding underwriting
profits by R110m (F10: R142m). Notwithstanding lower investment income, NPAT increased
from R41m to R54m in F11, supported by robust fee income (based on an average 10%
of investment income earned per cell). In this regard, Guardrisk has achieved consistent
growth in NPAT over the review period.
ROaE equated to a marginally lower 41% in F11 (F10: 44%), albeit remaining robust.
Cognisance is taken of the distortions that arise as a result of the notional reinsurance
transactions relating to 3rd party cells. As such, table 7 provides a summary of
the promoter account, which excludes line items that accrue to the cell owners.
Table 5: Promoter F09
(R’m)
|
Actual
F10
|
F11
|
Actual F11
as %
of budget
|
|
Actual
|
Budget
|
|
GWP - statutory
|
3.825.8
|
4.357.8
|
4.080.4
|
106.8
|
|
U/w result
|
8.5
|
26.6
|
23.3
|
114.5
|
|
Fee income
|
128.8
|
131.6
|
150.0
|
87.8
|
|
Inv income*
|
11.1
|
9.4
|
5.5
|
170.9
|
|
Total income
|
148.4
|
167.6
|
178.8
|
93.8
|
|
Expenses
|
(82.9)
|
(88.2)
|
(91.4)
|
96.5
|
|
NPBT
|
65.4
|
79.4
|
87.4
|
90.9
|
*Including unrealised investment movements.
Facilitated by a more favourable claims environment and better containment of management
costs, underwriting profit increased to R27m from R9m in F10 (budget: R23m). Notwithstanding
the rise in assets under management, fee income remained largely unchanged at R132m
(F10: R129m), and fell R18m short of budget. This is, in part, due to a lower average
management fee charged to clients, when compared to budget. Operating expenses increased
by 6% to R88m, accounting for 53% of total income for the year (F10: 56%). According
to management, this follows the recruitment of additional resources to the actuarial
department, client relations and portfolio management in F11, in order to ensure
sufficient capacity for future growth. Overall, NPBT totalled R79m in F11, which
represented a 21% increase over F10, albeit below the budgeted level
Future prospects
Guardrisk continues to focus on organic and new business growth, supported by its
CRS department (which is focused on 1st party corporate clients, as well as contingency
policies). Further, the insurer is expected to benefit from being an approved provider
(by the Department of Mineral & Resources) for the issuance of insurance guarantees
in the mining sector. Guardrisk has also increased its risk participation on several
cells, and in turn, enlarged its profit share of the respective business. This,
in conjunction with robust growth in current business is expected to see GWP rise
by 5% in F12, to R4.6bn. Concomitantly, fee income is forecast to advance by 5%
to R139m in F12, supported by the rise in asset values under management. Accordingly,
total revenue from operations is forecast at a higher R177m in F12 (F11: R168m).
Operating expenses are expected to increase by a comparatively lower 11% to R98m
in F12.
|
Table 6: Promoter (R’m)
|
Actual 5 mnths to August F12
|
Budget F12
|
Actual YTD as % of full year budget
|
|
GWP - statutory
|
2,391.4
|
4,553.8
|
52.5
|
|
U/w result
|
1.7
|
29.5
|
5.8
|
|
Net fee income
|
83.9
|
138.6
|
60.5
|
|
Inv income*
|
3.2
|
8.4
|
38.1
|
|
Total income
|
88.7
|
176.6
|
50.2
|
|
Expenses
|
(50.6)
|
(97.7)
|
51.8
|
|
Operating profit
|
38.1
|
78.9
|
48.3
|
*Including unrealised investment movements.
For the five months to August 2011, GWP was ahead of expectations on a pro-rata
basis, with 53% of budget achieved. This follows the take-on of four additional
cells in F12. Concomitantly, fee income notably exceeded expectations, at R84m for
YTD F12 (full year budget: R139m), supported by the aforementioned strong growth
in new clients. Notwithstanding this, the underwriting result on
Guardrisk’s own account significantly lagged budget, at 6% of full year expectations.
According to management, however, this is due to the fact that significant portions
of underwriting profits are only recognised in the last quarter of the financial
year. Given the above, Guardrisk reported an operating profit of R38m as at August
2011, or 48% of the full year budget.
Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited
(R in Millions except as noted)
|
Year ended : 31 March
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
|
Income Statement
|
|
Gross written premiums (GWP)
|
|
2,217.8
|
2,378.2
|
2.481.4
|
3,027.4
|
3,555.0
|
|
Reinsurance premiums
|
|
(1,032.5)
|
(1,104.0)
|
(1,401.3)
|
(1,489.8)
|
(1,901.8)
|
|
Net written premiums (NWP)
|
|
1,185.3
|
1,274.3
|
1,080.1
|
1,537.6
|
1,653.2
|
|
(Increase) / Decrease in insurance funds
|
|
(204.3)
|
(124.8)
|
(158.7)
|
(141.9)
|
8.0
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
981.0
|
1,149.5
|
921.3
|
1,395.7
|
1,661.2
|
|
Claims incurred
|
|
(264.1)
|
(438.2)
|
(528.2)
|
(500.7)
|
(544.7)
|
|
Commission
|
|
118.2
|
143.7
|
174.1
|
28.6
|
(116.1)
|
|
Management expenses / performance bonus
|
|
(75.6)
|
(84.6)
|
(97.7)
|
(111.5)
|
(130.6)
|
|
Underwriting profit / (loss)
|
|
759.6
|
770.5
|
469.5
|
812.0
|
869.9
|
|
Policyholder bonus
|
|
(856.8)
|
(905.7)
|
(652.5)
|
(954.4)
|
(979.7)
|
|
Investment income
|
|
195.4
|
271.5
|
652.5
|
280.5
|
237.1
|
|
Fee income
|
|
44.7
|
59.0
|
71.5
|
77.5
|
76.0
|
|
Fair value adjustment - financial liabilities
|
|
(118.6)
|
(159.2)
|
(204.7)
|
(159.8)
|
(130.5)
|
|
Taxation
|
|
(3.2)
|
(6.8)
|
(4.0)
|
(14.4)
|
(18.9)
|
|
Net income after tax
|
|
21.2
|
29.3
|
40.2
|
41.4
|
53.9
|
|
Dividends
|
|
(24.0)
|
(53.3)
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
(39.0)
|
|
Unrealised gains / (losses)
|
|
3.3
|
3.7
|
4.8
|
9.7
|
6.4
|
|
Cash Flow Statement
|
|
Cash generated by operations
|
|
76.7
|
192.8
|
157.9
|
182.0
|
158.3
|
|
Cash flow from investment income
|
|
195.6
|
271.5
|
361.4
|
272.6
|
263.4
|
|
Working capital decrease / (increase)
|
|
(6.4)
|
(136.0)
|
(237.6)
|
(175.3)
|
3.1
|
|
Tax paid
|
|
(74.8)
|
(79.7)
|
(93.5)
|
(120.9)
|
(180.9)
|
|
Cash available from operating activities
|
|
191.1
|
248.6
|
188.2
|
158.4
|
217
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
(24.0)
|
(53.5)
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
(39.0)
|
|
Cash flow from operating activities
|
|
167.1
|
195.1
|
188.2
|
158.4
|
178.0
|
|
Cash flow from investing activities
|
|
416.7
|
(2.4)
|
159.9
|
16.9
|
(11.5)
|
|
Cash flow from financing activities
|
|
393.6
|
(41.4)
|
108.2
|
10.6
|
(11.2)
|
|
Net cash inflow / (outflow)
|
|
977.5
|
151.4
|
456.3
|
185.9
|
155.3
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
Shareholders interest
|
|
46.8
|
25.1
|
70.0
|
120.5
|
141.7
|
|
'A' Shareholders interest
|
|
1,666.0
|
1,700.8
|
1,904.6
|
1,975.2
|
1,931.7
|
|
Net unearned premium reserve
|
|
768.9
|
893.7
|
1,052.5
|
1,194.4
|
1,186.3
|
|
Net outstanding claims and IBNR
|
|
262.4
|
405.8
|
514.7
|
614.1
|
800.6
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
280.6
|
242.9
|
153.5
|
1.6.7
|
78.5
|
|
Total capital & liabilities
|
|
3,024.6
|
3,268.3
|
3,695.3
|
4,010.9
|
4,138.7
|
|
Fixed assets
|
|
0.8
|
1.0
|
0.9
|
0.8
|
0.6
|
|
Investments
|
|
679.6
|
683.7
|
526.5
|
525.4
|
542.4
|
|
Cash and short term deposits
|
|
2,231.3
|
2,382.8
|
2,839.0
|
3,025.0
|
3,180.3
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
112.9
|
200.9
|
328.9
|
459.7
|
415.5
|
|
Total assets
|
|
3,024.6
|
3,268.3
|
3,695.3
|
4,010.9
|
4,138.7
|
|
Key Ratios
|
|
Solvency / Liquidity
|
|
Shareholders funds / NWP*
|
%
|
4.0
|
135.4
|
182.8
|
136.3
|
125.4
|
|
Solvency margin (Act)
|
%
|
30.9
|
32.9
|
43.0
|
32.0
|
32.0
|
|
Cash flow from operating activities / Liabilities
|
%
|
12.7
|
12.7
|
10.9
|
8.3
|
8.6
|
|
Claims cash coverage
|
months
|
25.7
|
18.7
|
21.2
|
25.2
|
27.5
|
|
Cash coverage of policyholder liabilities
|
X
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
|
Profitability
|
|
ROaE (before unrealised gains / losses)
|
%
|
45.4
|
81.4
|
84.4
|
43.5
|
41.1
|
|
ROaE (after unrealised gains / losses)
|
%
|
52.4
|
91.8
|
94.4
|
53.6
|
46.0
|
|
Investment yield (including unrealised gains / losses)
|
%
|
7.6
|
9.2
|
11.4
|
8.4
|
6.7
|
|
Investment yield (excluding unrealised gains / losses)
|
%
|
7.4
|
9.1
|
11.2
|
8.1
|
6.5
|
|
Efficiency / Growth
|
|
GWP growth
|
%
|
26.6
|
7.2
|
4.3
|
22.0
|
17.4
|
|
Premiums reinsured / GWP
|
%
|
46.6
|
46.4
|
56.5
|
49.2
|
53.5
|
|
Earned loss ratio
|
%
|
26.9
|
38.1
|
57.3
|
35.9
|
32.8
|
|
Commissions / Earned premiums
|
%
|
(12.1)
|
(12.5)
|
(18.9)
|
(2.0)
|
7.0
|
|
Management expenses / Earned premiums
|
%
|
7.7
|
7.4
|
10.6
|
8.0
|
7.9
|
|
Underwriting result / Earned premium
|
%
|
77.4
|
67.0
|
54.0
|
58.2
|
52.4
|
|
Operating
|
|
Effective tax rate
|
%
|
13.0
|
18.9
|
9.0
|
25.7
|
25.9
|
|
Dividend cover
|
X
|
1.0
|
0.5
|
n.a
|
n.a
|
n.a
|
*Total capital (including cell owners' capital) / IFRS net written premiums.