On October 30, the 2026 third-quarter reports of five A-share listed insurers — China Life Insurance (601628), Ping An Insurance (601318), China Pacific Insurance (601601), New China Life Insurance (601336) and PICC (601319) — were all disclosed. For the first three quarters, net profit stood at RMB 89.43 billion for China Life, RMB 96.645 billion for Ping An, RMB 36.403 billion for China Pacific Insurance, RMB 31.817 billion for PICC and RMB 22.282 billion for New China Life.
However, in the third quarter (Q3) alone, the five companies together posted a net loss attributable to shareholders of RMB 40.810 billion. The loss mainly stemmed from valuation write-downs on FVTPL (financial assets measured at fair value through profit or loss), with growth-oriented equity assets a key drag. FVTPL losses in the period totaled RMB 354.766 billion. Yet OCI (other comprehensive income) related to investment assets contributed a positive RMB 240.943 billion, equivalent to 67.92% of those losses, partially offsetting the impact of FVTPL valuation losses at the level of comprehensive investment income and net assets.
This means the insurance industry's Q3 investment result was by no means a thorough and sweeping loss, but rather a complex coexistence of falling valuations on growth assets and rising valuations on bonds and dividend assets. Under the differing accounting treatments of FVTPL and FVOCI (financial assets measured at fair value through other comprehensive income), looking only at the income statement amplifies the judgment of valuation losses across all investment assets.
Clearly, OCI played the role of an unseen but weighty firefighter in Q3 — unseen because its changes are not recorded in the income statement, yet weighty because outside the income statement it offset valuation swings equivalent to 67.92% of FVTPL losses. The question is: both are financial assets measured at fair value, so why do the two sets of books — FVTPL and OCI — move in completely opposite directions?
Investment Performance Portrait of the Five Companies: FVTPL Drags the Income Statement, Interest and Realized Gains Still Hold the Foundation
Based on third-quarter report data, Q3 total investment income for Ping An, China Pacific Insurance, China Life, New China Life and PICC was RMB -36.980 billion, RMB 2.765 billion, RMB -124.185 billion, RMB -10.838 billion and RMB -2.549 billion respectively, totaling RMB -171.787 billion. Except for China Pacific Insurance, all four others were negative. Here, total investment income is an analytical measure used for horizontal comparison, counting only items recorded in current profit or loss such as interest income, investment income, FVTPL fair value changes and impairments. It does not include changes in FVOCI assets and is not a unified item directly disclosed by the five companies. Ping An's figure is on a group consolidated basis, with interest including net interest income from banking operations and non-banking interest income, and impairments also including group items such as bank credit; the other four are on their respective insurer or insurance group basis. The five sets of data are used for directional comparison and not as a ranking of pure insurance fund investment capability.
If the income composition of the five listed insurers is broken down further, the main source of losses falls on the valuation item. Calculations show that Q3 interest income of the five A-share listed insurers totaled RMB 123.039 billion, while the "investment income" line in the income statements totaled RMB 78.299 billion, for a combined RMB 201.338 billion. In the same period, FVTPL fair value changes of the five companies totaled RMB -354.766 billion. The "investment income" line mainly includes dividends, gains on asset disposal and derecognition, and profits or losses from associates and joint ventures, with slightly different compositions across companies; it does not include floating book gains or losses caused by FVTPL. Although interest income and the "investment income" line remained positive, they were insufficient to cover valuation losses that were significantly dragged by the retreat of growth-oriented assets, so total investment income in the income statements generally turned negative.
The stability of interest income is the first basis for judging the investment foundation. From this dimension, although overall investment still showed losses, the fixed-income and long-term allocation foundation of the five A-share listed insurers remained supportive. The investment foundation here refers to fixed-income coupon income, realized gains and long-term asset structure, and does not mean every single investment was profitable. Among Q3 interest income of the five companies, China Life recorded RMB 34.260 billion, up 5.7% year on year; Ping An recorded RMB 58.320 billion, up 3.2%; China Pacific Insurance recorded RMB 15.153 billion, up 2.7%; and PICC recorded RMB 8.059 billion, up 2.1%. Four companies maintained growth, indicating fixed-income coupon income did not stop with the equity market adjustment. Fixed-income assets remained the main source of this base income.
