The first half of this year painted a mixed picture for unlisted life insurers, where a collective recovery on income statements coexisted with ongoing divergence among operating entities. To evaluate the life insurance industry's performance in the first half of 2026, one must consider two opposing forces. On the positive side, the research value of the guaranteed interest rate for life insurance products halted its four-quarter decline in the first quarter, and then rose by 1 basis point to 1.94% in the second quarter, temporarily easing the pressure to lower liability costs. Additionally, after over a year of transition, participating insurance has solidified its position as the primary driver of new business. The capital market's recovery in the first half also allowed for the valuation correction of equity assets, providing breathing room for the investment side. On the negative side, data from the National Financial Regulatory Administration shows that life insurance premiums for the first half reached 2.39 trillion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 4.65%. However, June saw a 2.5% year-on-year decline in original premiums, indicating the beginning of a high-base effect. The "reporting and bank-insurance channel integration" requirements have been further tightened, compressing channel fee margins. Long-term interest rates remain low, and the distant pressure from interest rate spread losses persists despite short-term profit improvements.
Amidst this blend of opportunities and challenges, the second-quarter solvency reports of 58 unlisted life insurers present a seemingly impressive performance. 57 comparable companies achieved total insurance business income of 796.173 billion yuan, an increase of 9.68% year-on-year, significantly outpacing the industry's overall growth rate. The 58 companies together reported a net profit of 61.688 billion yuan, an increase of 32.116 billion yuan or 108.6% year-on-year, nearly doubling. Of these, 51 companies were profitable, 7 were in the red, and 14 turned losses into profits, indicating a substantial improvement in profitability. However, a closer look reveals that this half-year's true picture is one of both a collective income statement repair and ongoing divergence among operating entities. Behind the profit doubling, the amplification effect from the full switch to new accounting standards and the unrealized gains from the equity market recovery contributed significantly. Meanwhile, the industry's average investment return rate, which is closer to actual operations, actually saw a slight decline. Furthermore, the top two companies contributed over one-third of the premium growth, while some companies at the bottom saw their scale shrink by double digits.
Behind the 9.68% Premium Growth: Momentum Concentrates on Participating Insurance and Bancassurance Channels
Looking at the aggregate data first, 57 comparable companies generated total insurance business income of 796.173 billion yuan in the first half, a 9.68% year-on-year increase. Among them, 35 reported positive growth, while 22 saw a decline. The median growth rate for these companies was 9.37%. Compared to the industry's overall life insurance premium growth of 4.65%, this unlisted group outperformed the market by about 5 percentage points. This could be attributed to listed industry leaders focusing more on value and structure this year, with relatively restrained scale ambitions. In contrast, bancassurance and foreign-invested companies within the unlisted group are still in an expansion phase, creating opposing forces. The tier structure remains unchanged, with concentration continuing to rise. Taikang Life Insurance led with 144.505 billion yuan, up 10.33% year-on-year, followed by China Post Life Insurance with 129.138 billion yuan, up 9.37%. Together, these two companies accounted for 273.643 billion yuan, over one-third of the total sample. When adding CCB Life Insurance (37.049 billion yuan, +9.6%) in third place, the top three companies held a combined market share of 39.02%. This shows that maintaining near-double-digit growth on a billion-yuan base, Taikang Life Insurance and China Post Life Insurance contributed over 30% of the industry's incremental growth, making their scale barriers difficult to challenge in the short term.
The more insightful analysis lies in the cases of growth and decline. On the growth side, Generali China Life Insurance showed the highest elasticity among the top-tier companies, while Heng'an Standard Life Insurance was a standout in the middle tier. The former achieved insurance business income of 36.763 billion yuan, a substantial 55.7% year-on-year increase, adding 13.152 billion yuan and moving up to fourth place, just 286 million yuan behind third-ranked CCB Life Insurance. The latter's premium income reached 6.508 billion yuan, a 25.49% year-on-year increase. Both companies' growth paths are clear: a full pivot towards participating insurance products. According to their solvency reports, the top five products by written premium for Generali China Life Insurance in the first half were all participating- type, totaling 15.932 billion yuan, nearly 40% of all written premiums. Similarly, Heng'an Standard Life Insurance's top five products were also participating insurance, totaling 3.572 billion yuan, a high 54.7% share. In an environment where the guaranteed interest rate ceiling has been lowered to 2.0% for traditional products and 1.75% for participating products, the "guaranteed + floating" structure of participating insurance is more compelling to both customers and channels, serving as a key revenue driver for insurers' premium growth. A different logic drives National Pension Insurance's 395.48% year-on-year growth. Its premiums jumped from 1.539 billion yuan to 7.626 billion yuan, primarily due to the expansion of its commercial pension business and rapid rollout of bancassurance channels. This growth is based on a very low base and resembles the scaling of a new business model rather than a demonstration of traditional life insurance operational capabilities. The commonalities among Lujiazui Guotai Life Insurance (+81.72%), Ergo China Life Insurance (+64.45%), Swiss Re Life Insurance (+61.17%), and HSBC Life Insurance (+34.52%) are also similar: low base, single-channel breakthroughs, and concentrated volume in participating products.