Taking China Pacific Insurance as an example, its 2026 interim report disclosed that bond investments accounted for 61.4% of investment assets, with Chinese government bonds, local government bonds and policy financial bonds together accounting for 46.4%, and the duration of fixed-income assets at 11.7 years. Such an allocation provides relatively predictable interest cash flow and matches life insurance liabilities through long-duration assets, so insurers do not have to rely entirely on quarterly equity price changes to maintain returns. Fixed-income assets and equity assets therefore carry different tasks. Bonds and other fixed-income assets provide base coupon income and liability matching, while equity assets are responsible for enhancing long-term returns. Only with the coupon floor still in place can insurers afford to place some equity assets into longer holding cycles. Overall, the losses in the five insurers' Q3 income statements reflected the impact of equity valuation items on current results and did not negate the continued role of fixed-income assets in generating base returns.
New China Life's decline in interest income corresponded to the disposal of another portion of fixed-income assets. Its amortized-cost bond scale fell from RMB 256.913 billion at the start of the year to RMB 166.068 billion at the end of September, and Q3 interest income fell 11.1% year on year; in the same period, gains on derecognition of financial assets measured at amortized cost were about RMB 8.280 billion. The simultaneous occurrence of lower coupons and one-off realization shows that New China Life converted part of its earlier accumulation into current realized returns, so its fixed-income operations cannot be judged by interest income alone.
Research concludes that the five insurers' Q3 investment performance showed the same characteristic: FVTPL valuation write-downs did drag the income statements, but fixed-income interest and realized gains did not disappear at the same time. A loss in the income statement and whether the investment foundation is solid cannot simply be equated. More importantly, the income statement presents only part of investment assets, while another part of valuation changes is recorded in OCI.
The Overlooked OCI Account: Growth Assets Fall, Dividend Assets Rise, OCI Turns Comprehensive Investment Income Positive for Four Insurers
Research finds that perhaps the biggest highlight of the five listed insurers' Q3 investment comparison is this: although on the visible books FVTPL greatly dragged down overall investment performance in the income statement, on the hidden books of the balance sheet, the OCI corresponding to FVOCI assets moved in a completely different direction from FVTPL.
Statistics show that in the third quarter, the current-period occurrence amounts of other comprehensive income related to investment assets were all positive for the five listed insurers, totaling RMB 240.943 billion. The OCI flow referred to here is not the ending OCI stock on the balance sheet, nor the difference between beginning and ending balances, but the current-quarter occurrence amount of other comprehensive income related to investment assets. Adding this flow to total investment income in the income statement produces an analytical comprehensive investment income, which differs from total comprehensive income in the financial statements.
The opposite directions of FVTPL fair value changes and investment-asset-related OCI must first be understood through the assets actually held in the two accounts. FVTPL accounts at companies such as China Life and New China Life had greater exposure to trading-oriented equities and growth-style assets, so a retreat in growth sectors directly created income statement valuation losses. High-dividend stocks placed in FVOCI accounts by companies such as Ping An, along with the larger FVOCI debt holdings of the five companies, brought another portion of valuation changes into net assets.
Third-quarter market conditions happened to amplify this account difference. The ChiNext Index fell 27.80%, the STAR 50 fell 30.70%, and growth styles clearly retreated; the CSI Dividend Index rose about 9.38%, and the banking sector also rose noticeably. At the same time, the 10-year Chinese government bond yield fell from about 1.73% at the end of June to about 1.68% at the end of September, and prices of existing bonds rose accordingly. Growth stocks fell, dividend stocks rose, and bond prices rose at the same time, so FVTPL and OCI moved in opposite directions.
Bonds were the largest contributor to positive OCI flow. Q3 debt asset OCI of the five listed insurers was RMB 134.088 billion, accounting for 55.65% of total flow; equity assets contributed RMB 105.169 billion, or 43.65%; debt credit provisions and other items contributed RMB 1.686 billion. Insurers' FVOCI debt foundations are large in scale and long in duration, so when yields decline, the fair value of existing bonds rises and creates a relatively large positive flow. The third-quarter buffer therefore did not come only from high-dividend stocks; bond valuation recovery was another and larger source of contribution.