The decline side also shows patterns. Huagui Life Insurance's premiums fell from 2.391 billion yuan to 1.212 billion yuan, a 49.27% year-on-year decline, which is the steepest contraction among normally operating companies, second only to Huahui Life Insurance, which has nearly ceased operations. Huagui Life Insurance has long relied on internet channels for term life insurance and on agency channels. With a light business model and a weak brand, after the "reporting and channel integration" policy extended to agency channels, space for fee-driven sales was directly compressed, and the company failed to switch products quickly enough, leading to a near-halving of its scale. The declines of Aegon THTF Life Insurance (-14.49%), MetLife China (-12.08%), and ING-BOB Life Insurance (-9.48%) represent a different pressure: the continued contraction of the individual agency model, often branded as advisory selling. The foreign-funded individual agency route, characterized by high costs and high policy values, faces a longer adjustment period than the bancassurance route in a market where customer price sensitivity is rising and participating insurance is lowering the average policy value. Furthermore, the small declines of ABC Life Insurance (-4.5%) and ICBC-AXA Life Insurance (-3.12%) are more likely normal corrections due to the high base effect of the bancassurance channel and fee constraints from the "reporting and channel integration" policy, without fundamentally shaking the bancassurance group's foundation. Looking at both ends, the main theme behind premium divergence among unlisted life insurers in the first half is clear: the speed of the participating insurance transition and the depth of the bancassurance channel determined growth; companies more reliant on fee-based third-party channels like agencies and the internet contracted more severely. This is not a cyclical fluctuation but a result of channel and product structure repricing, a trend likely to continue.
Assessing the Quality of Doubled Profits: The Impact of Accounting Standard Changes and Investment Returns
The profit figures are the most eye-catching part of this half-year report. The 58 companies reported a combined net profit of 61.688 billion yuan, a 108.6% year-on-year increase. Of these, 51 were profitable, 14 turned losses into profits, and only 7 were in the red, compared to 20 loss-making companies in the same period last year. Before attributing this success, it is crucial to understand the accounting context. Since January 1, 2026, unlisted insurers have fully implemented the new insurance contract standard (IFRS 17) and the new financial instruments standard (IFRS 9). Under the new standards, more financial assets are measured at fair value with changes recognized in the current period's profit or loss. With the equity market recovery in the first half of the year, unrealized gains directly entered the income statement. Changes in the measurement method for insurance contract liabilities also altered the pace of profit release. Therefore, a significant portion of the doubled profits in the first half of this year results from the combined amplification of accounting standard changes and market cycles, not all of which can be attributed to operational improvements. However, examining profit changes, the divergence between companies is also very clear. Bancassurance insurers were the main drivers of this profit recovery. ICBC-AXA Life Insurance reported a net profit of 4.317 billion yuan, up 258.57% year-on-year. ABC Life Insurance achieved 3.312 billion yuan, a surge of 345.76%. CCB Life Insurance posted 3.201 billion yuan, an increase of 466.53%. These three companies were among the early adopters of the new standards. On the liability side, bancassurance business costs fell with the "reporting and channel integration" policy, and on the asset side, bond unrealized gains and equity recovery combined, leading to a concentrated release of profit elasticity. China Post Life Insurance reported 7.068 billion yuan, a 36.52% increase, showing growth in both business and profit. The leader, Taikang Life Insurance, posted 15.821 billion yuan, a slight 1.1% year-on-year decline, but its absolute profit still exceeded the combined net profit of the second and third-ranked companies, illustrating the strong get stronger dynamic. Profit concentration is even higher than premium concentration. The top three companies—Taikang Life Insurance, China Post Life Insurance, and ICBC-AXA Life Insurance—generated a combined net profit of 27.206 billion yuan, accounting for over 40% of the total profits of the 58 companies, compared to the top three's 39.02% share of premiums. The list of companies turning losses into profits is also noteworthy. Aixin Life Insurance went from a loss of 384 