If total investment income in the income statement is combined with this OCI flow, the investment results of the five listed insurers clearly become differentiated. Ping An's total investment income was RMB -36.980 billion, and adding OCI flow of RMB 104.072 billion turned comprehensive investment income to RMB 67.092 billion; China Pacific Insurance's total investment income was RMB 2.765 billion, and adding OCI flow of RMB 30.442 billion brought comprehensive investment income to RMB 33.207 billion; New China Life's total investment income was RMB -10.838 billion, and after adding OCI flow of RMB 12.969 billion it turned to RMB 2.131 billion; PICC's total investment income was RMB -2.549 billion, and after adding OCI flow of RMB 10.389 billion it turned to RMB 7.840 billion. Among them, OCI at Ping An, New China Life and PICC was enough to cover income statement investment losses and achieve a turn from negative to positive; China Pacific Insurance's total investment income was already positive, and OCI further enhanced comprehensive income. All four had positive comprehensive investment income, but the paths differed.
China Life was the company whose OCI failed to fully cover income statement investment losses, leaving comprehensive investment income still negative. Its Q3 total investment income was RMB -124.185 billion, and OCI flow was RMB 83.071 billion, leaving comprehensive investment income at RMB -41.114 billion. Within China Life's OCI flow, fair value changes of other equity instrument investments were RMB 29.321 billion, fair value changes of other debt investments were RMB 53.764 billion, and debt credit loss provisions were RMB -0.014 billion. Bonds and dividend assets also formed a buffer, but the buffer was not enough to cover its larger FVTPL valuation losses.
Observing the five companies together under the above approach, total investment income in the income statements was RMB -171.787 billion, and after adding positive OCI flow of RMB 240.943 billion, comprehensive investment income totaled RMB 69.156 billion. The aggregate result reconciles with the comprehensive investment income of the five companies individually and further shows that the income statement presentation differs from the overall investment result.
The contrast between Ping An and China Pacific Insurance further shows that looking only at the income statement omits part of the valuation result reflected in OCI. Ping An's total investment income was negative while China Pacific Insurance's was positive, so China Pacific Insurance looked steadier on the income statement basis; after adding OCI, Ping An's comprehensive investment income reached RMB 67.092 billion, higher than China Pacific Insurance's RMB 33.207 billion. The change came from where floating gains were recorded, not from a change in the ranking of one quarter's investment capability.
Although China Life and New China Life both had aggressive allocations, their results also differed. China Life's OCI flow reached RMB 83.071 billion, clearly higher than New China Life's RMB 12.969 billion, but its FVTPL valuation losses were larger and comprehensive investment income still did not turn positive; New China Life's OCI was smaller, but combined with asset disposal gains, it ultimately turned comprehensive investment income positive. Position, account and realization rhythm must be considered together to explain why the two companies produced different results.
After a comprehensive comparison of the Q3 investment books of the five A-share listed insurers, it is concluded that OCI thus became the most easily overlooked layer in this round of investment reporting: it did not stop growth assets from falling, but through gains in bonds and dividend assets it significantly changed the presentation of the five companies' comprehensive investment income. The role of this "firefighter" did not stop at income indicators; it further affected net assets and subsequent allocation.
From a Long-Cycle Perspective: OCI Turns the Tide and Acts as the Anchor, While the Insurance Investment Foundation Remains Solid
Because FVTPL and FVOCI report valuation changes in different places, the presentation of the five insurers' Q3 investment losses in the income statements was significantly amplified. Net profit, OCI and other equity items jointly affect net assets, so the balance sheets and income statements of the five insurers showed different trends. In the third quarter, net assets attributable to shareholders of Ping An, China Pacific Insurance and New China Life increased by RMB 16.282 billion, RMB 10.950 billion and RMB 15.291 billion quarter on quarter, respectively, with New China Life's figure including RMB 10 billion of perpetual bonds and still showing endogenous accumulation after excluding them. China Life's net assets attributable to shareholders decreased by RMB 12.399 billion quarter on quarter, consistent with its comprehensive investment income still not turning positive. The OCI buffer did exist, but the degree of coverage differed across companies.