million yuan to a profit of 183 million yuan. Hengqin Life Insurance turned from a loss of 839 million yuan to a profit of 365 million yuan. Hetai Life Insurance moved from a loss of 176 million yuan to a profit of 121 million yuan. Fosun Prudential Life Insurance changed from a loss of 184 million yuan to a profit of 786 million yuan. The common variable in the profit improvement of these companies is the asset side. In the same period last year, they were generally impacted by impairments and yield curve shocks, but this year, this pressure was significantly reduced. Companies under profit pressure offer a contrasting example. Yingda Taihe Life Insurance's net profit fell from 798 million yuan to 7 million yuan, a 99.11% decline, making it the company with the largest absolute profit reduction. Junlong Life Insurance saw a decline of over 60%, and Huagui Life Insurance fell by 59.27%. The direct cause is on the investment side. For instance, Junlong Life Insurance's investment return rate and comprehensive investment return rate in the first half were only 1.41% and 1.34% respectively, a stark contrast to the same period last year when both indicators exceeded 4%. Yingda Taihe Life Insurance and Huagui Life Insurance are in similar situations, with underperforming investment returns. Xiaokang Life Insurance was the only company among the 58 to turn from profit to loss, moving from a profit of 159 million yuan to a loss of 508 million yuan. Its comprehensive investment return rate was -5.24%, a decrease of 10.77 percentage points year-on-year. Reporting a negative comprehensive return in the first half of a recovering equity market suggests that its asset structure may contain significant equity or alternative positions with large unrealized losses. Combined with high expense inputs for a new company, its losses were sharply amplified.
Did the industry's profit doubling come from a significant improvement in investment returns? The data suggests otherwise. According to statistics, the average investment return rate for the 58 companies in the first half of this year was 2.01%, with a median of 1.92%. The average for 57 comparable companies fell by 0.12 percentage points year-on-year, with 28 rising and 29 falling. The average comprehensive investment return rate for the same period was 2.22%, with a median of 2.46%. The comparable average decreased by 0.32 percentage points year-on-year, mainly due to negative values from a few companies like Xiaokang Life Insurance (-5.24%) and Haibao Life Insurance (-0.87%), and significant declines such as Junlong Life Insurance's (down 3.26 percentage points). The seeming contradiction of doubled profits and a slight decline in investment return rates becomes understandable when the accounting frameworks are separated. The investment return rate in the solvency report is a regulatory metric, while net profit is an accounting metric. Under the new standards, unrealized gains on equity assets enter net profit directly as fair value changes but may not be proportionally reflected in the solvency-based investment return rate. Changes in the discount rate used for liability reserves also affect profit without appearing in the investment return indicator. Additionally, the "reporting and channel integration" policy, which compresses channel fees, directly improves the income statement. The combination of these three factors created the unusual scenario in the first half of this year where investment returns did not rise but profits doubled. For individual companies, the correlation between the two indicators still holds, but with the necessary accounting context. Specifically, Fosun Prudential Life Insurance's comprehensive investment return rate rose from 2.52% to 3.77%, and Beijing Life Insurance's investment return rate of 4.47% was among the highest. Both companies performed excellently in terms of profit, with the former turning losses into profits and the latter surging 462.82%. This suggests their profit improvement aligns with their investment performance. Great Wall Life Insurance's comprehensive investment return rate fell from 6.82% in the same period last year to 2.07% this year, but its net profit increased from 92 million yuan to 1.319 billion yuan. The incremental profit likely came more from underwriting loss reduction and accounting standard changes. Conversely, Minsheng Life Insurance's investment return rate fell from 1.78% to 0.92%, yet its net profit still grew by 38.74%, with profit sources potentially more dependent on the liability side and expense management. These divergences indicate that the year-on-year growth rate of profits for unlisted life insurers in the first half of this year is becoming less meaningful, while the profit structure and accounting context are becoming more important.