PICC's positive comprehensive investment income alongside a decline in net assets was mainly explained by its interim dividend. On September 29, PICC's 2026 interim dividend plan was approved by an extraordinary shareholders' meeting, with total cash distribution of RMB 4.865 billion. Although the cash dividend was paid on November 6, the plan was approved within the third quarter, so dividends payable had to be recognized in Q3 and undistributed profit reduced. This dividend fully explains PICC's net asset change: comprehensive income attributable to shareholders of RMB 699 million minus the interim dividend of RMB 4.865 billion exactly equals a decrease of RMB 4.166 billion in net assets attributable to shareholders. The dividend amount was equivalent to 116.78% of the net asset decline; if other items were unchanged and only this dividend were excluded, PICC's net assets would have increased by RMB 699 million. The 2025 final dividend of RMB 6.412 billion paid on July 31 had already been reflected in the interim report and would not be deducted again in Q3.
Positive OCI flow also needs to be understood within the stock. At the end of September, the stock of OCI attributable to shareholders of the five listed insurers was still negative, and much of the positive Q3 flow was repairing previously accumulated floating losses, so it cannot yet be regarded as newly distributable profit. Its significance mainly lies in improving net assets and the investment buffer, rather than forming income that can be released into the income statement in the future. The anchor role is reflected in valuation and asset structure and does not mean investment losses were completely eliminated.
Tracking of actual allocation behavior further proves that the investment foundation did not change because of short-term volatility. At the end of September, the total FVOCI equity balance of the five companies rose from RMB 1.56 trillion at the end of June to RMB 1.82 trillion, up 16.75% quarter on quarter. Statistics also show that the FVOCI equity scale of the five companies increased by about RMB 261.1 billion in total, with dividend asset gains and new allocation jointly driving the balance growth. Balance growth was not all valuation recovery. Using the change in ending balance minus current-period equity OCI flow as a residual estimate, the proportion attributable to new allocation was higher than the valuation contribution, with about 60% of the balance increase related to factors such as new purchases. This estimate contains disposal and carry-forward errors and cannot replace the actual transaction amounts disclosed by the companies. Combining this result with publicly disclosed investment directions, the expansion of FVOCI equity was driven by both price increases and new allocation, and insurance funds continued to invest in long-term equity assets.
While the FVOCI equity balance grew, insurers' bond allocation also continued. The FVOCI debt balance of the five insurers increased by RMB 602.818 billion in Q3 in total, still showing clear net growth after excluding valuation changes. The investment directions disclosed by each company further outline three allocation lines: Ping An continued to strengthen its high-dividend foundation and make forward-looking arrangements in artificial intelligence-related software and hardware technology; New China Life increased long-duration bonds, dividend and high-dividend assets and paid attention to new quality productive forces; PICC proposed enriching high-dividend strategies and giving play to the long-term allocation role of alternative assets such as private equity and REITs. Public information also shows that the increase in high-dividend allocation did not replace insurers' long-term attention to technology growth. At its third-quarter results exchange meeting, China Life mapped OCI-type assets and FVTPL-type assets respectively to high-quality blue chips and growth enterprises and said it would continue to support technological innovation and green development; Ping An proposed optimizing a balanced allocation between dividend value and technology growth. The two allocation lines correspond to different sources of return and holding periods, indicating that insurance funds are absorbing volatility through portfolio division of labor rather than simply choosing between dividends and growth.
The long-term return series provides another ruler for observing single-quarter volatility. Ping An's average comprehensive investment return over the past ten years was 4.9%, higher than its 4.0% long-term investment return assumption for embedded value; China Pacific Insurance's three-year average investment return was 4.9%. These indicators differ in period and basis and are suitable only for long-term comparison within each company, but together they show that one quarter of market adjustment is not enough to change the return foundation of long-term capital allocation.
From the stable release of interest income, to the OCI buffer formed by bonds and dividend assets, to the continued increase in long-term asset allocation, the five listed insurers did not respond to market volatility by shrinking allocation in the third quarter. The retreat of growth assets changed the current income statements, but did not change the foundational role of fixed-income coupon income, nor did it change the direction of the five insurers continuing to accumulate long-term assets. The "firefighter" role played by OCI is precisely a key link connecting the income statement and net assets during this round of short-term valuation volatility.
Comments