Solvency Safety Margin Strengthens, but Capital Generation Capacity Remains a Weakness for Tail-End Companies
The direct spillover effect of the profit recovery is evident in the capital position. At the end of the first half, the median core solvency adequacy ratio for the 58 companies was 123.84%, and the median comprehensive solvency adequacy ratio was 170.27%, both significantly above the regulatory red lines of 50% for core and 100% for comprehensive. 57 companies met both indicators simultaneously, and 55 had a risk composite rating of B-class or above. Compared to the end of the first quarter, the number of companies with improved core and comprehensive adequacy ratios was 39 and 38 respectively, with median increases of 6.15 and 3.95 percentage points, indicating a thickening of the industry's overall safety cushion. The improvement momentum first came from internal profit accumulation. The retained portion of the 61.688 billion yuan net profit in the first half directly converted into core capital. China Post Life Insurance is a typical example. Its net profit grew by 36.52%, while its core adequacy ratio rebounded from 96.98% at the end of the first quarter to 115.30%, forming a virtuous cycle of business, profit, and capital. External capital injections also played a role. Several insurers issued capital supplement bonds in the first half. Joint venture companies like Aviva-COFCO Life Insurance, CITIC-Prudential Life Insurance, and Heng'an Standard Life Insurance maintained high comprehensive adequacy ratios above 185%, supported by shareholder backing and bond issuance. Furthermore, the regulatory optimization of risk factors for insurance fund investments provided another positive. The minimum capital requirements for assets like long-term equity and blue-chip stocks decreased, directly benefiting companies heavily invested in these assets. Among the standout cases, Guofu Life Insurance showed the most significant improvement. Its core adequacy ratio surged from 82.17% to 141.13%, and its comprehensive adequacy ratio rose from 139.76% to 206.51%, with increases of 58.96 and 66.75 percentage points respectively. This improvement was supported by an overall turnaround in its fundamentals: a net profit of 527 million yuan, a 542.92% year-on-year increase, and an investment return rate of 4.66%, the highest among the 58 companies. Xinmei Mutual Insurance also saw excellent growth in its core and comprehensive adequacy ratios, increasing by 34.05 and 22.92 percentage points respectively quarter-on-quarter. Cigna & CMB Life Insurance boosted its ratios by 24.85 and 21.12 percentage points respectively. Great Wall Life Insurance's core adequacy ratio recovered from 45.40% in the first quarter to 58.00%, climbing back above the 50% regulatory line. In terms of ratings, Aviva-COFCO Life Insurance, China Life Pension, Bank of Communications Life Insurance, Heng'an Standard Life Insurance, and National Pension Insurance received AAA-class ratings, forming the industry's top tier.
Pressure is concentrated at the bottom of the list, with different causes for each company. For example, Huahui Life Insurance has extremely high core and comprehensive adequacy ratios of 2463.36% and 2478.17% respectively, yet its rating is C-class. This high adequacy is due to the long-term stagnation of its business. In the first half, its insurance business income was less than 200,000 yuan, a 52.03% year-on-year decline, meaning its capital has no corresponding risk exposure. This "adequacy" actually indicates that the company has largely ceased normal operations, and its rating reflects deficiencies in governance and going-concern capabilities. The solvency pressure on Aixin Life Insurance comes from capital consumption due to business expansion. Its premium income grew by 25.55% year-on-year, and its net profit surged from 15 million yuan to 658 million yuan, but its core adequacy ratio was only 96.4%, ranking near the bottom of the 58 companies. Another company's premium scale grew by nearly 16%, and it turned losses into profits, but its core adequacy ratio fell to 88.12%, also dropping to the tail end. These trends suggest that although these companies have very high growth rates in scale and profit, showing strong momentum, their capital growth cannot keep pace with the expansion of their minimum capital requirements. They will either need to raise additional capital or slow down their business pace. Overall, the report card for unlisted life insurers in the first half of this year can be summarized in three points. First, premium growth of 9.68% was driven by participating insurance and bancassurance channels, while companies dependent on fee-based channels are being phased out. Second, net profits doubled, but a significant portion came from accounting standard changes and market recovery, and the average investment return rate did not improve simultaneously, requiring careful analysis of profit quality on a case-by-case basis. Third, solvency was generally repaired, but the issues for tail-end companies have deepened from the operational level to the capital and governance level. Analysis suggests that three key variables to watch in the second half of this year are: whether the equity market can sustain unrealized gains, the readjustment of product strategies under the guaranteed interest rate evaluation mechanism, and the progress of capital injections for tail-end companies. The dividends from the cycle will eventually recede, and the lasting divergence is the true reflection of the current life insurance market.
Comments